[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 132 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H9708-H9711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  THE PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE: HEALTH CARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, welcome to the Progressive hour, the 
Progressive Message, the 60-minute period of time where the Progressive 
Caucus comes to the House floor to talk to the American people and our 
colleagues about critical issues of the day. The Progressive Message.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, is that we've got a lot to talk about 
today. The issue of the day is health care. And as we get started, I 
would like to bring our chairperson right into the conversation in the 
very beginning to introduce some of her ideas on this issue. Our 
chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, has 
been a stalwart leader on this issue, has been convening meetings, has 
been keeping us together, has been unrelenting on her insistence for a 
public option.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank you again, Congressman Ellison, for your 
leadership on these weekly hourly discussions about health care reform 
and what's going on in our Congress at this particular time.
  Things have happened this week. Finally, the Senate has two bills 
that were written and have been introduced. The second bill, coming out 
of the Finance Committee, has not passed through the committee yet, but 
it is the Bachus health care reform bill. And we have gotten a lot of 
pressure here--I know I have, I know you have, most progressives have--
because there's some idea out there that because the Bachus bill that 
doesn't have any Republican support either, after 3 Democrats and 3 
Republicans spent months and months and months writing it, now Senator 
Baucus seems to be almost standing alone with that one. But he'll pass 
it through his committee, and we'll see what happens.
  But what does that mean to our proposal and our absolute commitment 
for a robust public option to be included in a very strong health care 
reform bill? As far as I'm concerned, it means nothing. What it does is 
it shows the opposite of what this country could end up with, and it 
gives wind beneath our wings for our debate on just why we need a 
strong, robust public option. And one of those why's in Senator 
Baucus's bill is that it does not provide a public option of any level.
  The public option we offer through the Progressive Caucus would have 
its rates determined based on Medicare plus 5 percent, and do you know 
that that saves $110 billion over 5 years? Over 5 years. And the Energy 
and Commerce Committee has a public option that they have proposed, and 
their public option rates would be based on negotiating with the 
administration, and their negotiated rates would save $25 billion.
  So we have $110 billion in savings through the Progressive Caucus 
plan, $25 billion in savings through the Energy and Commerce, and we 
have zero savings through Senator Baucus's plan. So that in and of 
itself is enough for me to know that that is not a bill that I want to 
be negotiating and compromising with.
  Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentlewoman has to take a 
brief interlude, but let me just say very quickly the fact is that 
Senator Baucus, who has spent many hours trying to pull together a 
bipartisan bill, comes out of that process without any bipartisan 
support for his bill, and there may not be many Democrats who want to 
vote for that bill coming out of the Finance Committee.
  The reality is we have had three House committee bills that all 
produced a public option and we have the Health Committee in the Senate 
that produced a public option, and now coming out of the Finance 
Committee there is no public option. I think when you look at the 
convergence of all these bills, it means that we're going to have a 
public option. But I think this is a time for grassroots activism, 
people to let their voices be heard, and people to be very clear on 
what they want.
  Stepping back from a public option, health care reform is really a 
three-tiered thing. It's a three-legged stool. One is making sure that 
people who already have insurance have stable insurance, are not 
discriminated against, and are treated better by the insurance 
companies with lower costs. The other is covering the uninsured. The 
third leg is a public option that can compete with private market 
insurance so that they can hold costs down and can introduce evidence-
based medical practices to give Americans the best quality care that's 
available. The fact is that this three-legged stool is essential in 
order to have the kind of reform that Americans need today. This 
reform, we can have it. It is well within our grasp and we can do it, 
but we have got a little bit more to go. At this point we now know it's 
on the table and we know that this Finance Committee bill is not 
adequate and they need to go back to the drawing board.
  It's interesting to me that not one Republican said that they would 
support it after hours and hours of bipartisan effort to get them on 
the bill anyway. It's time to move forward with a bill that makes sense 
to all the American people.
  The fact is the President is on our side when it comes to the public 
option. The President made himself clear right on the floor of this 
House Chamber only a few days ago when he came here and said that he 
was for a public option. The President said it, and he made himself 
very clear. In fact, the President was eloquent when he said that 
without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality 
goes down, and it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat 
their customers badly, by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and 
trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have 
no leverage, and by jacking up rates. The reality is the President was 
right about that, and he is on our side and wants to see reform come 
forward.
  Let's just say that this health care reform that we are talking about 
needs the support of the American people. Slowly the real facts have 
been coming forward. Slowly the American people have been coming to a 
better understanding of what the public option is and what health care 
reform means in general. The President is on our side, as I've said, 
and I believe the House should act quickly to pass a bill with a strong 
public option as it reflects the President's preference for a public 
option.
  The plan will do the following: It will cover preexisting conditions. 
How many Americans are dropped or have had their insurance go up 
because of a preexisting condition? The plan will stop the practice of 
rescission or denying you health care when you need it the most, and 
the bill will stop bankrupting our businesses and families for the sin 
of getting sick. A public option, which is an essential part of reform, 
as I've already mentioned, will offer choice, introduce competition and 
lower costs for consumers and taxpayers, and bring higher quality 
health care to all Americans.
  Choice: The President stated last week that currently in 34 States, 
75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer 
companies. What does that mean? That means that if we don't have a 
public option, we're going to mandate 49 million new consumers into the 
insurance companies' arms without any way to make them compete because 
these markets are monopolized or duopolized or what they call an 
oligopoly.

                              {time}  1515

  What that means is they are highly concentrated. There are not a lot 
of sellers in the market; there are just a few.
  Now, if I say you have to buy insurance and there are only two or 
three people to buy it from, you can bet those two or three companies 
that are selling it are going to give you the maximum price unless you 
have a public option that's going to really compete with them and make 
them do the right thing. So we've got to be for choice and we've got to 
have competition.
  Let me also say that the President said--and I want to repeat this 
because I've said it once, but we've got to say it again--the President 
said without competition, the price of insurance goes up and up and 
quality goes down.

[[Page H9709]]

  Now think about it, if you're a resident of the great State of 
Alabama--Alabama is a wonderful State, I always enjoy going there--but 
in Alabama, almost 90 percent of the insurance market is controlled by 
just one insurance company. What does that mean? That means that if you 
want to buy insurance in Alabama, you're dealing with a monopoly. And 
if the monopoly says you pay, then you pay whatever it is they say you 
pay, or you don't get it. There is literally no competition. So given 
that situation, we know that we need a public option to introduce 
choice, competition, and real cost control.
  I want to talk about this public option because people don't always 
understand it. Think of the public option this way: we're going to have 
employer-based health care. That will be one part of this thing. 
Employer-based health care, you have insurance with your employer, you 
keep it. The second part is, if you have government health insurance 
already, like Medicare or the VA, you keep that. We're going to try to 
subsidize low-income people so that they can get Medicaid and health 
care like that.
  But the third part of it is this: it will be something called an 
``exchange.'' Now, what is an exchange? An exchange is like a grocery 
market. It will be online or it will look like a catalog, like this 
book; and you go through it and you look for an insurance product. Now, 
there will be different products. Some will be a basic plan, some will 
be a middle plan, and some will be a Cadillac plan. And they will tell 
you what you can get covered for a given price and you will be 
shopping. And you might be able to do it online, like Craig's List or 
eBay or something like that, or you can do it on paper. But the fact is 
it's a market where people are selling different products.
  Now, all we're saying is that if you can imagine this health care 
insurance grocery store, on one aisle there would be a product offered 
by or administered by the government--actually, it wouldn't be run by 
the government because it would be private doctors who would be off 
actually providing the medical care, but it would be administered by a 
government program the same way Medicare is now.
  Now, I know people who said that they've got Medicare, and they don't 
want the government messing with their Medicare. Well, if you think the 
government is messing with your Medicare, what you must not know is 
that the government is Medicare. That is who is administering your 
Medicare right now. So if you think the VA health care is good or 
Medicare is good, then you will also see that a public option will be 
good. Very important for people to understand this.
  Let me also say this, and that is, you know, sometimes people on the 
other side of the aisle--you know, I'm a Democrat--the other guys, they 
say stuff like, I don't want government-run health care, and they make 
it sound like the government's bad. But in a democratic country, who is 
the government other than you and me? The government is the people--
government of the people, by the people, for the people.
  In a democratic society, the government is us. And if the government 
isn't functioning right, then we need to be more engaged to make it 
function right and we need to insist on lower cost, more efficiency. We 
need to be active citizens to make sure things go the way we want them 
to. But we need to get out of this thing that government can't do 
anything right. Did Lehman Brothers do everything right when their 
company crashed? That's a private company. What about Enron? What about 
WorldCom? What about Bear Stearns? Private industry makes a lot of 
mistakes as well.
  The government does good things, though. Think about this: if you or 
I should have the misfortune of needing emergency medical care, an EMS 
truck will come up here and hopefully save us. Who's that? That's the 
government. If you call up because your house is burning, who are you 
calling? The government yet again. When you start slicing into that 
steak you might eat tonight, who has made sure that meat is safe for 
you to eat? A government inspector.
  Public schools have made an educational opportunity for every kid in 
America. Are some of them bad or in need of repair and need to be 
better? Of course they do. Anything human beings do is going to need 
more work. But you can't say that public schools in general are a 
failure. You can say that a public school needs to be improved.
  We need to get out of this thing where we say the government can't 
function and can't produce good results for us. They do every day. 
You're going to tell me the officers who are putting their lives on the 
line to keep us safe are not doing a good job? The firefighters are not 
doing a good job? They are doing a great job.
  You have got to understand that part of what's going on here is just 
plain old government-bashing, government-bashing in a democratic 
country where government is by, for and of the people.
  So I hope people don't let this go by. It's not a good idea to just 
always run down whatever the government does. If they do, we bear 
responsibility because it's our government, democratic society.
  Let me just say this, too: the public option really means that the 
government would help to cover the high cost of insurance for Americans 
while bringing those costs down through competition. The public option 
means that Americans will be free to seek health care from any doctor 
they choose at any facility they choose without having to fear that 
they could not afford or will incur tens of thousands of dollars in 
medical debt. The public option is a good thing.
  Now, you would think, well, who should know the most about whether 
the public option would be a good thing? I will say I'm not the most 
well qualified, but I think doctors are. I think doctors are well 
qualified to know whether or not a public option is a good deal. 
Doctors who serve patients every day, serve patients day in and day out 
would have a good opinion that I would trust as to whether it would 
help the system improve. Doctors are the ones who sit up on the phone 
and have to argue with insurance companies over whether a procedure is 
going to be covered or not covered.
  I'm lucky enough to have a brother who is a primary care physician in 
Detroit. How are you doing there, Leonard? The fact is that my brother 
Leonard has to spend hours away from patients because he's trying to 
deal with insurance companies. The fact is that we need a public 
option. We need a public option.
  Let me just talk a little bit about this. The graph to my right here 
says most doctors support public option. Most doctors support public 
option. Here in the blue section is where doctors were asked, they 
said, Do we need a public option and a private option? Sixty-three 
percent of doctors said we need both public and private options. 
Twenty-seven percent of doctors said private options only and 10 
percent of doctors said public options only. Most doctors say we should 
have both.

  I trust the doctors. And you know, this is a whole lot of doctors; 63 
percent of them have said that we need both. So this is who I think we 
should listen to and who has a good opinion as to what's really right 
and what's really wrong.
  A large majority of doctors say that there should be a public option. 
Sixty-three percent of physicians support a public option. And when 
polled, nearly three-quarters, 75 percent, of physicians supported some 
form of a public option, either alone or in combination with other 
private insurance options. So that means that if you take this 63 with 
this 10 percent, that's a full 73 percent; that's about three-quarters. 
So this is overwhelmingly what doctors believe, that we should have a 
public option; and I think the doctors are right about that.
  We've been joined by the gentlelady from California, the chairperson 
of the Progressive Caucus. What do you think about this? Do you think 
that doctors know what they're talking about when 63 percent say we 
should have public and private options and another 10 percent say we 
need only a public option; 73 percent, does that mean anything to you? 
Do you think that's an important fact to know?
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Of course it's an important fact to know. I mean, if 
anybody is close to their patients and to the needs of this country, it 
is our physicians. They've been very important in inputting to all of 
the committees that have been writing legislation.

[[Page H9710]]

  And another thing that will be very important is when the House of 
Representatives brings all three of our bills--one from Ways and Means, 
Energy, and the committee we sit on, Congressman, Education and Labor--
when we unify those bills and come up with the House bill and we can 
say to our constituents and to the people of this country, this is the 
House of Representatives health care reform bill, then we will be able 
to hear back from them on exactly what that bill is. Right now we keep 
saying, well, it might be, we think it is. I mean, we're pretty sure 
about 99 percent of it, but not all of it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, if the gentlelady yields back, I look forward to 
that moment as well when we can have a unified House bill. I hope this 
is something that happens very quickly because I really believe that 
the public is really dying--oh, excuse me for that bad language----
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That was a negative pun.
  Mr. ELLISON. The public is really calling for true health care 
reform.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That's right.
  Mr. ELLISON. And we were talking a moment ago about the bill that 
came out of the Senate Finance Committee, a bill that I don't favor at 
all. And I just thought that I would share a few basic facts about it.
  You should note that if you look at all the House bills together, 
even though they haven't been unified, if you look at them together, 
they all call for a public option. The Senate Finance bill does not 
have a public option; it has a cooperative, which is not nearly--which 
is no good, which is of no value.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. Yes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Do you think it would be important for our viewers to 
know why the co-ops are of no value?
  Mr. ELLISON. Yes, let's talk about that.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I think we should explain that.
  Co-ops could be of value over time, but what we need is a public 
option that's available the day the exchange goes into effect so that 
that is one of the options. If we depend on co-ops, right now there are 
less than 10 in the country. I really know of only one that's totally 
successful and that took more than 10 years to get up and running. It's 
not impossible, and it could happen; but that should not be what we 
consider a public option. It can be an option at another time.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady would yield, I think you're right. 
It's not an inherently bad idea, but it's bad for this. And I want to 
be very clear: you and I aren't loosening up and open to co-ops. I 
mean, we're clear that co-ops is the wrong thing. And here's one reason 
why: the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, they report on 
Senator Baucus' bill: ``The proposed co-ops had very little effect on 
the estimates of total enrollment in the exchanges or Federal costs 
because, as they are described in the specifications, they seem 
unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many of the 
areas of the country or to noticeably affect Federal subsidy 
payments.''
  In other words, you mention that there are some successful health 
care co-ops around the country and how it took them years to build up. 
Well, the CBO report says that when the exchange opens up, the co-op 
will be too little, too small to have any market presence and will not 
be able to really be strong enough to actually impact the market. So 
the fact is that people will be left for years and years with no real 
successful option to lower costs. So the co-op is really not a viable 
option.
  I don't want to completely be dismissive of the idea of co-ops in 
general. Food co-ops are great. There are good co-ops, right? We want 
to be straight with everybody. But in this case, it's the wrong thing 
because it will be too small, too weak, too little to compete with 
these insurance companies that have been in the game for a long, long 
time. What we need is a public option, that's what we've got to have.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. A robust public option.
  Mr. ELLISON. A robust public option. I'm talking about a public 
option with some muscle.
  Also, if we compare the Senate Finance bill with the House bills, the 
Senate Finance bill has no employer mandate. The House bill has an 
employer mandate to provide health insurance to its employees. So, 
look, employers--and I'm grateful to the employers that provide health 
care to their employees, but no employer will be able to say, well, 
we're just not going to do it because--for whatever reason. The 
employers are going to have to provide health care for their employees 
or contribute to a fund which will allow their employees to get health 
care.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. ELLISON. Yes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That's the only way we can level the playing field so 
that employers who do provide health insurance for their employees 
aren't at a disadvantage in competing with like industries.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady would yield back, absolutely. That's 
right. We want to level the playing field. You can't go out there and 
just get a competitive advantage on your competition by dumping your 
health care insurance, so that's another important part.
  The third thing is, under the Senate finance bill, taxes and the pay-
fors are a tax on high-end health insurance plans and a tax on medical 
devices, laboratories, et cetera. Under the House bill, there is an 
income tax surcharge on high-income earners. At least that's one idea.
  Now, I'm going to tell you this: If I am ever fortunate enough to be 
a wealthy individual--I assure you I am not one now--I would hope that, 
as an American----
  Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman would yield, you're not going to be 
wealthy staying in this job----
  Mr. ELLISON. Yes. Right. You'd better come here already wealthy.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Or you're going to stay the same.
  Mr. ELLISON. That's right.
  As I was saying, if I ever become a well-to-do person, I would hope 
that I would have enough patriotic commitment to put other people's 
bare necessities in front of my own luxuries. Do you understand what 
I'm saying?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Absolutely.
  Mr. ELLISON. I mean, how many boats can I ski behind? How many houses 
can I own? If I have to pay a little bit more to make sure that some 
poor, single mom and her kids have health care, why wouldn't I do that? 
Why wouldn't I do that? I don't know.
  Do you have any thoughts on this? I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I have a lot of thoughts on that. You see, I 
represent, probably, not the wealthiest district but the wealthiest 
county in the Congress, and I have not gotten one letter from one 
constituent who says, ``Woolsey, how dare you think about raising my 
taxes.'' I mean this is of the people who would have to pay taxes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Right. Right.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Those are not the kinds of people I represent. They are 
educated and progressive, and they get it. When other people are taken 
care of, they're better off in the long run. Their employees are. Their 
kids in school are safer because the other kids are covered and have 
good health care. They just totally get it, and I think, if there 
weren't so many fear factors around, most people would understand the 
concept.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady would yield back, I mean the fact is 
that many well-to-do people recognize that this country has been good 
to them, that many of them went to public schools, and that many of 
them have police who secure their properties. Many of them really are 
grateful for all of the bounty that America has given them, and they 
don't mind doing a little bit more to make sure that low-income, poor 
Americans have some way to go to a doctor.
  I think it's just basic, and I'm always a little shocked when I hear, 
well, somehow we're punishing well-to-do people by asking them for a 
little more to help poor Americans. I don't understand that kind of 
thinking, because you find a lot of extremely generous well-to-do 
people.
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That's absolutely true.

[[Page H9711]]

  There are many things we ask of our constituents, but mostly there 
are many things that the government provides for them, like public 
education, police, fire, roads. We pay for all of that because we use 
all of that--some more than others. Some benefit more than others from 
these services, but it's pretty proportionate about how much you pay 
and your taxes depending on how much you earn, on how much you have and 
on how much you've actually benefited from this country of ours. So I 
believe you're right. It's a shared thing.
  One of the suggestions is, of the people who have health care 
benefits, their benefits should be taxed. There are a lot of us who 
feel that taxing a person's benefits is not the way to go because 
they've already, probably, in this economy of ours, given up raises in 
order to keep their benefits in the first place. To tax those benefits 
on top of that would just be a hit to the middle class of this country.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady would yield back, does the gentlelady 
agree that we should go about 10 more minutes and hand it over?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Right.
  Mr. ELLISON. I just want to point out that, under the Baucus--or the 
Senate finance bill, subsidies to the premiums of low-income people 
would be kept at 13 percent of the max; whereas, in the House bills, 
the premiums would be kept at 11 percent. So the House bill, again, is 
doing more to help the middle class person. The Senate Finance 
Committee is cutting into the middle class even more. This is just 
premiums. This is not copays. This is not deductible payments, payments 
you have to make when you have a deductible. This is not other costs 
associated with health care. This is just premiums. So, again, the 
Senate Finance Committee's bill is not nearly as good as any of the 
House bills.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman would yield again----
  Mr. ELLISON. Certainly.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. With just that 2 percent difference, that cuts into 
middle-income workers.
  Mr. ELLISON. Yes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I don't know what the numbers are, but I think, if they 
earn $41,000 a year and have four children, then they wouldn't be 
eligible for the subsidies. I don't have that in front of me. I'm 
sorry. I might be off a little bit, but it really cuts into middle-
income workers.
  Part of what this bill is about is making it secure for all workers 
who already have coverage, not making it harder for them to have their 
coverage. Part of that is security. They might love the coverage they 
have, but they know, in their heart of hearts, that they could lose 
that.
  Mr. ELLISON. That's right.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Their employers could decide they can't afford to cover 
them anymore, and boom, that's the end of it. They might lose their 
jobs. They might want to change jobs and not have insurance going with 
them.
  The truth of it is is that, not the Baucus bill particularly, but the 
House health care reform bill makes it more secure for people who are 
already covered. They lose nothing. They don't have to leave their 
coverage unless their employers decide they don't want to cover them 
anymore. With the House bill, they have a place to land. They have a 
place to go, and they can get health care coverage without prejudice.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield back, we're wrapping up 
now. Yet the fact is, as to the House bills, if you look at them 
together, insurance companies can only charge different premiums based 
on age, and then it's like 2-1.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. In the House bill, it's 2-1.
  Mr. ELLISON. In the House bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Tell what it is in the Baucus bill.
  Mr. ELLISON. The Baucus bill is 5-1.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. 5-1. Can you imagine?
  Mr. ELLISON. 5-1. This is wrong. This is very bad. This is very, 
very, very bad.
  The fact is that this is going to be financially devastating for 
people who aren't yet elderly but who still are up to 60, 58, 59. It's 
going to hit them very hard if the insurance companies can discriminate 
like that, and there are far less stringent insurance reforms in the 
Baucus bill.
  So, when you look at the Baucus bill, it is an inferior product. The 
Senate Finance Committee is an inferior product. The Senate Finance 
Committee bill is an inferior product. That's what it is, and it really 
is a nonstarter. So we're pulling for people on the Senate Health 
Committee to make a better bill than that which came out of the Senate 
Finance Committee.
  We believe that help is on the way. Health care reform is right 
around the corner. It's time to raise the voices and to not be shy.
  The President is running all over the country, talking to people 
about health care reform. He was in my own town of Minneapolis last 
Saturday. He did a phenomenal job. When the President mentioned the 
public option to a capacity crowd in the Target Center in Minneapolis, 
Minnesota--my city--the crowd roared for 1 minute 40 seconds. They 
wouldn't even let him continue with his speech. They were just clapping 
wildly--a deafening noise. That's how much people want the public 
option.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That's right.
  Mr. ELLISON. So I'll leave the last word to the gentlelady of 
California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I'd like to say that the Progressive Caucus 
believes that it is our responsibility in the House to get our bill 
united and that it is our responsibility to bring our bill forward and 
to get it voted on so that we have that as an example of a robust 
health care reform package, so that Senator Harkin's Health Committee 
can follow suit, and so that we can give him a lot of the strength that 
comes from this House. We'll be negotiating with them later, but we'll 
be negotiating two very good bills. We want to go first.
  Mr. ELLISON. So that will close us out.
  I just want to say thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, for being here and 
for always being supportive of our special hour and of our progressive 
message.
  The Progressive Caucus is committed to values of shared community, of 
shared responsibility, of making sure that the least of us are cared 
for and are looked out for, of making sure that America is a country 
that supports peace around the world. This is what some of our 
essential values are: The Progressive Caucus. The progressive message. 
Thank you very much.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________