Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, what a glorious day and a great time to be in Congress. We have an opportunity to preside in this 111th Congress when we pass comprehensive health care reform with a public option.

You know, the fact is that millions of Americans are looking forward to the day when they don't have to worry about being excluded for a preexisting condition, when they will have true portability, when we can unlock the true entrepreneurial talent of America because people will be able to go and pursue their entrepreneurial dreams without fear of losing health care.

The fact is the other team, look, they had their day. They tried and all we have gotten is sicker at a higher expense, and we've been dying earlier. We haven't seen better outcomes with status quo health care, and people who stand for the status quo, they have had their shot and their time has run.

So, Mr. Speaker, thank you for presiding today. This is a good day to stand up for comprehensive health care reform and a strong, robust public option.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a World War II veteran from Minneapolis, Minnesota, Mr. Henry E. Bauer, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on July 15, 2009. Every American who served in the military during World War II has a unique story, and Mr. Bauer is no exception.

He joined the Army Air Corps on June 5, 1942, at the age of 33. The desire of our country's youth to serve in the war was unprecedented and like so many others, Mr. Bauer answered the call of service to protect our nation at a time of great need. Henry landed at Omaha Beach on D- Day, June 6, 1944, little more than a month away from his 35th birthday. He was discharged as a Staff Sergeant after the war and returned to his family and friends on November 21, 1945.

At the age of 100 years, his life is a testament to the fact that we can all accomplish amazing feats regardless of age or station.

On behalf of myself and the residents of Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District, I want to offer Mr. Henry E. Bauer the thanks of a grateful country and community and the best wishes for a very happy 100th birthday.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

It's important to get the facts out as to what this foreign assistance is. This is simply American-to-Saudi joint military training. This is an opportunity for Americans and Saudis to work in concert so that we can continue to build a bridge with our historic ally so that we can be in a better position to influence Saudi society and we can learn from them what they have to offer.

The fact is that this particular amendment does not bring America safety, doesn't bring it security. It brings it the opposite.

This new administration, this new Congress is about opening a new era of foreign policy, a new page in diplomacy that is smarter, more respectful of other countries, more appreciative of our allies. Saudi Arabia is one of the most important allies in the Middle East.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is one who proposed the Arab Peace Initiative, which has recently been endorsed by the Arab League. President Obama himself expressed support for this initiative in the early days of his Presidency.

I would go on, but I do want to yield time to a distinguished Member from Florida, Congressman Crenshaw, who is here today to offer his views on why this amendment is not good.

Before I yield to the gentleman, let me say that the 2008 U.S. State Department Country Report on Terrorism praised Saudi Arabia in Saudi counterterrorism practices, credited Saudi cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism efforts as significant, and characterized Saudi anti- extremism initiatives as aggressive, directly contrary to the gentleman from New York's representation of what Saudi Arabia is doing.

I urge Members not to perpetuate prejudice, but to try to build a bridge of understanding with the rest of the world.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am Keith Ellison and I am a Member of the Progressive Caucus. It is late and the hour is moving toward when a lot of people are looking to retire for the evening, but we have to talk health care. Before I do, let me introduce the Progressive Caucus message that we have for people tonight. The Progressive Caucus message is we come to this Chamber every week to talk about a progressive vision for America.

What is a progressive vision for America? It is a vision, Mr. Speaker, in which people can live free of discrimination; people can live in harmony with the Earth; workers can work with dignity. Workers can have respect and safety on the job and earn decent pay. Where all Americans can have health care and enjoy the benefits and the bounty of this great country of ours.

A progressive vision, a vision similar to the one that Martin Luther King had for our country, a vision similar to the one that the great Rachel Carson, author of ``Silent Spring,'' had for our country. A vision similar to one which Walter Reuther, a great labor leader, had for our country, a progressive vision which embraces all, which includes all, where human beings live in harmony, free from fear who do not disrespect or abuse our environment, believe all people have dignity, and we should have health care so people can have a decent standard of living.

This is the progressive vision that we talk about with the progressive message and it is what we do when we come to the House floor to talk on this House floor about what we believe in.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the group that I speak for tonight. This is our Web site, Mr. Speaker, which is cpc/ grijalva.house.gov.

What are we talking about tonight? We are talking about health care reform, patients before profits.

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I think this presentation could not be possibly more different, it could not possibly be more different from the hour you just heard because the hour you just heard a moment ago talked about what we couldn't do, who couldn't get care, why we have to have the status quo, why things have to be the way they are and why we cannot have reform. That is what you just heard, horror stories and fear-mongering like we have been hearing for many decades.

It was the same thing in 1994. Remember the Harry and Louise ads? Oh, the government is going to take your health care away; the government is going to make medical decisions for you.

It is not true. Don't fear. The American people should not fear health care reform. The American people, 300 million strong, know that 50 million, nearly 50 million of our number, are without any health care at all. The 250 million who do have health care know that the private insurance companies have been reaping enormous profits while you've been paying higher deductibles and higher copay, and you have been paying higher premiums and you have been being denied coverage for preexisting conditions. The time for change is now.

I think for the first time in a long time, real change is right within our hands. Mr. Speaker, if the American people have a will for a greater level of health care, for a greater level of quality of life in which all Americans don't have to go to bed at night afraid that they are going to be without, this is the time for them to raise their voices.

I think a few things are important to know, and that is, just like as in 1994, the scare tactics that we just heard and will probably hear again tonight are in full force. And if the American people don't step forward, you don't know which vision of America will prevail: a progressive vision where all Americans have health care and access to care that says prevention, that says long-term care, that says we are going to have a public option which we desperately need, or this situation which leaves 50 million Americans out with escalating costs and preexisting costs which doom people to a medical nightmare. We will talk more about that in a moment.

First, I want to say that the fight is on. It is raging. It is happening. And if the people want to be heard, Mr. Speaker, they need to be heard now.

Let me say this: in the first 3 months of 2009, in the first 3 months of 2009, the Chamber of Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, played lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote their interests. Okay, you didn't hear me: $22.5 million to lobby people like me, Mr. Speaker, to not give the American people health care, to keep the status quo, to let it be how it is, to let these preexisting condition exclusions continue on, to leave 50 million Americans out in the cold, to continue the increasing premiums and these ridiculous copays people are having to pay.

You didn't hear me? The first 3 months of 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, laid lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote their interests; $22.5 million in January, February, and March.

You think that is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker? It's nothing if you compare it to the amount of money they made by denying Americans health care, by denying enrolled Americans health care, as they have been doing and saying we don't cover that. And by reaping all of these excessive profits, oh, $22 million is a rounding error for them, but it is an enormous amount of money for us.

Monday, July 6, The Washington Post said: Familiar players in health care bill lobbying.

The largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired Members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues.

That is not quite one for every Member of Congress, but it is nearly one for every Member of Congress, and that is just counting the former Members of Congress and former staffers. Just to try to twist an arm to say leave the status quo as it is.

Three out of every four major health care firms have at least one former insider on their payrolls, according to Washington Post analysis. Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for key committees and lawmakers currently debating whether to adopt a public insurance option which is opposed by major industry.

So they are getting people who used to work here to try to stop progress and keep us from a progressive vision because they care more about profits before patients. We, in the Progressive Caucus, care about patients before profits.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health care industry. This is according to The Washington Post, record- breaking influence peddling campaign by the health care industry. You know, Mr. Speaker, you may have been dazzled, shocked, and amazed by what you saw in 1994 when they in fact killed health care. Now they are pulling out all of the stops, and they are going to make sure that they set a record in the amount of influence that they are trying to campaign for to defeat health care reform.

They want the status quo. We want a progressive vision. Mr. Speaker, just hold onto something because this number might stagger you: $1.4 million a day, nearly $1.5 million a day to stop health care reform by paying lobbyists, and this is just according to what has been disclosed in their records. So $1.4 million a day just to lobby against health care reform? Yes.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the American people want health care reform, they better say something because $1.4 million a day can speak pretty loud.

The Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America doubled its spending, nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer with more than $6 million. If they are right, if this system is good, why have they spent all of this money? Can't they just let the facts speak for themselves? No, the facts need to be adjusted for them.

The Post examined federally required disclosure reports submitted by health care firms that spent more than $100,000 lobbying in the first quarter of this year, and it used current and past filings to identify former lawmakers, congressional staff, and executive branch officials.

This is a quote: ``The revolving door offers a shortcut to a Member of Congress to the highest bidder,'' said Sheila Krumholz, who is the executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled some of the data used in the Post analysis. Here's her quote-- and this is really a shocker, Mr. Speaker: ``It's a small cost of doing business relative to the profits that they garner.''

So again, $1.4 million a day seems like a whole lot of money to me, but when you think about the money that is reaped from the status quo in their denial of claims, in their denial of preexisting conditions, and all of this stuff, it's really not a big deal at all.

Mr. Speaker, let me show folks just what this profit is doing. Projected spending on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product, Mr. Speaker, has been doing nothing but going up and up and up. If you look at just projected costs in 2007, we're talking about an enormous upward slide from about 15 percent upward to nearly 50 percent if these numbers are projected to 2008. Medicare going up and Medicaid going up, but those lines are relatively flat. If you look at all the other health care costs, it's just jumping up. This is spending, and whatever I spend, somebody else makes. This represents the enormous amount of money that will be made under the status quo, and it represents why they're willing to drop $1.4 million a day just to defeat the real change that we need.

Mr. Speaker, let me just also point out a few other facts that I think are important. We have a growing number of Members of this body, the House of Representatives--many of whom are Progressive Caucus members--who are saying they won't vote for any plan unless it includes a public option. I'm one of those. I know I've been accused of being doctrinaire, of drawing a line in the sand and not being flexible. Well, they're right; I'm flexible, but not on

this. No public option means a red vote, which means no for me.

We've got to have a public option. We have to have it. And I'm proud to say that Speaker Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and leaders in this body have said that we're going to have our public option. And it's because people out there have raised their voices, Mr. Speaker, and the people in this body haven't let the people in America down and they've stood up for change.

But it's not just in the House, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to say that Members of the other body, Senator Russ Feingold, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Chuck Schumer are standing up and speaking out for a public option right now. Senator Feingold, Senator Sanders, and Senator Schumer haven't been quiet, Mr. Speaker; they're trying to make sure that we get this public option through the Senate as we work for it in the House.

What we really need, Mr. Speaker, is for Americans to let their voices be heard. Because if they say, Oh, well, the leaders in Congress got it all under control, that's exactly when we lose it. The American people are like the wind that pushes the boat through the sea. I don't care how big your sail is, how pretty it is, or what you put on it, if there's no wind, it doesn't move. And that's how this democracy is going to work.

As I praise Senator Russ Feingold, let me tell you what he said on June 18 that deserves our respect, Mr. Speaker. Senator Feingold said, ``A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy private market and effective private insurance plans. We have several insurers that operate in my home State of Wisconsin that provide great health coverage to their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits of their plans, but a strong public health insurance option will provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to reevaluate their own cost-sharing and benefit plans to ensure that they are actually an attractive option for consumers.'' That's what Russ Feingold said, Mr. Speaker.

And he went on to add, ``There is another benefit of a public health insurance option which hits particularly close to home. My hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin''--that's Russ Feingold's hometown--``has one of the highest unemployment rates in the State of Wisconsin. Recently, our GM assembly plant ceased production, and other related businesses throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these tough economic times.'' Of course these challenges are shared by many other communities across the State and, I would add, across the Nation.

Back to the Feingold quote. ``A public health insurance option would be invaluable to families in Janesville and many other cities across America who have recently been laid off because it is a guaranteed affordable option that can travel with an individual from job to job. A public health insurance option would also make a tremendous difference for our small business owners who are facing crippling health care costs while trying to keep their businesses open.'' That is the great Senator Russ Feingold as he spoke passionately and convincingly about a public option.

I just want the American people to know, Mr. Speaker, that in the House of Representatives and in the Senate there are leaders who have heard the cries of the American people, who have heard the demands for change, and who are going to stand up for a public option. And Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a second to say thank you to all those Members in the House, but also these three Senators--Feingold, Sanders and Schumer--and many others who have gone on record for a public option.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to share a few other points that I think are real important at this time as we've just discussed this critical thing. The fact is is that what we need is a real focus on patients, not profits. The way the health care proposal is working now in the draft is that there are basically three prongs.

One is, employer-based health care insurance. If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. Don't listen to that stuff you heard in the last hour, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, you get to keep your health insurance if that's what you want.

Two, people who are over 65 or who qualify for Medicaid can get health insurance. Those folks who are in those government programs already can share in that benefit.

But the third option is this exchange where private insurance plans and a public option will be available for people and people can bid on these options and purchase their health care. There will be a subsidy up to about 400 percent of the poverty guidelines.

We would ban the exclusion of people with preexisting conditions. And there is a proposal that anyone who wants to put their plan in that exchange would have to have a medical loss ratio of about 85 percent, which would mean that actual health care delivered to people, the money would have to be 85 percent of their overall budget, and that 15 percent would be on administrative costs and other things like that. Medicare already does a whole lot better than that, and so does the VA.

So that's basically an outline, Mr. Speaker. That's basically what it is. But I just wanted to make sure that we really hit this idea of this public option tonight.

Our system wastes roughly about $700 billion on treatments and procedures that cannot be shown to improve health outcomes right now. A public option would make charging these kind of fees to just generate money something they really can't afford to do because you've got real competition that's not driven by a profit motive but is driven by quality health care.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we need ways to drive waste out of the system and we need ways to make private insurers really compete with this public option, which they do not.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurance companies are not required to compete with each other. They have an exemption from antitrust laws, and therefore can legally collude. And so we need this public option so that we can make them actually compete.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to get up here and tell you or anyone else that health care costs in America are crushing America's businesses and families, but I will offer a few examples. Our manufacturers spend more per hour on health care than do their counterparts in Canada, Japan, and the U.K. combined. What I'm saying is that if you have a company that is international in scope and has places in Canada and subsidiaries in Japan and the U.K.--that's England and the United Kingdom--their American manufacturers spend more per hour on health care than all these other subsidiaries combined.

That's making America noncompetitive and putting us at a competitive disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker, I bet you didn't know, and maybe you did, that health care costs for small businesses have grown 30 percent since the year 2000 alone. We need health care. We need a public option. The average family premium costs $1,100 more per year because our health care system fails to cover everyone. The average individual premium costs $400 or more. Mr. Speaker, we need a public option. We need health care reform.

In 2004, half of all people filing for bankruptcy cited medical problems as a cause. That's half. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have got a chart right here where this is definitely an out-of-date figure because it's much higher than half now. Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies, according to a recent study. Washington Reuters, that's the news company: Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just 6 years, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday. More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but were still overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Medical Law School, Harvard Medical School, and the Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

``Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000 or 10 percent of pretax family income,'' the researchers wrote. ``Most medical debtors were well educated, owned

homes, and had middle class occupations.''

Mr. Speaker, this scenario is what the speakers in the previous hour were trying to defend. Is that not crazy? That is not what the American people want. That is not what the American people deserve. The speakers in the previous hour were literally defending this system and standing in the way of reform.

A few more facts, Mr. Speaker. In 2008, just last year, half of all people filing home foreclosures cited medical problems as a cause. Again, medical problems and our broken health care system deeply implicated even in the foreclosure crisis. The fact is high costs lead to people losing coverage, and 14,000 Americans are losing coverage every day in the midst of this economic crisis. The numbers are staggering, and at some point your eyes just gloss over it and you can't really hear them. So sometimes numbers don't even bring as much light to the subject as one would want. But let me just say 14,000 Americans are losing coverage every day in the midst of this economic crisis. Why? Because as unemployment creeps toward 10 percent, when you lose your job, you lose your health care because we have an employer- based health care system.

Mr. Speaker, again, a serious problem. Last month 400,000-plus jobs lost by Americans. Every one of them is either dealing with no health care or has to carry an enormous COBRA payment on their back. Mr. Speaker, that's not good. And 60 percent of Americans say that they or a member of their household have delayed or skipped health care in the last year.

Mr. Speaker, we need to reform our health care system. I hope that's obvious to everybody. Actually, you and I both know it's not obvious to everybody though we wish that it was. But let me just talk a little bit about it for a moment. I will bring back up this poster, Patients Before Profits.

Mr. Speaker, reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs. Ensuring timely access to affordable, quality health care, making sure everyone has access to preventative care will help keep the American people healthy and allowing workers to change jobs without worrying about losing health care. Imagine being stuck in the job you have, and maybe you don't even want to be there, but you can't leave because you've got health care.

Mr. Speaker, I talked to a dear friend of mine whom I have known for many years, many years, Mr. Speaker. And I know you know what I mean when you've known someone for years and years and years, but there is something I didn't know about this friend of mine when I had a health care forum in my district in Minneapolis a few weeks ago. I won't mention this friend of mine's name because I'm going to protect her privacy, but this friend of mine whom I've know for years, I didn't know this fact about her. Let's call her Ann. That's not her name.

Ann, after a health care forum that I held in my district in Minneapolis in which 220 people showed up because they demand health care reform, waited around after everybody left after the health care forum and said she needed to talk to me. And I said, Ann, sure, I'll take a minute and we can talk. And this is a strong woman. She is not someone who is easily given over to tears, but she was in tears. She's only about 37, 36 years old, and she has a beautiful family, and she's just a great person all around. Anyway, Ann sat me down and she looked me straight in the eye. And when she looked me in the eye, Mr. Speaker, I knew she was serious, serious, serious. And what she said to me, Mr. Speaker, was this: I'm on my job and I have health care insurance at my job, but members of my family, including my sisters and my mom, have had breast cancer. And, Mr. Speaker, she told me that she is afraid to go get a test to determine whether she may develop breast cancer because if she gets this test, Mr. Speaker, then a health care company might decide she has a preexisting condition and then drop her from the policy. But if she doesn't go find out, Mr. Speaker, if she might develop breast cancer, she can't get treatment that she needs that may save her life one day. And she's a young mom. She's only about 37, 36 years old, and she has kids whom she's trying to rear. So, Mr. Speaker, imagine being in the case where you can't go get the test to find out whether you have breast cancer because if you do, that's going to be a preexisting condition, and yet you can't afford not to do it because if you don't do it, like your mother and your sister, you may develop breast cancer.

This is the system that these folks who are standing in the way of reform are trying to preserve. And, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong. It's time for reform to take place, and the time for reform is now.

Reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs. Reform will alleviate the burden on our economy by creating more efficient insurance and a delivery system which will reduce waste and allow a more rational financing system where everyone contributes instead of shifting costs from some people onto others. Reform will alleviate the burden on business that has been hindered in their ability to compete because of these enormous health care costs.

Mr. Speaker, we have got to have a public option. I explained the public option a moment ago. A public option is just one of other health insurance coverage programs that will be offered on the exchange. But, Mr. Speaker, the public option needs to be understood. What the public option is is giving the uninsured an option to enroll in a public health care plan that's like Medicare. The public insurance option would compete directly with health care insurers. Why are they afraid to compete? What are they scared of? The uninsured individuals would get to choose which plan is best for them, which could be a private one or the public option.

Why is having a public option so important? A broad array of research has confirmed that a public health insurance option is a key component of cost containment because it will introduce more competition, something conservatives say they like whenever it makes them exorbitant money. It will lower administrative expenses. I talked about the medical loss ratio a moment ago of 85 percent. I have a bill personally that will raise it to 90, which I think would be better.

Medicare would still outcompete them because they can do better than that and drive cost-saving innovation. According to research from the Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative costs for Medicare and Medicaid were 5 percent and 8 percent respectively. That's why I think a medical loss ratio of 90 percent would be good. They should be able to do it. Mr. Speaker, if you look up the top five health insurance companies, their administrative costs were 17 percent, and the average administrative cost for private insurance is 14 percent. The fact is, they're inefficient, they like it that way, and they don't want to change. But a public option would make them change.

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi and to the Democratic leadership, clearly stating that a robust public option must be in the mix. This year in the Congress we must act on health care reform, and that health care reform must include a public option. We believe that only a health care plan with a robust public option will provide more Americans with greater access to treatment and doctors with less interference and obstruction from big insurance companies and other profit-driven special interests.

Mr. Speaker, if you listened to the hour just before I came on, you heard people spinning scenarios and imaginary ghosts and demons and goblins in the air in which a patient would have a government bureaucrat--their words--in between the doctor. Well, that hasn't happened. That's imaginary. It's not going to happen. But now today a patient has to deal with a bureaucrat in an insurance company before they can get the medical treatment that they need. Their claims have been excluded. Some bureaucrat has said, ``Oh, we're not going to approve that.'' ``Oh, we're going to deny that.'' ``Oh, we're not going to allow that procedure to happen,'' even though a doctor has recommended it. That's reality. What they were talking about an hour ago was fantasy, and it's kind of like on the Freddy Krueger order, nothing but a nightmare and a horror film.

We urgently need to fix health care for American families. Every day Americans worry not simply about getting well but whether they can afford to get well. Millions of Americans wonder if they can afford the routine care to stay well. Premiums have doubled over the last 9 years, three times faster than wages. The average American family already pays an extra $1,100 in premiums every year for a broken system that supports 46.5 million uninsured Americans. We need the change for American business. Soaring health care costs put American companies at a competitive disadvantage in a global economy. Small businesses are forced to choose between coverage and layoffs. That's a choice they should never have to make. But what about the fiscal future of America? We have the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend almost 50 percent more per person on health care than the next most costly nation, and we're no healthier for it. We're spending all this money, but we're not healthier for it. If you look at national rankings of Americans' health and wellness, we're not at the top, although spending is at the top. We're at the bottom when it comes to diabetes, when it comes to heart disease, when it comes to cancer, when it comes to all these critical things. What are we going to do about it? We'd better step up and do something, and that something cannot wait. If we do nothing, in a decade we'll be spending $1 out of every $5 on health care. In 30 years it will be $1 out of every $3. Health care reform is necessary, and it's deficit reduction because reform will drive down costs.

What we want to offer is cost reduction, choice, security and quality. President Obama and this Congress want to reduce health care costs and offer people a choice of doctors and plans and guarantee affordable quality health care for all. That's what we're trying to do. This is an American solution. You always hear people talking about what they do in Canada, what they do in the U.K., what they do in France. We're not talking about any of those countries. We're talking about a uniquely American solution. We are not trying to be like anybody else, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, 36 other countries in the world and every industrialized country has national health insurance. We don't. That's why their outcomes are better and their costs are lower. But we're not comparing ourselves to some other country. We're not talking about what other countries do. We're talking about an American solution that will ensure every child in America is covered, that will invest in prevention and wellness, where we'll ensure that doctors and nurses get the information they need to provide individuals with the best care available and never again will your coverage be denied because of a pre-existing condition or your age or your gender or ending a system where profits come before people and millions go without vital health care. Never again. Never again should we make life or a job decision based on coverage, and never again should we let our families suffer financial catastrophe or bankruptcy because of these high costs.

Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to the point where we're probably going to wind up in not too long; but I do want to just make a few more points before I take my seat. One of the things I want to do before we take our seats is just to point out the fact that scare tactics and fear tactics have not served the American people well, not back in 1994 when health care was defeated then, and they won't work now. We've learned a lot since 1994, and we're not going for it. The fact is, health care is a social imperative. It's an economic necessity. And the new study by the President's Council of Economic Advisers demonstrates that the current health care system is on an unsustainable path. Without reform, escalating health care insurance premiums will continue to cause American workers and families to experience eroding health care benefits and stagnating wages while rising spending on health care and Medicaid will lead to massive unsustainable Federal budget deficits. The fact is, we need change.

I just have a few more points to make, and then I will hand it over to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I don't know what they're talking about; but if they talk about health care, I want you to remember what I said, Mr. Speaker, because these facts are critical, and we cannot allow anyone to scare us away from the reform that is necessary today. The fact is, the American people want change, and they're going to get change, and they're going to be much, much better for it. The fact is that we do need this public option. We do need health care reform. The fact is that we do need the change, and we can't allow it to be denied. It's time for the American people to raise their voices, Mr. Speaker, if they want to be heard. I talked about my friend Ann--whose name isn't really Ann--but I talked about her fear of going to get that test to determine whether she has breast cancer or not because, as I said, if she gets the test, she could be denied for a pre-existing condition or dropped from her insurance. And if she doesn't get the test, she won't be able to get the treatment that she needs to fight off that breast cancer. She's in a terrible position. But she's not the only one.

I want to talk about a few other folks before I yield the microphone. I want to talk about Mary from Minneapolis. Mary says, ``My daughter needed her wisdom teeth out. At the time with insurance we were told to pay $375, which we did. Then I got billed for over $1,000, resubmitted, and eventually the amount was reduced to $750. Meantime, my husband had no paycheck. I have calcium deposits in my back which make it difficult to walk. I can't afford the copays, so I'm waiting until it is so bad that I can't walk.'' That's what Mary from Minneapolis said which is the status quo, which some people in this body want to preserve.

Denise from Minneapolis says, ``I find more and more often that my family and I are skipping doctor visits for preventive care or when we would have made a visit to the doctor in the past, but now can't afford the copayment to be seen. This is especially true for childhood illnesses as well as allergy visits and medication, dental problems that could potentially be very serious, and injuries that, in reality, should be checked out by a doctor.

``My family is insured, yet because of our current employment situation combined with rising health care costs, it has become out of our reach to have the kind of care that we have enjoyed in the past. I feel we are being left behind for an inability to be able to bear the burden of the cost. This may mean that we will pay dearly in the future for things that could have been prevented or less serious had we been able to see a doctor initially.'' That is Denise from Minneapolis.

Here is Janice from Golden Valley, Minnesota, also in my district: ``I have worked every day since the day I turned 15, and I am currently 51, married with two teenage children. I have a college degree. We have always lived a balanced and frugal life. We do not take exotic trips and mostly buy generic groceries and thrift or discount store clothing. I do not and never have smoked or drank. And I have been in my job for over 20 years, yet I bring home less and less each year due primarily to health care premiums and costs. Health care premiums and copays cost about 25 to 30 percent of my income. Health care premiums cost me more than my Federal, State, Social Security, union dues and retirement plan deduction combined from each paycheck. The increase has been so great that we have stopped being able to contribute to savings for about 4 years ago. The one thing I fear more than anything is me or a family member getting sick because of what treatment will cost even beyond the premium costs. When I have a strange new sensation in my eye, or vein hurting in my leg, or dull pain in my chest, I just pray it will go away on its own because I'm afraid of what it will cost me. We pay out so much for health insurance, yet we cannot afford to really even use it. And I feel even worse for those who have no health care insurance at all. This reflects so badly on what America has become, a place where only the wealthiest survive and the profit by the few takes priority over the basic needs of all.''

Janice, I want you to know that we are fighting for patients before profits today.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, about Anita from Roseville, which is

not in my district, but it is very close by. Anita says, ``I work for a public school and my husband stayed home with our daughter. We started paying family health insurance in 2002 at $10,000 out of pocket. This year, we are paying over $12,000 out of pocket, and our copays are $40 and $50 per visit. Our daughter is school-aged now, but my husband started looking for work when the economy took its downturn last summer and still does not have a job. Health insurance costs severely limit our quality of life by using up our disposable income.''

Let me talk about Priscilla from Minnesota. Priscilla says this: ``I got on my husband's insurance after the job I had discontinued coverage for me. We paid over $500 a month for this coverage. I had health issues that came on suddenly with breathing problems. It took several hospitalizations and ICU care before they finally figured out what the problem was. My husband's insurance refused to pay for any of it, calling it a ``preexisting condition.' ''

And by the way, these would be banned under the plan offered by Democrats.

``And we were left with a medical bill over $25,000 to pay ourselves. This was at the same time we were spending $500 per month on premiums. The provider sent our bill to collections. It has been a nightmare. My husband is now disabled, and we have no coverage, yet his condition requires regular CAT scans and nine different medications to make sure his condition is stable.''

I urge my colleagues who stand in the way of reform to listen to these good, decent people. They deserve better. They deserve better. Let's not worry about what the Chamber of Commerce and what PhRMA want. Let's worry about our constituents and the patients of America.

I'm going to just read one more story from Doug, Mr. Speaker. And then after that I will make some closing comments.

``I recently refilled my mail-order prescriptions. I get as many generics as possible. However, I am a diabetic, and both types of my insulin are not generic, neither are blood pressure medication nor a cholesterol medication and glucose test strips. My insurance company in a bid to force generic drugs have made them `free' for mail-order while nongenerics doubled in price. So I had to choose which ones I didn't need. I chose the glucose test strips because I can buy them over the counter for the same price and `ration' them by testing less than I should. I'm still spending more money than I can afford, and I am afraid that my bank account will be overdrawn. If that happens, I will not be able to afford food or gas for myself and my son. I could borrow from my elderly mother, but it looks like they will be losing their insurance coverage from a failing car company. I have a good job with good benefits.'' That is what Doug said.

His last line was: ``I have a good job with `good' benefits.''

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more stories, and I hope none of the constituents will be disappointed because I wasn't able to get to every story. But we got a bunch of stories on our Web site and stories people submitted to us, Mary from Minneapolis, Denise from Minneapolis, Janice from Golden Valley, Anita from Roseville, Minnesota, Verona from Mora, Minnesota, Mary from Minnesota, Priscilla from Minnesota, Maria from Minnesota, Cynthia from Minnesota, Doug from Minnesota all calling in, sharing very courageously their health care nightmare that they need to be relieved of.

They need reform, Mr. Speaker. And the time for change is now. They need reform, Mr. Speaker, and the time for change is now.

Let me wrap up my comments by just saying that it is wrong that in the first 3 months of 2009 that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and PhRMA paid lobbyists to combine $22.5 million to promote their interests which is to thwart reform of health care. And it is also very disturbing that The Washington Post had to report recently that the Nation's largest insurers have hired more than 350 former government staffers and retired Members of Congress in hopes of influencing us to thwart reform. And it is actually disgusting that the health care industry is spending more than $1.4 million a day lobbying to thwart health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Progressive Caucus who has a vision of an America where people who are sick can go to the doctor, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Progressive Caucus that has a vision that we all can have decent, affordable health care, I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to think about these decent people, Anita, Janice, Priscilla and others, because surely in their districts they have people just like these good people who need change.

Let's say ``yes'' to the American people, Mr. Speaker.

It has been an hour appearing here on the House floor with the progressive message and with the Progressive Caucus message. Mr. Speaker, people can communicate by going to this Web site, cpc.grijalva.house.gov to let us know how they really feel.

Madam Speaker, for the entire legislative day of June 18, 2009, I have an excused absence to attend my son's school graduation. If I were present, I would have voted ``no'' on Rollcall votes No. 356, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 389, 391, 393, 395, 397, 399, 401, 403, 405, and 407.

I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall votes No. 357, 358, 363, 365, 371, 384, 388, 390, 392, 394, 396, 398, 400, 402, 404, 406, and 408.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the drafters of the resolution. I think it is carefully drafted, and I think it is clear that the universal values of freedom that are expressed in the resolution are done with a great amount of prudence, and I think that's right.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people don't need to be told there is a health care crisis in America. They're the ones living it every day. They're the ones who, for decades, have seen the price they pay out of every paycheck for health insurance skyrocket while their coverage has shrunk or has been denied altogether. They've seen the increasing copays and premiums.

We can give every American a choice. We can offer an alternative to the mountains of medical debt that so often lead to bankruptcy. We can offer an alternative to the fear that they or their children might be denied a doctor visit simply because it is more profitable to deny them coverage than to see them get well.

I want to encourage all Americans to stand up to the same fear- mongering attacks that have prevented them for decades from getting the health care they deserve. We can offer a public option that helps all Americans. I implore the American people to remember that we are not the country of ``no, we can't.'' We are America, the country of ``yes, we can.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to do two things: one, to offer condolences and thanks to the family of Officer Johns for his brave sacrifice and, also, to point out that Officer Johns dedicated his life to protecting the staff and visitors of an institution dedicated to remembering both the depths of human depravity and the heights of courage and bravery, as we must understand that the Holocaust Museum was not simply a place to remember loss, awful loss, but also courage in standing up to great adversity.

May we all celebrate the life of Officer Johns and of the 6 million Jews who were murdered and memorialized

in the Holocaust Museum by going to the Holocaust Museum, by supporting that museum and by showing defiantly that we will not be cowards and that we will not be deterred from standing up for what is right.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Progressive Message. The Progressive Message is the Progressive Caucus' effort to come before the American people at least once a week for 60 minutes or so to talk about a progressive vision for America. Not a vision based on fear, not a vision based on a denial of science, not a vision based on division, not a vision based on scapegoating some minority group. But instead a vision that is inclusive, that says we all matter and we all count. A vision that says science is something we should rely on and have some faith in and some real confidence in because we understand that whether you come from a faith tradition or whether you don't, we have minds that we should use and it's human nature to discover and inquire and find out the facts.

A vision that says that, yes, we are entrusted with this Earth and we, as human beings, are responsible for it and that where we have gone astray, we should try to correct the situation for the sake of our children and all life on the planet.

A progressive vision where we come together every week and talk about things like civil rights, equal opportunity in the economy; where we talk about the struggle to end global warming, or at least try to slow it down; where we come and talk about progressive issues like peace, like demilitarizing our society, like promoting dialogue, diplomacy, and development, by trying to resolve war through dialogue and not through conflict and fighting. These are the themes that we come together with the Progressive Message every week.

This is the Progressive Caucus that brings this message. And we have a Web site, cpc.grijalva.house.gov. It's very important to stay in touch with this critical Web site because it is this Web site that we rely on to communicate with the community around the country.

Tonight with the Progressive Message, we are going to come and talk about our Nation's energy future. America has to embrace this idea that carbon emissions must be cut and must be cut drastically. It won't due just to act like there's no such thing as global warming and deny the science that proves that not only does it exist but it's caused by human behavior. We are here tonight to say it doesn't make sense to say that, look, we can't do anything about global warming because it might in some way hurt our reliance on coal because some people make a lot of money selling coal.

If coal and the use of coal is out of step with the needs of our environment, then we have to find alternative sources of energy in order to make it. If nuclear energy cannot be safely used and there's no way to store it, we should look for other ways and incentivize other ways in order to make energy.

The fact is by whipping out fear, hysteria around cap-and-trade and coming up with clever slogans, which I am not even going to repeat or dignify, the fact is that we are simply delaying the inevitable, which is the gradual acidification of our oceans; the acceleration of melting of our Arctic ice caps; of expansion of desert; of loss of species, of animals, and plants; of intensification of hurricanes and all these very serious problems. The scientists all agree. Only people who don't want to listen to science don't agree, and, yes, we have some of them here.

The fact is addressing carbon emissions, addressing global warming, is not going to hurt our economy. It's going to actually bring jobs. It's not going to hurt our farm economy. And it's certainly not going to be the devastating thing that some people on the other side of the aisle claim that it is. The fact is tonight I just want to talk to people who know that global warming and the acidification of our oceans is a very dangerous and serious problem for all the world and want to do something about it for a change, want to do something serious about it and are not willing to just let this Earth continue to heat up and the oceans continue to acidify and the species continue to die out and the ice in the northern and southern regions of our world continue to melt.

People who want to do something about it, we have a bill that's been marked up and it has been reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We need to hear from you on this bill.

The fact is that right now we have been in Congress focusing on the health care bill. We have been focusing on marking up other important pieces of legislation. And I personally am not confident that we are focused enough on this energy bill. We're not focused enough on the cap-and-trade bill that's coming out. So we want to encourage people to respond and offer their views.

And I want to say this: those of you who yearn for change, who know that carbon emissions are killing our planet, I hope that you understand that your engagement in this process is very important. We need people to give us the feedback we need because there has been a bill reported out. It's not the law yet. It hasn't even been brought to the floor yet. But it is being shaped and crafted every day. And without the active engagement of good ideas coming forth, we will not get the bill that we need.

I want to give a lot of credit to the Members of Congress who have worked hard on the bill. Congressman Waxman and Congressman Markey have been doing a good job. But I dare say that the legislative process is engaged, involved, and that everybody has to have a say-so in this thing. And those two leaders in the area of carbon emissions have not denied that. In fact, they have welcomed it.

I just want to give a background on the bill that exists so far. It's called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and it's referred to ACES. And this bill was reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21, 2009, and it passed by a vote of 33 to 25. That's not a big margin. The legislation will create millions of new clean energy jobs, in my opinion and based on the facts, and it will enhance America's energy independence and protect the environment.

Another thing that the bill will do is it will signal to the world community that America is serious about cutting carbon emissions. America is leading the way in the world to cut carbon emissions. And, therefore, countries like India and China and other nations of the world that are big emitters, and

we're the number one emitter, but there are others that emit a lot of carbon as well, they now have to bring their economy in line with the needs of our planet.

This bill does represent a new beginning for America's energy environmental future. By saying so, I don't mean to imply that it's a perfect bill or that it can't stand improvement--I'm asking you to help improve it right now--but it does represent a real stark departure from the past.

The bill requires electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by the year 2020. It reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17 percent by 2020. It reduces carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments and preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve a significant additional reduction in carbon emissions.

The bill invests in new clean-energy technologies and in energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy that is to the tune of $90 billion in new investments by 2025. It invests $20 billion in electric and other advanced technology vehicles. It invests $20 billion in basic scientific research and development, and it protects consumers from high energy prices. According to estimates of the Environmental Protection Agency, the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than the cost of a postal stamp per day.

The fact is I don't come before you today to say that this bill is wrapped up in a bow. I come to you, asking you to engage in the process that is going on in Congress right now, to be part of this debate, to be part of this dialogue, and to offer your views so that we can come up with the best product available.

I also come to you to say do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we have a good bill here--and it is pretty good--even though it's not perfect, we want your support, and we want your ideas, but it's time to engage and to focus on this energy bill. It's coming. It's marked up in committee. It's in the Ag Committee now, and it's going to need American participation and input.

I want to let our fellow Americans know, who are committed to cleaning up our environment and to decreasing our dependence on harmful fossil fuels, that the Progressive Caucus is proud of the progress that the legislation has made so far. We don't believe that it's done--it's not close--but we're proud of the progress that has been made. We want everyone to know it's not finished and that your input is needed. There is much work to be done.

While we consider this particular legislation as a good start and as a foundation to build on, we are continuing to push for greater expansion in the creation of clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar. We are continuing to push for the increased regulation of industries that pollute at taxpayer expense, and we are continuing to put America back to work by creating green-collar jobs that cannot be outsourced.

The general Progressive principles for energy legislation are going to be that we need a sharp departure from the past, that we need to move quickly to secure greater progress, that we need to protect individuals as well as communities, and it has got to be based on science and not on politics.

Now, I just want to say again that these are some of the basic ideas of what the bill will do. I'm going to talk about some of the mechanics of the bill in a moment, but I want to make it clear that the fact is that what we have had in the past simply will not work. We've got to have that change. In order to have that change, we've got to have a lot of public input, and this is the time to offer it.

I just want to take a few questions as we move on because a lot of people have responded to my plea that we should have a fully blown, strong conversation around America so that people can offer their views on this critically important topic. There was a question asked at Progressivecongress.org, and 4,887 people asked this question:

Why is EPA oversight of the coal industry being gutted?

Well, let me say that the reason those provisions regarding the EPA oversight of the coal industry are not strong enough is simply because we haven't heard from you enough. We need input on this point. We need you to talk about how you feel about this. We need oversight on everything, but we need your input on what we should be doing to have oversight on coal, and we need your input on how this bill needs to be changed to make sure that the coal industry is being properly monitored. This is a critical thing for you to talk about--I know--and I can tell you that coal-fired power plants are, in my view, a serious problem.

I think it's a basic minimum that they have the technology necessary to clean them up as much as possible. The fact is, even with the best technology we have so far, we still have coal releasing particulate matter into the air--lead, barium, cadmium, mercury emissions, and serious things like that--and into our water that make our fish polluted and inedible.

We've got to have oversight on coal, and I am here tonight to ask you to get engaged in this debate, to get involved in this conversation and to put your ideas up here. Why is the EPA oversight of the coal industry being gutted? You know what? It's because we're not engaging in this debate and are not shaping this debate. It's because we're not calling our Members of Congress and telling them what we want. So I ask you to do that. It's very important that we engage in this conversation. It's ongoing now.

I'll get to more questions in a moment, but let me just speak a little bit about what some of the key provisions of the bill will be. We've talked about one of the provisions that people are concerned about.

Key provisions of the bill include requiring electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020. Now, that is one of the provisions of the bill, and I thought I would make that point before I got to the next question, and 1,871 people asked this question:

Why is Congress refusing to support Obama in his call to get 25 percent of our electricity from renewables?

The bill marked up so far is 5 percent lower on the renewable energy standard than we need. I think 25 percent is a better number, and I hope that we get it, but without political force behind it, we won't. So call up your Congressman, and let him know how you feel about a 25 percent renewable energy standard.

I'll tell you this: Based on the history that we've had so far, I'm happy with the 20 percent renewable energy standard. A 20 percent renewable energy standard is better than the status quo, but it's still not good enough, and it's not as good as we can do. So I think it's very important that we hear from everybody about the importance of a 25 percent renewable energy standard. It's very important that we hear from people about why that 5 percent higher and more ambitious standard would be better than the 20 percent. I think it's obvious why it would be better than the 20 percent. It's 5 percent higher. Yet what does it give us? What does it bring us? What kind of assets and benefits do we get by pushing for that higher renewable energy standard?

At the end of the day, we need to hear from everybody on this point, and we need to hear from you. If we don't hear from you, we're all going to be poorer for it.

Another key provision of the bill is that it invests in new, clean- energy technologies in energy efficiency, including energy efficiency in renewable energy, carbon capture sequestration, electric, other advanced technology vehicles, and in basic scientific research. In this category of investment, we're talking about a significant investment. We're talking about over $190 million. This is a lot of money. The fact is, because the proceeds will be from the cap-and-trade system, this bill is PAYGO neutral. It's very important to bear that in mind as well. The bill will mandate new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances and industry.

Addressing this issue of buildings is very important. A lot of people know, and more people need to know, that a tremendous amount of energy is lost

through the roofs of our buildings. We need stronger building standards, and we need more energy-saving technology and incentives to get us there with this legislation. If you believe they're not sufficient, we need to hear from you right now. There was a question asked:

Are initiatives for future government buildings to be built green? If not, why not?

The answer is we do have initiatives for future government buildings to be built green. We also have other bills separate from this bill in Congress to incentivize the building of green homes, particularly in HUD homes. There is a bill winding its way through Congress now, and the author of that is Ed Perlmutter from Colorado. I'm an author on that bill, and I'm happy to be. So that bill, called the GREEN Act, is a very good bill.

Another important part of the bill is to reduce carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17 percent by 2020 and by over 80 percent by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in this legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions.

Now, again, this is another important piece of the puzzle. The United States needs to do its part. I hear many friends--well, people from the other side of the aisle--always say: Well, what about China and India? What about Europe? What about other places? The fact is, if America sets a marker down there that we are going to cut our carbon emissions, that sends a powerful signal; it enhances our ability to talk to our neighbors around the world and say they've got to cut theirs, too.

So I am very proud that America is leading and is trying to be out there in front and is doing the right thing and is not simply saying, We're not going to change our carbon emissions until other countries change theirs. To me, that's not the American attitude. The United States needs to take responsibility and help lead the way. So it's very important, and I'm very happy that the United States is taking its own responsibility to reduce carbon emissions by U.S. sources by 17 percent.

Let me talk about the renewable energy standard in the bill. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, ACES, as I said before, requires retail electric suppliers to meet a growing percentage of their load with electricity generated from renewable sources. The combined renewable electricity and electricity savings requirement begins at 6 percent in 2012. That's coming up. It gradually rises to 20 percent in 2020. At least three-quarters, 75 percent, of the requirement must be met by renewable energy except that, upon receiving a petition from the Governor, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can reduce the renewable requirement to three-fifths, or 60 percent. In 2020, 15 percent of the electricity load in each State must be met with renewable electricity and 5 percent with electricity savings. Upon receiving a petition from the Governor, the renewable requirement can be reduced to 12 percent, and the electricity savings can be increased to 8 percent.

It is important to keep this in mind. This is sort of an essential part of this bill, the renewable energy standard that we've set forth. Can it be better? Yes, I think it can, but we need to hear from you to make it better. As I said, this bill is being marked up and is going through committee as we speak, and it will likely be on the floor before you know it, so please don't miss your opportunity to be a part of this conversation. It can't just be a Beltway conversation. It has to be a conversation that engages Americans from Minnesota--my own State--from California, Oklahoma, Texas, and from all over. We've got to hear from America. We've got to hear from America's progressive community on these issues.

Let me also talk about the importance of this bill. We talked about the investments in clean energy, and we talked about the money allocated for that. I did not mention yet that this bill will promote the deployment of smart-grid technology, and it will enhance transmission planning. This is an important part of the bill. This smart-grid technology and the promotion of the use of it will help cut carbon emissions. It will help in having a more reliable grid, and it will improve our energy usage, which is an important part of our bill.

I mentioned energy-efficiency measures, which include building standards. As to one of the questions we already had, which was regarding our initiatives for future government buildings to be built green, and if not, why not, the ACES bill establishes new standards for building efficiency, requiring new buildings to be 30 percent more efficient by 2012 and 50 percent more efficient by 2016. States are offered allowances that they can sell to support the adoption and enforcement of the new standards. The Department of Energy must enforce standards in States that do not incorporate building standards into their State building codes.

Also, we have appliance standards. ACES mandates new efficiency standards in lighting products, in commercial furnaces and in other appliances. We have vehicle standards. The ACES discussion draft has included provisions to harmonize Federal fuel economy standards with EPA carbon emission standards and California standards for light-duty vehicles. These provisions were dropped in the reported bill after the administration reached an agreement on light-duty fuel economy standards with automakers in California.

That's not all. There are other fuel-efficiency standards. We not only have to reduce emissions--and this bill tries to do that. Does it do it enough? Probably not. But guess what? We need your input and your advice.

The bill also has three primary programs for reducing dangerous carbon emissions that cause global warming: One, a cap on large domestic sources; two, a program to reduce tropical deforestation; and three, an offset program.

Let me talk a little bit about the carbon-capping emissions from large sources.

Starting in 2012, ACES establishes an annual tonnage limit on emissions of carbon and other global warming pollutants from large U.S. sources like electric, utilities, and oil refineries. Under these limits, carbon pollution from large sources must be reduced by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020; 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. This is an aggressive carbon-capping program, and I am proud that we've come this far. I think we can do better, but this is, I think, progress. If it's not enough progress, I think we need to hear from you.

So these are just a few of the features of the bill. The bill is being marked up. You can see it online. And we hope that people will continue to offer their views on what we should do.

Let me go to another question. So 3,455 people asked this question on progressivecongress, that's 3,455 on progressivecongress.org. What is being done to decrease our dependence on oil, such as wind, solar, and other clean energies?

Well, that's what the bill is supposed to do: decrease our dependence on oil and allow us to generate energy from wind, solar, and other clean energies. That's really the point of the bill, through the renewable energy standard, by capping carbon forces, by promoting efficiency and also conservation. That's what we're actually trying to do here.

The fact is there are a number of critics of the existing bill, and I want to address a few of them before I go on to some more questions.

One of the critiques we've heard, particularly from other folks on the other side of the aisle, is that a cap-and-trade bill is an energy tax. First, the plan is to repower America with clean energy jobs and efficient savings, not just drop a tax. As for capping global warming pollution, this plan is simple. It helps polluters pay and helps clean companies prosper so they can hire more workers.

When the folks on the other side of the aisle say that this bill will be a job killer, my only question to them is, Don't you believe in the ingenuity of the American people? You know, they said when we had auto efficiency standards that it would somehow kill jobs. Well, it didn't. They said that when we began to stop acid rain and use cap-and-trade for that purpose, that that would cause job losses. It didn't. The fact is is that innovation and ingenuity--when brainpower will solve this

problem--and I think we should have a little faith in Americans to solve this problem.

And as I said a moment ago, it's the same solution we put successfully with acid rain in 1990 after which time electricity rates fell 10 percent and the U.S. economy added 16 million new jobs.

They're thinking inside the box and don't understand that we've got people who are thinking of new boxes to make. It's important to point out that the acid rain solution had bipartisan support and was signed by the first President Bush. Well, those days of bipartisanship I guess we would like to see come back a little bit more.

Another attack on the bill is won't this ``energy tax'' raise electricity rates. Even Obama said cap-and-trade will make energy prices ``skyrocket.''

Saving consumers money is not a tax. Saving businesses money is not a tax. Sending $400 billion dollars a year to other countries is a tax, and the fact is, it's a tax that Americans are tired of paying.

This plan, this ACES bill, even in its unfinished form, declares energy independence and puts America on the path to middle class recovery. The President spoke of transitioning to a clean-energy economy that will create jobs, make homes, buildings and vehicles more efficient, and protect consumers. In his inaugural address, remember he said we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and our factories, and I'm glad he's doing that.

Let me offer just a few numbers in terms of jobs. Clean-energy job provisions, the RES, or Renewable Electricity Standard, will create over 300,000 new jobs. The efficiency saving measures, which is the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, will create over 222,000 jobs by the year 2020. Cutting waste, saving money. The Clean Energy Jobs provisions, RES standard alone, will result in nearly a hundred billion dollars in savings for consumers and businesses, which we can put in other things, which we can invest in other ways. And the efficiency measures alone will result in $170 billion in utility savings by 2020.

It's very important to understand that the fear and the scare tactics--people who don't want to take us into the future are always going to try to say what's going to cost money, this is going to go wrong, that's going to go wrong. That's the very essence of a conservative position. They don't want to try anything new. They would rather stay in the status quo than go forward into a better future. But the Progressive vision for our country is not that. The Progressive vision is to deal head-on with this problem, face the problems head-on and create a better situation for all Americans.

Let me just say that this bill, which has been criticized by folks on the other side of the aisle, really is, in many ways, a bill that, of course, is designed to scare some people, because the only solutions we've seen while the House was controlled by Republicans is tax breaks for oil companies who posted record profits, massive increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and erratic spikes in gas and energy prices.

We know that gas prices have been going up over the last several months, but don't you remember only a short while ago they were astronomical last summer, 4 bucks, stuff like that? Well, they're creeping up.

If we go green and really address the greenhouse gas emissions, what will happen is we will see a flattening of these kind of spikes in our energy prices. We will derive savings, and we will have alternative forms of energy and greater control over oil prices.

Marginal increases in renewable energy development. While the rest of the world engages and passes us on, we haven't seen real increases in renewable energy development, just tiny little incremental ones, and a greater dependence on foreign oil.

The fact is is that since 1973, America's dependence upon oil from outside of America has skyrocketed, has absolutely skyrocketed. And this period, much of which was between 1994 right on up to 2006, the House was controlled by Republicans, and for much of that time they had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and did nothing about this problem; it just got worse. Now we are going to do something about it.

So tonight, we've spent some time talking about energy. The message tonight is twofold. One is that the American Clean Energy Security Act is being developed now. It's a sharp break from the past. It's better than what we have now. It improves the status quo. But Progressive voices have never been satisfied with just doing marginally better. Progressive voices have always said we've got to do way better, we've got to do as well as we can do, not just as well as what we might be able to scrape by with. So I invite people who have a vision for a clean energy future to step forward with their proposals.

The other point is that is not just limited to the bill. It's focused on the idea that this is an opportunity for basic civic engagement and real Democratic participation in our society. As we are now having multiple debates not only on health care but also on foreign assistance reforms, the State Department--as we're talking about appropriation bills, which are probably going to keep us really busy over the next 3 days, the fact is we will be addressing this ACES bill as well, and we cannot allow the advocates for a clean energy, green energy future to not be a part of this critical conversation.

So let me just go through a few more questions, and then we'll begin to wrap up for tonight. It's Thursday night and we're going to move on out, but let me just make sure that everybody who wrote in and addressed our Web site, as we asked them to do, gets their question answered.

What can we do to make it easier for homeowners to become self- sufficient with wind or solar power? We could support the provisions that are in the ACES bill, which address heavy polluters, give American entrepreneurs and innovators the tools they need to stay competitive, which increase production of cleaner renewable energy sources, which reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and creates millions of new jobs. And we can follow the new building standards and we can follow the new vehicle standards.

Why can't we create better tax incentives for business and consumers to use alternative energy? Well, 4,118 people asked this question, and I quite agree. We need to take a close look at the incentives for businesses and consumers to use alternative energy, and I think that we can do better than we're doing right now. And I invite you to engage in that conversation. Essentially, the answer is the politics of the situation have landed us where we are now, and if you want better, you have got to get involved in the debate.

Hawaii is looking for 100 percent clean energy in 10 years. Can every State be urged to push the limits? That question was asked by 728 people on progressivecongress. The fact is the States, much power in the States, great incentives in the States. Each State, all 50 of them, can get out there and set tough, renewable energy standards so that each State can do well. And let me tell you, a State can be a laboratory for the Nation. If States get out there and show that it can be done, that we really can have 100 percent clean energy in 10 years-- like they will try to do in Hawaii--and say, Look, we did it. You can do it. Here's how we did it. We can make it happen.

So hats off to Hawaii for their ambitious goal. If you live in a State where you think renewable energy standards like this can be reached, we urge you to get out there and try to make it happen.

Why are we expanding highways when rail transportation would provide greener alternatives to commuters? I quite agree, and 2,799 people asked this question on progressivecongress. We appreciate you putting that question in.

As a person who's really into light-rail transit, bike paths--we're having this debate right now as we're talking about the transportation reauthorization bill. This is a bill that's only reauthorized every 6 years, and I think people should have community forums on this bill all over America. It's not just the ACES bill that can help us get into a greener future, but also the transportation bill and other bills that are coming up can help us get there.

This question, Why are we expanding highways when rail transportation will provide greener alternatives to the commuters? Great question. I agree that this is what we should be doing. I think that highways have been

incentivized and given unfair advantage over rail transit, and I would like to see them compete on equal footing.

So let me say, don't be afraid of the future. The future is coming anyway. Those who stand up and say, Well, we can't have a bill that's going to help America get off fossil fuels and cut greenhouse gas emissions because it's nothing but a tax, understand that the folks who told you about tax-and-spend liberals and all of that--look, we've only had a President and a Democratic Congress for a few months. This stuff wasn't inherited. You want to talk about spenders and debt accumulators? Those guys sit on the other side of this Chamber.

The fact is, the progressive future this country needs is in the hands of the people who are going to help America get into a green, clean future.

This bill, this ACES bill that is being marked up right now, that has already gone through Energy and Commerce, that is in the Agriculture Committee now. This bill is undone and needs the input of all America, people who have a progressive vision for America, people who aren't afraid of the future, not people who cling to the status quo and what happened yesterday, but people who want something better for tomorrow and are willing and have the courage to try to get it.

That's the Progressive Message for tonight. I want to thank everybody for tuning in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 317, I missed the vote due to traffic congestion. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the importance of building a clean energy economy for America. Americans are fed up with the same tax breaks for oil companies that post record profits while working families are stuck paying exorbitant prices at the pump. Americans want a new energy economy, a green economy, to take us into the future, to take us into a carbon-neutral economy, to take us into jobs, to take us into a future in which we are not dependent upon the automobile for every transportational decision.

The time has come to transform our economy for decades to come. The time has come to create American jobs with new, clean, American-made energy. The clean energy jobs plan is the next step in creating millions of American jobs in clean energy, efficiency, and modernizing a smart electric grid. We can reduce our dependence on costly oil, curb pollution, and create jobs. We can do this. Yes, we can.

Good evening, Mr. Speaker. I'm about to grab some boards but I will claim the hour, and we'll get started.

Well, Mr. Speaker, welcome to the progressive message. This is the hour that the Progressive Caucus comes forward to offer a progressive vision for America where we put down markers, and we signal to the American people that there is a progressive vision, there is a way forward, and that way forward does include principles like generosity, like inclusion, like vision, like openness, like fairness, like sharing, not a vision of fear, not a vision as, Oh, my goodness, what's going to happen, we have to throw someone off the bus, but a vision of saying, You know what, we can include people, we can have peace, we can have a society where people are treated equally and fairly.

In fact, a few weeks ago we had a Special Order where the premise was, why the progressives? And we detailed how important it was to take note of the great contributions that progressives have made to America.

So, with that, I just want to introduce the wonderful array of leaders we

have with us tonight, and I have to start with the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, the person who's given more 5-minute speeches than anybody ever on the issue of peace, including Iraq but not limited to Iraq, also Afghanistan, demilitarization, the whole nine, none other than our own co-Chair Lynn Woolsey, and I yield to the gentlelady from California.

Who do you want to yield to?

Will the gentlelady yield back? Let me just say the gentlelady is right. Thank you for kicking off our subject tonight of health care. You did a fabulous job. None of us are surprised, because you always do.

But let's get one of our great champions from the great State of Illinois, a fighter for justice from Chicago. Let's say that Jan Schakowsky has been a dedicated advocate for people for many years in her work, not just in Congress, but before that when she was a social worker.

This public option, Congresswoman Schakowsky, do you have any views on it you would like to share before you launch into some prepared remarks you might have?

Will the gentlelady yield back?

By the way, ask anybody to yield whenever you want them to. We will just toss the ball around kind of quick.

But you made a point that made me, like, leap to my feet. I just want to draw attention to this chart. Medical bills underlie 60 percent--I think, Congresswoman, that's the point you were making--of the U.S. bankruptcies. This is according to a recent study, Washington Reuters. Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just 6 years.

Now, we've had certain kind of folks running this place over the last 6 years, right?

Anyway, the U.S. researchers reported on Thursday that more than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance--another point that Congresswoman Schakowsky just made--but were still overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine, a very, very reputable institution.

This is a quote from the study. ``Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. Ninety-two percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000 or 10 percent of their pretax family income,'' the researchers wrote.

Another startling quote, ``Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle class occupations.''

Now, that's pretty serious. I just want to just ask one of the three of you, do any of you have any reactions to this startling study?

I yield to the gentlelady from California, Cochairwoman Woolsey.

We never get tired of it.

If the gentlelady yields back, I would just encourage Congresswomen Schakowsky or Hirono, would you care to respond to the recent study? I think Congresswoman Schakowsky already made a few comments on it.

I will certainly yield.

Would the gentlelady yield for just a quick moment?

Now, according to this study, it shocked me a little bit, Congresswoman, because I was under the impression that only people that were struggling in poverty--and the Progressive Caucus is all about fighting for people who are dealing with poverty, but I was under the impression this is just poor folks' problem. But this study seems to say something else.

I mean, what about this fact here? The medical debtors were well- educated, owned homes and had middle class occupations.

I would yield back to the gentlelady. Is this not a middle class problem?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.

Let me open the floor back up to Congresswoman Schakowsky. If you don't mind, I just want to pose to you a question. We have a Web site called www.progressivecongress.org. These are folks who want to talk to us, right? They posed a question. The question was: Doesn't employer- funded health care help to make American business less competitive globally?

Would you like to respond to this question?

Yes.

Right.

Right.

That's a very important point.

Let me yield to the gentlelady from Hawaii.

Congresswoman Hirono, you had talked about the forums that you've had and that others have had, and that makes me kind of think about what Congresswomen Schakowsky and Woolsey are talking about in terms of organizing people.

What kind of coalitions do you see gathering at these forums? Are these folks who you didn't expect to see working together in the past but now maybe are?

I yield to the gentlelady.

Businesses. Small businesses.

If the gentlelady would yield back, I want to ask a question of you, if I may. The question is: What do you think Americans say on this poll question: Do you think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure that all Americans have health care coverage or is it not the responsibility of the Federal Government?

Does anybody want to venture a guess on what most Americans say?

What do you think most Americans say?

You're right. Sixty-four percent of Americans said it is. Thirty-three said it's not. I think most people running for office would like to have those kinds of numbers.

Could I ask another question for anybody?

Here is another poll question:

Which comes closest to your view, that the United States should continue the current health care insurance program in which most people get their health insurance from their private employers but some people have no insurance? That's one option. Two: The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under the program, like Medicare, that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers?

Which one do you think Americans chose and what percentage?

Congresswoman Schakowsky.

Well, the answer is, when it says, which comes closest to your view, 65 percent said the United States should have a universal health insurance program under which everyone is covered, and only 33 percent said no. And as I said, there's not one person in this body who wouldn't feel pretty good about those numbers. I know some people win by a higher percentage than that, but 65 percent is pretty good for anything. Overwhelming, as you said. So that leads me to a question that I want to offer to all three of you. Do Americans want the change that we're talking about? Or is a public option some kind of a lefty, far-out-there viewpoint that doesn't have any support?

Congresswoman Hirono, do you have any points of view on this?

Can I just ask the question here, what is wrong--and I think as progressives we do have to address this question--with just having single payer? Let me just say, 2,275 people wanted to know that. That was from www.progressivecongress.org.

For the record, I will not vote for any health care that does not include a public option. I will not do it. That's a guaranteed ``no'' vote.

And I cannot be dissuaded from that. And I also want to say I am a dedicated single-payer advocate. I am going to continue to raise this issue. I have before. But the fact is politics is the art of the possible, and we do have the limitation, as the gentlelady from California mentioned, of not having 100 percent of all the Congress yet being Progressives. And so we have to do what we have to do. And I have absolute faith that with the public option along the lines of Medicaid, Medicare, or the VA, that it will outcompete what these other guys are doing. And if they can't outcompete them, that is fine, but the fact is I believe that they will.

Let me yield to the gentlelady. Do you want to respond to this question that 2,275 people asked from www.progressivecongress.org? Do you want to answer that question, what is wrong with just having the single-payer? Or do you want to pass it?

We have a progressive America out there, and there are certain things they want answered. Another question they had was why do insurance companies have so much input into the health care reform debate; 1,704 people asked that question. Again, why do insurance companies have so much input into the health care reform debate?

Do any of one of you want to grab that one?

It sure helps.

If the gentlelady would yield back, I just want to remind everybody by saying that, you know, President Obama did say that if we were starting a health care system from scratch he would be pushing single-payer, but we are not. You have people who have vested interests, who have settled expectations, and so if people are committed to the plan they have, they can keep that. But there will be a public option for people who want to do that, and under no circumstances can these insurance companies deny people for preexisting conditions and things like that.

Do you want to take another question?

Here is an important question people have. Why can't the public have the same insurance that Members of Congress have? And 953 people wanted to know that.

I would like to put this one out to you. What is it going to take for you--I think they mean us--to wake up and smell the catastrophe that profit health care is?

Well, if the gentlelady yields back, it is a lot easier to make money when you're just collecting the money as opposed to when you actually have to pay it out.

The fact is that many insurance companies, I think the whole industry identifies when a person goes to a doctor and needs to actually use that coverage, they call that a medical loss. They see that as a loss to them. That is messing with their money when somebody says, Hey, I actually need to use the coverage that I'm paying you an arm and a leg for. That is why some of these companies go out of business. It is not designed to do that.

The fact is we talked about how medical expense costs families tremendously and also ends up people having to declare bankruptcy so often. The fact is that is one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is the overwhelming amount of profit that the industry makes. And I just want to point out that in an industry where you have CEOs making $1.6 billion like Bill McGuire of United Health Group made, how can you get that kind of money unless a whole lot of people are not getting the health care that they should get? How can you have these exorbitant profits that people are turning over and still cover everybody? Well, you can't do it. You either have to cut people out of coverage, you have to deny claims, and then you can pay exorbitant profits. Or you have to actually run a decent system that extends coverage, but in that case you don't have people making googobs of money, and so you really do have to make a basic and essential choice.

Well, if the gentlelady yields back, let me tell you. Cost containment, remember, any time I charge you and you paid me, I now made some money, right? I'm not against making money. This is America, and we have a free enterprise system. But there is such a thing as abuse.

Let me point out, profits at 10 of the country's largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent--I'd say that's pretty good--from 2000 to 2007. In 2007, alone, the chief executive officers at these companies collected a combined total compensation of $118.6 million, an average of $11.9 million each. And if it's an average, you know some made more and some made less. And the fact is that that is 468 times more than the $25,000 a year that an average American worker makes. So the fact is, these folks are making 468 times more than the average wage of an average worker in the United States. And we're wondering why we've got problems. There's no wonder why we have problems. That's why we need a universal, single-payer system. But if we can't get it now, let's get a system where you keep your insurance, and we have a public option.

I do have to say, let's get the last one, because we've got about 30 seconds to go, and I think Congresswoman Hirono is going to get the last word. And this has been the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and you're going to take us out.

And I think that pretty much does it. This has been the Progressive Caucus with the progressive message, and we'll see you next week.

Madam Speaker, let me just signal that again tonight we come before this body as the Congressional Progressive Caucus with the Progressive Message.

The Progressive Message, this idea of coming before the American people, projecting a progressive message, so that the people of the United States can say, you know what, there are people in Congress today who are willing to stand up and say that ideas about generosity, of justice, of peace, of inclusion, of universal health care, of providing access for everyone, these are principles, there are people who are in that Congress who will stand up for these ideas, and that is the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

And we come and we talk about the Progressive Message where we talk about the importance of this message of saying we will remember great advances of our country of the past, like the civil rights movement, the women rights movement, the idea of coming together for Social Security, standing up for peace, getting us out of Vietnam, standing up against the rush to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And today, that charge has not failed. That charge has not gone unnoticed, and we're here today to keep the call going.

And tonight for the Progressive Message, I'm really pleased to have join me a leader who never fails to stand up for the people, never shrinks from the call of the people, a progressive, dynamic leader who hails from the great city of Houston, the great State of Texas, none other than Sheila Jackson-Lee. I thank Congresswoman Jackson-Lee for joining me tonight for the Progressive Message. Do you want to get us started a little bit as tonight we talk about health care?

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

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

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

Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. We're going to be right back with the gentlelady in a moment.

But at this time I'd like to get into the conversation one of the very fine physician who happens to be a Member

of this esteemed body, and we're so happy that he is a member of the Progressive Caucus too, and that is Jim McDermott, a physician, Member of Congress, a long-term practitioner of medicine, who is going to give us a thought on his reflections on where we are in health care, and as a member of the Progressive Caucus.

And I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'd just like to pose a question to the gentleman. There is a Web site called feedback progressive Congress. This is a Web site. It's called feedback.progressivecongress; 250 people went to that Web site and asked the question, how will you stop denial of pre-existing conditions?

And I yield back to the gentleman. For those 250 folks who got on the Web site and want to know, what do you think?

If the gentleman would yield again.

Forgive me for these questions, but at this same Web site,

which is feedback.progressive congress.com, the question was posed, Will you, meaning the Congress, vote against a reform plan without a public option?

And then it goes on to say, a couple of months ago, Progressive Caucus made a promise to vote against any health care reform bill that does not include a strong public option. Health reform without a public option is no health reform at all. Will you continue to stand by your pledge to the American people to insist on a public option for health care by voting against any bill that does not include it?

And this question was asked by 1,434 people. And the first person to ask the question was Mike.

Well, if the gentleman would yield, I want to get Congresswoman Lee involved in the conversation. We'll be right back with the gentleman in a moment because I know the gentleman has plenty more to go, the good doctor from Washington State.

But we do have with us Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who is wearing a fabulous blue suit tonight, but more importantly than that, has been a fighter for people for so many years on so many issues; currently, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Congresswoman, give us your thoughts on the progressive vision for health care in America, the debate going on right now and all across America.

I'll yield to the gentlelady.

Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

The Progressive Congress.org asked for questions for the Progressive Caucus and for other progressive legislators on the issue of health care. Fifty-nine people want to know: What about the chronically ill?

There is a lot of talk about subsidizing ``those who can't afford it.'' What about subsidizing the chronically ill, who have to pay outrageous fees for minimal access? What will you do for them? Is it the sick who need health care subsidies, those who truly cannot afford it at any income level?

You mentioned HIV/AIDS. You mentioned other chronic illnesses. I wonder if the gentlelady has any views on that topic.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. I hope the gentlelady can hang on with us for a little while longer.

Yes, the gentleman from Washington.

If the gentleman would yield, would you repeat that?

Wow.

Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

In Minnesota, we have a health care company where a particular executive, who is no longer there, made $100 million every year. If he made $90 million one year, he'd have to chalk that up as a bad year for him. Here is my question:

If this hypothetical but real gentleman only made, say, $10 million a year--just $10 million a year--wouldn't there be at least another $80 million to $90 million a year just out of his salary alone to extend coverage to more people?

Would the gentleman or the gentlelady like to address this issue?

Would the gentlelady like to weigh in?

Will the gentlelady yield just for a moment? I just want to ask you a question. I pose this question to both the Members of Congress who are with us tonight.

Aren't you talking about socialized medicine? Aren't we supposed to be scared of this?

I yield to the gentlelady.

If the gentlelady would yield back, I just want to pose a question to the gentleman from Washington, Congressman McDermott.

Before you make your point, could you just address this issue? I think, as we go through this debate, there will be people who will say that a public option is nothing but socialized medicine. In fact, I've heard this word ``socialist'' thrown around already in this Congress. What do you say to this?

I yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman would yield for a moment, should Americans not be afraid of some of these terms that are tossed around? Is there nothing to fear? Is that what you're saying?

I yield to the gentleman.

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

I thank the gentlelady.

Let me point out as we walk into this new round of debate in health care, there is a pretty well-accomplished Republican adviser and consultant who has come out to be heard on this issue. And the gentleman, Frank Luntz: ``Warns GOP Health Reform is Popular.'' This has been published. This is a headline. Mr. Luntz is telling his constituency that health reform is popular, and he's warning the GOP what they should do if they ever want to come out of the cold.

Dr. Frank Luntz, a top Republican consultant on the language of politics is warning the GOP that the American people want health care reform and that lawmakers need to avoid directly opposing President Barack Obama. ``You simply must be vocally and passionately on the side of reform,'' Luntz advises in a confidential 26-page report--I guess it's not so confidential now--obtained from Capitol Hill Republicans. ``The status quo is no longer acceptable if the dynamic becomes President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it. Then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless.''

I think it's important to bring this out because we, of course, care about our Republican colleagues. We're all in the same body. And I think the advice to them is to avoid the fear stuff, because as Frank Luntz, a man who knows this stuff, has said, health reform is popular.

I wonder--I mean, do either one of the esteemed Members have any views? Is this health reform that is talked about all over the Nation, is it popular? Do people really want it, and does a politician who stands against reform run the risk of paying the price at the polls?

I offer the question to either Member.

Well, you've opened up an issue that I would like to explore for a moment, and that's an issue of cost and expense, how much is it costing. I think the gentleman from Washington already talked about the exorbitant expenditure. And this chart I have to the right-- projected spending on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product--what this chart shows is that we are nearly approaching 50 percent of gross domestic product when you add up all of health care. This big shaded area, the light blue-gray area here is all other health care. This little thin slice is Medicaid, and this low slice down here is Medicare, which we all know is one of the most efficiently run health care systems that we have--by the way, a single-payer system.

And we've seen, as the percentage of GDP that if we add it all up, it's getting up to 50 percent. And my question is--and by 2082, it will be 50 percent. Here we are back here. It's been crouching up. And now we're in the realm of approaching 15, 14 percent. But if it keeps on growing, we will be paying 50 percent of our gross domestic product in health care by 2082, which, quite frankly, is not that long from now.

These numbers are going in the wrong direction.

I also want to bring up another chart very briefly. And this chart talks about net insurance program administrative costs as a percent of total spending. The fact is, if you look at Medicare, administrative costs are pretty low, about 5 percent or less. Medicaid, a little higher, 8 percent. Top five private companies, 17 percent. Small group, 29 percent. Individuals, 41 percent. Average private insurance, 14 percent.

My question is, can we continue to see administrative costs be so high?

When we talk about having an insurance program, what are the implications for the average citizen trying to get health care?

I yield to the gentleman.

But are we number one in any particular aspect?

I thank you.

If I could yield to the gentlelady from California

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

I thank the gentlelady for making that clear about small business because it is important that for people to know that we have this burgeoning coalition of people who want to see single-payer, at least want to see a public option. Clearly, we know that the forces of labor would like to see this public option and many of them call for single-payer. We know that the Chamber of Commerce has said we need health care reform. They may not be calling for single-payer, but some are. We know doctors are. But also as you pointed out, it's critical to know small business people would benefit from single-payer or at least a public option, which is critical.

And I just want to say, as we begin to wrap up the night, that the need for health care reform in a public plan is essential. Reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs, ensuring timely access to affordable health care, making sure that everybody has access to preventative care to help keep people healthy so those people that you were referring to don't have to worry about their employees being sick and not coming to work. They got a plan so they're coming back to work every day.

And allowing workers to change jobs without worrying about losing health care. In this age of increasing unemployment, should a person lose their job and lose their health care? It's a scary prospect, and I suppose I pose that question to the gentlelady as well.

As you talk to your constituents and you walk around the City of Oakland and you're in the grocery store, and you're in the park and in the community meetings, what are you hearing about people's fears as it relates to how they might lose their job--I mean, lose their health care if they should happen to become unemployed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk this morning about a matter of

great importance to the American people. As this new Congress and President Obama begin to repair and reshape our economy, I think it is critically important for Americans to know and remember how we got into this mess we find ourselves in today.

President Obama and this Congress inherited a fiscal mess from the Bush administration, including a record deficit and soaring unemployment. Since taking control of the House in 2007, Democrats have committed to restoring fiscal responsibility, taking steps to cut waste, fraud and abuse. The President's budget slashes the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years. The budget also calls for health care reform, job creation, clean energy and energy efficiency, and college affordability.

We will continue to work to repair the damage of the last 8 years of irresponsibility.