Floor Statements

Madam Chair, let me thank the chairman and ranking member, but also let me remind our colleagues that we are not here by accident. We are here because over the course of several years, lax regulation

and failure, and inadequacy of law landed us at a point where we have seen over 2 million homes in foreclosure in this year alone. By September 2008, the average housing price had declined by over 20 percent since 2006. That's real wealth from families. More than 60 percent of subprime loans went to people who could have qualified for lower cost. And nearly one in four U.S. borrowers currently owes more on their mortgage than their home is worth.

This, in large measure, happened, Madam Chair, because mortgage brokers, unregulated, lured families with low teaser-rate interest rates that later skyrocketed to unaffordable levels, hidden fees, and charges in incomprehensible terms and conditions that brought on the housing crisis and undermined the financial system.

I want to rise in favor of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which includes a strong consumer financial protection regulation. One of the most important causes of the financial crisis, as I mentioned, is the utter failure of consumer protection. The most abusive and predatory lenders were not federally regulated, were not regulated at all in some cases, while regulation was overly lax for banks and other institutions that were covered.

To address this problem, I believe we need a new agency dedicated to consumer financial protection, a consumer financial protection agency, one agency, not a bunch, one, one that takes the interests of the consumer and puts them first. Not, let's work in the consumer. Not let's see what we can do for the consumer when we get to it, but the interests of the consumer up front.

Such an agency, as contemplated in this legislation, would have the power to stop unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial products and services. It would also require financial institutions to provide concise, clear and easy-to-understand disclosures on the terms and conditions of consumer credit products.

Of course, there are some who would like to keep the same regulators on the job and thereby piece together shards of a broken system. But what we need is real reform to protect not only the individual consumer but our economy as a whole.

Right now, many people are fighting tooth-and-nail to weaken and eliminate the consumer financial protection proposal, spending millions of dollars on a scare campaign that spreads false claims about the agency. But how can they do this in light of the over 2 million foreclosures we have seen? Consumers all across America can't afford what these lobbyists are selling to certain Members of our body.

The sale of risky and irresponsible credit products has cost over 10 million jobs and 2 million homes. We can't afford to lose any more, and that is why we need a consumer financial protection agency that is the cornerstone of any real regulatory reform.

Now this bill, Madam Chair, is comprehensive. It talks about derivatives, credit rating agencies, and executive compensation, and it ends bailouts.

Make no mistake about it: it is protection of the consumer, the average person purchasing a financial product that is the cornerstone of this financial legislation; and it is why I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, my name is Congressman Keith Ellison, and I am here to claim the time on behalf of the Progressive Message which comes to the American people every Thursday night to discuss critical issues and a progressive perspective on these same issues. The Progressive Message is put on and organized by Progressive Caucus members who happen to represent one of the largest caucuses in the Congress.

The purpose of this message is to focus on critical issues from a progressive perspective. That means a perspective that all Americans are welcome and included; that we need civil rights, human rights; we need economic justice for working people and working families; we need to address poverty; and we need to address peace in the world; the idea that America, a country blessed, could help bestow blessings on other people in the world through example and not through imposition; the idea that the United States, a country blessed, can help demonstrate through an example what human rights can do, what respect for the rule of law can do, what respect for human rights, women's rights can do. The Progressive Caucus is an instrument through which progressive ideas are shared.

Tonight what we want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is jobs. Absolutely that's the topic tonight. Jobs is what we will be talking about. I would like to hear from anyone who might be listening later on what their perspective is on the jobs picture and what we can do about it.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is 10.2 percent at this time. It could well climb higher by the end of the year. The fact is we have a jobs crisis, we have a jobs emergency, and we must do something about it now.

It's important to point out that as much as people who are unemployed need jobs, and they do, other people who are employed also need the unemployed to get jobs. It's important to bear in mind that when people are not working, their income goes down, their purchases at the store go down, their ability to consume and buy things that they need goes down, and if the store isn't selling, then the store can't put on more workers; they may even have to lay some off.

So this unemployment problem actually puts downward pressure on demand which puts other businesses who do have employees on the payroll in a position where they have to reconsider that.

Not only is the lack of a paycheck detrimental to the family that is not employed, but it also creates generational problems and it creates problems for the person who's unemployed, because when the economy turns around and they can get back in a position where they can maybe find that job, the employer is going to ask, Hey, what was going on with you over the last 3 years? Or 2 years? Or 6 months? And that hole in the resume has real consequences for that worker which may extend over the course of that person's lifetime.

Obviously, when unemployment is chronic and people are out of work for long stretches of time, their children sometimes are impacted by this and have to not only go with lower family income, which is obviously harmful to their development, but still are in a position where they have seen a parent go jobless for quite a long time which disadvantages them in terms of their ability to know how to access the job market and their hope, prospect and optimism as it relates to getting work. So unemployment is a problem, we've got to do something about it, and it is time to act.

Though the Democratic Caucus and Congress did not create the situation, and it certainly wasn't created overnight, it does need to be fixed very soon. Ten months of the new leadership of the White House cannot eclipse that of nearly 10 years of George Bush and the Republican Congress who bankrupted the public trust.

After nearly a decade of handing over middle-class tax dollars to the wealthiest 1 percent, we've now got to take real action for working Americans. After nearly a decade of a policy that encouraged multimillion-dollar CEO bonuses over raises for American workers, we've got to do something about the job picture in America.

The economic policies of the last 10 years put President Obama and this Congress in a situation where it may not have been a situation of our making, but it is a problem that we have responsibility to correct. We're not going to say that, Yeah, we got handed two wars; yeah, we got handed hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, a crumbling infrastructure, a home mortgage foreclosure crisis--one out of eight mortgages is in default--a global climate crisis, and a financial sector ravaged by greed and lax regulation.

We're not going to rely on any excuse. We're going to get after the problem, and we're going to do it now. In short, the greatest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression is visiting the American economy right now and people are feeling it, and it's time to do something about it.

This is why we are proposing, and I am proposing, and I am encouraging other people to support a jobs bill that would do a few things: American jobs. Invest in transportation and schools. Schools all over America are crumbling. Schools all over America have old pipes. Schools all over America are drafty and need windows replaced and the paint is peeling in many of them, not all of them but many of them. And any school teacher, any principal or any school kid can tell you that.

We need people to do the work. We have people who are willing to do the work, and we have things that need to be worked on. What we have to do is bring the two together: invest in transportation, including transit, urban transportation, light rail, and schools. This is an urgent problem, it needs fixing, and people need work. Let's pay them to do it.

State and local government relief. All over this country, States and cities and localities are having to cut back on services that they provide to their citizens. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken the public circle and said without the stimulus package, a hundred thousand teachers in California would be out of work. So that was an example of a good thing. But it's not nearly enough.

We need more to be done, because in this era and in this time, we see local governments having to lay off police officers, firefighters, public works people, teachers. We can't allow this to happen. State governments and local governments around the country are facing serious deficits and the Federal Government should step in to help.

We also need to strengthen safety nets. During times of economic downturn, there's greater pressure on our food shelves, greater pressure on our clothing shelves; and we need to understand that when unemployment runs

out, a lot of families are just left without. What are we going to do about it? We need to extend unemployment benefits, food stamps and programs like that; and I just want to let folks know that this is economically, from an economic standpoint, it's not just good work, it's not just charitable, it's not just the right thing to do.

It also is very, very important to stimulate the economy. Because when you give somebody food stamps, they take that and they go right to the store and they purchase groceries for their family. What does that do for the grocery store that is receiving that coupon that can redeem that for money? It's helping that grocery store. What is that doing for that grocer who is thinking about whether he or she has to lay off a few workers because people just aren't coming in and buying like they used to because the economy is down? Well, it helps them keep those people on the job. And if we do well enough, it might even actually help them add some people on the job.

What happens if that store has to lay off a few folks and we don't come through with some of these basics? What happens is they have to lay off some folks, and now you've got more people on unemployment insurance. If they can't find a job within the right amount of time, then those people are just without, and they are putting pressure on the food pantries and the food shelves and they're just really suffering. These things have a ripple effect.

What I am saying is if you can think of a coupon, a food stamp coupon, as not a piece of paper that can get you some food, think of it as a rock that you throw into a pond. I'm saying that that food stamp coupon and that unemployment insurance has a ripple effect that is very strong, and the multiplier effect of that is good because it gets right into the economy. It gets right into the economy to help people make their basic needs and also helps fuel the retail sector and then all the way back to the wholesale sector.

This is basically just a few things that we could do right now to alleviate real pain people are suffering all over this country. We've got to act, we've got to do something about it; and we cannot say that things that were done in the past, although a lot of bad decisions, economic decisions, were made over the last 8 years, and the Obama administration and this Congress are trying to fix it. We can't rely on that. We've got to do something about it now. The American people deserve answers, especially the people who have been chronically unemployed.

Today the White House is hosting, or has hosted already, an economic summit to discuss how to move the economy forward. This is good news. It's the President taking responsibility for dealing with the needs of Americans. I admire that tremendously. The fact is we do need more public jobs.

There's broad support and work moving to respond to the need for American jobs. I want to commend the Campaign for America's Future, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other labor organizations and groups that come together to help people, but also many employers and many small businesses who are out there concerned about employment.

This era that we're in, which I believe can fairly be called the ``great recession,'' has wreaked havoc on American communities, as I just mentioned. And I just want to point out we face a period of extended unemployment if we don't act now.

Now, some people think, okay, the economy goes up and the economy goes down. But the fact is that the economy is a social institution, and unless people in society do something about it, the business cycle won't necessarily go up and include more jobs. We've got to do that. That's something that we need to work on. So we need to help small businesses get greater lending. We need to invest in public jobs. We need to invest in public infrastructure. We need to make these kinds of investments so that Americans can get back to work and the economy can get moving again.

Many of you watching television and watching the nightly business news may note that, well, Wall Street seems to be kind of moving in the right direction. That's good for them. But the fact is the average American worker is under tremendous anxiety because they know that they might be next. And as one former Republican President once said, a recession is when your neighbor's out of work; a depression is when you are out of work. And for 10.2 percent of American workers, this is a depression, and we need to get on that and deal with it right away.

Let me point out just a few other things. This has precedent in the United States. This is not something new for our country. We have stepped forward in the past. In fact, I was in my beautiful State of Minnesota after I enjoyed the great victory over the Chicago Bears by the Minnesota Vikings. And I went for a walk, and I saw that there was a picnic table that had written on it ``WPA 1934.'' Americans in the past have stepped forward and dealt with American crises. In the 1930s and again in the 1970s we responded to extraordinary hardship by adding jobs, jobs, to the array of programs and services designed to help our people and to help the economy move out of recession.

The program that we envision today would provide work to the jobless and meet the needs in our communities by helping people meet their everyday needs and boost demand, which would help speed economic recovery. A new jobs program would be run by local elected officials who are closest to communities and best understand their needs. Local communities best understand the needs of the local community. So it wouldn't be Congress saying this many jobs for Head Start, this many jobs for that. It would be Congress sending funds to State and local governments that then those local governments could use to determine what is needed. And, of course, there are a lot of things that are needed.

Some of the projects that are needed are paint and repair of schools, as I mentioned before. Peeling paint, community centers and libraries. You would be surprised what you might find if you went to a local library. You might find some local libraries are not in good repair. That's because they were built years and years ago and are in need of an upgrade.

We need to clean up abandoned and vacant properties to alleviate the blight that's been caused by the foreclosure crisis. As everyone knows, we went through a major foreclosure crisis, and it's not over. But what's the reality of this situation? The reality is you have abandoned houses which people could live in if these places were maintained and upgraded. But some of them have seen the copper stripped out. Some of them have seen the grass grow long. Some of them have seen the windows knocked out. Unemployed people could be hired to help maintain these properties through a jobs program. This is important all over the country. Even if you want to make sure that these buildings are secured and boarded until somebody can buy them, these are things that are important.

Remember, whenever there is a foreclosure on a property, two bad things happen. One is, somebody is out of their house, and those people are not paying property taxes like they used to in the past. But not only is the city not just getting property tax income anymore, the city now also has to pay out in order to maintain that property. So they don't just lose money, they actually now have an expense that they have to deal with when you have a foreclosure. That's why we need people to get employed to maintain these properties, and this is something that local communities might have to do with this money.

We need to expand emergency food programs and reduce hunger and promote family stability. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that one in five children in America are in poverty? In America one in five children in poverty. Children of all colors, children of all cultures, children of all faiths. This is something our country has to respond to. And for so many of these children in poverty today in this massive recession we're in, these are children who may not have parents who are in a union, which would probably guarantee them a higher wage, and that's why I support unions, or our public employees like teachers and police officers.

Many of these folks are just the hardworking folks out there who keep the playground safe and clean, who keep the city in good repair. Folks who work at the Head Start and people who

do child care and people who do these tough jobs every single day. Some of these folks, they may not have a big degree or a big certificate, but they need to earn good money. They need to have a good job. And maybe that job is the one thing that could keep and lift that family out of poverty so that one of those children who is among the one in five in poverty won't have to be in poverty for too long.

We could augment staffing at Head Start, child care, early childhood education programs, senior centers, and promote school readiness and early literacy. We could renovate and enhance maintenance of parks, playgrounds and other public spaces, as I just said. The program we envision could place special emphasis on delivering job opportunities and needed services to low-income communities and communities of color suffering depression-level unemployment and distress.

Everybody in this economy is hurting. Well, not everybody. Some of these Wall Streeters are getting big bonuses. They're not hurting. But the rest of us are really fighting out here, and it's not easy. Small business owners, a lot of folks are getting hurt. But as nearly everybody is feeling the pain in this economy, it's important for us to remember that there are some folks who are feeling it even more painfully than the average. I want to point out that unemployment among African Americans in August was not the 15.2 percent that I mentioned for the general economy, but it was 15.7 percent. That's serious. A very serious problem. Unemployment for people who are of Hispanic background is 13.1 percent. If you're talking about young people, African American and Latino young people who are between the ages of 16 and 30, we're talking about unemployment upwards of 35 percent.

So we've got to do something in these chronically marginalized communities where people are just left out there and are often a second thought when we form public policy to address serious issues. We've got to deal with this. And that's why we need a program, yes, to build up infrastructure. Let's get those union guys back out there on the field making our roads, making our infrastructure, building those things up. And absolutely let's get those public employees back in. Let's not let the teachers and the cops get laid off. But let's not forget about that young teenager of color who is out there without any prospect. We don't want young people turning in the wrong direction; we want them staying in the right direction.

While I mentioned statistics for African American and Hispanic young people, don't think for a minute that young white people in rural communities and even in urban communities are not having elevated unemployment rates as well. The youth are being unemployed at higher rates than other people regardless of background, and we've got to step up and do something about it. And we can do something about it. We still have over $200 billion of TARP money and stimulus dollars, and these need, I think, to be directed to employment programs similar to what we did in the 1930s and in the 1970s when Americans were out of work.

I want to say that, yes, it's true that one in five, or about 20 percent, of all young people in America are living in poverty, but one in three African American young people are living in poverty. A serious issue. Their parents need work, and we've got to do something about it. If we act quickly, a jobs program like this could put hundreds of thousands of people of various skill levels to work during the next year, 2010, and will continue to provide job opportunities for several years as our economy recovers. People paying taxes, which can help lower the deficit. People who are paying child support or are just paying the monthly expenses of their family. This is all very important. The time to act is now. I propose, and I think we should all support, a program that could create 1 million American jobs in very short order if we put about $40 billion into it.

The time to act is now, to make that investment. We need to make this investment if we want to lower the deficit. We need to make this investment if we want to increase demand. We need to make this investment if we want to keep people from being chronically unemployed.

Let me now turn to another important part of what I believe any job recovery program must include, and that is the need for critical infrastructure development. I have been talking about lower-wage workers so far. Now I want to talk a little bit about infrastructure development. Do you know that if you look across America, you look across the roads and you look across the bridges, you look across transit and you look across some of these aging sewer lines and even fiber optic, and if you look at the needs of rural communities across America who need to get wired in on broadband, we're looking at well over about $3 trillion of infrastructure needs in our country.

And the beautiful thing about spending this kind of money to invest in American infrastructure is that it stays here. These are not jobs that are going abroad. These are going to be American jobs because you can't lay fiber-optic cable in America in some other country. It's going to be here. That person's going to be paid here. That person's going to be employed here. And that money is going to go into the United States and be funneled back to Americans. This is important to understand--that infrastructure investment is critical to lifting our economy out of this very difficult economic situation, and we have to do it anyway.

I'm very excited about this idea of investing in infrastructure in broadband in rural communities. You know that it was in the 1930s when visionary political leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, You know what, there's no reason why rural America should be in the dark. Rural electrification, an idea conceived when the United States was in a depression. Now, some people who think that bold action could only be taken when things are good economically, they have to contend with the fact that bold action was taken when we had a depression in the 1930s, bold action like rural electrification. And what rural electrification did was it brightened up rural communities all over the United States. We put up the telephone lines all across this country so that you could flick on a light in rural America.

What it did was it absolutely improved the economic viability of rural America. People no longer had to move into the crowded city when they could do their business in the electrified rural areas. This is important to bear in mind. It's critical to bear in mind that critical jobs in infrastructure have been built in America even during times of economic downturn. Very important.

Community infrastructure programs creating over a million jobs, a million jobs at the community and neighborhood level, is what we need now. We need these kinds of programs so we can create immediate opportunity, so we could create infrastructure.

I just want to tell you I'm from the city of Minneapolis, and from my great city of Minneapolis, we had on August 4, 2007, a bridge collapse into the Mississippi River. Thirteen Minneapolitans died and a hundred had injuries like spinal cord injuries as they fell 65 feet from the bridge to the water. Now, at the end of the day, this crisis and this tragedy occurred because we did not maintain that infrastructure well enough. Now, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault. I'm sure everybody did the best they could. But the fact is if we would have had a stronger infrastructure commitment that would make bridges around this country a priority to repair and to fix and to rebuild, this tragedy may not have happened. But it did happen.

But it did happen, and so we put out a clarion call for infrastructure development in our country. And I say, we need to do this anyway. We need to develop infrastructure so we can avoid horrible tragedies like the one that happened in my city. But more importantly, or as importantly, we need to do it now to put Americans back to work.

During the first 6 to 9 months, if we can pass a good, solid community infrastructure program, the program could develop a fast track for jobs. Projects could be limited to certain activities such as key priorities. And within a short amount of time, we could see these infrastructure developments paying great dividends for Americans.

You know, I want to talk to you about some of the things that we have been seeing in our economy that really do cause a tremendous amount of pause, and I think it is something that we need to really, really pay some close attention to. These are trends in our economy that I just feel that we need to pay some greater attention to, and this is not in a way of just describing what we should do, but it is kind of talking about what we have done.

In the course of the last few weeks, we have seen people be highly critical of the stimulus package. I think we need to take a look back at what the stimulus package did. Some people, because it has not stopped the increase in unemployment, say that it didn't work. I say this is an incorrect analysis. I believe the Recovery Act has actually helped a lot of people stay employed and actually stopped this economic crisis from getting worse and slowed the rate of unemployment. But we need to do more. But let's just say what the Recovery Act did do.

The Recovery Act created over a million jobs. That's what it did do. It created over 250,000 education jobs. As I said, it was Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who said that but for the stimulus, over 100,000 teachers would be out of work. Thirty thousand jobs were created or saved by businesses that have received Federal contracts from just a small fraction of the Recovery Act. That is very important.

Let me say that half a million homeowners have signed up for foreclosure prevention programs, reaching an important early goal. And the program that was launched last March aimed to help these half a million borrowers by November 1, with the ultimate goal of helping 4 million borrowers before it expires.

Here is a number for you. The Dow Jones industrial average surged to over 10,000, passing the 10,000 point level much faster than expected and racking up a 53 percent gain in the last 7 months. That is an improvement in the economy that has helped some but has not helped enough. But it just shows that if we do invest in our economy, it does help. It improves the lives of people. It is not money that we shouldn't have spent. Things would be much worse if we didn't spend that stimulus money and make those important public sector investments.

The number of road and bridge projects already approved under the Recovery Act, which creates jobs, is 8,000. The number of roads and bridges projects, 8,000 roads and bridges projects already underway because of the stimulus. And the percentage of spending that is now obligated under the Recovery Act, this money in the pipeline ready to be spent is about half, and this 50 percent mark exceeds the Congressional Budget Office's initial projection for the program, showing that investment is going out quickly to help boost the economy right away.

But still we have a job crisis, and still we have to do something about this jobs crisis. And let me tell you a little more about how the Recovery Act has fared so far, because there has been a lot of disinformation about the Recovery Act. A lot of people have said that the President said it was going to stop unemployment at 8 percent, and it went up by 2 more percent. Leading economists say it would be 12 percent if the Recovery Act were not put in place. So let me just talk a little bit more about what this economic recovery has done, economic stimulus has done so far, and make a case for what more needs to be done.

A recent report from the Council of Economic Advisers shows that the Recovery Act and other policy actions have saved or created over a million jobs while only about a quarter of the Recovery Act spending has been able to get into the economy. But many projects are in the pipeline and are on their way. The report, this report by the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that the Recovery Act has had particularly strong effects in manufacturing, construction, retail trade, and temporary employment services. The employment effects are distributed across States with larger effects in States more severely impacted. So States like Michigan, Ohio, even my own State of Minnesota, but others as well, are getting this important economic recovery money so that we can turn our economy around.

According to Jared Bernstein, who is the chief economist, Office of the Vice President, ``All signs--from the private estimates to this fragmentary data--point to the conclusion that the Recovery Act did indeed create or save about 1 million jobs in its first 7 months, a much needed lift in a very difficult period for our economy,'' which is something that I think we must pay attention to and cannot ignore.

I just want to talk a little more about the success of the Recovery Act, not that it has completely succeeded. We would like to see unemployment headed down, not just the rate of unemployment slow down. But just to make sure that we understand that providing economic fiscal stimulus does help our economy, it is important to review the facts.

The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board--and as you know, we didn't just spend money out, we got a transparency board to look at it all--released its first report on the portion of the Recovery Act spending that shows that recipients have reported that so far, the act is helping to get Americans back to work. As I said, Mark Zandi of Moody's Economics said 2 percent, we would have 2 percent greater unemployment but for the Recovery Act which is so important.

According to this report issued by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the act shows that businesses that received Federal contracts from stimulus spending reported creating or saving about 30,000 jobs. The board released a more extensive report last month, which I will get to in a moment.

Now, I would like to talk a little bit now and just move on about this unemployment figure. I brought a graph with me that I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and just show folks what we are looking at.

It is important that we talk about creating these jobs, as I just mentioned, the economic recovery and jobs that we are creating or working on. What this chart shows is that part of our strategy for job creation must be infrastructure, as I mentioned, and must also be creating public sector, public works jobs, which is important. But a third aspect is clean energy and green jobs. This is the visionary, forward-looking kind of job proposal that we need to pay attention to.

Investing $150 billion in clean energy will create a net gain of 1 million jobs and improve opportunities for low-income families. These are jobs for the future. These are jobs for the next period. These are jobs for now and into the future. Clean energy jobs. Clean energy jobs created, 2,500 to 10,000 jobs across America, places in rural areas. And 10,000 to 50,000 jobs in these more darkly shaded areas where people live, sparser population but people need to work, and more than 50,000 jobs in the darkly shaded areas. As you can see, these are our industrial manufacturing sectors, places like Indiana, Michigan, and places like Illinois and Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, South Carolina, places like Florida, Texas, and California. This is a very important chart because a part of our conversation must revolve around what our job strategy is and what we expect to do in this period to create jobs for Americans.

You know, the thing is that jobs, having a job is one of the most important things that any person can do. A job is not just income, but a job also gives you pride and dignity. A job also is something that allows you to feel that you are making a contribution to society. A job. A job is something that you can go to and you can come home and look your kids in the eye and say, you know what, I put in, I am productive. This is what I have done to help you and to help our society be better.

It is important to do something about the millions of unemployed today, the people who are in the ranks of that 10.2 percent of unemployed, the people who are among the ranks of the 34 percent of minority teenagers and young adults who are unemployed. Those children, 1 in 5 children in America in poverty, 1 in 3 African American children in poverty in America today, below the poverty line, we can do something about it, and the time to do something about it is now. We cannot sit idly by while our fellow Americans are in an economic malaise. We have to have ideas that are designed to work, and we have to remember what has worked in the past, and we can't be afraid to reach for what can work now.

The fact is that we are asking Americans, Mr. Speaker, to step forward and support a real jobs package, one that will work, one that is new and innovative for green jobs, one that preserves and improves our infrastructure, and one that puts people to work and one that keeps State and local governments from having to lay off public employees. These programs will work. We need to do something for small businesses who are often the biggest job generators of all, and we need to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this has been another hour of the Progressive message, another hour of the Progressive Caucus. Our email is cpc.grijalva.house.gov. We want to hear from the public, Mr. Speaker. We want to know what is on the public's mind, and we want to know how people are feeling. And we just want to remind people of the importance of the dignity of work and the obligation and responsibility of Americans who are in Congress to do something about this dismal job picture out there. I want to let the people know, Mr. Speaker, that we hear them. I want them to know that we haven't forgotten them, and I want to let them know that we are here to do something about the very difficult circumstances that people are facing.

So this will conclude the Progressive hour and the Progressive message. We will see you next week. Happy holidays, and enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush's policies of deregulation, poor regulation, and lack of oversight of our financial system came to a head a little more than a year ago, and they brought us the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about unemployment and the stimulus package, it is their policies that made all of this necessary in the first place.

But the Democratic Congress is roaring back to protect consumers, to make our financial system more safe and sound, and to provide an orderly resolution of financial firms that have failed. Legislation being proposed right now will provide unprecedented protections for American consumers through the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, put procedures in place to make sure taxpayers will never again have to bail out too-big-to-fail institutions, restore accountability and transparency so that problems are recognized and fixed before they threaten the entire economy, outlaw many of the most egregious practices, like subprime lending, and put our economy on a stable footing.

Madam Speaker, I am submitting the following summary of the Goldstone Report as part of the debate on H. Res. 867.

Excerpt From United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

(The Goldstone Report)

B. Methodology

11. To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that

it was required to consider any actions by all parties that

might have constituted violations of international human

rights law or international humanitarian law. The mandate

also required it to review related actions in the entire

Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel.

12. With regard to temporal scope, the Mission decided to

focus primarily on events, actions or circumstances occurring

since 19 June 2008, when a ceasefire was agreed between the

Government of Israel and Hamas. The Mission has also taken

into consideration matters occurring after the end of

military operations that constitute continuing human rights

and international humanitarian law violations related to or

as a consequence of the military operations, up to 31 July

2009.

13. The Mission also analysed the historical context of the

events that led to the military operations in Gaza between

during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009

and the links between these operations and overarching

Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Occupied Palestinian

Territory.

14. The Mission considered that the reference in its

mandate to violations committed ``in the context'' of the

December--January military operations required it to include

restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms

relating to Israel's strategies and actions in the context of

its military operations.

15. The normative framework for the Mission has been

general international law, the Charter of the United Nations,

international humanitarian law, international human rights

law and international criminal law.

16. This report does not purport to be exhaustive in

documenting the very high number of relevant incidents that

occurred in the period covered by the Mission's mandate.

Nevertheless, the Mission considers that the report is

illustrative of the main patterns of violations. In Gaza, the

Mission investigated 36 incidents.

17. The Mission based its work on an independent and

impartial analysis of compliance by the parties with their

obligations under international human rights and humanitarian

law in the context of the recent conflict in Gaza, and on

international investigative standards developed by the United

Nations.

18. The Mission adopted an inclusive approach in gathering

information and seeking views. Information-gathering methods

included: (a) the review of reports from different sources;

(b) interviews with victims, witnesses and other persons

having relevant information); (c) site visits to specific

locations in Gaza where incidents had occurred; (d) the

analysis of video and photographic images, including

satellite imagery; (e) the review of medical reports about

injuries to victims; (f) the forensic analysis of weapons and

ammunition remnants collected at incident sites; (g) meetings

with a variety of interlocutors; (h) invitations to provide

information relating to the Mission's investigation

requirements; (i) the wide circulation of a public call for

written submissions; (j) public hearings in Gaza and in

Geneva.

19. The Mission conducted 188 individual interviews. It

reviewed more than 300 reports, submissions and other

documentation either researched of its own motion, received

in reply to its call for submissions and notes verbales or

provided during meetings or otherwise, amounting to more than

10,000 pages, over 30 videos and 1,200 photographs.

20. By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the

Government of Israel prevented it from meeting Israeli

government officials, but also from travelling to Israel to

meet with Israeli victims and to the West Bank to meet with

Palestinian Authority representatives and Palestinian

victims.

21. The Mission conducted field visits, including

investigations of incident sites, in the Gaza Strip. This

allowed the Mission to observe first-hand the situation on

the ground, and speak to many witnesses and other relevant

persons.

22. The purpose of the public hearings, which were

broadcast live, was to enable victims, witnesses and experts

from all sides to the conflict to speak directly to as many

people as possible in the region as well as in the

international community. The Mission gave priority to the

participation of victims and people from the affected

communities. The 38 public testimonies covered facts as well

as legal and military matters. The Mission had initially

intended to hold hearings in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank.

However, denial of access to Israel and the West Bank

resulted in the decision to hold hearings of participants

from Israel and the West Bank in Geneva.

23. In establishing its findings, the Mission sought to

rely primarily and whenever possible on information it

gathered first-hand. Information produced by others,

including reports, affidavits and media reports, was used

primarily as corroboration.

24. The Mission's final conclusions on the reliability of

the information received were made taking into consideration

the Mission's assessment of the credibility and reliability

of the witnesses it met, verifying sources and methodology

used in reports and documents produced by others, cross-

referencing the relevant material and information, and

assessing whether, in all the circumstances, there was

sufficient information of a credible and reliable nature for

the Mission to make a finding in fact.

25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its

ability, determined what facts have been established. In many

cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal

responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the

Mission has found that there is sufficient information to

establish the objective elements of the crimes in question.

In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to

determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question

were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that

the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary

course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases

to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully

appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence:

the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of

that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the

individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do

they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in

criminal trials.

26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an

opportunity to submit additional relevant information and

express their position and respond to allegations, the

Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to

the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the

Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and

findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian

Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel

Recommendations

1769. To Israel

The Mission recommends that Israel immediately cease the

border closures and restrictions of passage through border

crossings with the Gaza Strip and allow passage of goods

necessary and sufficient to meet the needs of the population,

for the recovery and reconstruction of housing and essential

services and for the resumption of meaningful economic

activity in the Gaza Strip.

The Mission recommends that Israel cease the restrictions

on access to the sea for fishing purposes imposed on the Gaza

Strip and allow such fishing activities within the 20

nautical miles as provided for in the Oslo accords. It

further recommends that Israel allow the resumption of

agricultural activity within the Gaza Strip, including within

areas in the vicinity of the borders with Israel.

Israel should initiate a review of the rules of engagement,

standard operating procedures, open fire regulations and

other guidance for military and security personnel. The

Mission recommends that Israel avail itself of the expertise

of the ICRC, the United Nations Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights and other relevant bodies, and

Israeli experts, civil society organizations with the

relevant expertise and specialization, in order to ensure

compliance in this respect with international humanitarian

law and international human rights law. In particular such

rules of engagement should ensure that the principles of

proportionality, distinction, precaution and non-

discrimination are effectively integrated in all such

guidance and in any oral briefings provided to officers,

soldiers and security forces, so as to avoid the recurrence

of Palestinian civilian deaths, destruction and affronts on

human dignity in violation of international law.

The Mission recommends that Israel allow freedom of

movement for Palestinians within the OPT--within the West

Bank including East Jerusalem, between the Gaza Strip and

the West Bank and between the OPT and the outside world--in

accordance with international human rights standards and

international commitments entered into by Israel and the

representatives of the Palestinian people. The Mission

further recommends that Israel forthwith lifts travel bans

currently placed on Palestinians by reason of their human

rights or political activities.

The Mission recommends that Israel release Palestinians who

are detained in Israeli prisons in connection with the

occupation. The release of children should be an utmost

priority. The Mission further recommends that Israel cease

the discriminatory treatment of Palestinian detainees. Family

visits for prisoners from Gaza should resume.

Israel should forthwith cease interference with national

political processes in the OPT, and as a first step release

all members of the Palestinian Legislative Council currently

in detention and allow all members of the PLC to move between

Gaza and the West Bank so that the Council may resume

functioning.

The Government of Israel should cease actions aimed at

limiting the expression of criticism by civil society and

members of the public concerning Israel's policies and

conduct during the military operations in the Gaza Strip. The

Mission also recommends that Israel set up an independent

inquiry to assess whether the treatment by Israeli judicial

authorities of Palestinian and Jewish Israelis expressing

dissent in connection with the offensive was discriminatory,

both in terms of charges and detention pending trial. The

results of the inquiry should be made public and, subject to

the findings, appropriate remedial action should be taken.

The Government of Israel should refrain from any action of

reprisal against Palestinian and Israeli individuals and

organizations that have cooperated with the UN Fact Finding

Mission on the Gaza Conflict, in particular individuals who

have appeared at the Public Hearings held by the Mission in

Gaza and Geneva and expressed criticism of actions by the

State of Israel.

The Mission recommends that Israel reiterates its

commitment to respect the inviolability of UN premises and

personnel and that it undertakes all appropriate measures to

ensure that there is no repetition of violations in the

future (ref Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the

UN). It further recommends that reparation to the United

Nations be provided fully and without further delay by the

State of Israel, and that the General Assembly consider this

matter.

I770. To Palestinian armed groups

The Mission recommends that Palestinian armed groups

undertake forthwith to respect international humanitarian

law, in particular by renouncing attacks on Israeli civilians

and civilian objects, and take all feasible precautionary

measures to avoid harm to Palestinian civilians during

hostilities.

The Mission recommends that Palestinian armed groups who

hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in detention release him on

humanitarian grounds. Pending such release they should

recognize his status as prisoner of war, treat him as such,

and allow him ICRC visits.

1771. To responsible Palestinian authorities

The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority issue

clear instructions to security forces under its command to

abide by human rights norms as enshrined in the Palestinian

Basic Law and international instruments; ensure prompt and

independent investigation of all allegations of serious human

rights violations by security forces under its control; and

end resort to military justice to deal with cases involving

civilians.

The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority and

the Gaza authorities release without delay all political

detainees currently in their power and refrain from further

arrests on political grounds and in violation of

international human rights law.

The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority and

the Gaza authorities continue to enable the free and

independent operation of Palestinian non-governmental

organizations, including human rights organizations, and of

the Independent Commission on Human Rights.

Madam Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I am here to speak for the Progressive Caucus, to talk about the Progressive Message.

Tonight, before I begin, I just want to say that my heart is sick and broken for the horrible tragedy that occurred at Fort Hood, and I ask all Americans to keep the families in their prayers and in their thoughts.

I now will proceed with the hour.

Tonight is the Progressive Message, we are here to talk about a progressive message for America, a message that says the human and civil rights of all people must be respected; a message that says dignity of people, regardless of their race, class or religion must be respected; a dignity that says that if 36 other countries in the world can provide universal health care coverage for their citizens, how come the richest country in the world, not only the richest country in the world but the richest country in the history of the world, can't do it.

Why do we have 50 million people who are not covered? Why do we have a doubling of premiums for the people who do have health care coverage? Why do we have people being excluded for a preexisting condition? Why do we have these things?

Well, the time for those things to end is now. We are within grasp of major health care reform and no scare tactics, no fear-mongering, no stretches of the facts are going to change that.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite upset about the present state of affairs because they know that Americans want health care reform. They want health care reform, and I believe they're going to get it.

I want to say that I have spent these last several weeks talking about the problem. I have also spent many days discussing the Democratic bill, and I will do so tonight.

But I want to spend a little time talking about what our friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing in their bill because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, we haven't heard much detail from the Republican side of the aisle. We haven't heard much at all, but they recently put forth an outline of a plan, an outline of a plan, not a plan, but just sort of like an outline of one, and it's not good.

It was always convenient to just bang, bang, bang on what the Democrats were proposing, but now that America has said, okay, you guys don't like what the Democrats are calling for, what have you got? And their answer was less than satisfactory.

Under the GOP health plan--I don't believe it's been introduced as a bill yet; it's just sort of a plan--people with preexisting conditions would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage under the GOP plan. States would have to cover the rest of the tab with a stable funding source. This is Roll Call, November 4, 2009. Check it out. Under the Republican plan, most States already have such plans but typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured. Also from Roll Call.

A key piece of earlier Republican drafts, tax credits that would help people afford insurance, was rejected by the House minority leader as too expensive. Also Roll Call, November 4.

The Republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket costs, which means bankruptcy for some. But let me quote from the Roll Call article: The Republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket costs, nor does it provide any direct assistance for uninsured people to buy insurance.

So how are we going to deal with the uninsured problem, which you and I pay for anyway?

The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, has said on Wednesday that an alternative health care plan put forward by House Republicans would have, quote, little impact in extending health care benefits to roughly 30 million uninsured Americans. This is from the New York Times.

Do you mean to tell me after all this attacking of the Democrats' proposal, the Democratic plan, that the Republicans have just bashed us, week after week, day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute--oh, it's bad, bad, bad, and that's all you ever hear is ``no''--they finally come up with their idea and they're going to leave 30 million people uninsured?

This has got to be April Fool's Day come early. The Republican bill has no chance of passage, because Americans really don't want it, because if they did, we would be talking about it. But I quote again from the New York Times: The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by the year 2019.

Why aren't they embarrassed? I have no idea. The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, and, continuing to quote, would leave 52 million people uninsured. The budget office said, meaning the proportion of nonelderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as it is now, roughly at 83 percent.

Let me read it again. The proportion of nonelderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, about 83 percent, meaning that we have upwards of 16 to 17 percent who don't have insurance.

Going along with the Republican plan, the Republican plan tonight, as we are discussing the Progressive Message, we're just going to talk about their plan since they got real expert talking about ours, we're going to let the American people know the real facts about the Republican plan. This is not a criticism or an attack on any individual member of the party apposite. I regard that they are honorable people, but we have to talk about their plan because it's not a good one. And the reason they haven't been bragging about it is because not even they are proud of it.

The Congressional Budget Office umpires say the House Republican health plan would only make a small dent in the number of uninsured Americans. Let me say that again. According to the Associated Press article on November 4, 2009, Congressional Budget umpires say, quote, the House Republican health plan would make only a small dent in the number of uninsured Americans.

Wait a minute. I thought that they had some great plan. How can you not make a dent in the number of uninsured Americans and still claim you have a good plan? Their plan is an embarrassment. They're not bragging about it because they, themselves, know that it's far more strategic to just bash away on the Democratic plan rather than talk about their own plan, which is nothing but status quo and keep insurance companies making lots and lots and lots of money. That's what it's all about--protect the wealthy and let everybody else do the best they can with what they got.

Let me go to another important quote: Late Wednesday, last night, a bill that Republicans expect to offer as an alternative to the Democratic package received its assessment from the congressional budget analysts who concluded that the proposal wouldn't do anything to help reduce the ranks of the uninsured. The CBO said some people would see higher premiums, including older and sicker people.

This is the Republican plan? Here is one. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal nonelderly residents won't have health care in 2010. That's a lot of people. Seventeen percent of legal nonelderly residents won't have health care insurance in 2010. That's an indictment of the status quo, which the Republicans support.

But, in 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, the CBO estimates that it will still be stuck at 17 percent of the legal nonelderly residents not having insurance.

That is from the Washington Post today.

My goodness, how in the world can our friends from the other side of the aisle claim that they are offering an improvement on the status quo when they are not changing the proportion of the uninsured even 10 years from now?

This is a scathing indictment, and I don't expect to hear them talk much about their plan. And, if they do, they are not going to tell you about this, because this is embarrassing to them. They don't want this out. They don't want you to know about this. They want you to just keep on listening to the nonsense about death panels and school sex clinics, and they want to talk about the polarizing political issue of abortion. And I want to get to this issue of abortion in a little while.

But I want to say that they want to use polarizing language, polarizing issues that divide Americans. They want to throw up scare tactics, all of it ultimately accruing to the benefit of the status quo now, which is an industry that reaps enormous magnitudes of profit at the expense of citizens who see their premiums escalate and see themselves denied coverage and see rescissions and see all these things that have cost the American economy dearly and the American middle class.

This is a Washington Post quote: ``The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with the population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population down to 4 percent.''

How can the Republicans have a straight face and offer this bill? How can they look you in the eye, after months and months of all of these disruptive meetings, where people were disrupting meetings and causing so much trouble, causing so much fear, and this is what they have to show for it?

Madam Speaker, I can't believe that they honestly are offering this as a proposal.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party's alternative, will shave or cut $86 billion off the deficit in 10 years. But get this: the Democrats, according to the CBO, will cut $104 billion off the deficit. The Democratic bill is fiscally superior to the Republican alternative.

According to the Washington Post today, you can read it, according to the CBO, the Republican alternative only cuts $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democratic bill cuts $104 billion off the deficit. That is just about $40 million more.

Wait a minute. Aren't these the guys who always complain about the deficit and spending and all this? Maybe that claim rings hollow.

The Democratic bill, however, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. Let me just say this again for people listening out there. I know you have been scared.

They want to tell you that the Democrats want to take away Medicare. Not true. They are trying to tell you the Democrats are trying to change the scenario as it relates to this very polarizing issue among Americans, abortion. It basically keeps things as they are today. They are trying to talk about death panels and school sex clinics, and they are trying to say that health care reform is only about the uninsured.

None of these things are true, and it is important to come to the House floor and refute these false allegations. It is not the case, it is not right, it isn't true.

I just want to say I am so proud to be joined by one of the finest Members of this body, my dear friend from the great State of California, Diane Watson. She is going to get her papers together; but when she is ready to start talking, I am going to yield to her right away.

I just want to say the Democratic bill that has been released covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. It covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. Yes, I am going to keep saying this on the House floor. It needs to be said.

The fact is, today we had a lot of visitors in Washington, and I want to say welcome to those folks. My colleague from the great State of Minnesota, and I am so proud to be from Minnesota, my friend, Congresswoman Bachmann, invited people down, and folks came. And I am glad they showed up, because democracy is good, and it is good to have people here.

Now, I will say that many of the people who came down to support my colleague from Minnesota, we probably didn't see the issue the same. But I just want to say, I was honored to have them in my office. I am so proud that I was able to talk to my colleagues.

But here is the thing that broke my heart. As they were explaining to me what their concerns were, they were saying, I have been dropped because of a preexisting condition. They were saying, I have been unemployed and I can't find an insurance policy to cover me. They were saying, I am afraid that I am going to go bankrupt. My family doesn't have any money. I lost my job. My husband lost his job. What are we going to do? And I said, you know what? You got on the wrong bus coming here, my friend. This Democratic bill is the one you need to be looking at.

The fact is that good people have been scared away from policy that is going to help them. Good people, made afraid that policies that are going to help them are not for them. And that is a shame.

So we had to come down here to the House floor today to explain that the fact is that middle class, working-class people struggling to make ends meet are going to benefit from the Democrats' proposal.

I just want to say that after years of the Republicans being in power, years where they had the House, the White House, the Senate, doing nothing at all to help Americans, Democrats are taking care of business right now. I am so glad we had a lot of people and I was able to talk to constituents and others about this important issue of health care. Some of us started out not on the same page, but we ended up a lot closer together because I was able to say here are the true facts, not the made-up ones.

I yield to the gentlelady from California.

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

I talked to some of the people walking around today. I was impressed with how good and decent many of them were. Many didn't have the facts straight. Many were suffering with real problems with health care. I think we need to take the time to talk to people. The fact is everyone knows there are certain TV people and radio personalities, and I am not even going to give them credit by mentioning their names, but these people, because of entertainment and ratings, they try to play on tear and whip up anxiety among Americans who are just trying to put food on the table. So they get scared.

People want to express themselves politically, but the leaders in front of them are not giving them good alternatives, they are just giving them fear. They are saying, Be afraid of those immigrants. Be afraid of those people over there who are not the same religion as you. Be afraid of these people over here. Just be afraid. As people are afraid, they are easier to manipulate. We ask people to overcome their fear and get the facts.

If I may just offer a few more critiques of the Republican bill. Here is what The Washington Post said: Amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It is already being shown to interest group and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It has already made compromises and been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet, it covers more people and saves more money than the blank-slate alternative proposed by House Republicans.

Now I just want to ask the gentlelady from California, we have been working on health care for a long, long time. I have had to deal with angry folks at angry community meetings. People are worried. They are concerned. We have walked through that fiery furnace and done those tough town meetings. We have withstood all of that. You would think that our bill would be watered down to the point where it couldn't help anybody, but that isn't the case. The Democratic bills covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. How can that be? The Republican plan, which was just recently introduced to the American people, actually doesn't save as much money and doesn't cover as many people as the Democratic plan when they are just getting started.

You and I know when you first introduce a bill, it is just going to get sandpapered. People are going to wear it away. People show up and say, I don't like this part, and I don't like that part. After a while, your bill used to be here, and it is getting less and less. It doesn't meet as much of your vision, but that is okay, that is democracy. We have to come in here and we have to give and take and try and consider everybody's interests.

But this Democratic bill, having gone through a very rigorous process of democracy, the writer here calls it a sausage grinder, still saves way more money and covers way more people than the Republican bill. I want to know, how can that possibly be? Where are these great ideas we have been hearing about?

You remember during President Obama's speech in this very room, they're holding up pieces of paper, here is our plan, here is our plan, and they come up with a plan that is more expensive and doesn't cover as many people as the Democratic plan. There is a reason why the American people voted overwhelmingly to send Democrats to Congress last November because this is the best they could come up with. It is actually quite embarrassing. I feel a little bad for them.

I yield back to the gentlelady.

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

I thank the gentlelady and appreciate the gentlelady's remarks about collegiality, and also the gentlelady reassuring our seniors about what is really in the bill. This whole fear thing about scaring seniors about taking away their Medicare, I really don't appreciate. My dad was born in 1928 and my mom was born in 1938. Both of them are folks who would be classified as seniors, both very active, vibrant people, and both of them definitely active at the polling places and voting.

And they've actually asked me, Is this really true? And I have to explain, Mom, no, it isn't true. But the reality is this is a campaign tactic to try to scare seniors and try to scare all kinds of Americans. I'm of the mind that, let's not use fear tactics, let's use logic and truth.

Here's a few facts:

The House Republican bill will cover just about 3 million more Americans over the course of 10 years. Today, 83 percent of the nonelderly Americans are insured. Under the GOP plan, 83 percent of nonelderly Americans would still be the proportion of the uninsured in 2019. No change.

So I ask the gentlelady, look, if the problem today is the high percentage of the uninsured, people who are authorized to be in America and people who are nonelderly, if the proportion of uninsured is 17 percent, shouldn't we be better off in 10 years? Under the Republican plan, we will not be. I think that is a complete failure of their effort.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act put forward by the Democratic-led Congress extends coverage to 36 million more Americans. Today, 83 percent of the nonelderly Americans are uninsured. Under the Democratic plan, 96 percent of nonelderly Americans will be insured. That's what I call success. I hope some of our friends on the other side of the aisle come on and join this plan that's good for America.

The House Republican bill does not reduce the number of people who must buy insurance on the individual market because they're self- insured, don't have coverage of their employer, or lose their jobs. This segment of the market now pays the highest premiums and consumer abuses by the insurance industry. No change in this unfair practice.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act put forward by the Democrats creates a health insurance exchange with a public plan as one of the choices people have that provides competition and offers large group rates to employees of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and Americans looking for jobs. Under the Democratic plan, affordable options and affordability credits make all the difference, something the Republican plan--even though they've had all this time to think of something good, haven't been able to think of anything good at all.

Preexisting conditions. The Republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against Americans with preexisting medical conditions. Let me just say this one more time, Mr. Speaker. The Republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against Americans with preexisting conditions.

There's no wonder that they have and will spend their time this evening talking about the divisive, polarizing issue of abortion, this very important issue which has Americans of goodwill arguing both relatively strongly held positions, trying to get us fighting over that when we're talking about health care reform. They say, Don't worry about this health care reform. Let's talk about this divisive issue that has divided Americans for so long. This is not a bill about abortion. This is a bill about health care reform. Why don't they want to talk about that fact?

The Republican bill does not repeal antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies. Why not? The Republican bill does not repeal antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies. Why do they want to protect the health insurance companies? Why don't they want the health insurance companies to compete? Who is getting PAC money from the health insurance companies? Let's find out.

The House Republican bill does not include provisions to stop price gouging by insurance companies. Why not? The Affordable Health Care for Americans Act put forth by the Democrats--and, again, we've only had the White House for a few months and only had this Chamber, been the majority in the House for a couple of years; not long. We haven't been here long, but even though we haven't been here long, we've come up strong, because this bill, the Democratic bill, ends discrimination against Americans with preexisting medical conditions. The Democratic bill finally ends the antitrust exemption. The Democratic bill gives States $1 billion to crack down on price gouging by health insurance companies.

The fact is American consumers and small businesses deserve better than what the Republican bill offers to them. The Democratic bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, is a fiscally responsible bill that will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over 10 years; way more, way more, $36 billion more than the Republican bill. And I want to know, if the Democrats can face this very difficult process that we've gone through all summer--I had health care forums in my district and so did the gentlelady from California. Some people came up very upset because they've been listening to some of these radio guys and some of these TV guys scaring them and giving them misinformation, so they come into the meeting upset, loaded for bear. They want to talk to me. I want to talk to you, Mr. Ellison. But when the facts come out, they're like, Oh, okay, I get it now. And we just ask people to keep their minds open.

I just say that if the Republicans have a real alternative around health care, how come they didn't come up with anything in the House from 1994 to 2006? Nothing did they come up with. Oh, they did veto SCHIP. We've got to give them credit for that. Vetoed SCHIP. Vetoed State Children's Health Insurance Program; can you imagine that? Oh, my goodness. I think that that is not good service to the American people.

I do hope we get some Republican votes on this bill because I think there has got to be some Republicans who say, You know what? Skip all the bickering. The Democrats have been open to our ideas when we offered them, but we didn't offer them because we would rather beat the Democrats at the polls than give Americans real health care reform. Think about that. They would rather beat the Democrats at the polls and try to use this as a political thing rather than say, You know what? We're going to do something for the American people. Oh, my goodness.

Let me turn to this poster board I have here. The Democratic bill-- let's set the record straight. Here's a myth: The Democratic bill will hurt small businesses. Not true. If you heard it today or if you hear it later today, don't believe it. Small chemical facilities are already regulated by the DHS. The bill requires DHS to assess potential impacts of IST on small businesses. And $225 billion in grant funding is available for small businesses.

This will interfere with business operations. The fact is is that this bill will not interfere with business operations, it will not be a boon to plaintiffs' attorneys, and it will not do any of these things that are claimed by the Republicans over and over and over again.

We hear the Republicans say we need to have tort reform. Let me just say, if you have a loved one who has a medical error, you have a right to go to court over that. Don't let anybody scare you away from your right to go to court when a doctor or a hospital fails to meet medical standards.

Yes, I will.

Well, let me just thank the gentlelady for that, because the reality is that Republicans are saying, Oh, we have a plan on tort reform and we want to give tax cuts and tax breaks--they've been talking about fragments of their plan for a long time, but when the reality of their plan came out, it was pretty dismal. I mean, here's what Ezra Klein says, of the Washington Post: Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning. The only thing worse than having no health care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by the CBO, and making the House Democrats look good.

We want to thank you for that.

The Democratic bill covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. The New York Times, the Budget Monitor says: GOP leaves many uninsured.

Again, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the alternative health care bill put forward by House Republicans would have little impact on extending health benefits to roughly 30 million uninsured Americans. You can go right down the ranks, but piece after piece shows that this Republican plan that they released is abysmal.

I want to have some conversation about the Republican plan, because they've been beating up on the Democratic plan from the very beginning, yet it has gone through three committees. It has had a merger process. It has been beaten and smashed and attacked, and yet, still, still the Democratic bill is far and away superior to the Republican plan, maintains its public option. The fact is I think the American people are really going to start seeing who is looking out for their health.

Let me turn now to a few health care stories if I may.

A good friend, Amy. Amy says, ``I'm a graduate student working part- time at a restaurant. I applied for individual health insurance through Medica, hoping to pay their nice low rate, $99 a month for a pretty good plan and a fairly low deductible; however, Medica denied my individual application because I marked on my application that I have anxiety and take medication for it. It is a little ironic; not having insurance gives me more anxiety.

``I was recently approved for group health insurance through a company that owns the restaurant I work for. However, to stay on the group plan, I have to maintain a workload of 24 hours a week on average over a year, which can be hard to do as a full-time student. This group insurance is through Medica, and I will be paying $95 each month, which is affordable for me. However, I got a letter from Medica saying that my anxiety is considered a preexisting condition, so any treatment or medication for it will not be covered for a year. After 1 year, I can appeal for coverage. In the meantime, I will continue to pay for my medication out of pocket and not go to therapy because it will be too expensive.

``Please pass Federal health care reform that includes a public health insurance option that is affordable to middle-income families in Minnesota.''

This young lady would not be barred from getting health care insurance because of her anxiety, which the insurance company called a preexisting condition, yet under the Republican plan she still would be.

David from Minneapolis: ``I am a small business owner and do provide health care to my employees, but this is a serious financial risk to my company. It's a moral issue, so I don't want

to cancel health insurance, but I might have to in order to survive. It's scary to think about not being able to provide health insurance for employees or going under as a business. Knowing that I would always have access to reliable, affordable health care would relieve my fears.

``I would like to tell those who oppose health care reform that this is a moral issue. We should be taking care of each other. It's an embarrassment to our country to be one of the wealthiest countries and not have health care for all. Please pass Federal health care reform that includes a public insurance option.''

We've been joined by Jared Polis, who is an excellent advocate for the people's rights. He has been very vocal and has been a strong advocate of health care reform. I want to turn it over and yield to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

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

I thank the chairman and Congresswoman Maloney, who have been champions for consumers.

I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009.

Earlier this year, the Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass comprehensive credit card reform legislation that was subsequently signed into law by President Obama. Unfortunately, the credit card companies have used the past few months to push through last-minute rate hikes and other unfair practices before the law kicks into gear. To address this problem, this bill simply moves up the effective date for the remaining credit card reforms from February 22, 2010, to December 1 of this year.

I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney and Chairman Frank for their leadership in expeditiously bringing this bill to the floor.

The actions of the credit card companies over the past few months have amply demonstrated that the American consumer needs quick relief from punitive and unfair credit card practices. The time to act on these important reforms is now. For too long, the credit card industry has been subject to too few regulations and far too little oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire whether the gentlewoman from Florida is opposed to the resolution. If she is not, I request the time in opposition to the resolution, because I am, in fact, opposed to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their openness and professionalism in this debate.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose H. Res. 867, a resolution that condemns the Goldstone Report regarding the conflict in Gaza. This resolution should be opposed because it suppresses inquiry, inquiry that is the hallmark of democratic societies.

The resolution contains factual errors and undermines Israel's ability to conduct its own investigation. The resolution goes against President Obama's foreign policy direction. I ask my colleagues to review the facts about the Goldstone Report's integrity and the content of his report.

First, what is there to fear about Judge Goldstone? Judge Goldstone has a stellar reputation. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina and for serving as a chief prosecutor for the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals. He is a self-described Zionist. He serves as a trustee at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Judge Goldstone has said that bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, the debate about the Goldstone Report has been diverted by serious problems with the original U.N. resolution called for in the report. I agree that the first U.N. resolution calling for an investigation of the Gaza war was one-sided and focused unfairly on Israel. Let me repeat: I agree that the original U.N. resolution was unfair. But Judge Goldstone pushed back. He succeeded in expanding the scope of the mission to include an examination of actions of both Hamas and Israel.

So what does the Goldstone Report really say? Four sections of the report deal with abuses by Hamas, including the launching of rockets into civilian towns in Israel. The report explicitly states these rocket attacks are war crimes. The report recounts actions by Israel in Operation Cast Lead that harmed the civilian population in Gaza.

I repeat the point I started with. The word ``inquiry'' is an essential hallmark of democracy, and Israel is strong enough to withstand an investigation of its actions in the Gaza war. Hamas should investigate its actions as well and be held to account.

What if Israel would have participated in the review from the beginning? It could have pointed out that the United Nations Humans Rights Council has a history of unfairly singling Israel out for criticism. It could have pointed out the consequences of the Hamas rocket attacks.

Let's consider the following question: Why are we going to pass a resolution without holding a single hearing? Why is the House voting for a resolution which condemns a report that few Members have fully read?

House Members should know that Israeli leaders, like Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, a Likud party member, and National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau have called for Israel to conduct its own investigation.

I urge Members to oppose this resolution because it will undermine President Obama's commitment that all countries, including our own and our allies, should be accountable for their actions. This resolution complicates the President's current Middle East initiative.

I conclude with a letter written by Israeli human rights groups who oppose the resolution. ``We are concerned that H. Res. 867 may derail the momentum towards an Israeli investigation. Resolution 867 contains factual inaccuracies, both about the Goldstone Report and the measures taken by Israel to date, that must not guide choices by policymakers. We urge interested parties and Members of the House to show their support for the internal democratic conversation taking place in Israel today and to call on Israel to demonstrate that it can ensure genuine accountability at home.''

When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa, and others have pursued truthful investigation, however uncomfortable, their people have emerged stronger. The House of Representatives is poised to condemn the Goldstone Report today because the report says that both parties to the conflict engaged in possible violations of international law. What is the logic of the action? How does it advance the cause of peace in the Middle East?

I urge my colleagues to look closely at the Goldstone Report, which is right here on this table, and what actions truly advance the cause of peace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield an additional 5 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 10 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Baird).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

May I inquire as to time, Madam Speaker?

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota, Congresswoman McCollum.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 5 seconds.

I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Capps.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I am going to take the balance of my time to close. As I do, I would like to first of all have entered into the Record a letter from Israeli human rights organizations, including B'Tselem, Gisha, the Public Committee Against Torture, Rabbis for Human Rights, and Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights.

In regards to: House Resolution 867 regarding the Goldstone

Commission report on Operation Cast Lead.

To: Interested Persons.

From: Israeli Human Rights organizations.

To Whom It May Concern: We appeal to you as representatives

of the human rights community in Israel regarding House

Resolution 867.

From day one, the Israeli human rights community has

consistently called for Israel to conduct an independent and

impartial investigation into the conduct of its forces during

``Operation Cast Lead'' in the Gaza Strip. Today, this call

is increasingly echoed by Israelis across the political

spectrum. Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud), Minister

of Improvement of Government Services Michael Eitan (Likud),

Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman (Labor), and

National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael

Beiteinu) have all called for such an inquiry, as has Aryeh

Deri, former leader of the Shas party. The US State

Department has called for such an inquiry as has National

Security Advisor James Jones.

Such an investigation, provided it meets international

standards for scope and independence, would put an end to the

polarizing international debate around the Goldstone Report

and show that Israel is a law-abiding state that can ensure

accountability at home.

However, we are concerned that H. Res. 867 may derail the

momentum towards an Israeli investigation. Resolution 867

contains factual inaccuracies, both about the Goldstone

Report and about the measures taken by Israel to date, that

must not guide choices by policy makers.

We urge interested parties and Members of the House to show

their support for the internal democratic conversation taking

place in Israel and to call on Israel to demonstrate that it

can ensure genuine accountability at home.

Sincerely,

B'Tselem.

Gisha.

Hamoked--Center for the Defence of the Individual.

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

Rabbis for Human Rights.

Yesh Din--Volunteers for Human Rights.

I would also like to enter into the Record the Goldstone Report itself. This voluminous document, 574 pages, which I hope Members will take the opportunity to read.

I can't yield with the short time I have.

The point is I have already received unanimous consent and do intend to enter the document into the Record. But what I ask for, from all sides, it is clear that everybody in this body is very concerned about peace in the Middle East. We all have to assume best intentions from everyone, and we have to look to this issue with a mind toward helping Israel and the Palestinians to come to a lasting peace. Two states, two people, in security, side by side.

I don't think this resolution helps us achieve that. So I will be voting ``no,'' and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, need I remind this body that between the years 2000 and 2006, the party apposite controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. What did they do for the American people regarding health care? Nothing; nothing at all. They didn't do anything to help the American people. And now that the Democratic Caucus is within a hair's breadth of delivering real reform, all we hear about is death panels, sex school clinics, and now, oh, my

God, the Democrats are after the seniors.

Seniors of America, in 1965, when Medicare was passed, only 22 Republicans voted for it; probably none will vote for health care reform now. Remember that at the polls.

Madam Speaker, I come here to read a statement that was recently issued by an organization here in our own Congress, our own body, known as the Tri-Caucus. The Tri-Caucus includes members of the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and the Asian Caucus, and is made up of about 87 Members of this body.

The statement says as follows:

``Four of our colleagues, Representatives John Shadegg of Arizona, Paul Broun of Georgia, Trent Franks of Arizona and Sue Myrick of North Carolina recently requested the House Sergeant at Arms to launch an investigation of the civil rights group CAIR, or Council on American- Islamic Relations, to determine whether it was placing staff and interns in key congressional offices who they fear are acting as `spies.'

``This proposed investigation coincides with the launch of a book by Dave Gaubatz, an anti-Islamic activist and author of the book `Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America.' It features an introduction by Representative Myrick and was written after Gaubatz posed as an intern at CAIR in an effort to `infiltrate' the group.

``These charges smack of an America 60 years ago where lists of `un- American' agitators were identified. We should be affirming the importance of diversity and tolerance for all interns and staff who serve in Congress without suspicion of being identified as `spies.'

``The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our Founding Fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process, to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America.

``We all have experienced the sting of discrimination and we know that there will be challenges ahead. But our message should be firm that the America we believe in welcomes people of all backgrounds to the U.S. Congress.

``We ask these charges be disavowed and we issue a hearty welcome to interns and staff of all creeds, color, ethnicities and sexual orientation.''

I read this statement and will submit it for the Record and again thank the leadership of the Tri-Caucus, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congresswoman

Nydia Velazquez and Congressman Mike Honda. I thank all of them.

Let me thank the Speaker for recognizing us today. And

let me also thank Mr. Jared Polis, who will be joining me today for the Progressive Caucus hour.

We come together every week to talk about a progressive vision for America, a progressive vision, one that says, look, we all count, we all matter, we all need health care, we all need clean air, clean water, food free of pesticides, and now we all need health care. We need health care that works for everybody. We need to cover the uninsured. We need to stop the escalating costs for those of us who may have health care but see our premiums rise and rise and rise, doubled over the last 10 years, doubling over the next 10.

So tonight, Mr. Speaker, we come together to talk about health care, to talk about the fact that we are within grasp of major health care reform. The American people not only want it, they demand it, and they demonstrated their interests in the last election, which not only landed Barack Obama in the White House, but landed us in firm majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

So let me invite you and yield to Mr. Polis of the great State of Colorado, who will share a few remarks as we jump into this subject of health care.

Let me thank the gentleman for yielding. And I will be yielding back to the gentleman in a moment.

It's so important that we keep this conversation real, real people going through real things. I want to thank you for bringing the story of that family to the floor of the House today. They deserve to be heard.

This is the progressive message, the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour, and I just want to share a few things.

As the gentleman from Colorado talks about real stories, let me talk about things a little more globally. Let me say that there are highlights that you need to know about regarding whether the American people want health care or not.

The majority has now backed two key and controversial provisions, both the so-called ``public option'' and the new mandate requiring all Americans to carry health insurance. Polling has demonstrated that the American people support both. Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of the public insurance option. Fifty-seven percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option. The fact is, 56 percent of all Americans favor a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance because Americans know that if you decide to not get insurance and all the rest of us do, when you get sick, we are surely going to take care of you. So everybody has to help out and do what's right as part of this.

The number rises to 71 percent, should the government provide subsidies for many low-income Americans to help them purchase insurance; 71 percent of Americans say that we should do that.

I want to yield back to the gentleman. Maybe if you have some more stories, you can share them; otherwise, I can keep running down how things are going more globally.

I also want to share some stories tonight, but if you've got a few ready to roll, let me hand it back to the gentleman from Colorado.

Let me thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman is doing a great job highlighting what Americans are going through. Americans of all descriptions--Americans in the suburbs, Americans in the city, Americans in the rural areas, Americans in the East, the West, the Midwest, the South, all over America people need health care reform. They need it if they have health care through their job; they need it if they don't have it at all. We need health care reform and we need it now. The American people have sent a resounding message, and it's up to the American Congress to act now and not play politics.

Because, as the gentleman pointed out, even if you are a registered Republican, or a registered Democrat, no matter what you are registered for, the fact is that when you have an injury or an illness in your family and you have to consider what to do, given the costs that you will face or all the other implications, you don't really think about politics, you think about getting some care that you can afford. So the Congress has to be responsible and do the right thing.

Let me just say this, just a few stats. These are stats I am talking about. The gentleman from Colorado has been talking about real-life stories. Let me paint a more global picture for a moment, and I will yield back.

Forty-two percent of Americans have changed their health care coverage in the last 5 years. Thirty-eight percent of Americans worry they will lose their health care coverage in the next 5 years. That is a lot of people. Almost 40 percent are worried they will lose their health care coverage. That is a big deal.

The fact is that from 2003 to 2007, about 36 percent of Americans either experienced gaps in their insurance or relied on government insurance for all or part of their coverage. That is a lot of people, fully a third. Fully a third of Americans in that 4-year period had gaps in their insurance or had to rely on government to keep things afloat for their family. This is a big deal.

A few more stats I would like to share before I yield back to the gentleman from Colorado. According to The Urban Institute, as many as one in five uninsured Americans is uninsured because of a change in or loss of job. When you lose your job, you lose your health care insurance, unless you can keep up with COBRA. But then, of course, that is on you to pay for, and if you don't have a job, you might not be able to cover that COBRA.

The fact is that people are suffering in individual homes, in apartments, on farms that they live on across America, and they are struggling in large numbers when we aggregate them and look at them statistically. They are dealing with a lot of tough things out there, and it is time for Congress to act.

Let me say in 2008, the average cost of an individual plan was about $4,704. That is 2008. A family plan was $12,608. $12,000. That is an enormous amount of money in the course of a year. These numbers will double in the next 10 years, eating up a greater percentage of the family budget, chewing into expenditures that the family has to make for vital things just to be able to make it and just to be able to do well.

The reality is the time for change is now. No more delay, no more scare tactics, no more stories about community schools, about sex clinics; no more stories about death panels or stories about it is only covering the uninsured because everybody else has insurance. No, we need real reform for everybody. North, west, east, south, we need it now.

I yield back to the gentleman for another one of those great stories he has been sharing with us.

Let me join the gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Polis, who is doing such a great job, in offering a few stories that people are dealing with out here today. We also want to just thank the gentlelady from the great State of Illinois. Jan Schakowsky is here joining us right now, and as she gets her bags straight and everything, I am going to just share one story from a family that is really, really working and pulling for real health care reform. Let me say I

will just leave the last names out just to protect folks.

Kelly is 50 years old and her husband is 55. They are both retired employees. They are retired from an American company. After a 2004 horseback riding accident, Kelly was in a coma for 3 weeks. Her insurer, United Health Care, refused to cover her emergency surgery. To this day, Kelly has no memory of the incident.

David called UHC from the hospital in the waiting room to report the incident, but the company denied coverage, saying David hadn't reported the incident. On top of that, the company told David the hospital was out of network.

The company, the health insurance company, eventually paid about half of Kelly's medical costs, which left the family with about $200,000 in bills. $200,000 is a lot of money even if you already have a lot of money. But that is how much they had in bills.

They were able to hold on to their house, but only by selling almost everything else they owned and declaring bankruptcy. Yes, bankruptcy. Kelly tried to go back to her job in the computerized drafting field, but the brain damage was too severe and she just couldn't do the work anymore.

David, also retired after 20 years as a communications technician, he suffered an on-the-job injury to his spine. To this day they pay about $1,645 a month, which is a lot of money, to the bankruptcy court, and hope to be out of debt one day.

So that is just one story. But their story could be dramatized by the number of people who file for bankruptcy because of medical debt. More than half of the bankruptcy filings are due to medical debt that is just crippling families. Health care reform will bring that nightmare to an end, so we look eagerly towards it.

I think the gentlewoman from Illinois is ready to hand it to the folks, so let me yield to the gentlelady and thank her for coming, Jan Schakowsky.

I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I'll next yield to the gentleman, Congressman Polis.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, Congressman Polis, you're hitting the square tonight, as is our colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Schakowsky.

Let me just take a moment to talk about myths for a moment before I hand it back to the gentlelady from Illinois. The fact is that as we stand here on the House floor tonight talking about the urgency of health care reform now, we want to also convey the idea that this is something that every American can participate in and can get involved in and can call their Representatives to talk about the importance of reform. But let me just talk myths, as I said a moment ago.

There's this idea out there that the public option is some government takeover or even a government-run program. It isn't true. The fact is the public option is a program where you'd have private doctors, where you would have the doctors of your choice that you could go to. It would be a low-cost alternative. And it certainly wouldn't be some kind of a takeover thing that they're talking about.

The idea that mandated health care is a new tax is also false. We're paying already for people who aren't covered. If you show up at the emergency room, we're taking care of you, so we're already paying. It's not a new tax on anybody.

There are other fallacies we'll talk about, and we'll talk about more as the hour wears on, but the fact of the matter is there are myths out there that must be debunked. And the American people are smart and they know very well what's right and what's good, and that's why a full majority continue to support the public option.

Let me yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.

The gentleman from Colorado.

Will the gentleman yield?

How would you like to have a car like that?

I yield back.

Well, let me share a quick story, and this one I don't have written down, but it actually happened to me when I had a town hall forum in my district in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and we had a packed-out room.

And I had this friend who was actually helping me get boards that I was using for a presentation, and she's just a wonderful person and I've known her for many years. And she was running around getting boards, getting coffee,

helping people out, just sort of getting people signed in who showed up. That's the kind of person that she is. She's just good people.

Anyway, she--after it was all over, it was pretty emotional. It wasn't bad, but it was a strong and powerful time. She said--she gave me one of those looks, Mr. Speaker, where it's like she said to me, I've got to talk to you. And I said, Okay, because I could have said, you know, Don't you see all these people? I'm busy. I'll get with you. I'll call you. But the way she looked at me, I said, Okay. So I said, You guys hang on.

So we went over to sort of like the corner of the room as people were filing out and she looked at me with eyes full of water. She looked like she could cry at that moment, and she said, you know, I just need to tell you this. I'm 39 years old. I have two teenage sons. My mother and my mother's sister, my aunt, both had breast cancer, and we lost my aunt last year. My sister has had a positive diagnosis, a mammogram. She's being treated now. I don't know what to do because I know that I need to go get the exam, but I also know that if I get it, they're probably going to say I have a preexisting condition. I could be dropped.

This young woman, full of life, full of care and concern about everyone else, said to me, I'm too young to die. I've got teenagers. That's who she's worried about. She said, If I go get the test, they could drop me for having a preexisting condition. If don't get the test, I don't know what illness is growing within me, and I don't know what to do. I said, You know what? I'll make a personal pledge to do everything I can do to make sure that there's answers for you and your family, and that's my promise to you. And I shook hands with her that moment, and I'm down here on this floor today telling her story.

And I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.

Let's kick it to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Let me thank the gentleman again.

The points are powerful. As you mentioned, the robust public option, I have to mention that the question emerges, Who wants a public option? Who wants it? Doctors want it. About 63 percent of all doctors say that they want a health care reform plan that includes both a public and private option. There's another 10 percent of doctors who say they want a public option only. They just want a single-payer like I want. And so that is a full two-thirds.

So doctors want it; two-thirds of doctors want it. Nurses want it. They're on record. Nurses want a public option health care reform. Congress wants it. Congress wants it, and we're going to show that and not too long from now. Faith communities have come forward and said, We want a public option. The President has publicly stated he prefers a public option. He's made this very clear. He's on record. Go out and Google it. And the American people want it, too.

The most recent poll showed 57 percent of Americans want a public option. It has been up there in the 60s, in the high 50s. We want a public option. We have to fight hard to get it. It won't be easy, but we're going to do it.

Let me just say this: a young man tells me he wants to know measures to encourage more medical students to enter primary care, what can we do about that and health care reform; and he also had some views that he wanted to express about tort reform.

But can I just ask you guys, either one of you would be interested in taking on this one. What about encouraging medical students to do primary care? Is that an important part of health care reform in your view?

Let me offer a few other thoughts, that is, as we are embarking on this effort, we're on the House floor tonight--Progressive Caucus comes week after week. We've been talking about health care since summertime. We're going to have to get another topic but not until we get health care reform.

But I just want to take a moment to say this is an opportunity to talk about what real people are going through.

I want to tell folks about Courtney. She's 31 and a mother of a toddler. In college, she was diagnosed with Crohn's disease, a debilitating and chronic digestive illness, serious illness. If you have any experience with Crohn's disease, you know it's tough.

To control her disease, Courtney needed expensive medication, about $1,500 worth of shots four times a month. After first approving the treatment, her health care provider, United Health Care, denied Courtney coverage of the medication 12 months later saying that the shots were no longer medically necessary.

Courtney and her doctor fought the insurer; and by January of 2009, the company reinstated coverage of the medication, but it was too late. Courtney's condition had already deteriorated, and she was in chronic pain with decreasing energy and quality of life. In May, she underwent major surgery, spending a week in the hospital and missing almost 2 months of work.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, I've got a story here.

A 50-year-old woman with Morton's neuroma. Surgery was scheduled, but she was laid off and lost her insurance. Now she can barely walk, and she can't get to surgery.

So I yield to the gentlelady again.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I just want to point out this. Because you know, let's just face it, we all want bipartisanship. I want it. My dad's a Republican, and I love my dad, and my brother is, too, and I love him; and we debate, you know, tax policy and all of this kind of stuff. And we have a good time over dinner time whenever I can be in Detroit.

But the point is when it comes down to the basic necessities of life like health care, why can't we all come together on this thing? Why can't we say that, you know what, in the richest country not only in the world but in the history of the world, that 49 million people shouldn't be left in the cold and we shouldn't have people who have employer-based health care facing doubling of premiums every 10 years. We shouldn't have people being dropped and rescinding everything else for preexisting conditions.

Let us have our values and form our behavior. We have a historic opportunity right here in front of us.

Because we are running out of time--the gentlelady from Texas has just joined us--we're going to give her an opportunity to share her experience on this tremendous fight that we're in right now.

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Let me thank the gentlewoman from Texas. It was great to get her in at the end of this Progressive hour.

I just want to say that I just got a message which says, I'm a health care worker who continues to see people come into the hospital who are sicker than they should be due to no insurance.

With that, I think the gentleman from Colorado is probably going to have the last word, but I just want to say this has been the Progressive hour. We come here week after week to talk about progressive values that make America better and stronger, and we're going to continue to do that.

So I yield to the gentleman, and I think you'll probably take us out.

We might have about 10 more seconds, but I just want to say this has been the Progressive hour. I am so honored to appear with you great Members, with you great servants of the people.

I believe we're going to get a public insurance health care option with major health care reform. The time is now. Let's not back down.

We yield back.

Mr. Speaker, as the proud Representative who represents the district of the Minnesota Twins, I made an arrangement with my good friend Joe Serrano about the outcome of the Minnesota Twins-Yankees series, and on October 11th, the New York Yankees defeated my beloved Minnesota Twins in the American League Division Series.

Before I begin, I made the agreement with Representative Serrano with full expectation that the Twins would prevail. But that didn't happen. So keeping my word, I just want to come to, quote-unquote, sing the praises of the Yankees. And, let me tell you, it is not going to be easy.

Ten times the Yankees and the Twins met this year, and ten times the Yankees were victorious. They were undoubtedly the better ball club this year, and I am sure that in the coming weeks, Joe Girardi will fulfill the promise he made when he picked his uniform number to bring the 27th championship to the Bronx.

Good luck to the Yankees. Congratulations. Your victory is further testimony to why you are the most storied baseball franchise in Major League Baseball.

Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison, and I'm a Congressman from the great State of Minnesota, and I'm honored to claim this Special Order, this 1 hour, for the Progressive Caucus to talk about the values of Progressive ideals, the values associated with a progressive America in which people are included and which we believe in generosity, where we believe in valuing people, where we believe in civil rights, care for the Earth and creation, where we care about living in a world in which middle class people, working people, the hardworking people of America and the world can have a prosperous life and where people can do well.

The Progressive Caucus, designed and approved and coming together to signal to the American people that in Congress there is a body of Members of the Congress who are willing to stand up for the values that have made America great, values such as workers' rights, such as the weekend, such as the 5-day week, such as work and safety laws, such as worker's compensation, such as Social Security.

These are all progressive steps forward, such as civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, such as the respect for all religious groups and religious tolerance in our country.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, our focus has been on health care because health care is such an essential component of what it means to be a middle class American trying to put food on the table for your family. Health care, if we can correct health care, the disparities in health care, the cost increases in health care, if we can correct health care 60 years in the making, we can improve the quality of life for all Americans and thereby enact a piece of legislation that is on the order of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the passage of the Medicare bill, which helped millions of seniors all around our country live a life of quality, and ended seniors who lived a life of poverty and of insecurity.

This bill, which is right within our grasp at this time, we are so happy to be able to step forward. And I just want to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that it's an honor to be joined by such a courageous Congressperson as Congresswoman Diane Watson from the great State of California, who for years and years has been sticking up for progressive values, never backing down, always there for the American middle class and working class people.

So we are going to talk a little health care tonight. I am going to yield to the gentlelady to make a few introductory remarks, and then maybe she and I can have a little colloquy as we move on in the evening.

I yield to the gentlelady from California, Diane Watson.

While the gentlelady yields back, let me thank her as well. The fact is that by bringing this important story about the Bakewell family--well known throughout the country, particularly in Los Angeles, but really all over--it shows that health care reform is something that everybody needs. It is not something that some people have to worry about and some people don't; it's something that all Americans have to focus on because none of us are immune.

If you don't have health care, then you are among those 59 million Americans who are just going to bed every night hoping and praying that you don't get sick; and if you do, you know you're going to be in for a very difficult time.

And you may be among those 250 million Americans who have either employer-based health care or have health care through either Medicare or Medicaid or VA or something like that, a government-run program. In that case, you know that your employer-based health care has seen premiums double in the last 10 years and are likely to double in the next 10 years. So no matter whether you're among the uninsured who need change or the insured who need change, we all need change. And so it's critically important that we bang the gong and keep it up and don't back down on this important issue.

If I may--and I invite the gentlelady to ask me to yield at any time, but I just want to make a quick point before we do.

We have been joined by the gentlelady from Maryland, Donna Edwards, who is a clear voice on this issue, who has been creative, who has been consistent. And we just want to let the gentlelady from Maryland make some remarks as we begin this hour so that we can sort of get into our colloquy.

Certainly.

Would the gentlelady yield?

What was that number again?

Nine.

Well, the gentlelady is in rare form tonight. I really appreciate everything you laid out. Excellent.

I just want to add to your observation about the AHIP report, which is an acronym for America's Health Insurance Plans. Here is what the people who really study the stuff had to say about this particular industry report.

AARP had this to say: The report is ``fundamentally dishonest'' and ``not worth the paper it's written on.'' Those are the words of John Rother of AARP, executive vice president of policy and strategy.

You mentioned PricewaterhouseCoopers, which participated in preparing the report. They're running from the report. They're like, Hey, we didn't know. I don't blame them, because it is deceptive.

Also, PricewaterhouseCoopers said Monday, AHIP, the report that we've been referring to, that industry report, had instructed it to focus on only some features of the bill while not taking into account other major features, such as the effect of subsidies for those

buying insurance. So they didn't even tell their preparer the right information to consider.

Why would they not fully disclose and be transparent about that? The report threatened that if the bill became law it would result in an increase in premiums for an average family of four by about $4,000 a year. Now, this begs the question: Who would be increasing these premiums? The very people who issued the report saying the premiums are going up.

Furthermore, the report says that the cost of private health insurance would rise by 111 percent over the next decade. Who would be increasing these premiums by 111 percent? The fact is the very people who are saying the prices will increase for buying health care insurance are the ones who are in charge and who are in control of raising these prices.

Reid Cherlin, the White House spokesman, said ``this is a distorted and flawed report from the insurance industry and cannot be taken seriously. This so-called analysis appears on the eve of a vote that may eat into some of the insurance industry's profits. It conveniently ignores policies that will lower costs for those who have insurance, expand coverage and provide affordable insurance options to millions of Americans.''

I'm not done quite yet.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of White House Health Reform, says that she was surprised by the report because she had just met Mrs. Ignatti, the one who has been doing a lot of the selling of this on TV, and she vowed to work together. So that may be regarded as somewhat misleading. It's important to remember that virtually every wild, erroneous claim made regarding health care reform has been debunked as false.

Let's go on back to the summer. I ask the gentlelady to take a walk back to August. You'll recall, Madam Speaker, that we were talking about death panels. This was all the rage--death panels. We were talking ``death panels.'' Yet, when you look at the bill, it's simply Medicare saying we will compensate doctors to talk about end-of-life decisions, which is a good thing and a wise decision. It's about dignity. Everyone wants that for their loved ones when they're in their final days of their lives.

Also, we then heard about illegals. It's going to be all about illegals. We debunked that myth.

Then we heard about a government takeover until somebody said, Wait a minute. Doesn't government already administer Medicare? They're doing pretty good. Ninety-six percent of respondents say they like Medicare, so maybe government knows a little bit about administering health care. Doesn't government already play a significant--not just administering the VA, they actually hire the doctors and provide the care. That is truly a single-payer system. That's government-run health care if there ever was, and you'd better not try to take health care away from our veterans, because they won't tolerate that. So then they had to move away from that.

Then we heard that it is only about the uninsured. Wait a minute. We find out premiums have been doubling over the last 10 years and are expected to double again. So now the insured, the people who have employer-based health care, say, wait a minute. We need reform, too. We have to have reform, and we cannot tolerate being rejected and excluded for preexisting conditions and tolerate discrimination, which will affect young women the most.

So Americans have been peeling back the onion of falsehood time and time again. As the gentlelady from Maryland pointed out, the public option still is standing stronger than ever. It's almost as if, the more they attack it, the stronger it gets.

I just wanted to point out: Who wants the public option? Well, doctors want a public option. Nurses want a public option. The majority of Congress wants a public option. Faith communities want a public option. President Obama prefers a public option, and the American people do.

If you look at what doctors want, most doctors support the public option. Sixty-three percent of doctors say both the public and private options are what they would prefer. Sixty-three percent reported that they would like both public and private options. That's what the House bill is calling for. You have another 10 percent who said just a public option. That's all we want. So, if you add the 63 and the 10, you end up with a full three-quarters of doctors who say they would like the public option.

So I guess my question to the gentlelady from Maryland is: Why does the public option keep coming up strong despite these relentless attacks--the $4 million this year and the $7 million last year? What explains this?

I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, but the gentlelady should know that when you're hot, we've got to give you the ball, and you were. So thank you.

Just a few points.

I would like to point out that people have contacted us in the Progressive Caucus and different Members individually and let their views be known about how people feel. And I just want to point out that historically--and I think that there was a perception that the Progressive Caucus may have stood up for good values, may have fought the good fight, may have talked about inclusion of everybody, a society based on generosity, the beloved community, middle class prosperity, all of the good things, but when it came down to really sticking to the guns and saying, You know what? We're going to stand up for what we believe in, there was some doubt that that was the case.

And I just want to say that the Progressive Caucus has dug in for the American people. I am proud of what the Progressive Caucus has done. I am proud of the leadership that we've seen from the Progressive Chairs, Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Grijalva, because this perception that Progressives are going to cave has been dissipating because Progressives have been holding firm. This is the Progressive message. This is a Special Order of the Progressive hour.

And I just want to say that the Progressive Caucus has made it clear, the leadership has made it clear to the White House, made it clear on all fronts, that if you want our votes, you're going to have to do what's right by the American people; and that is to include the public option which doctors want, which the public wants, which everyone wants. It was not simply a simple temper tantrum. It was not saying we want it because we want it. It was because the American people needed a public option. So the Progressive Caucus stuck to it and didn't back down. I think it's important to make this point. Because the Progressive Caucus really is a caucus that's unified not by culture, not by color, not by faith, not by gender, but by values. And these values are really being reflected in the advocacy around the public option, around true health care reform.

I just want to make that point clear to the folks who are tuned in tonight, Madam Speaker, because I think that it's important that folks know that there are people in Congress that are fighting for them. This is not the time for cynicism. This is not the time to say, well, you know, the industry is going to get their way again. No, they're not, because there are people here in the Congress who are hearing the call of the public interest.

I'll yield to the gentlelady on that note.

The red zone.

If the gentlelady will yield, I just want to say, as the gentlelady is offering her observations, it's reminding me that we are at a propitious moment in history. The fact is we are at a moment of history. We are hearing the call of history.

I wonder if the Speaker knows--do you know that it was Roosevelt, President Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt who first said we need universal health care? It was Truman who repeated the call. It was Nixon, even, who talked about health care reform; although, he did some things to undermine it. And it was, again, President

Clinton who really worked hard to try to get health care reform.

This fight is decades in the making, and we are closer than we have ever been. We have reported out five bills in the Congress, so we're almost there. We're not far away. And so it's important that the American people hang in there, that they continue to be hopeful and expect success and that it's important to understand that success breeds success.

And as we pass health care, we will be able to really implement more policies that help working Americans, help the working class, the middle class Americans, help the environment, help us be a Nation that is at peace with the rest of the world, help us promote civil rights for all Americans and to leave no one out, to exclude no one, to stop policies of fear, of demonization, of exclusion. And this is something that offers very, very great promise for our Nation.

As I begin to wind down, I just want to make a few other observations that I think are very, very important, because I think it's so critical that we keep our focus on where it really should be.

And I am one who, you know, believes that when a group of constituents vote a Member to this auspicious body, that that person has something to offer. But I also want to say that elections have consequences. When you cast a vote and you send one party or the other to represent you, you have the right to expect that that party is going to deliver. And the Democratic Party, led by progressives, is delivering at this time.

I want to also say that new policies clearly underscore that the congressional party opposite is not in touch with the American people around health care reform. A new poll from Quinnipiac just released today further illustrates how Republican leaders of Congress are out of touch with the American people.

Just this morning, a leader in the party opposite said the public option has been resoundingly rejected by the American people, but look at the numbers that are coming out regarding the public option. On the wrong side of history. I recommend the rank and file come join the Democrats in passing health care reform. But as this new poll and others in recent weeks have all shown, Americans support a public insurance option in health insurance and in reform legislation.

This new Quinnipiac poll I mentioned said that 61 percent of Americans support a public option. The Wall Street Journal/NBC says 73 percent of the population supports a public option. The New York Times/ CBS says 65 percent of the American public supports a public option. The Kaiser Family Foundation says 58 percent of the American people support a public option.

Other findings of the Quinnipiac poll say that Americans trust President Obama more than Congressional Republicans to handle health care reform, 47-31 percent; 64 percent of those surveyed disapproved of the way congressional Republicans are doing their job, including 42 percent of Republican voters. And it's important for Republican voters to know that they have a choice and that they should vote effectiveness: the people who are getting it done, not the people who had the White House and the House of Representatives and the Senate from the year 2000 to 2006 and didn't do anything other than veto the State Children's Health Insurance Program, that's what they did; but people who, within a few months, are already within the grasp of true health care reform.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, that this moment in time is important. It is as important as any other piece of historic legislation that we have seen.

It's clear that the health care industry is in the final throes, final throes, and it is demonstrating a level of desperation by issuing this industry report which clearly is fundamentally flawed and clearly shows that it's dishonest and deceptive. And even the drafters, PricewaterhouseCoopers, don't want to claim it. Experts say that it's wrong.

So we've heard about the death panels. False. We've heard about the school sex clinics. False. We've heard about government-run health care and accusations of socialism. False again. We've heard about immigrants taking over health care. False. And now the truth is really, really standing clear. Truth crashed to the Earth will rise up. That is what has happened.

It's important for Americans to take heart, to take hope, to help support the passage of true health care reform and to understand that if we can pass health care reform, if we can win this 60-plus-year-old battle to get health care reform, then there are other battles to be fought and other mountains to be climbed and greater things that this wonderful people can produce for the American people, that America can live out its progressive value system and can say that we are going to expand opportunity for more Americans. We're not going to demonize and vilify Americans who happen to be of a particular racial group or happen to be not born in the United States or we're not going to turn them into somehow ``the other,'' we're going to continue to embrace more people as this great country has done progressively over its history.

We're going to say that we're going to live in harmony with creation and not just use it as just a fungible commodity to be burned and polluting the air and destroying the seas and acidifying the ocean. Big things await the American people, but it's important that we get over this last piece of true reform to get this momentum moving.

Madam Speaker, I will yield back at this time and close out the progressive message. Thank you very much.

I want to thank the gentlelady from the great State of Ohio for doing such a wonderful job talking about health care, our seniors, talking about all these critically important issues facing our Nation right now.

As the gentlelady is very well aware, we are at the very edge, at the very moment where we can have real health care reform for all, or maybe not. The reality is that we are optimistic. We are closer than we have been in 60 years, closer than we were in 1994, closer than we were when Roosevelt first said all Americans should have health care and have health and wellness, closer than we were when Truman said we need universal health care coverage.

We are close. We have five bills reported out, three bills through the House, two bills through the Senate. And right now, Americans all around the country are saying, will the Congress finally do it?

Do you know that upwards of 77 percent of Americans want real health care reform? They want health care reform with a public option. They want real change, and it's time that they get it.

But I wanted to mention to my friend from Ohio, the great Congresswoman Fudge, we all need health care reform. The fact is that when health care reform arrives, it will benefit communities of color more than it will other communities. It will benefit everybody. Everybody who will never be turned down for a preexisting condition will benefit. Everybody who has seen their premiums double over the last 10 years and will probably see them double in the next 10 years will benefit. But when you look at the startling disparities people of color are facing every day, I think that they will benefit more.

Just to let everybody know, the fact is that, yes, it's true, life expectancy for the average American has gone up. But for average African Americans, it still lags behind about 5 to 6 years. For African American men, it's not even 70 years old yet. African American men, on average, can expect to live to be about 69. Their counterparts can expect to live to be about 75. Now, imagine a child being born at the age when their grandpa is 69 years old. That means that if that child is African American and their grandfather is, they may never know grandpa.

But if we really address health care disparities, maybe we can get African American men up to 75 years old. That means that they will get a chance to bounce on his knee, get to know him, get to talk to him, get to learn something from him, maybe learn how to go fishing. It's a quality of life issue, more years. Addressing that cervical cancer earlier means grandma will be around longer.

Most of us, if you grew up like I did, know that mom and dad had to be tough on you because they had to raise you right. But there is one person who you knew thought you were absolutely terrific no matter what you did, and that's grandma, right?

I will yield to the gentlelady.

Well, I accept the gentlelady's yielding because it's important that when we talk about health care--you know, Mr. Speaker, we talk about statistics. And we drop stats, and we're talking about statistics and numbers and all of this stuff that we talk about. But we can never forget we are talking about human beings' lives. We're talking about human beings having more time with each other. We're talking about, as we said, your grandmother being there; and yet because of health disparities, inequality in the area of health, she is not being there. And how enriched a human being is by having that generational exchange.

These are just little examples of what we're talking about. And that's why Democrats are pushing forward on health care. That's why the Black Caucus is pushing forward on health care. That's why we need all Americans who care about a better quality of life to be pushing forward on health care. We can't survive with the status quo. Literally, we cannot survive with the status quo.

I yield to the gentlelady.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I mean, the point is that part of this bill says, if it's enacted into law, that, you know what? You will not have to pay a copayment for preventative services. We want you to engage in preventative medicine.

Get your sugar checked. Get your blood pressure checked. Come on in here and let's make sure that you get a prostate or a mammogram. The fact is these are the things that are going to keep you around here longer and will save the system money in the long run. These things are so important.

And I just want to give folks an example. In the year 2004, just a few years ago, African Americans had the highest age-adjusted causes of death rates for all races and ethnicities. In addition, African Americans have the highest age-adjusted death rate for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, HIV and AIDS. All of these things would be addressed if we can pass this bill and keep those things in the bill that address health disparities. That's why we need people to step forward and do the right thing and support this bill.

You know, the American people have called for change, but I just want to let folks know that the change that we're calling for will help all Americans. And while it might not help some executive insurance companies, it will everybody else. And when everybody else gets helped, this rising tide will lift people at the bottom higher, and it will help extend their lives and improve the quality of their life.

At this point, I am going to have to turn it back over to the gentlelady. She has been doing such an excellent job, but I just want to say thank you for doing what you can do to raise the consciousness of the American people because the American people want change, they want optimism, they want people who will fight for change. They don't want folks who are going to give us the same old thing, because we can't survive with the status quo; but with change, we can.

Madam Speaker, we are here again for another evening with the progressive message, the message that comes to the House floor Thursday night to talk about a vision of America not based on fear, not based on things that are not true, but a vision of an America where we stand up and we include everybody within this vision. No matter what color, what culture, or what faith you belong to, America is a place for you. We bring people from all parts of the world who bring and make up this great American vision that we're talking about, a progressive vision where middle-class and working-class people can actually have policies that help them, a progressive vision which says we can have health care for all. We can have true health care reform which allows Americans to partake of the great wealth of this country for the benefit of their health. A progressive vision says that America can live at peace. We don't have to be in war after war. We can have a policy of peace which develops our relationship with the rest of the world based on diplomacy, development and things of mutual benefit.

Today this is the progressive message, and we are glad to be here with the progressive message sponsored by the Progressive Caucus.

Tonight, what is the topic? Guess what, surprise, health care. Today we have two great advocates and leaders, and I am so honored to be on the House floor today with two good friends and leaders, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and also the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) of the Ways and Means Committee who is also a physician, both with us today. I want to invite both of them to offer some remarks as we get started on the Progressive message today, focusing on health care reform, patients before profits.

Congressman, Doctor, what are your thoughts?

Are there death panels? I yield back.

Are there school sex clinics?

It is part of what has been going on. You saw August. You try to have a civil conversation, and them some people would show up and try to disrupt the meeting. Why would they want to disrupt the meeting when all we are trying to do is have a civil dialogue about the future of our country and the future of health care.

Why are we hearing about death panels? To scare seniors.

Why are we hearing about sex clinics? To scare parents.

Why all this stuff?

Let's get Chairman Conyers in the conversation. He looks like he is digging out some facts. I just want to pose the question to you gentlemen: Why, why, why are we hearing about all of this fanciful, made-up stuff that is on the Web and anybody can look up the bill and say, that ain't so? Why are we hearing all this stuff?

Scare tactics.

I yield to Chairman Conyers. Welcome to the Progressive hour, the Progressive message, patients before profits tonight.

If the gentleman would yield, can I just point out that I have a chart here that I think does shed some light on the situation. Because a lot of the dialogue we've been having, quite frankly, is focused on the uninsured.

But let's take a moment to talk about the insured, the folks who actually have insurance, the people who have anxiety about what could happen to them if they lose it, if they get sick. Because you know, if you get sick, that's when they don't want you on their insurance anymore, right? Cumulative change in single and family health insurance premiums, that's what you pay, what comes out of your check every 2 weeks or every month--and the Federal poverty level.

We've been seeing that the level of poverty has been rising, but look at this dramatic increase in the family premium. This family premium has jumped up 130 percent from 1996. This is real money coming out of the paychecks of real families all the time. People say we don't need reform and say that we're trying to scare people with fake death panels and fake school sex clinics and all this kind of stuff. The fact is that this is what the average family is living through, and this is impacting people who pay premiums, which means they have employer-based health insurance. What are people to do about this dramatic situation as they're facing trying to make ends meet in their family budget?

I yield to either one of the gentlemen.

Oh, yes.

This is from 1996 to 2006.

If the gentleman would yield, if you look back at this chart, ``National Health Expenditures Per Capita.'' That means that we take all the health care expenditures and divide them by the number of people. So the average amount of health care expenditure for the average person--look at these numbers. This is what actually happened, and this is what is projected to happen.

If we look at 1990, going back to 1990, what we saw was about $2,814 per capita, per health care expenditure per person. This is 1990, the year I graduated from law school. If you go to this one, 2009, it's $8,160. Look at how this has more than doubled since 1990. As a matter of fact, this has nearly tripled.

The fact is these expenditures are galloping higher. If you look at the projected rate, we're up here. By the year 2018, it will be $13,000 per person. This is ridiculous.

Now, there is another chart I want to show you, and this chart is a chart that looks at different countries. So you look at this blue here. The blue is the United States; and then we have the red, France; the green, Canada; the

purple, Germany; and then this aqua color, the United Kingdom. Back in the year 2000, we were up here at $4,570, way above everybody else. If you look at Germany, they were second, but everybody else was in the low 2,000s or higher 1,000s. This is the industrialized world.

Now, if you flash forward to here, in 2006 we're up around $6,714. We're still way above everybody else, but look at how we are compared to ourselves over time. The American family can't sustain this. Why do we cost so much more than everybody else? It's time for a change. It's absolutely time for a change.

I yield back to the gentleman from Washington State.

Reclaiming my time, I'll cite another example of that.

We hear a lot of people saying the solution to the problem is that we should just let people buy and sell insurance across State lines, and they offer this as something that's supposed to fix everything. But what they don't tell you is that 34 markets around the country have markets where one to five insurance companies are offering products and that's about all there is. Like in Alabama, as the President mentioned, one company dominates 90 percent of the market.

So basically they want to say, well, if you can go from Ohio to Minnesota, then the fact is that they think that's going to solve the problem. But if you have a monopolized market here and a monopolized market there, you still don't have a whole lot of choice. You still don't have a whole lot of people willing to offer you very much.

And how come these markets are so monopolized? Because it's extremely difficult to break into a market and build up a provider network, a doctor network in order to be able to compete that way. So they're saying you can compete with this monopoly and that monopoly and it's not going to solve anybody's problem, it might be a small part of some solution somewhere. But the real solution is single payer, which is why I'm on the bill, but a good medium solution is a strong public option, and we have got to have people fighting for it.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for making the point so very clear that there are winners and losers in the health care roulette that we have going on in our country, and it would be nice to hear from some of those people who seem to be coming up roses all the time to explain exactly what's going on.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could cut in. I just want to read very quickly before I hand it over to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, that I have somebody from Minneapolis who wants to tell me that their family--it says actually this, ``We are in foreclosure, housing foreclosure, health insurance is $600 a month for a family of five. We applied for a loan modification and were denied.''

You know, this is a big deal. This family is dealing with this situation. ``Even with a loan modification, we still would not be able to afford our mortgage because of the cost of our health care insurance.''

This is what a young lady trying to put food on the table is dealing with in my district right now. And I just think that her voice deserves to be heard as well.

So with that, let me yield to the gentlelady from Texas and note that we have about 12 minutes left of our time, and it has been a wonderful hour.

And the gentlelady from Texas, let me welcome you to the floor, and I yield to you for your remarks.

And by the way, thank you for bringing people together next week to let the people be heard.

I yield to the gentlelady.

If the gentlelady will yield, I have one more I want to show to you.

Another gentleman named Patrick who says, We have a 19-month-old daughter with congenital heart problems. We're self-employed. She was denied coverage. We pay $14,000 a year.

If the gentlelady and the gentleman will yield.

We are down to about 1 minute.

So let me just say--because you will have the last word--this is the Progressive Caucus coming to you week after week for a progressive version of America where we're all included, we're all a part, health care for all, peace now, environmental sustainability, and civil rights for everybody, health care performed, patients before profits.

I yield to the gentlelady and the gentleman for their last words.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Joint Community Police Project (JCPP), an initiative of the Hopkins, Richfield, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center Police Forces in Hennepin County, Minnesota, for being selected by the International Association of Chief's of Police (IACP) as the winner of the 2009 Civil Rights Award.

The IACP is made up of over 20,000 law enforcement members at command level in 89+ countries. This is the first time the JCPP has received programming recognition from the International Association of Chief's of Police.

These four aforementioned cities live the value of civil rights through the actions of the Joint Community Policing Project--which strives to enhance communication and understanding between police and multicultural residents to improve public safety and livability in the community.

I invite all the members of Congress to join me in recognizing the excellent work of these four fine Minnesota police forces of Hopkins, Richfield, Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park for reaching out to new Americans within our cities and providing the services, hospitality, and valued information to make them welcome, active participants in our community.

In 2009, I proposed and Congress approved a $100,000 appropriation to continue the work of the Joint Community Police Partnership. One example of their work can be seen in Hopkins, where some of the appropriated funds enabled JCPP to hire a Somali college student to work as Public Service Officer for

the Hopkins Police Department. Already they are witnessing a powerful positive reaction by the young immigrant children when the youth see this young man in a Hopkins Police Department uniform at the schools and in their apartment complexes. In addition, funds from this appropriation are being used to bring in successful Somali women from the community to speak to the school club, to mentor them in making positive choices, help build their self esteem, and counsel them to avoid involvement in gangs.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my personal congratulations to the Joint Community Police Partnership for being a model of excellence both in our country and abroad.