Congressional Progressive Caucus

Floor Speech

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Markey of Colorado). 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. Here we are again, another Special Order with the Progressive Caucus.

It's an honor to be here again here before the people to talk about the issues that concern us. No issue is more prominent today than the issue of health care, and I'm pleased to be able to discuss this critical issue with our co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, Chairwoman LYNN WOOLSEY.

And I yield to the gentlelady.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much.

I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman Ellison, for every week having a 1-hour Special Order on the very subject of health care. We've done a lot over these last few weeks, and the Progressive Caucus is very proud of the role that we have played in bringing health care to where it is. I think KEITH said earlier this morning that we probably have just finished the first few innings of a ball game, and we're the ball now after last night's great speech by our President, and his clarity and his ability to explain to the country what it is he wants in a health care bill and his willingness to actually debunk some of the myths that have been out there and some of the lies that have been told about this health care debate and, at the same time, talk about what his priorities are.

And one of those priorities, from what he has given us, which is a laminated card that lists what he wants in a health care bill, and it says under--if you don't have insurance, there are one, two, three, four points, and the third point says--and this is what--I'm going there right away because this is what Progressives were looking for. If you don't have insurance, quality, affordable choices for all Americans, this bill would offer a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice.

Now, that says to us that the public option--and we want a robust public option--remains on the table, that the ball is in our court. Now, I guess this is the third or fourth inning of getting this thing together so that we can bring a health care bill to the floor of the House that is worthy of all Americans, and now that the ball is in our court. We, as the Progressive Caucus, have pledged to define what we consider a robust public health option to be, to work with our leadership and with the administration and to see that our definition of ``robust public option'' is included in health care reform.

Mr. Ellison, you have been absolutely magnificent in making that happen.

Mr. ELLISON. Let me commend you for your leadership.

We have sent letter after letter to make sure that the White House knew exactly where we stood. The last letter we sent, I think we had 60 signatures, but that was not the only letter we sent. We have been letting the White House know, letting Democratic leadership know that a public option was essential to reform.

And so last night I was very gratified to hear the President not back away from a public option but to embrace the idea. And I will take credit on behalf of the Progressive movement in saying that I think that we helped inform and shape the position that the President ultimately took.

The President made a great line, I think you might agree, Congresswoman Woolsey, when he said we don't fear the future; we're here to shape it. That is absolutely true for the Progressive Caucus under your leadership and that of Congressman Grijalva.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been coming here week after week, but not just coming to the House floor but in the debate. We've been in meetings. We've been writing letters. We've been having communication. Through your advocacy, Congresswoman Woolsey, and that of Congressman Grijalva, we have been very clear

that we grasp the magnitude of the moment that we're in. We're not going to make any mistake about the historic nature of this time and that we are grasping that moment and making sure that we set our country on a path to true health care reform, and that starts with a public option, I believe.

And I believe yesterday--we can't celebrate because we haven't gotten the ball over the fence yet, but I'm happy with the fact that we have kept the President on course, and I am very encouraged by what happened yesterday.

And before I yield back to you, Congresswoman, I want to just share with you something, if I may, and that is this big red box. Do you see this box right here? This box represents 63,692 people who signed a petition saying that they wanted a public option. This is no joke. This is, like, a lot of work, and this is an enormous document right here. All of these people said, Hey, look, you know, if we're going to mandate care for 49 million new people, then how can we mandate care for them if we're going to mandate that they go do business within a monopoly or a duopoly without any way to have competition introduced so that prices can be pushed down.

So this huge document, which has signatures from every State in the Union--Congresswoman Woolsey, the first ones up here are Alaska, and if I dip in through a little further, then there's California. And they're even by congressional district. Then we can go further and we're still in here, California, because you guys have got a big State over there. The Congressional District 22.

What congressional district is yours?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Sixth.

Mr. ELLISON. Let me tell you, we've got a bunch of sixes in here.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, I'm sure you do.

Mr. ELLISON. We've got sixes for days here. They signed this petition, too. Their names are right here.

Then we could even jump back here to my State of Minnesota, which is in here as well, but also Massachusetts and Missouri and New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Tennessee. This is the voice of many, many Americans who understand the time for reform is now.

So I thought I would mention that in terms of making sure that the public option remains a critical part of the discussion, maintains its status as a central part of reform.

I give credit to the President last night. I give credit to you and Congressman Grijalva for your leadership, but I also give credit to the Progressive movement, because we're all in this same thing together.

I yield back to the gentlelady.

Ms. WOOLSEY. It was a Sunday in the city of Sonoma. I was presented with--that's the list of names that is very impressive. But I was presented with a stack of petitions like that, and I was so proud. I barely could hold them because they were so heavy.

So let's talk about why it's important to have a public option. I think it's time that we start repeating the value and the need for a public option because we get criticized, A public option will cost, blah, blah. The public option absolutely saves money. And the reason it does, there is the same level of overhead, like Medicare or Medicaid, because there's no marketing fees. There

are no high-paid executives in the six and seven figures, and there's no shareholders that have to be paid on their stock. So it saves money.

The other thing it does, it provides competition to the private health care industry, health insurance industry. And why is that important? Well, without competition, the rates soar, and they have been over the years to a point where if it continues--right now $1 out of every $6 goes to health care in this country, and that number is going to grow so quickly, and we will be so embarrassed and in so much trouble that we'll know that we made a huge mistake. We don't want to make that mistake.

The other thing--you know about competition. Let's talk about competition for just a minute. The President last night said only about 5 percent of Americans would opt into the public option. Well, I truly believe it would be more than that. But at first it might be--and it needs to prove itself and become just a very viable health care provider, which it will be if it's robust like we want.

But if it's only 5 percent of the overall, why are the private insurance companies so worried? They do not want a public option. And they don't want any competition, and they know that this is the competition they really don't want because it will prove itself over time, and more and more people will indeed select the public option when they have that choice.

Now, the other thing that the public option provides--and I know you're going to be able to add more, but security, security for people who are covered on plans by their employers today. One of the big arguments out there is 85, 75 to 85 percent of all Americans already are covered by their employer and they like the coverage. Well, you know, they might, they might not, but they're covered. But they are not certain that that coverage will last.

And there's a poll, the Belden Russonello poll that shows that 60, 70 percent--I can't remember exactly; I think it's 68 percent, something like that--of the people who have insurance feel insecure on whether that insurance will be available to them for as long as they will need it. And certainly they can't feel secure if they lose their job or if they want to take a new job or if their employer decides, I can't afford to cover my employees anymore. And we want the public option to be one of the choices they have in a soft landing if any of that happens. And they don't feel that secure, and we know it.

Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady yields back, let me say we're defining the public option. What is it? What is this thing they're talking about, this public option? And the gentlelady has made a good number of points to show what it is. Let's sharpen the points a little bit.

Ms. WOOLSEY. What does it look like?

Mr. ELLISON. Think not only of the public option but the whole overall package of reform.

First of all, if you have health insurance through your job, you will keep that. If you have health insurance through Medicare or Medicaid or the VA, you will keep that. There will be more people added to the program because there are a lot of people who don't have any health care who are indigent who could apply, but there will be money to make sure that those folks get in. Those programs will stay in place as they exist now.

But then the new thing will be an exchange, and what is an exchange? It's kind of like a grocery store, but it will be online. You can shop for health care insurance products online, and this will be the exchange.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman will yield.

It will look like a catalogue. It will be a print catalogue of health care plans available by region.

Mr. ELLISON. If you've ever bought furniture or anything else in a catalogue or if you have ever gone on eBay or anything or shopped or shopped this way, it's going to be like that. But the question is that on this grocery store that we're talking about, this exchange, it's just a market, will you be able to go into a certain aisle and stop and pick up the public option in addition to all of the other private options. That's all it is.

I've been somewhat surprised by people who claim to be free marketeers who don't want any competition. It always surprises me when I hear people say competition and choice, and I say, Wait a minute, the public option is just one more choice. What could be wrong with it? It's just one more thing you can get among an array of different choices. Why would you not like it?

Another good thing about the public option is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will save about $150 billion. One time I said ``million'' by accident. I was quickly corrected. It's ``billion.'' And the President made it clear last night that, hey, it's got to survive based on the premiums it collects. And the public option I don't think is worried about that because, as the gentlelady points out, you don't have to pay a bunch of lobbyists $1.4 million a day. You don't have to buy a bunch of, pay out a bunch of company donations to politicians. You don't have to advertise and try to create demand where there really isn't any.

The head of the public option will be the Secretary of Health and Human

Services who I think makes about $174,000 a year, quite a bit less than CEOs at some of the insurance companies. The chief executive of Aetna makes, what, $24 million a year. The United Health Group person makes about 3-point-something million. This is just base salary. This isn't even other incentives in their packages. So the public option will be able to offer a good product which people can rely on.

You ask people how do they feel about other public options, because, by the way, this will not be the first public option. This is not the only public option in American society. It is not the first public option. Look, Medicare is a public option. Social Security is a public option for income for seniors. The VA is a public option. You don't have to take these services. You can not accept them. They are an option available for you if you want to take it. So people don't even have to take the public option.

I've heard some people say that this is going to be a government takeover of health care. Wait a minute, if you don't like the public option, don't get it. Get one of the other products that will be listed on the exchange, and you will be perfectly free to do that. So these are just a few things about the public option that need to be understood.

We have just been joined by one of our personal heroes, John Conyers, who never stops fighting. We are talking about the Progressive message tonight. We are talking about health care, the public option. And you, Congressman Conyers, are the original author of H.R. 676, the single-payer bill, which I'm a coauthor on, and Congresswoman Woolsey is as well. We will yield to you. Thank you for coming.

Mr. CONYERS. If you yield to me just very, very briefly, I want to tell you and Chairwoman Woolsey and the good doctor who is on the floor with us that I have listened to everything you said. And I want to commend you. I'm so proud that this discussion goes on immediately the night after the inspirational remarks of the President, especially, at the end.

There was one part that I wanted to remind all the Members of the caucus about. It was the part where he compared the Progressive Caucus and the single-payer concept on the other hand with those of a totally different viewpoint that feel that there should be no employer connection at all. That was a tremendously effective rhetorical flourish. But the fact remains that I guess there is somebody--oh, come to think of it, I am one of the people that would like to separate the employer connection from health care. I hope that doesn't make me a conservative or whatever group that has been promoting that, because I think now that I reflected on it, I think that is not a bad idea.

The question is, after we separate it, we separate all people that work for a living with the employer connection to their health care, which has been very hurtful for most people, take for example the automobile workers in the Detroit area with three major automobile plants. Their connection to, the relationship worked out between their collective bargaining agent and the corporations has been disastrous because when they close down or move out or relocate, guess what? The employer loses not only his job, but he also loses his health care, and he also loses his pension in many cases.

So I think that this should be carefully considered and reconsidered by everyone that heard the brilliant speech last night. That is to say that to reject both of these ideas out of hand, the single-payer concept and an end to employer connection, I don't know who is advocating that, but to say that everybody goes out and get his own insurance, well, maybe there are 432 other Members besides ourselves, so maybe somebody is, but I don't take it as a serious consideration in this very complex subject matter that brings progressives to the floor today.

Now, on the other hand, the universal single-payer health care bill is not just a few people that have come up with something to involve themselves in the discussion with health care reform. As a matter of fact, the single-payer concept is one of the oldest serious major notions that has been around. That is to say, for those of us who were here when the President was Bill Clinton and he assigned his wife the task of taking on the reform of health care, we were summoned, we who were supporting single-payer, were summoned to the White House collectively.

I remember very well that Jerry Nadler of New York was there, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee. And what happened was that we were urged to step back from our initiative which had been going on for years before the Clintons assumed their responsibilities on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and after some brief discussion, we agreed that that was the appropriate thing to do. We did it. We did step back.

That concept is now undergoing a very short shrift in this whole discussion, namely because this whole discussion was initiated on the premise that universal single-payer health care was too new, too startling and too complex. It would take too long to institute. And so we are going to start off by not including it in the mix. I'm proud to say that some of the committees did include it in the mix. Predominantly, George Miller of the Education and Labor Committee had Members testify before his committee. Charles Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee had testimony on universal single-payer health care. And there may have been testimony in the

Energy and Commerce Committee under the distinguished leadership of Henry Waxman, but I cannot really attest to that at this moment.

What I am saying is that those Members who support universal single-payer health care have already made a major concession in the discussion, major concession. And it just seems to me that this could have been addressed in a different way, and it wasn't. That's water over the dam. But still, 86 Members, and there are more who are not cosponsors of the bill, were never cut into the major premises of how we go about it.

So for the President to compare that with those people who want everybody to go buy their own insurance any way they can, I think, was a mistaken metaphor. I just wanted to inject that into the discussion because this was a speech that was a call to arms to the American people and the Congress that there is going to be health care reform.

Now, the consideration is, however, that where we are right now, as you have said so articulately, you and the chairwoman, is that we have to not have a public option. We have to have a robust, strong public option. And my job, as I see it, is to pursue this, not that we have one that we discussed or that we may stick one in or that is a sliver of the whole subject matter. For the reasons you have already articulated in this Special Order, it's critical. It's not I hope we can get it. We've got to get it. This bill's name of health care reform will only be justified if we do get it.

I want to pledge to the many people in the many places that I have been around the country who are not happy that H.R. 676 was not more thoroughly considered, single-payer, that we definitely must have an alternative to the dozens and dozens of private insurance companies if we are to have any savings and have any real meaningful reform worthy of the name.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers. And let me yield now to Congresswoman Woolsey.

Congresswoman, how do you react to some of the things that Congressman Conyers shared with us just now? Do you have any thoughts inspired by that?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Congressman Conyers knows that the Progressive Caucus, almost to a person, and there's 85 of us, would have voted right this minute for a single-payer. That's what we wanted. And we knew that it was a nonstarter. But we also felt that to get to single-payer--we are not supposed to say that. We are not supposed to tell people that the public option could be a step towards single-payer. But if it does and proves itself like I know it will, more and more people will select the public plan. And so we compromise. It was a huge compromise for us.

Source