[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 145 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H11151-H11156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE--HEALTH CARE REFORM

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

                              {time}  1645

  Tonight, what is the topic? Guess what, surprise, health care. Today 
we have two great advocates and leaders, and I am so honored to be on 
the House floor today with two good friends and leaders, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
and also the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) of the Ways and 
Means Committee who is also a physician, both with us today. I want to 
invite both of them to offer some remarks as we get started on the 
Progressive message today, focusing on health care reform, patients 
before profits.
  Congressman, Doctor, what are your thoughts?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Ellison, it is a pleasure to be here today. In the 
caucus the other day we were talking about health care, and one thing 
that is very clear in this country is that the medical-industrial 
complex doesn't want to change. They want things as they are. They 
would be glad to take additional money to cover people, but they want 
to go through the private sector. Let's just keep grinding out the 
profits, never mind what happens to the patients.
  This effort that is being made in the House, and I hope to have a 
bill out here in 10 days or so, is an effort to make sure that what you 
just suggested happens. That is, that everybody in this country has 
health care that is adequate, that takes care of the needs they have, 
no matter how much money they have, no matter what they look like, no 
matter where they live. They should have the same kind of health care 
in this country no matter what their circumstances are.
  I told the story, I said one of the things that people tell me: 
Everybody in this country gets health care. What are you talking about?
  What I said to my colleague when he said that to me, you know, the 
difference between Members of Congress and ordinary folks in this 
society is, we live a somewhat different life. If you call up and say, 
This is Dr. McDermott or Congressman McDermott, I have a pain in my 
stomach, they will tell me to come into the office tomorrow morning. 
Everybody else goes through this little drill. When you call the 
doctor's office and say, I have a pain in my stomach, the first 
question is, What kind of insurance do you have?
  Now if you have private insurance, you will be in the office tomorrow 
morning. If you have Medicare, well some doctors don't take Medicare, 
so it may be a week before you get taken care of. God forbid if you 
have Medicaid, you will never get taken care of. Or it will be a month 
or a month and a half. And if you don't have health insurance, they 
have an offer for you: If you will come in and pay $25 or $30 upfront, 
we will have an appointment for you in 2 weeks.
  People say that isn't true. Well, let me tell you, there are very 
well-documented studies, and they put people on two phones sitting 
right next to each other, they would call the same doctor's office, 
give the same story about a pain in their stomach, and find out what 
the relationship there was between what kind of insurance they had and 
when they got seen.
  Now, it shouldn't be that way in this country. If you are sick and 
you have pain in your stomach, you ought to be able to get in and see a 
doctor.
  What clearly happens in that case, for those people who have to wait 
2 weeks or a month or whatever, they go along with that pain in their 
stomach waiting for their appointment, waiting for their appointment. 
When they can't stand it any longer, they go to the emergency room. 
That is why emergency rooms are flooded with things that ought to be 
seen in a doctor's office, but people can't find a way, they can't find 
a doctor that will accept them.
  Well, I told this story, and one of my colleagues came up to me and 
said, You

[[Page H11152]]

know what, you are absolutely right. He said, I just had my knee 
replaced. He said, I got talking to the doctor about it, and the doctor 
and I were talking about how he would get paid. The doctor said, Oh, 
you're perfect. You've got private insurance. We all have Blue Cross-
Blue Shield here in the Congress. He said that is good insurance and 
that pays for it and that is good.
  My friend said what if I had Medicare?
  The doctor said, I would have said, Why don't you wait for a couple 
of months?
  And my friend asked, If I had Medicaid? The doctor said, I would 
never see you. I don't accept Medicaid patients for knee replacements.
  So there is rationing in this society today, and it depends on what 
kind of plastic you have in your pocket. Now to simply pass out more 
plastic cards in the insurance industry today will not work, and that's 
why we have to have a good public option. We have to have an option 
that functions the same as it does if you have a private insurance 
card.
  If you meet a Canadian some time, ask a Canadian to show you their 
provincial health care card. In Ontario, they are orange. In New 
Brunswick, they are blue-green. In Quebec, they are kind of a greenish 
color. They have a card no matter where they go in the province. In 
Canada, they hand in that card and they get taken care of. That's what 
ought to happen in this country, and the public option is the only way 
we are going to get people who don't have health insurance today the 
opportunity to access the health care system and actually have an 
opportunity to see a doctor.
  Now it is clear that the President has said not only does he want to 
have access, but he wants to have a plan that controls cost. The fight 
now in here is the fight between--giving people access is going to cost 
more money in some ways, although there is lots of money to be saved in 
the present system, but the providers and the drug companies and the 
insurance companies and all the other people who are involved in the 
medical industrial complex don't want to have anybody put any control 
on their costs. That's what the fight is that is going on right now as 
this bill comes to the floor.
  John Conyers has worked as long as I have trying to get what we know 
would be the best system, which is the single-payer system. Now the 
President said we are not going to go that route, we are going to go a 
little different route. We are helping him to get there. It is not the 
perfect system, but it will get people the access and the cost control 
that is necessary.
  I listened to my colleague from Minnesota just a moment ago telling 
us this story about this clinic and what is in the bill. I believe that 
bill has been out on the floor and up on the Web site. Anybody who can 
read could have read it in the last 30 days, in the last 60 days, and 
there are no such clinics in that bill.
  Mr. ELLISON. Are there death panels? I yield back.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Absolutely not.
  Mr. ELLISON. Are there school sex clinics?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. No; that is scare tactics. You know better than that, 
Keith. Why are you asking those questions?
  Mr. ELLISON. It is part of what has been going on. You saw August. 
You try to have a civil conversation, and them some people would show 
up and try to disrupt the meeting. Why would they want to disrupt the 
meeting when all we are trying to do is have a civil dialogue about the 
future of our country and the future of health care.
  Why are we hearing about death panels? To scare seniors.
  Why are we hearing about sex clinics? To scare parents.

  Why all this stuff?
  Let's get Chairman Conyers in the conversation. He looks like he is 
digging out some facts. I just want to pose the question to you 
gentlemen: Why, why, why are we hearing about all of this fanciful, 
made-up stuff that is on the Web and anybody can look up the bill and 
say, that ain't so? Why are we hearing all this stuff?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. You know, there is sort of a political axiom that if 
you can make people afraid, you can get them to do exactly what you 
want them to do. In this case, they want people to say no, we don't 
want the government to take over our health care.
  Now the government pays for military health care. The government pays 
for veterans' health care. The government pays for seniors' health care 
in this country and poor people's health care in this country. And they 
want government to go away? Come on.
  Sixty cents out of every health care dollar in this country is coming 
from the government through all of those programs. And the people are 
saying that they don't want the government. I have had older folks come 
to me and say, I don't want the government to get into my Medicare. 
Folks, Medicare is a government program. They simply are scaring people 
to the point where they are not thinking clearly about what is going on 
in this country.
  Mr. ELLISON. Scare tactics.
  I yield to Chairman Conyers. Welcome to the Progressive hour, the 
Progressive message, patients before profits tonight.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am so glad we are doing this, and I am glad to be with 
both of you.
  Dr. McDermott has been working on this for so long, and he brings a 
clear voice of experience, not congressional but medical. That's what 
makes this so important. Of course you, Mr. Ellison, are a young person 
who has jumped into this in a way that makes me very proud that you 
grew up in Detroit, probably in my district.
  I have something that just came in from the 14th Congressional 
District in northwest Detroit.
  We had an examination of how many seniors in my congressional 
district hit the doughnut hole in the bill, the current legislation. 
There were 5,400 seniors that were forced when they hit that doughnut 
hole to pay their full drug costs, despite the fact that they had part 
D medical coverage.
  And the current bill before us that we are working on, H.R. 3200, it 
would cut brand-name drug costs in the doughnut hole by half and 
ultimately eliminate the doughnut hole. That is very important, 
especially in this day and age.
  We found that there were 2,230 health care related bankruptcies in my 
congressional district alone. At our next Special Order, I am going to 
have these same numbers for the whole State of Michigan. So 2,230 
people in the 14th Congressional District had to go into bankruptcy 
court in the year of 2008, primarily caused by the costs of health care 
not covered by their insurance.
  In 2008, health care providers in the district were provided $31 
million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to 
individuals who lacked insurance coverage and who were unable to pay 
their bills.
  How many people don't have insurance, my colleagues, in the 14th 
District, have no health care coverage at all. This is last year's 
figures, which have undoubtedly gone up since 2008: 1,300 people in my 
district are uninsured. How many are uninsured, my colleagues, in your 
districts? That is 17 percent of all of the people in the district that 
are uninsured, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 97 
percent of all Americans will have insurance coverage if H.R. 3200 
takes effect.

                              {time}  1700

  Now, if this benchmark is reached in the district, 85,000 people who 
currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. There is 
another factor I would like to introduce. I haven't discussed it with 
you, but this as good a time as any to do it.
  There is a stress factor coming into this whole discussion of health 
coverage in America because of all of the people that are losing their 
jobs, especially in Michigan and Ohio, industrial States that are hit 
the hardest. We have the highest unemployment rates. But there is 
something else that kicks in. When you lose your job, you, of course, 
lose your income; and, frequently, if you have a mortgage payment, you 
could end up losing your house.
  One of the things, Dr. McDermott, I was in a shelter in midtown 
Detroit off Woodward Avenue at Peterboro, and both of you have been 
there. I went into the shelter in the morning, and they were having 
breakfast. I was astounded by this one visual picture I got. These were 
not people that were

[[Page H11153]]

homeless, wandering around or were disheveled. These were well-dressed 
people being fed in a shelter who had just recently lost everything. 
When you get hit, you lose your house, your car, your job, your 
insurance, your pension. So you come into a shelter, you're dressed 
like we are, but you don't have anywhere to eat, you don't have 
anywhere to stay. I have never experienced that phenomenon before in my 
life.
  One other factor that is up to date and in real-time is that with all 
the people suffering under this economic--well, it's called a severe 
recession, but I call it a depression--there are people now that are 
working who have jobs, who have health insurance, but there is a little 
something beginning to bother them: Maybe this could happen to me too. 
We all know people who were going along quite well; and all of a sudden 
their company announced at 3 p.m. on Friday that, You don't have to 
come back anymore, or, We're closing down in 2 weeks. Sorry about that. 
We can't explain it now, but this is it.
  There are people now--and you may be able to comment on the stress 
factor--there are people that are working. Nobody said they were going 
to close their job down. Nobody has heard any rumors about anything. 
But they can't help but think about all the other people that were 
going along smoothly, and they lost their jobs. People are beginning to 
worry about the fact that--I know it's not me. I know I'm working. I 
know I've got insurance, but it could be me next month. It could be me 
in December. It could be me in January. What about that?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, you know, John, you are talking about the 
fundamental thing the President is trying to do, and that is to give 
people security, health security, that they know that if they get sick 
or they have an accident, they'll be taken care of. The fundamental 
weakness of our system forever has been that your health insurance has 
been tied to who you were employed by. When the economy's rolling 
along, and when the economy's going up, that's not too bad. It works 
pretty well. In fact, the difference between right now and what was 
going on in 1993-1994, as you remember when Mrs. Clinton tried to do 
this--everybody says, What's the difference between then and now? Then 
things were going up, and everybody thought, Well, this plan they're 
putting together is for somebody else. It's for them. They didn't know 
who ``them'' was, but it was somebody they didn't know.
  When you have a system that's tied to employment--people always 
thought that this health care business was about them. The difference 
today is, as you point out, middle class people who yesterday felt they 
were just about as secure as they could be--they had a job, they had 
health care, their kids were in college, blah, blah, blah--and bingo, 
they lose their job. We had a bank go down in Seattle, Washington 
Mutual Bank. There were 4,300 people that were affected. That's 4,300 
families who found themselves instantly without a paycheck, without 
health care, and in many cases, all of their pension money was in an 
IRA of the company's stock. So they suddenly had no pension. They had 
no security whatsoever. No house, no health care, no food, no anything.
  It's impossible for that not to be stressful to people, and people 
then have stress-related diseases. There are plenty of stress-related 
diseases. We know them. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a stress 
disease. And any kind of emotional thing like that is going to take a 
toll on you physically. A lot of people are suffering today from 
emotional illnesses, secondary to the instability of their economic 
situation.
  Mr. CONYERS. But, Dr. McDermott, I'm talking about the people that 
didn't lose their jobs, income and health insurance. I'm talking about 
the folks that are working, and they know about that. They can't help 
but think, That could happen to me. I don't know what you call this, 
but you start another stressful situation from that. There is nothing 
happening to them, but it's happening to people around them. It 
happens, like these people that I saw in this shelter in Detroit, where 
if we weren't in a shelter, they would be people I would expect to see 
at Starbucks.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman would yield, can I just point out that 
I have a chart here that I think does shed some light on the situation. 
Because a lot of the dialogue we've been having, quite frankly, is 
focused on the uninsured.
  But let's take a moment to talk about the insured, the folks who 
actually have insurance, the people who have anxiety about what could 
happen to them if they lose it, if they get sick. Because you know, if 
you get sick, that's when they don't want you on their insurance 
anymore, right? Cumulative change in single and family health insurance 
premiums, that's what you pay, what comes out of your check every 2 
weeks or every month--and the Federal poverty level.
  We've been seeing that the level of poverty has been rising, but look 
at this dramatic increase in the family premium. This family premium 
has jumped up 130 percent from 1996. This is real money coming out of 
the paychecks of real families all the time. People say we don't need 
reform and say that we're trying to scare people with fake death panels 
and fake school sex clinics and all this kind of stuff. The fact is 
that this is what the average family is living through, and this is 
impacting people who pay premiums, which means they have employer-based 
health insurance. What are people to do about this dramatic situation 
as they're facing trying to make ends meet in their family budget?
  I yield to either one of the gentlemen.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, when you say 130 percent increase, that's more 
than double, isn't it?
  Mr. ELLISON. Oh, yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. A 100 percent increase would be double. A 130 percent 
increase is one and a third more than what they're paying. Is this an 
annual increase rate?
  Mr. ELLISON. This is from 1996 to 2006.
  Mr. CONYERS. Oh, I see. It's a period of over 10 years. What it's 
saying to me is that these folks don't have any option of changing 
insurances or doing anything. What are their alternatives? If you don't 
pay, where are you going? Is there some private insurance company 
offering a lower premium? Can we call up insurance companies and say, 
My insurance has more than doubled over the last 10 years, and I want 
out. What happens then?

  Mr. McDERMOTT. You're tough out of luck. If you go into the 
individual market, you'll pay even more. So if you're in a big group, 
you know, working for Ford Motor Company or for Delco Battery or 
something, that way you get the risk spread over everybody. But if 
they're just looking at you or me or the next guy, they're going to 
charge you a much higher premium for anything that you have, any kind 
of preexisting condition.
  So it's worse when you leave one of those groups. People stay in, and 
they scramble to try to make it. But every company in the country has 
been shifting more and more cost onto the individual. They used to pay 
in some companies 100 percent. Now they pay 60 percent, and 40 percent 
has to be paid by the employee. Their deductibles are going up, and the 
copays are going up. That's why the President has said we have to find 
a way to control costs. We can't let this go on.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman would yield, if you look back at this 
chart, ``National Health Expenditures Per Capita.'' That means that we 
take all the health care expenditures and divide them by the number of 
people. So the average amount of health care expenditure for the 
average person--look at these numbers. This is what actually happened, 
and this is what is projected to happen.
  If we look at 1990, going back to 1990, what we saw was about $2,814 
per capita, per health care expenditure per person. This is 1990, the 
year I graduated from law school. If you go to this one, 2009, it's 
$8,160. Look at how this has more than doubled since 1990. As a matter 
of fact, this has nearly tripled.
  The fact is these expenditures are galloping higher. If you look at 
the projected rate, we're up here. By the year 2018, it will be $13,000 
per person. This is ridiculous.
  Now, there is another chart I want to show you, and this chart is a 
chart that looks at different countries. So you look at this blue here. 
The blue is the United States; and then we have the red, France; the 
green, Canada; the

[[Page H11154]]

purple, Germany; and then this aqua color, the United Kingdom. Back in 
the year 2000, we were up here at $4,570, way above everybody else. If 
you look at Germany, they were second, but everybody else was in the 
low 2,000s or higher 1,000s. This is the industrialized world.
  Now, if you flash forward to here, in 2006 we're up around $6,714. 
We're still way above everybody else, but look at how we are compared 
to ourselves over time. The American family can't sustain this. Why do 
we cost so much more than everybody else? It's time for a change. It's 
absolutely time for a change.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Washington State.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, I think that is what is really troublesome about 
this debate, is that people on the other side who argue that there 
doesn't need to be change--you say to them, Well, what are you 
offering? They say, Well, let's give tax credits to people so they can 
buy their own health insurance.
  Now, let's just think about that for a minute. The average income in 
this country is about $45,000. So you're making a little less than 
$4,000 a month. You can easily spend $1,000 a month on a premium. So 
each month you've got to take $1,000 of your $4,000 out and go down and 
buy your health insurance. Now, the Republican solution to that is, 
Give them a tax credit. Let them wait a whole year to the end of the 
year, and then you give them back their money at the end of the year.

                              {time}  1715

  Most people don't have that kind of ability to wait for 12 months to 
get their money back. Rich people can. I mean, they can wait for a tax 
credit someplace down the road. But ordinary people who are living from 
paycheck to paycheck to paycheck do not have the ability to spend a 
thousand dollars a month on a health care premium and wait 12 months to 
get credit for it on their income tax.
  So their proposals sound like they have something in mind. Yes, they 
have something in mind, but it simply won't work.
  Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, I'll cite another example of that.
  We hear a lot of people saying the solution to the problem is that we 
should just let people buy and sell insurance across State lines, and 
they offer this as something that's supposed to fix everything. But 
what they don't tell you is that 34 markets around the country have 
markets where one to five insurance companies are offering products and 
that's about all there is. Like in Alabama, as the President mentioned, 
one company dominates 90 percent of the market.
  So basically they want to say, well, if you can go from Ohio to 
Minnesota, then the fact is that they think that's going to solve the 
problem. But if you have a monopolized market here and a monopolized 
market there, you still don't have a whole lot of choice. You still 
don't have a whole lot of people willing to offer you very much.
  And how come these markets are so monopolized? Because it's extremely 
difficult to break into a market and build up a provider network, a 
doctor network in order to be able to compete that way. So they're 
saying you can compete with this monopoly and that monopoly and it's 
not going to solve anybody's problem, it might be a small part of some 
solution somewhere. But the real solution is single payer, which is why 
I'm on the bill, but a good medium solution is a strong public option, 
and we have got to have people fighting for it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. More and more Members of the Congress are coming on our 
universal single-payer health care bill. I'm very pleased about that.
  The judiciary, one of the subcommittees, we had a hearing about this 
McCarran-Ferguson bill that exempts from antitrust obligation insurance 
companies, and health insurance companies in particular. And I received 
a letter, a nice letter, from the CEO of the America's Health Insurance 
Plans. Her name is Ms. Karen Ignagni, and she sent us a nice letter 
back. She declined to be a witness. That's a subject we'll probably 
pursue later on.
  But I just checked in my little file of health insurance executive 
compensation, and this is public information, so I don't think she'd be 
offended by my discussing it here on the floor. Ms. Ignagni earns 
$1.580 million in compensation, but her base salary was $700,000. This 
was from 2007 filings. But she did also receive $170,000 in deferred 
compensation and a bonus. She probably works very long hours, and we 
concede that.
  But we looked at others that we want to talk with, another person 
that we are beginning to be in negotiations with. We have to, all of 
us, come around the table and discuss these matters.
  Let's take Aetna; one of the biggest, I presume. Its distinguished 
chairman and CEO is Mr. Ron Williams. Mr. Williams, I don't know what 
it is he does, but his income is $24,300,112 per year. Now, he's got 
some heavy responsibilities. Do you know how much more money he makes 
than the President of the United States?
  Look, capitalism, a love story, I'm for capitalism. He earned a total 
of $24 million plus for compensation in 2008 with more than half of 
that, $13.5 million, coming from stock option awards. I don't know how 
that works. He also received $6.4 million in stock awards to go along 
with his base salary, which was only $1 million plus. But, in addition, 
he has the personal use of corporate aircraft plus a land vehicle as 
well as financial planning and a 401(k) company matches, adding up to 
another $101,000 plus for Mr. Ron Williams.
  Now, I sent out a friendly invitation for the head of Aetna to come 
before my committee to discuss the incredibly important decisions 
involved in reforming health care in America. Here is a person who has 
a lot of experience in the subject matters that are being debated in 
three committees in the House, two committees in the Senate, and heaven 
only knows how many of the people in the White House are working on 
this. K Street, we know, is fully occupied in this matter. We need to 
talk.
  What about CIGNA? That's another big company. Its CEO, unfortunately 
he only makes half of what the CEO of Aetna earns. Maybe he's not as 
efficient or maybe he doesn't produce. I don't know what it is.
  But would anybody object if we invited these folks in to discuss 
this? I mean, we have the unemployed. Our colleague Sheila Jackson-Lee 
is going to have people coming in Tuesday at 5 o'clock next week to 
tell their problems. These are people that not only don't have income 
but they have huge debts.
  But I want to go from the other end of this, Mr. Ellison. I 
sympathize with all those that are suffering, but I want to try to 
understand--I've got to comprehend the view from the top with those who 
are not unemployed, who are not marginal, who are not lower income, not 
middle income. They're wealthy. So we have to extend these 
conversations both ways.
  What about the chairman and the CEO of CIGNA, $12.2 million annual 
income? What about WellPoint, Ms. Angela Braly, its president and CEO, 
$9.8 million every year? What about Coventry Health Care, President 
Dale Wolf, another $9 million? Centene Insurance Chairman Michael 
Neidorff, $8.7 million; James Carlson, chairman of AMERIGROUP, $5.2 
million; Humana's President Michael McCallister, $4.7 million; Mr. Jay 
Gellert, the distinguished president of Health Net, $4.4 million; 
Universal American, Chairman Richard Barasch, $3.5 million; Stephen 
Hemsley, UnitedHealth Group, president and CEO, $3.2 million.
  I want to get the picture from the top. They could explain to us and 
maybe put into more perspective why there's such a maldistribution of 
health care to everybody, because these are health insurance companies. 
If they don't know--I mean, they have a lot to tell us, and I would 
like to hear them in their own way and in their own words explain this 
situation, because we've got big decisions to make.
  We don't just represent the poor and the left out and the marginal; 
we represent the whole country. When I cast a vote in the House of 
Representatives, it's from my district that they sent me, but the vote 
applies to everybody in the United States of America, all 350

[[Page H11155]]

million people, including the upper 1 percent of income earners 
especially in health care.
  Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for 
making the point so very clear that there are winners and losers in the 
health care roulette that we have going on in our country, and it would 
be nice to hear from some of those people who seem to be coming up 
roses all the time to explain exactly what's going on.
  Mr. CONYERS. But they make the policy. I'm not a work inspector that 
wants to know how many hours they worked or what they did, but they 
make the decisions that lead us to be here, the whole Congress, two 
committees in the Senate, three committees in the House. We have 
caucuses every single day. Talk to me, somebody. If I'm going to be 
working on something this enormous, a multitrillion dollar decision, 
the people that have been making the decisions all these years, they 
have got to send me some letters.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. ELLISON. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could cut in. I just want to 
read very quickly before I hand it over to the gentlelady from Texas, 
Sheila Jackson-Lee, that I have somebody from Minneapolis who wants to 
tell me that their family--it says actually this, ``We are in 
foreclosure, housing foreclosure, health insurance is $600 a month for 
a family of five. We applied for a loan modification and were denied.''
  You know, this is a big deal. This family is dealing with this 
situation. ``Even with a loan modification, we still would not be able 
to afford our mortgage because of the cost of our health care 
insurance.''
  This is what a young lady trying to put food on the table is dealing 
with in my district right now. And I just think that her voice deserves 
to be heard as well.
  So with that, let me yield to the gentlelady from Texas and note that 
we have about 12 minutes left of our time, and it has been a wonderful 
hour.
  And the gentlelady from Texas, let me welcome you to the floor, and I 
yield to you for your remarks.
  And by the way, thank you for bringing people together next week to 
let the people be heard.
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
and the distinguished chairman, who was really posing a rhetorical 
question as to why the voices of opposition are in opposition, and let 
us hear about their case.
  And today I am on the floor joining you, Congressman Ellison, to 
thank you as you've kept this battlefront going. Many of us have had 
moments when we have had to depart quickly, and therefore, we have 
missed the opportunity to share with you, but we have appreciated the 
opportunity for your presence on the floor.
  We have got to have health care reform now. We have got to have a 
vigorous public option, Medicare Plus 5, and my position is, if this is 
about, Congressman Ellison, about loss of life, 18,000 people are dying 
every year because they do not have health insurance.
  But let me try to dispel the myth that this is a Democrat issue. This 
is a bipartisan issue, and I don't know when our friends on the other 
side of the aisle are going to get it. Because if history was 
recollected, you would see that Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all tried 
health reform because it was imperative. And if we had enacted Federal 
health spending as a percent of GDP dealing with health care under 
Nixon, Carter, or Clinton--meaning that we would have cut the cost, 
slowed the cost down--we would not be where we are today, which is this 
excessive cost in health care--and I've got a small chart. But the main 
idea is to say to you that spending would be much lower today if we had 
enacted health care reform under Nixon, Carter, or Clinton.
  Right now we are spending 5.2 percent of annual growth, and we're 
spending $2,000, it seems, in U.S. dollars per capita for individuals 
trying to be covered by health care. If Nixon, Carter, or Clinton 
health reform had been enacted, the share of GDP on health spending in 
the U.S. would be closer to other countries.
  We have a problem, and the interesting thing is that we seemingly are 
listening to our own voices and the voices of those who do have a right 
to express them but seem to be confused by the messages that are coming 
out.
  We see the attack on TV suggesting that this bill will take away 
Medicare from seniors. It is well known that we have been working with 
AARP. They are not beholden to us. They are not making decisions 
precipitously. They are looking closely at their responsibilities to 
their members. And I can assure you they are watchdogs, and they want 
to have a fix in the doughnut hole--Medicare part D--and they want to 
ensure a healthy Medicare, and they want to protect their members. So 
there is no substance to the characterization that we want to take away 
your insurance, that we want to take away Medicare, that Medicare Plus 
5 will not be valid.
  And there are questions about hospitals. Some of us are openminded in 
dealing with this question about hospitals, making sure that they don't 
represent to themselves that their doors are closing. We're concerned 
about doctors; we want to make sure that they can keep their doors 
open.
  And I would offer to say this point: The chairman has spoken about 
the voices of opposition, if I heard him as I came on the floor, Why 
can't we find out what their gripe is, that are making this amount of 
money and seem to be doing well?
  Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. I don't claim them to be voices of opposition. I don't 
know what their position is.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Exactly.
  Mr. CONYERS. I just want to find out.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. What is it.
  Mr. CONYERS. And I offer the hand of cordial exchange of views that 
we always do in the Judiciary Committee, and that is can we talk. Let's 
see where we have areas of agreement and where we have areas of 
disagreement. That's how the legislative process works. And then get 
all of the facts out on the table and decide what form and shape health 
care reform is going to take.
  I can't predict it now. If somebody asked me to tell them what a 
strong public option is--I've never seen a public option in my life. I 
don't know what it is. I know that it's an alternative to the 1,300 
private insurance companies, that every industrial company has at least 
one or more public options. But what its precise characteristics are, 
nobody's ever handed me a sheet of paper and said, This is a public 
option.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If I could reclaim the time yielded for a 
moment. And I thank the gentleman for clarifying that.
  You're right. I am willing to hear them too, but juxtaposed alongside 
of listening to a reasoned discussion and debate as to whether you're 
for or against, or what you're for, and to get them to understand what 
a vigorous public option is, as we've interpreted Medicare Plus 5, 
which will harm no one. I want to hear from the sick and the infirm, 
people who have suffered. Maybe you are better now. But you've suffered 
the burden of not having health insurance.

  Mr. Chairman, we're going to convene those individuals in Washington, 
D.C. We'd love for you to reach out to our office. If you're prepared 
to drive in or bus in or fly in so that your story can be heard, here's 
my condition: Because I had no insurance; my insurance was denied 
because of pre-existing disease; or because, in essence, my insurance 
said, you are not covered. These voices we have not been able to hear 
on the floor of the House or in committee rooms. When various 
individuals who have opposed this approach have offered their proposal, 
who are they speaking for? Are they speaking for that throng of 
individuals who claim that this country is their country as well, but 
they have not been able to secure the opportunity for good health care.
  Mr. CONYERS. Could we have friendly CEOs of health insurance 
companies join us at that hearing? Would they be invited too?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think that that would be most 
advantageous because then we could hear from individuals who feel and 
know by their work and their research and their companies' research 
that their house will

[[Page H11156]]

not collapse if we open up insurance so that all Americans have access 
to insurance and that we have 100 percent coverage.
  What I am shocked about, something as vital as health insurance and 
as close to saving your life as health insurance, people are willing to 
say it's okay if 47 million Americans are uninsured. They seem to 
believe that that is a statistical number that we can bear.
  I want these individuals who have suffered unfortunately and 
tragically from our failed health care system--not in terms of quality, 
not in terms of commitment, not in terms of good hospitals, but in 
terms of covering all Americans and lowering the costs.
  Democrats are standing here advocating for lowering the costs. And 
this document that was presented to us by, if I might, by Karen Davis, 
president of the Commonwealth Fund, suggests to us if we had suggested 
the health care reform of Nixon--who was a Republican--of Carter and of 
Clinton, we would have had lower health care costs today.
  And I can assure you we wouldn't have the premium surge, the upstart, 
the support of the premiums that are probably impacting the family 
between mortgage foreclosures that have not been responded to, the 
$600-a-month premium that they have to pay in order to provide for 
their family.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield, I have one more I want to 
show to you.
  Another gentleman named Patrick who says, We have a 19-month-old 
daughter with congenital heart problems. We're self-employed. She was 
denied coverage. We pay $14,000 a year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. This is a crime.
  Congressman Ellison, thank you for that real-life exhibit, if you 
will. And to that family, we don't want to suffer this kind of 
injustice to you much longer, a 19-month-old who is denied because of 
preexisting disease.
  I know if we start this program, first of all, we're expanding CHIP, 
Children's Health Insurance Program, we will be expanding Medicaid. 
We'll have a public option. There will be an opportunity for the 
private insurers. This is a big country. We're growing exponentially, 
and the issue is, those are the sad stories.
  I wish that gentleman could come here to Washington and tell his 
story because these are the voices that need to be heard. Even though 
we heard them in our town hall meetings, they need to be here in the 
Nation's capital, their home, their capital, to tell this body and the 
other body what this is in real life and real time.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady and the gentleman will yield.
  We are down to about 1 minute.
  So let me just say--because you will have the last word--this is the 
Progressive Caucus coming to you week after week for a progressive 
version of America where we're all included, we're all a part, health 
care for all, peace now, environmental sustainability, and civil rights 
for everybody, health care performed, patients before profits.
  I yield to the gentlelady and the gentleman for their last words.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am proud to be part of the Progressive 
Caucus and working closely in negotiating and working with my 
colleagues on ensuring a vigorous public option to save 18,000 lives 
every year.
  I yield to the distinguished gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. I just want to close the debate hoping that one of the 
dozen presidents of the health insurance companies will join us--maybe 
all of them or as many as schedules will permit. What I want them to 
know is that they've never said that they didn't care about the 47 
million people who aren't insured.

                          ____________________