gentleman for yielding and i'd just like to say i know you're running short of time and i won't give my normal 20-minute speech. but i would just like to say that chris smith has been a leader on the right to life issue as long as i've been it congress. he and henry hyde were the stalwarts that were always fighting for the unborn and i'm very happy to lend my support for -- to their efforts. i'd just like to say that in addition to the language that's in the bill that's going to allow the taxpayer to pay for abortions, this is -- this bill is really an abomination. the bill that's before us, going to be before us saturday, costs $2.25 million per word and the bill's over 2,000 pages long. it's going to cost $1.3 trillion and maybe more than that. it's an absolute disaster waiting to happen. it's going to cost rationing, it's going to cause seniors to lose medicare advantage, it's going to cost medicare. this is a disaster. when i hear the president say that the doctors want this, my wife's a daughter, he says the a.m.a. wants, it it doctors across this country don't want it. and the seniors want it because of aarp, seniors don't want it. aarp is getting 61% of their money from kickbacks from insurance companies and commissions and they're going to get more medicare advantage that goes down the tubes because they'll sell more medigap insurance. there's a lot of problems with this bill but one of the most important things to me and to chris and all those here tonight is the right to life issue and for that reason alone we should defeat this but there's a lot of other problems with it as well. . >> i greatly appreciate all your leadership on this. madam speaker, i'm a medical doctor. i practiced medicine in georgia for almost four decades. the very first bill introduced in congress, the first bill i'll ever introduce in every congress as long as the lord continues to send me up here is one called the human life act. it defines life beginning at fertilization. as a medical doctor i know that's where my life and all of our lives begin. madam speaker, god cannot continue to bless america while we are killing 4,000 babies every day through abortion. he just cannot and will not because he's a holy righteous god. he tells us in jeremiah he knows us before we are ever knit together in our mother's womb. we've got to stop abortion. we've got to stop this bill that's going to continue to fund abortions with taxpayers' dollars. the future of our america depends upon it. right to life is absolutely the central part of liberty and freedom in america. madam speaker, we cannot lose that right. and i yield back. mr. smith: dr. gingrey. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. we were on the floor last night and a gentleman, democratic side, part of the majority, in their hour, mr. grayson, talked about the number of lives that were lost or being lost in every congressional district across this country because of a lack of health insurance. i tried, last night i asked the gentleman to yield to a friendly question, and my question was going to be, representative, are you pro-life or pro-choice on the abortion issue? the gentleman chose not to yield to me and i don't really know the answer to that question to this day. but 4,000 babies are losing their lives every day. i hope the gentleman is pro-life because he said he stands for life and i yield back. mr. smith: madam speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. 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, let me thank you for recognizing me. my name is keith ellison, i'm here to claim the time for the progressive caucus to talk about the progressive message. tonight before i begin i just want to say that my heart is sick and broken for the horrible tragedy that occurred at fort hood. and i ask all americans to keep the families in their prayers and in their thoughts. now i'll proceed with the hour. tonight is the progressive message. we are here to talk about a progressive message for america. a message that says that the human and siff rights of -- civil rights of all people must be respected. a message that says dignity of people regardless of their race, class, religion must be respected. if 36 other countries in the world can provide universal health care coverage for their sit zerns, how come the richest country in the world, not only the richest country in the world but the richest country in the history of the world can't do it? why do we have 50 million people who are not covered? why do we have doubling of premiums for the people who do have health care coverage? why do we have people being excluded for pre-existing condition? why do we have these things? well, the time for those things is to end is now. we are within grasp of major health care reform, and no scare tactics, no fear mongering stretches of the facts are going to change that. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite upset about the present state of affairs because they know that americans want health care reform. they want health care reform and i believe they are going to get it. i want to say that i have spent these last several weeks talking about the problem. i have also spent many days discussing the democratic bill and i will do so tonight, but i want to spend a little time talking about what our friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing in their bill because, ladies and gentlemen, mr. speaker, we haven't heard much detail from the republican side of the aisle. we haven't heard much at all, but they recently put forth an outline of a plan. an outline of plan. not plan but just sort of an outline of one. and it's not good. it was always convenient to just bang, bang on what the democrats were proposing, but now that america has said, ok, you guys don't like what the democrats are calling for, what do you got? and their answer was, less than satisfactory. under the g.o.p. health plan, which really isn't a plan, don't believe it's been introduced as a bill yet, it's just sort of a plan, people with pre-existing conditions would pay up to 50% more than average for insurance coverage under the g.o.p. plan. states would have to cover the rest of the tab with a stable funding source. this is "roll call" november 4, 2009. check it out. under the republican plan most states already have such plans typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured. also from "roll call." a key piece of earlier republican drafts, tax credits that would help people afford insurance, was rejected by house minority leader as too expensive, also "roll call" november 4. the republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket costs, which means bankruptcy for some. let me quote from the "roll call" article. the republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket costs nor does it provide any direct assistance for uninsured people to buy insurance. how are we going to deal with the uninsured problem? which you and i pay for anyway. the congressional budget office, the c.b.o., has said on wednesday that an alternative health care plan put forward by house republicans would have, quote, little impact in extending health care benefits to the roughly 30 million to -- to roughly 30 million uninsured americans. this is from "the new york times." you mean to tell me after all this attacking of the democrats -- democrats' proposal, the democratic plan that the republicans are just bashed us week after week, day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute, it's bad, bad, bad, that's all you ever hear is no. they finally come up with their idea and they are going to leave 30 million people uninsured? this has got to be april fool's day come early. the republican bill, might i quote from "the new york times," the republican bill, which has no chance of passage, because americans really don't want it, because if they did we would be talking about it, but i quote again, the republican bill which has no chance of passage would extend insurance coverage to about three million people by the year 2019. why aren't they embarrassed? i have no idea. the republican bill which has no chance of passage would extend insurance coverage to about three million people by 2019 and i can continue to quote, and would, quote, leave 52 million people uninsured. the budget office said, meeting the proportion of nonelderly americans with coverage would remain about the same as it is now. roughly 83%. let me read it again. the proportion of nonelderly americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, about 83%. meaning that we have upwards of 16% to 17% who don't have insurance. going along with the republican plan, the republican plan tonight as we are discussing the progressive message, we are just going to talk about their plan since they have got real expert talking about ours, we are going to let the american people know the real facts about the republican plan. and this is not criticism or attack on any individual member of the party opposite. i regard they are honorable people but we got to talk about their plan because it's not a good one. the reason they haven't been bragging about it because not even they are proud of it. so the congressional budget office, umpires, say the house republican health plan would only make a small dent in the number of uninsured americans. let me say that again. according to the associated press article on november 4, 2009, congressional budget umpires say, quote, house republican health plan would make only a small dent in the number of uninsured americans. wait a minute. i thought that they had some great plan. how can you not make a dent in the number of uninsured americans and still claim you have a good plan? their plan is an embarrassment. their plan did not -- they are not bragging about it because they themselves know that it's far more strategic to just bash away on the democratic plan rather than talk about their own plan, which is nothing but status quo and keep insurance companies making lots and lots of money. that's what it's all about. protect the wealthy and let everybody else do the best they can with what they got. let me go to another important quote. i already mentioned that one. let me say late bens wednesday, this is just -- today's the fifth, late wednesday, last night, a bill that republicans expect to offer as an alternative to the democratic package received its assessment from the congressional budget analysts who concluded that the proposal wouldn't do anything to help reduce the ranks of the uninsured. the c.b.o. said some people would see higher premiums, including older and sicker people. this is the republican plan? here's one. the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, begin was the base line estimate that 17% of legal nonelderly residents won't have health care in 2010. that's a lot of people. 17% of legal nonelderly residents won't have health care insurance in 2010. that's an indictment of the status quo, which the republicans support. but in 2019 after 10 years of republican plan, the c.b.o. estimates that we'll still be stuck at 17% of the legal nonelderly residents not having insurance. that's from "the washington post" today. my goodness, how in the world can our friends from the other side of the aisle claim that they are offering an improvement on the status quo when they are not changing the proportion of the uninsured in even 10 years from now? this is a scathing indictment. i don't expect to hear them talk much about their plan, and if they do they are not going to tell you about this because this is embarrassing to them. they don't want this out. they don't want you to know about this. they want you to just keep on listening to the nonsense about death panels and school sex clinics and they want to talk about the polarizing political issue of abortion. . i want to get to this issue of abortion in a little while, but i want to say, they want to use polarizing language, polar sizing issues that divide america, scare tactics, all of it ultimately according to the people that benefit from the status quo now, which is an industry that reaps enormous amounts of profit at the expense of citizens who see their premiums escalate and see themselves denied coverage and see all these things that cost the american economy dearly and the american middle class. i want to say that the republican alternative will have helped three million people secure coverage chk is baily keeping up with population growth -- growth. compare that oto the democratic bill which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population down to 4%. how can republicans have a straight face and offer this bill? how can they look you in the eye after months and months of all of these disruptive meetings, where people were disrupting meetings, causing so much trouble, causing so much fear and this is what they've got to show for it? madam speaker, i can't believe that they honestly are offering this as a proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the messenger: madam speaker a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: the senate has passed with amendment h.r. 2847, an act making appropriationers in departments of commerce and justice and science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. ellison: according to the congressional budget office, the grand old party, the republican party's alternative, will shave or cut $86 billion off the deficit in 10 years, but get this -- the democrats, according to the c.b.o., will cut $104 billion off the deficit. the democratic bill is fiscally superior to the republican alternative. according to "the washington post" today, you can read it, the c. bfmentofmenting according to the c.b.o., the republican alternative only cuts $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 year the democratic bill cuts $104 billion off the deficit. that's just about $40 billion. wait a minute. aren't these the guys who always complain about the deficit and spending and all this? maybe that claim rings hollow. the democratic bill, however, in other wordsing covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the republican plan. let me say this again for people listening out there, i know you've been scared, they want to tell you, the democrats are trying to take away medicare, not true. they're trying to tell you democrats are trying to change the scenario as it relates to this very polarizing issue among americans, abortion. it basically keeps things as they are today. they're trying to talk about death panels and school sex clinics, they try to say that health care reform is only about the uninsured. none of these things are true. it's important to come to the house floor and refute these false algigses. it's not the case, it's not right, it isn't true. i just want to say that i'm so proud to be joined by one of the finest members of the body, my dear friend from the great state of california, diane watson. she's going to get her papers together but when she's ready to start talk, i'll yield to her right away. i want to say that democratic bill that's been released covers 12 times as many people and costs $36 -- and saves $36 billion more than they the republican plan. yes i'm going to keep saying this on the house floor. it needs to be said. the fact is, today we had a lot of visitors in washington and i want to welcome -- i want so to the say welcome to those folks. my colleague from the great state of minnesota, i'm so proud to be in minnesota, my friend, wong ohm -- congresswoman bachmann, invited people down and folks came. i'm glad. democracy is good. many of the people who came down to support my colleague from minnesota, me and them probably didn't see the issue the same. but i just want to say, i was honored to have them in my office. i'm so proud i was able to talk to my colleagues. here's the thing that broke my heart. as they're explaining to me what their -- what their concerns were, what they were saying, i've been dropped because of a pre-existing condition. they were saying, i i -- i've been unemployed and can't find an insurance policy to cover me. they're say, you know, i'm afraid that i'm going to go bankrupt, my family doesn't have money, i lost my job my husband lost his job, what are we going to do? i said you know what, you got on the wrong bus. come in here my friend this bill, this democratic bill is the one you need tb looking at. the fact is, good people have been scared away from policy that's going to help them. good people made afraid of the policies that are going to help them are not for them. that's a shame. so we had to come down here to the house floor today to explain the fact is that middle class, working class people struggling to make ends meet, are going to benefit from the democrat's proposal and i just want to say, after years of the republicans being in power, years where they had the house, the white house, the senate, doing nothing at all to help americans, democrats are taking care of business right now and i'm so glad we had a lot of people i was able to talk to constituents and others about this important issue of health care. we -- some of us started out not on the same page but ended up a lot closer together because i was able to say, here are the true facts, not the made up ones. so i yield to the gentlelady from california. >> madam speaker, it is a pleasure and an honor for me to come down and join my colleague , keith ellison. he has been a driving force to bring reality to the public. congressman ellison, i want to thank you for your diligence. what really gets to me is the misstatements, the fear that has been put out in the public. and think about this. why are people wanting about health coverage and not reasoning about it? they have made fun of our president, barack obama, they have disrespected him on this floor. when a member hollered out for the first time in the history of this house, you lie. i hope that the world saw that and questioned what that was all about. when they talk about nancy pelosi, the first woman to be speaker, and talk about pelosi care as going to take benefits away from seniors, those are lies. and i tell people when they come up to me, remember, we started off trying to cover americans that had no insurance. somewhere around 38 million. private insurance companies make profits off your health care. they make profits off of the condition that you're in. why should health be profit making. -- be profit making? we should address the health needs of americans. you're going to hear the opposers say, you're putting our kids, our grandkids, in debt. well, they never said that when we fought an unnecessary war in iraq costing $15 billion a month. if we were to send additional troops to afghanistan, it's going to cost us $5 billion. and what do we get as a result of that? do you think we're going to be able to stabilize these nations, tens of thousands of miles away? at the expense of our people and our country? just today there was a horrible massacre on one of our greatest and largest bases, fort hood, in texas. think about all the medical personnel that would have to be there to care for those 31 that were injured and 12 people lost their lives. and one of the suspects is a mental health professional, a major, who is a licensed psychiatrist. what does that tell you? and so what we're trying to do, if we want to be the strongest nation on earth, we have to be sure americans are strong. we have to provide goals -- provide for those less able than many of us are. you know, you're going to hear people say, you don't want government running your health care, they don't do anything successfully. you're already condemning our victory that some people are expecting in iraq and in pakistan and so on. if government doesn't do anything successfully, then we all ought to go home. we are a fraud. but, ask this question. what is medicare? what is medicaid? what is social security? these are government-run programs as part of that safety net. in the richest country on earth, why should anyone go hungry or go without health care? if we had a government-sponsored option, and let the just define for the people who don't understand the meaning of option, option says, you make the decision. it is a misstatement to say that government will get in between you and your doctor. that is so untrue and the people who are saying that know it. mr. ellison: will the gentlelady yield? ms. watson: i will yield. mr. ellison: today, is it not the case that some insurance company bureaucrats can get between a patient and her doctor? i yield back to the gentlelady. ms. watson: i chair the health and human services committee in sacramentoing california, the california state senate, for 17 years. and we put in place a program, we were always coming up against h.m.o.'s, health maintenance organizations. if a doctor prescribed a particular drug for his patient, they would have to call into some other office, maybe it's the secretary or whatever, and say, can the doctor prescribe this medicine for the patient? if it wasn't on the form lair, it won't -- on the formulary, it won't happen. i know the experience. being there 14 years and having people come and testify in front of us because an h.m.o. said i want 150,000 patients in my pool and they're all out in south central los angeles, our hospital closed out there, they were assigned to a hospital maybe 30 or 40 miles away. a mother with her three children would have to spend three hours trying to get health care. it's not accessible. i know of what i speak. i lived through it. we designed policies so that we could address the human needs of all of our people. and we can't have a successful democracy if we discriminate. what i mean by discrimination, we fought the battles in the 1960's, discriminating against people of color. now we're trying to fight the battle of poor peopling fight for them, who cannot afford this expensive insurance. in my state of california if we didn't have this plan, your insurance would go up by $1,800 for the year for a family of three. so i'm doing everything i can, and you know we live in the state that's the first state in the union to be a majority of minorities. and what most people don't know, don't want to know, is most of our immigrants don't come over our southern border, they come from across the pacific ocean. vietnam, you heard of some of these places. korea. japan. china. and they come with their own needs. we try to accommodate human beings in our state. it's the largest state in the union and we're suffering like many other states. . we are suffering to provide the necessary need of our citizens. and we say to all americans, we can quibble over whether they are here legally or whatever, but we are trying to do is provide quality health care for americans. so i don't understand those people who are ranting and outraged. they believe the lies they have been told. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady would yield. i happened to talk to some of those folks walking around today and i was impressed with how good and decent many of them were. some of them just didn't have the facts straight, but many of them were suffering from real serious problems with health care. i think we just got to take some time to talk to people. the fact is that everyone knows there's certain tv people and personalities and certain radio personalities, i'm not even going to give them the credit for mentioning their name, but these people because of entertainment and ratings really try to play on fear and try to whip up a lot of anxiety among americans who are just trying to put food on the table so they get scared. and people want to express themselves politically because of the frustrating circumstances of their lives, but the leaders who are in front of them are not giving them good alternatives. they are just giving them fear. they say, be afraid of those immigrants. be afraid of those people over there who are not the same religion as you. be afraid of these people over here. just be afraid and as people are afraid, they are easier to be manipulated. so we ask you to overcome your fear and get the facts. if i may just offer a few more critiques of the republican bill. the republican bill recently came out, here's what "the washington post" said, amazingly the democratic bill has already, that's in italics, already been through three committees and a merger process. it's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy o.s -- organizations and industry stakeholders. it's already made compromises. it's been through the legislative sausage grinder. yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank slate alternative proposed by the house republicans. now, i just want to ask the gentlelady from california, you know we have been working on health care for a long, long time, nearly all year long. we have been working so hard on it, bills here. i have had to deal with angry folks, angry community meetings. people being upset because they are worried about what is going to happen. they have been told all these things that are are not true. so they are concerned. but we have done those tough town meetings and all that, width stood all of that. you would think that our bill would be watered-down to the point where it could -- couldn't help anybody. it isn't the case. the republican bill actually covers -- the democratic bill covers 12 times as many people and saves 36 billion more than the republican plan. how could that be that the republican plan would -- which they just recently introduced to the american people actually doesn't save as much money and doesn't cover as many people as the democratic plan when they are just getting started? you know and i know when you first introduce a bill, all it's going to do is get sad people, people is going to wear aware and people are going to show up and say, you know what, i don't like this part or that part. you got to change this and that. after a while your bill used to be here and now it's getting less and less and less. it doesn't meet -- your vision as much as it used to. that's ok because that's democracy, right? we have to come here in and we have to give and we have to take, we have to try to consider everybody's interests. but this democratic bill having gone through a very rigorous process of democracy, the writer here calls it a sausage grinder, still covers way more people and savets way more money than the republican bill. i want to know how could that possibly be? where are these great ideas we have been hearing about? you remember during president obama's speech in this very room, they are holding up pieces of paper, here's our plan, here's our plan. they come up with a plan that's more expensive and doesn't cover as many people as the democratic plan? there's a reason why the american people voted overwhelmingly to send democrats to congress last november. because this is the best they could come up with. it's actually quite embarrassing. i feel a little bad for them. i yield back to the gentlelady. ms. watson: i always say, be a seeker of truth. and i taught school for many years. and i said to my youngsters, you need to reason. let's think this through together. and always seek the truth. i can tell you anything, check it out. and when it is said that we are going to take benefits away from seniors, that's untrue. when it says that government who fails at everything it does, how are they going to run this, we are not running the program. what we do is allow citizens to come to the marketplace and choose a plan, a, that they can afford, b, that is accessible, c, that will allow them to get into the coverage even if they have asthma, even if they had breast cancer, even if they have diabetes they can come in and be covered. and you can say to seniors under our plan when you hit that doughnut hole, you won't did through -- you won't go through the hole and hit rock bottom because we are going to close that hole. mr. ellison: the gentlelady from california. which party was in power when the doughnut hole, the doughnut hole that people are falling into, that needs to be fixed and is going to be fixed by the democrats, what party was in power when the doughnut hole came to be? ms. watson: the republicans had the white house. they had the senate. and they had this house. we were in here until 6:00 in the morning. i watched them browbeat one of the members, she had voted and they brought her back and they huddled around her and she was in tears. until she changed her vote. and that was the worst thing we could do for seniors. because when they fall into that hole after they have spent $2,700, they fall into that hole, and they cannot afford to buy food or to pay their rent if they are going to buy their prescriptions that keep them living day by day. why should an american, and particularly our seniors, have to make that kind of choice? we are not playing with this. and you know i have heard people say they have done it in secret and some dark -- some smokey room. it's been up on their emails, it's been up on their computers for weeks. there is a process that you go through and you do not violate the process in congress. every bill that comes out of a committee has to be heard. and most members have time to speak to that bill. and most members vote on the bill with an audience out there. and if the bill gets a number of votes, then it leaves that committee. it might go to another, but everyone knows the process. now, they are saying, you have taken three bills and you are blending them together and we don't know what's in that -- in those bills. i have even heard members come up with these thick stacks of papers and say, look at this. well, when you write law that you expect to impact on americans, you better put everything in there you mean, and that's where you use the word shall. i heard the minority leader say, you know how many times they use shall? well, if you want it to be law, you need to say shall. if you don't mean it to become law, then you can make it permissive and say may. so let's explain the process to our people. let's not keep people -- let's educate them. as an educator that's what i want to do. let me just finish my remarks. and i know our time is going. but i want to let our seniors know that most majority of people in this congress know that our health care system in this congress country is broken. and we want to strengthen what is working. medical has provided health care for americans age 65 and older for the last 44 years, and it's working. when they say they want a coverage like ours, we are covered under ir-- medicare. and it would be strengthened under the houses' reform -- house's reform legislation. and the reform would mean better benefits at lower cost and we'll preserve medicare solvency for years to come. and without it for all americans, health care costs will keep rising and could jeopardize medicare's ability to keep covering the cost. rising costs hit seniors, their wallets, too. so with the average part d plus part b premium consuming an estimated 12% of the average social security benefit in 2010, and it will be 16% by 2025. so we know that the debate on reform has been intense. it's a good thing. let's get this all out in the open. and then let's correct the misstatements. let's be sure that we educate people with the truth. and just know that nothing has been done behind closed doors that you have not heard. and we can debate it on this floor. we are going to do that. and so i want to end by saying, we can have a better america. we can keep our people healthy. we can have peace but it starts here. and we need to come together as a house of representatives not as democrats, republicans, independents fighting each other. we can express our positions and we can do it with comity that's c-o-m-i-t-y. we can do it with cliege at. we can -- collegiality. we can do it by listening to someone else's position and i'm going to truly close but when i held my last community forum, i said all of you have the right to be heard. but you don't have the right to disrupt and block me from hearing you. so if you do that, then you will be escorted towards the door. if you have a question, write it down. be proud of your question, put your name on it. if you don't put your name on your question, it goes to the bottom of the list. and so we will listen to you. we will respond to you. but you cannot block the communication. so what we are doing is trying to communicate with americans out there in the field. and we are going to express the truth the best we can. thank you so much for having tonight's special hearing. we really appreciate your commitment, your dedication. mr. ellison: we want to thank the gentlelady. and appreciate the gentlelady's remarks about collegiality and also the gentlelady reassuring our seniors about what's really in the bill. this whole fear thing about scaring seniors about taking away their medicare. i really don't appreciate it. my dad's born in 1928. my mom's born in 1938. both of them are folks who would be classified as seniors. both very viable, active people. and both of them definitely active on the polling places, voting. they have actually asked me, is this really true? i have had to explain, mom, it isn't true. but the reality is is that this is an effective campaign tactic to try to scare seniors and try to scare all kinds ever americans. i'm of the mind that let's not use fear, let's use reason, logic, facts, and truth. and your interpretation of facts may be different from mine, but let's duke it out on the basis of fact. here's a few facts. the house republican bill will cover just about three million more americans over the course of 10 years. today 83% of the nonelderly americans insured under the g.o.p. plan, 83% of nonelderly americans would still be a proportion of the uninsured in 2019, no change. so i ask the gentlelady, if, look, if the problem today is the high percentage of the uninsured, the legal, people who are authorized to be in america, and people who are nonelderly, the proportion of uninsured is 17%, shouldn't we be better off in 10 years under the republican plan? we would not be. i think that is a complete failure of their effort. the health care coverage of america act, part of the democratic plan, 96% of nonelderly people would be insured. i hope members on the other side of the aisle i will come on and join this plan which is good for american. the house republican bill does not reduce the people to buy on the individual market. they're self-insured, don't have coverage through their employer or lose their job this segment pays the highest premium in consumer abuses by the insurance industry. no change in this unfair practice. the health care for america act created by the democrats creates a health insurance exchange with a public plan as one of the choices people have that provides competition, offers large group rates to employees of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and americans looking for jobs. under the democratic plan, affordable options and affordability credits make all the difference, something the republican plan, even though they've had all this time to think of something good, haven't been able to think of anything good at all. pre-existing conditions. the republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against americans with pre-existing medical conditions. let me just say this one more time, madam speaker. the republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against americans with pre-existing conditions. there's no wonder they have and -- they have spent all their time talking about the abortion, arguing a strongly held position, trying to get us fighting over that when we're talking about health care reform. if they don't worry about the health care reform, let's talk thabt divisive issue that's divided americans for so long. this is not a bill about abortioning it's a bill about health care reform. why don't they want to talk about that? the republican bill does not repeal antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies. why not? the republican bill does not repeal antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies. why do they want to protect the health insurance companies? why don't they want the health insurance companies to compete? who is getting tax money from the health insurance companies? let's find out. it does not include provisions, the house republican bill does not include provisions to stop price gouge big insurance companies. why not? the affordable health care for americans act, put forth by the democrats, and again, we've only had the white house for only a few months and only had this chamber, the majority in the house, for a couple of years, not long, we haven't been here long, but the only reason we haven't been here long, we come up strong. because this bill, the democrat's bill ends discrimination against people with pre-existing medical conditions. the democrat bill ends the antitrust exemption. it gives the government $1 billion to crack down on price gouge big health insurance companies. american consumers and small businesses deserve better than what the republican bill offers to them. the democratic bill is fiscally responsible bill that will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over 10 years, way more, way more, $36 billion more than the republican bill. i want to know, if the democrats can face this very difficult process we've gone through all summer, i had health care forums in my district, so did the gentlelady from california, people came up very upset because they'd been listening to these radio guys and tv guys scaring them, giving them misinformation, so they'd come in upset. they want to talk to me. i want to talk to you, mr. ellison. but when the facts come up, they're like, oh, ok, ok, i get it now. we just ask people to keep their minds open and i just say if the republicans have a real alternative around health care, how come they didn't come up with anything in the house from 1994 to 2006? nothing did they come up with. they did detail schip. got to give them credit for that. detail schip. vetoed -- vetoed schip. vetoed the state children's health insurance program. can you imagine that? oh, my goodness. i don't know. i think that that is not what good service to the american people. i do hope we get some republican votes on this bill because i think there's got to be some republicans who say you know what, skip all the bickering, the democrats have been open to our ideas when we offered them. we didn't offer them because we would rather beat the democrats at the poll than give the american people health reform. think about that. they'd rather beat the democrats at the polls rather than say, we're going to do something fb -- something for the american people. oh, my goodness. let me turn to the poster board i have here. the democratic bill is, let's set the record straight. here's a myth. the democratic bill will hurt small businesses. not true. if you heard it today or hear it later today, don't believe it. small chemical facilities are already regulated by the d.h.s. the bill requires d.h.s. to assess potential impacts of i.s.t. on small businesses. and $225 billion in grant funding is available for small businesses. this will interfere with business operations. the fact is, is that this bill will not interfere with business operations. it will not be a boon to plaintiffs' attorneys. it won't do any of these things claimed by the republicans over and over and over again. the fact is that, look, this bill, you know, you hear the republicans say, we need to have tort reform. let me just say, if you have a loved one who has a medical error, you have a right to go to court over that. don't let anybody scare you away from going to court when a doctor or a hospital fails to meet medical standards. ms. watson: will the gentleman yield? mr. ep ellison: i will. ms. watson: it's always interesting to me, i sat on the judiciary committee for 17 years, i carried the california trial lawyers funding bill every other year. and of course, opposition would say, frivolous, well if you're -- if your leg you right leg, was amputated, the first thing you would do, and the condition was in the left leg, they amputated your right leg. the first thing you would do is run to get the most high-powered lawyer you could and you would sue the doctor and the hospital out of business. so you know, you can say frivolous cases, but when it comes to your own health and the health of your loved ones, and i haven't seen a company without its set of lawyers, you know we use them when we want to be sure that the law works on behalf of ourselves and our loved ones. if it's for somebody else, it's frivolous. let's think about what we're saying with tort reform. we can lower the cost if we have quality health care, meaning we have quality personnel and do you know there are provisions in our bill that will help to subsidize medical students that want to go into primary care? so we want to build a whole cadre of quality health providers. -- proid providers, that will practice medicine on behalf of the human interest to keep our people healthy. when we talk about tort reform, let's think it all the way through. and don't treat it in a frivolous way. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentlelady for that. the reality is that, the republicans are saying, oh, we have a plan on tort reform and we want to give tax cuts, tax breaks, when you talk about fragments of the plan for a long time, but when the reality of the plan came out, it was pretty dismal. here's what ezra kl effect in says of the "washington post," republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning. the only thing worse than having no health care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by the c.b.o. and making the house democrats look good. we want to thank you for that. the democratic bill covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the republican plan. here's "the new york times," the budget monitor says, g.o.p. leaves many uninsured. again, the congressional budget office says the alternative health care bill by the republicans would have little impact on extending health benefits to the roughly 30 million uninsured americans. you can go right down the ranks, piece after piece, shows that this republican plan they released a abysmal. i want to have some conversation about the republican plan because they've been beating up on the democratic plan from the very beginning. it has gone through three committees. it's had a merger process. it's been beaten and smashed and attacked and yet still, still the democratic bill is far and away superior to the republican plan. maintains its public option. and the fact is, i think that the american people are really going to start seeing who is looking out for their health. let me turn now to a few little health care story, if i may. good friend amy, amy says, i'm a graduate student working part-time at a restaurant. i applied for individual health insurance through medica. hoping to pay their nice low rate, $99 a month, for a good plan and low deductible. they denied my application because i marked that i had anxiety and take medication for it. it's ironic, not having insurance gives me more anxiety. i was recently approved for group health insurance, however to stay on the group plan, i have to maintain a workload of 24 hours a week on arch over a year, which can be hard to do as a full-time student this group insurance is through medica and i will be paying $95 a month which is affordable for me. however i got a letter that my anxiety is considered a pre-existing condition, so any treatment or med case for it will not be covered for a year. one year. after one year i can appeal for coverage. in the meantime i will continue to pay for my medication out of pocket and not go to therapy because it will be too expensive. please pass federal health care reform that includes a public health insurance option that's affordable to middle income families in minnesota this young lady would not be barred from getting health care insurance because of her anxiety, which is -- the insurance company calls a pre-existing condition. yet under the republican plan, she still would be. david, from minneapolis. i am a small business owner and do provide health care to my employees, but this is a serious financial risk for my company. it's a moral issue, so i don't want to cancel health insurance, but i might have to in order to survive. it's scary to think about not being able to provide health insurance for employees or going under as a business. knowing that i will always have access to reliable, affordable health care would relieve my fears. i would like to tell those who oppose health care reform that this is a moral issue. i would be taking care of -- we should be taking care of each other. it's an embarrassment to our country to be one of the wealthiest countries and not have health insurance for all or health care for all. please pass federal health care reform that includes a public insurance option. we've been joined by jared polis, an excellent advocate for the people's rights. he's been very vocal a strong advocate of health care. i want to turn it over to my friend from colorado, mr. polis. mr. polis: i'd like to thank mr. ellison for the kind introduction and sharing very powerful stories. i have had the opportunity to share a number of stories on the