[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1940-1945]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  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, I am here representing the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus tonight, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 
body of Members of Congress dedicated to the very simple idea that we 
all do better when we all do better. The Progressive Caucus, a caucus 
made up of Members of Congress--men, women, whites, blacks, Latinos, 
Asians, people of various different backgrounds throughout the whole 
country--all unified under the simple idea that everybody counts and 
everybody matters; that there is no one who doesn't deserve civil 
rights; that everybody deserves civil rights; that men and women should 
enjoy the same rights; that women should have a right to choose; that 
there is nobody who is outside the pale of our beloved community; and 
that we stand together on economic justice, environmental justice, 
stand together on the idea of health care for all, stand together on 
the idea of real consumer protection, stand together against the idea 
that Wall Street bankers and the well-to-do should have everything 
going their way. In fact, we think that the working men and women of 
America should have something going our way. In fact, we're the ones 
who do all the work around here and we're the ones who should see 
America operating on behalf of and for the American people.
  This is what the Progressive Caucus is all about. The Progressive 
Caucus is all about saying that consumer justice is important, health 
care reform is critical, war is usually the enemy of the poor, and that 
we need to find a way to seek diplomacy and dialogue and find a better 
way out of the conflicts that our country finds ourselves in. That is 
what the Progressive Caucus is about.
  I am going to be talking about some of our core beliefs, but how can 
I talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, without talking about the Health Care 
Summit? Obviously, the Health Care Summit was a big deal today. A lot 
of people were watching it on television. I want to commend President 
Barack Obama for having a transparent and open process.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, the party opposite, the 
Republicans, say that we should just start all over. Well, as you could 
see by watching the broadcast today, there was ample debate, long hours 
of discussion. We've had many, many hearings here in Congress on health 
care. We've had a conversation with the American people going on a 
year, and they say scrap it? No, thank you. They wish we would, but we 
won't.

                              {time}  2130

  The fact is that we have had a national dialogue, focusing on what it 
is like to live without health care and facing the world with your 
children and your family without any health

[[Page 1941]]

care coverage, facing bankruptcy as health care expenses skyrocket and 
you are unable to meet that reality, facing a situation where you have 
to put your medical expenses on a credit card, you know, which may have 
gone up to 28 or 30 percent. These are the kinds of things that concern 
us.
  I want to commend the President for convening this dialogue today, 
for having this discussion. I do wish, however, that there had been a 
member of the Progressive Caucus in an official capacity there. It is 
true there were people from the Progressive Caucus there, but our 
leadership is Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, and I believe they should 
have been there. There were other people there who were members of the 
Progressive Caucus but none who were authorized to speak for the 
Progressive Caucus. I'm not happy about that, but you know what? Things 
are seldom perfect in life. I would have wished that we would have had 
it that way, but we didn't.
  A few things were clear about the health care summit today, which is 
that the ideology still rules the day for our friends in the party 
opposite that Americans continue to face health care nightmares on a 
daily basis and that the urgency of change is as powerful as ever. We 
have got to move forward. There is no way that we as a Congress can 
engage the public imagination around health care for a whole year and 
then come up with nothing. We need to have a health care bill.
  This is the Progressive Caucus, and I am talking about health care 
and the economy today.
  I also want to say, as we talk about health care and the economy from 
the perspective of the Progressive Caucus, that this is a Progressive 
message coming to you for an hour. We come here every week, and we 
speak for an hour about the critical issues facing the American people 
from a Progressive standpoint, and that is why I want to talk about 
health care right now.
  Let me start off the conversation about health care by saying that, 
today, not only was the health care summit on and not only was the same 
old debate laid out--Democrats, Progressives wanting health care reform 
for the American people--but the folks in the party opposite are not so 
big on reform and want to just keep the status quo.
  The House also demonstrated and signaled its urgent desire to see 
health care reform when we took up the Health Insurance Industry Fair 
Competition Act just this week. This bill stripped away a protection 
that was granted to insurance companies, and it requires them to now 
compete. They got their exemption from antitrust laws taken away. It's 
not enacted into law, but it was passed in the House, on the House 
floor, just this week. The idea is that health care companies don't 
need to be exempted from antitrust laws. They need to have to face 
those laws because we need competition. When businesses compete, 
consumers benefit. Simple as that. When businesses compete, consumers 
benefit, but for far too long, the health care insurance industry has 
played by a different set of rules.
  Since 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act--you may have heard of it--has 
exempted businesses of insurance from Federal antitrust laws. Now, that 
is not right, so we did something about it this week at last, on the 
House side, hoping that the body down the hall will do something 
similar. This bill that we passed off the House floor amends the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act by repealing the blanket antitrust exemption 
afforded to health insurance companies. This is something the American 
people want. Most people I talked to didn't understand why they had an 
antitrust exemption in the first place.
  Under the bill, health insurers will no longer be shielded from being 
held accountable for price-fixing, for dividing up territories among 
themselves, for sabotaging their competitors in order to gain monopoly 
power, and for other anticompetitive practices. If they do it and if we 
can get it passed into law, then they are going to be held accountable; 
they are going to be taken to court. That's what we need.
  Removing the antitrust exemption not only enables appropriate 
enforcement; it also will give all health insurance companies healthy, 
competitive incentives that will promote better affordability, that 
will improve quality, and that will increase innovation and greater 
consumer choice--as antitrust laws have done for the rest of the 
economy for over a century.
  Removing this antitrust exemption is key, and it is supported by law 
enforcement groups and by the National Association of Attorneys 
General. The National Association of Attorneys General has consistently 
opposed legislation that weakens antitrust standards for specific 
industries because there is no evidence that such exemptions promote 
competition or serve the public interest. They do not promote the 
public interest. They undermine the public interest.
  So I just wanted to tell everybody that this piece of legislation 
passed off the House floor, signaling greater change as we are driving 
every day a little closer to real health care reform. The Health 
Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act passed off the House floor this 
week. It's just a piece of health care reform, but it's an important 
piece.
  Let me now turn to the larger issue of health care reform by 
addressing something called the ``public option.'' You've heard me 
talking about the public option, and I believe in the public option. 
You know, we're going to have this system in America of private 
insurance, which is not going to be undermined. I believe in universal, 
single-payer health care, but the present format is to, essentially, 
reform the existing system of private health care insurance. No 
problem. By the way, I'm always for private doctors, always for private 
health care providers. I just think we should pay for it through a 
single payer, which would be much more affordable for everyone. The 
public option is simply a government-run program, and I don't shy away 
from calling it that, because Medicare is government run and the VA is 
government run, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's an agency 
that could be set up by the government which would offer an insurance 
product for people to get health care coverage, and that could offer 
real competition to the private insurance market.
  Now, the thing about the public option that you should know is that 
over 120 Members of the House of Representatives have said, in a 
letter, that we want that, and we would like to see it make it into 
law. Not only that, over 24 Senators have said that they want to vote 
on the public option as well. This is a very, very important 
development because the fact is, when you have 24 Senators and 120 
House Members, that's a lot. Senator Reid says he favors the public 
option. Clearly, the public option has already passed through the House 
once. So this is a great idea. It's supported by the American people. 
Seventy percent of the American public like it.
  The public option should be in the final bill that eventually is 
signed by President Obama. The public option was talked about at the 
health care summit today, and we are very glad about that. Members of 
the Progressive Caucus went to the White House and handed out a 
document urging Members at the summit to raise the issue about the 
public option. Let me just state the facts about the public option.
  One is that poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of 
Americans believes a public option should be included in health care 
insurance reform. Fifty-seven percent were for a strong public option 
in a Washington ABC poll this winter. If the American people want it, 
if it has already passed through the House, if 24 Senators say they 
want it, and if the majority leader says he wants it, why can't we get 
a vote on it? I am saying this is a Progressive idea that is good for 
America, and I want to urge Americans to say that a public option is a 
good thing.
  Congress and the President have answered the call of the American 
people by dealing with health care, but we've really got to get a good 
health care bill. If we are going to use reconciliation because we 
can't get any Republican cooperation, why don't we get the best bill we 
can get? Why do we get a

[[Page 1942]]

bill that is less than we could get? Incrementalism has its place, but 
if we don't have to bother about getting 60 Senators in order to get 
around the filibuster rules, why don't we just go with a good bill 
which would really help the American people--one that would lower 
costs, that would increase affordability, and that would have an option 
for people? It's a good idea.
  The Democratic health care reform plan, which passed through the 
House and included a public option, is a bill that makes a lot of 
sense. It covers preexisting conditions. It stops the practice of 
recision--denying you health care when you need it most. It stops the 
bankrupting of our businesses and of our families when they get sick.
  As for the public option in particular, part of the plan that passed 
through the House offers and introduces competition; it lowers costs 
for consumers--taxpayers--and it brings a higher quality of health care 
to millions of Americans. I think Americans want to see the public 
option in any final product, and I think it is something that people 
should let their government know that they want.
  Currently, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is 
controlled by five or fewer companies. Many of the areas of the company 
are dominated by just one or two private organizations. A public option 
would offer a choice to people living in these highly concentrated 
markets. This means that the addition of a public option would provide 
a quality and affordable choice. The public option offers competition. 
Again, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled 
by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent of the market 
is controlled by just one company. That's not fair.
  In addition, the public option would provide competition for private 
insurance companies to keep them honest. It would be completely up to 
individuals to decide whether they want to access the public option. 
You don't have to use the public option. In fact, you could go to the 
private market if you felt there were a better deal there, but the 
public option would be there so that concentrated markets could not 
simply force you to buy their products.
  If the Congress of the United States is going to mandate that 
Americans get health care insurance, we should at least say that there 
will be a public option so that we don't force you into the arms of a 
monopolistic, highly concentrated market which would take advantage of 
you because of its market advantages.
  Americans should be free to seek health care without having to fear 
that they could not afford it or that they would incur tens of 
thousands of dollars in debt. A public option offers us an advantage on 
cost. We know that existing public options, like Medicare and Medicaid, 
consistently have lower administrative costs than their private 
insurance counterparts. Of course they do. According to the 
Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative costs for Medicare and 
Medicaid were 5 and 8 percent, respectively. If you look at the top 
five private health insurance companies, their administrative costs are 
17 percent. While the insurance market is controlled by fewer and fewer 
insurance companies in more and more States, there is little incentive 
to lower costs. Why should they? They're not in competition. A public 
option would offer that competition all over the country, and it would 
help Americans afford health care.
  Let me just say that we've been debating health care for a year now. 
When we started out, people like me wanted a single-payer health care 
system. I am so proud of the over 60 Members of Congress who signed 
onto John Conyers' bill for single-payer health care, but we 
compromised when we said, Okay. We're not going to get that. The single 
payer was not really given a fair chance in the House of 
Representatives, in my opinion. Be that as it is, we said, Okay. We 
will compromise and do the public option.
  Now the public option has been pushed to the side. In as early as 
August of 2009, we were told the public option is off the table. Off 
the table was what we were told. Well, the public option is such a good 
idea, such a powerful concept, that it keeps putting itself back on the 
table. So, when it looked like the public option was off the table 
again this winter--this winter, we thought, Okay. The public option is 
off the table again. Then we see a movement. First, it was just four 
Senators--Senator Bennet, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Brown. These 
Senators came together. They wrote a letter to Harry Reid, and they 
said, We want to vote on the public option, and we're going to ask you 
to put it up there. Then it was five. Then it was six. It got all the 
way up to 24. Then there are a number of Senators who said they don't 
want to sign a letter, which is their choice, but they would vote for 
it if it comes before them.
  Of course, we saw two dynamic freshman Members of the Congress--
Chellie Pingree and Jared Polis--two very dynamic, young Congress 
people who authored a letter that 120 of us joined, and now both the 
Houses have these movements moving forward. We didn't see the public 
option in the President's proposal, but both Houses of Congress are 
seeing these movements towards it. I believe that, if we put that bill 
on the President's table with a public option in it, he will sign it. 
He said he favored the idea. Here is his chance to prove it.

                              {time}  2145

  The fact is that bureaucratic overhead costs coupled with 
multimillion- dollar CEO salaries and bonuses equate to high costs for 
America's working families, and a lack of competition provides no 
incentive to change their practices, but a public option will make them 
compete and will provide access to millions of Americans potentially.
  Higher quality. Competition always improves quality. Therefore, the 
public option will help consumers get better coverage for the same 
amount of money as their private insurers.
  Now, there are myths about the public option, and I think people 
ought to know that. The idea of a public option being a government 
takeover or even a government-run program is not really the truth. The 
idea that a mandated health insurance is a new tax on people is also 
not true. What a public option really is is that the government would 
help cover the high cost of insurance for Americans while bringing 
those costs down through competition. Without health insurance reform, 
however, we can expect the problems that exist today to only get worse.
  Now, the public option is not a takeover of health care. That's 
ridiculous. It's not true. It would simply be one option among many 
offered by the public. Now, it would be administered by the government, 
but so what. So is Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, and TRICARE. These are 
all government health care programs that people really, really like. 
You know, as a matter of fact, when it comes to Medicare, back in 1965 
when we passed it, only 22 Republicans voted for it, and now they act 
like they're the defenders of the program, which they're not. But the 
fact is nobody's messing with Medicare nowadays. Why? Because it's a 
popular program. Even though only 22 Republicans voted for it in 1965 
when it first passed, it is now the way we live, and nobody is going to 
allow it to be taken away.
  In 10 years the out-of-pocket costs that are paid by individuals and 
families across America would increase by more than 35 percent and as 
many as 65.7 million Americans will be uninsured. That's intolerable in 
this great country. This means higher costs to taxpayers to cover 
hospital expenses of the uninsured. Employers will also have to pay 
health insurance premiums at least 60 percent higher than premiums 
today.
  There are supporters for the public option in all areas of life, not 
just the House, not just the Senate, but also doctors are in support of 
the public option, and organizations behind them strongly support the 
public option too. These include the American Nurses Association, the 
American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and the 
AARP. Even hospitals such as the National Association of Children's 
Hospitals have supported the principles of health care change and the 
public option.

[[Page 1943]]

  And let me just say when the American Medical Association that 
represents doctors say they're for the public option, that lets you 
know that people on the other side of the aisle saying things like, Oh, 
the Democratic Congress wants to get between you and your doctor, isn't 
true. It's just not the case. So you need to be aware of the myths that 
are out there.
  As was said before, three courageous members of the Progressive 
Caucus went over to the White House today and offered the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus's perspective, and I was proud that they did that. 
The CPC, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not receive an 
invitation to the health care summit, but we showed up and we handed 
our ideas to the people who were invited, and we were happy to see that 
both Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer introduced the idea of 
the public option, and we thank them for that.
  So let me just now move into another area before we wrap it up 
tonight, and what I want to talk about is the economy. Now, it's 
important, as we discuss the economy, to bear in mind that we've come 
quite a long way, quite a long way. In fact, when the Republicans were 
in office, they literally, not literally but figuratively, drove the 
economy into the ditch. They just ran the economy into the ground. The 
economy shrank 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Barack Obama 
was not the President then. It was under George Bush when the economy 
shrank 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. The fact is that the 
economy lost 741,000 jobs in January 2009 alone. Remember, Barack Obama 
was not the President until January 20. This a Bush failure and, of 
course, a Republican failure.
  Under the Republicans we erased $2.7 trillion in retirement savings. 
I will show you a board on that I have. And it's important to remember 
that people trying to retire saw their retirement savings just shrink 
under the leadership of the Republicans. Very scary. Not very nice to 
the seniors. And more than doubling the debt in 8 years. Now, these 
folks shake their finger at us like we're big spenders. Look, they 
doubled the debt in 8 years. When President Clinton left office, we had 
a surplus. They took care of that because they cut taxes for the 
wealthiest Americans and never paid for them and then had a couple of 
wars they didn't pay for and put us in massive debt. The worst 
recession since the Great Depression should be called the ``Republican 
recession.''
  Now, just to show you a little bit more, I was talking about this 
idea of public debt a moment ago, and, of course, we all should be 
concerned about debt. As a progressive, I'm worried about debt because 
interest service on the debt can't be waived, can't be put off. You've 
got to pay it when it's due. And that means that it cuts into things, 
programs and expenditures that could literally help people who I want 
to see helped. Like helping people who are in need of medical 
assistance, helping our schools, helping firefighters and police and 
teachers and public safety people. All these things get squeezed when 
you've got to pay all that high debt service.
  But Republicans lack credibility on fiscal responsibility. They don't 
want to spend money to help poor folks and regular folks. That's true. 
But when it comes to helping out well-to-do people and really, really 
wealthy folks, who I am absolutely fine with--I've got a lot of friends 
who are doing well. But they don't need folks looking out for them 
because they've got the money. But the point is that Republicans lack 
credibility on fiscal responsibility. It's not that they don't spend. 
It's just they don't spend it on things that help your average citizen. 
They spend it on tax cuts for the very wealthy and wars.
  So debt held by the public nearly doubled under the Bush 
administration. We can look here at the year 2000, $3.4 trillion. We 
see this red ink just going up and up and up all the way to $6.3 
trillion in 2008 when the Democrats get the White House and the 
Congress.
  So the fact is that this is their mountainous debt, and now they want 
to lecture about debt and fiscal responsibility, but it rings hollow 
because of their history.
  Let me also show you this board. This is a good one. Democrats 
actually have a proven record of fiscal responsibility. Democrats are 
good with the economy. We do a good job when we're in charge. If you 
look over Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, you will see these 
budget deficits and surpluses. This is when we see the budget surplus 
during the Clinton years is going up. It actually goes above zero, so 
we actually have more money. But here the amount of money that we have 
is less and less and we're seeing ourselves greater and greater in debt 
under the Reagan-Bush years. You see the debt is actually going up 
while our surplus is going down. And then you see the surplus going up 
on the blue line, and then you see the dropoff when it comes to our 
surplus. We have no surplus here and then we have a negative surplus--
also known as a deficit.
  So if you look at this, Democrats have a proven record of fiscal 
responsibility. If you look at Reagan and Bush, Clinton and Bush, 
you're seeing the product of Republican leadership and their fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  Now, this is an important board because right now it's all about 
jobs. We need health care because it's such a big chunk of a family 
budget. We need to get that down. We need to cover everybody. So health 
care is economic justice for people. But it's important to understand 
that we've seen the job losses because of the Republican recession. I 
just showed you that. Democrats turned around Republicans' job losses. 
Now look: We're losing jobs. All these red lines below this zero is 
unemployment. We're going down. Monthly change and nonfarm payrolls. 
You see that. And we're going all the way down. We're just hitting it. 
And in January of 2009, you see Democrats are in control, and as we're 
just adding to job losses here, it's worse and worse and worse and 
worse, and then you see the slow but steady improvement.
  Now, we're still not creating jobs, and this is a serious problem. 
But you can see that we're going in the right direction. You can see 
that with Democrats in there, we're doing better.
  So the last month Bush was the President, we lost 741,000 jobs in a 
month. And the last month, and this doesn't reflect the most recent 
data, we lost 22,000. Now, we still lost, and that's bad. But the fact 
is we're losing fewer and fewer and fewer and you can see that in a few 
months, we'll be above the line and we'll be adding jobs, which is 
something very, very important to point out.
  Do you know what the toughest job in the circus is? Cleaning up after 
the elephants. So the Democrats are trying to fix 8 years of Republican 
leadership in this country, and it's not an easy thing to do. But you 
can see in a short period of time, we're getting it all turned around.
  Now, one of the things that helped turn things around is the Recovery 
Act. Now, you heard these folks say, oh, this is terrible, the Recovery 
Act is bad. You would think that the Recovery Act was something that 
wasn't any good. But look here. This is something you should take a 
look at:
  ``GOP: There's no hypocrisy in seeking stimulus money. Republicans 
say they are working on behalf of their constituents.''
  Now here's the full quote:
  ``The DCCC claims that 91 House Republicans are talking out of both 
sides of their mouths.''
  Now, these guys were voting against the stimulus. We didn't get one 
Republican vote for the stimulus. They didn't vote for it. They were 
all against it, even though it clearly put Americans back to work and 
stopped the bleeding of jobs. But that didn't stop them from going out 
in ribbon cuttings and being there and just trying to show off and say, 
hey, look, give me some stimulus money. I didn't vote for it, but I 
want to benefit from it. Isn't that terrible? Let me just read a little 
of this to you:
  ``Amid mounting criticism, House Republicans said this week that it 
is not hypocritical to vote against the stimulus and later seek money 
from it for their districts.
  ``After standing united in opposition to the President's economic 
stimulus

[[Page 1944]]

bill a little more than a year ago, many Republicans have touted the 
benefits of that measure back in their districts, according to a 
comprehensive list compiled by the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
Committee.
  ``Citing the stimulus and other measures, the DCCC claims that 91 
House Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
  ``In recent days former Senator Alan Simpson, Republican from 
Wyoming, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have echoed the 
DCCC claims.''
  Like my dad, who's a Republican, they're honest Republicans, and 
Simpson and Schwarzenegger are telling the truth.
  ``But key House Republicans argue that a vote against the stimulus 
bill should not prevent them from writing a letter on behalf of their 
constituents seeking grants available from the $787 billion measure. 
Some of them do say, however, that Republicans should refrain from 
attending photo ops.''
  And it goes on.

                              {time}  2200

  What is the point? The point is they created a recession with their 
policies of tax cuts for the rich, wars that they didn't pay for, tax 
cuts they didn't pay for, no regulation of Wall Street, and just 
letting things run amok, not regulating predatory lending though 
Democrats had been asking them to do it for years while we were in the 
minority. And then they create this situation where the economy tanks. 
Then when we put measures in place to bring the economy back to life, 
they vote against it, but then they run to take advantage of it. That 
is bad.
  Now, the Recovery Act. The CBO, that is the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, estimates that in the third quarter of calendar 2009, an 
additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United 
States. That is pretty good. In the third quarter of the calendar year 
2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed. That 
is pretty good. That is trying to dig us out of the hole.
  The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Recovery Act will 
increase real GDP by 1.5 to 4.5 percent during the first half of 2010, 
and 1.2 to 3.8 percent during the second half. That is actually good as 
well.
  Now, Mark Zandi, who actually was a consultant for Senator John 
McCain when he was running for President, who is pretty conservative, 
said, ``I don't think it is an accident that the economy has gone out 
of recession and into recovery at the same time stimulus is providing 
its maximum economic impact.'' So even a conservative economist is 
telling them that the stimulus worked and is working. And I just wish 
they would agree that Democrats are better for the economy. I just wish 
the Republicans would agree with the unbiased evidence that Democrats 
are better for the economy.
  Now, it is important, I mentioned retirement accounts earlier, 
Retirement Accounts Recovering Under the Obama Administration. Now, 
here we see under the Bush administration the value of retirement 
accounts is going down, the value of retirement savings accounts. You 
see them, they are just going down, down, down, down, down. They are 
just dropping. And then you see under the Obama administration, 
retirement accounts are up $1.8 trillion, as we see them climb from the 
first quarter of 2009 steadily back up. More evidence that Democrats 
are better with the economy, which is the thing that helps you put food 
on the table, a roof over your house, and retirement money in your 
account.
  Moving right through these boards here, and I just want to show the 
folks, the economy is swinging back to growth. Now, GDP is gross 
domestic product. That is the sum total of all the goods and services 
produced by the economy in a given period of time. You see that in the 
first quarter of 2008, we had negative GDP growth. It popped back up 
for a minute, but then it kept going down, down, down. This is all 
under Bush. And then you see GDP growth going back up. And these are 
the projected increases.
  The fact is that the economy, GDP growth is increasing. That means 
real goods and services produced. That means people working. That means 
production. That means people providing services. And it means food on 
the table. It means soup in the pot. That is what it means. Or chicken, 
or whatever you like.
  So let me just say, as I begin to wrap it up, the fact is that the 
economy is not back to health yet. It needs more things. I believe very 
strongly, and the Progressive Caucus agrees, that we need direct job 
creation from the government like the WPA, where we put people back to 
work, painting public buildings, working in Head Starts, doing valuable 
work that needs to be done, and that these jobs could be paid and they 
wouldn't be just special kinds of jobs, but they would just be jobs 
that people can do and hopefully keep that job.
  If we can ignite the economy and keep the period of growth going. The 
economy is not out of the woods yet. We still have unemployment that is 
intolerably high, particularly in minority communities. This is 
intolerable. We have got to do something about it. There is no doubt 
about that. But we are going in the right direction. And we need to 
improve to keep the drive alive. Keep the drive alive, not turn back.
  I just want to say to folks out across America, the fact is that it 
takes more than just a couple of years to get things straightened out 
after so many years of difficulty. We need young people, new Americans, 
communities of color, working people, labor, everybody to keep their 
level of enthusiasm up about what the prospects for America are and to 
not get discouraged just because things didn't pop back into shape as 
soon as George Bush handed over the mantle of the presidency. It is 
going to take a little bit of time, but things are clearly going in the 
right direction.
  One year in, the evidence is clear, and growing day by day, that the 
Recovery Act is working to cushion the greatest economic crisis since 
the Great Depression and lay a new foundation for economic growth. 
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery 
Act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs. The 
analysis of the Council of Economic Advisers also found the Recovery 
Act is responsible for about 2 million jobs, a figure in line with 
estimates from private forecasters in the economy. Even the 
conservative American Enterprise Institute is agreeing that the 
Recovery Act is helping create jobs, which no Republican voted for the 
stimulus package. It is very important to remember that.
  We recently learned that our economy grew 5.7 percent in the fourth 
quarter, the largest gain in 6 years, and something many economists say 
is due to the Recovery Act. So again, negative GDP growth, meaning we 
were losing, the economy was shrinking when Bush was the President, and 
now it is growing. Very important for people to know that.
  The Recovery Act, by the way, it did cut taxes for 95 percent of 
working families. The Republicans love their tax cuts, but not for the 
regular working people, only for the very well-to-do. But the Recovery 
Act did cut taxes for about 95 percent of American families, the Making 
Work Pay Act tax credit. And that is about $37 billion in tax relief 
for about 110 million working families in 2009.
  The fact is loans were made to over 42,000 small businesses through 
the Recovery Act, providing them with nearly $20 billion in much-needed 
capital. The Recovery Act funded over 12,500 transportation 
construction projects nationwide. When 40 percent of all construction 
workers are on the bench, that work is very, very, very welcome. These 
projects range from highway construction to airport improvements, of 
which more than 8,500 already are underway. It funded 51 Superfund 
sites from the national priority list. Of those sites, 34 have already 
had on-site construction. The Recovery Act, which I was proud to vote 
for, has done a lot of good for America.
  So as we wrap it up today, it is important just to bear in mind that 
health care reform is a key component and a vital component of 
restoring our

[[Page 1945]]

country to economic health. We need health care reform.
  Remember, the Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White 
House between 2000 and 2006, and they didn't do anything to improve the 
health care situation for Americans.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. The gentleman will have an hour to say whatever he 
wants.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman in my 
hour as well.
  Mr. ELLISON. I can't stay here all night.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield to correct a fact?
  Mr. ELLISON. No, I am not yielding. You're going to say whatever you 
want later, so let me just keep going. From 2000 to 2006, the 
Republicans had the White House--check the facts, Mr. Speaker--they had 
the Senate, and they had the House of Representatives, and they didn't 
do anything to help health care.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. I have already answered that question. I will not yield.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ELLISON. I don't have to yield, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Is it common and normal for a Member to yield to 
another Member on a respectful request?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is entirely at the discretion of the 
gentleman who controls time whether or not he chooses to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. When a gentleman states an erroneous fact into the 
Record, is a Member's alternative then to move to take down the words 
rather than ask for a yield to correct the record?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not respond to hypothetical 
questions.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I will concede this moment for now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a further 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would have a point of order if we 
didn't have Members in bed right now, so I will concede this point 
right now and yield back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota may proceed.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me just say for the third time, from 2000 to 2006, 
the Republicans had the presidency, they had the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, and they didn't do anything to help 
Americans improve the health care situation.

                              {time}  2210

  They didn't do a thing. They allowed premiums to increase. They 
allowed co-pays to increase. They allowed people to be denied for 
preexisting conditions. They allowed misery to accumulate around the 
health care crisis in America. They allowed the number of uninsured to 
increase, and they allowed a very difficult, awful situation.
  So now we've got upwards of 45 million people who don't have health 
care, and while the Republicans could have done something about it, 
they did not do anything about it.
  Now, in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield and in a few 
minutes I am sure my friend from Iowa is going to have plenty to say. 
But I would like, Mr. Speaker, that anyone listening to the sound of my 
voice examine the facts I just laid out because they are true.
  The Republicans could have done something to help Americans address 
their health care crisis between 2000 and 2006, and they did not do 
anything. And since the Democrats regained the Congress, we passed 
SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, which President Bush 
vetoed, and we're trying to fix one mess they made with prescription 
drugs by filling the doughnut hole. But all that program was was a boon 
to large pharmaceutical companies, and we're trying to fix that large 
debacle now.
  The fact is is that the Republican Caucus could have helped the 
American people and they declined the invitation to do so. And now 
while America has been embroiled in a conversation around health care 
reform for a year, they have come up with nothing constructive to say. 
All they want to do is deprive Americans of their right to civil 
redress under the law when doctors sometimes make mistakes. They call 
it tort reform. What it really is is denying consumers the right to 
redress grievances, which is an American thing to do to try to fix 
these problems.
  Now, we're not saying that people who abuse the legal system 
shouldn't have accountability. We are saying do not shut the doors when 
Americans have a legitimate claim, which is what I think the Republican 
Caucus is in favor of.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this hour, called the Progressive 
Caucus Hour, is all about talking about Progressive measures that have 
made America great. And I would offer you this, Mr. Speaker, that every 
single thing that has made America the wonderful, beautiful, great 
country that it is has been a progressive proposal.
  Breaking away from England was progressive. Throwing off a dictator 
was progressive. Freeing people from slavery was a progressive thing to 
do. Allowing unions to organize was a progressive step forward. Civil 
rights was progressive. Women's rights was progressive. Getting rid of 
the poll tax was progressive. And it has been conservatives every step 
of the way trying to block these things.
  America is a progressive country. America believes that everybody 
does better when everybody does better. America believes deep in its 
heart in religious tolerance. We believe in economic justice. We 
believe in equality for all people. But conservatives, trying to hold 
this country back and maintain the status quo, have been in the way all 
along.
  So tonight, Mr. Speaker, may I yield back the microphone knowing full 
well that those following me will have plenty to add.
  But with that, I will yield back.

                          ____________________