Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1173, ``The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011.'' This bill would repeal title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports, CLASS, Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information, clearing house. H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information.

The CLASS Act was designed to provide an affordable long-term care option for the 10 million Americans in need of long-term care now and the projected 15 million Americans that will need long-term care by 2020.

The CLASS program would allow the disabled to be treated with respect and class. Yet, once again, instead of focusing on creating jobs, instead of finding means to reduce our deficit, instead of addressing the most pressing needs of our nation today, my Republican colleagues have put forth a measure that targets the aging and the disabled. They are supporting a measure that literally lacks class. This measure is a blatant attempt to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act one title at a time.

Like many Members of this body, I am disappointed that the Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS, has not been able to implement the CLASS provision of the Affordable Health Care Act. Although the CLASS program is not perfect, I cannot in good conscience support repealing it at a time when we have no viable alternative for affordable long- term care.

We have a growing aging population some of whom will require long- term care. CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is self-sustaining, at no cost to tax payers.

As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly double as a share of the economy by 2035.

With each generation, Americans have been fortunate to live longer lives; we continue to plan on how to meet the needs of the aging and the disabled. It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers will increase the demand for long-term care. Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without assistance may be double today's level.

Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are too high for many American families, including many in my Houston district, to afford.

In 2000, spending from public and private sources associated on long- term care amounted to an estimated $137 billion, for persons of all ages. By 2005, this number has risen to $206.6 billion.

Unless we act now, the costs associated with long-term care will continue to rise. As it stands, families are bearing the brunt of these costs. Less than a decade ago those who needed long-term care spent nearly $37.4 billion in out-of-pocket expenses. This is not sustainable for the majority of families; less than a decade ago we were not recovering from a recession.

The issue before us today is how we intend to treat our aging and disabled at a time when they are in need of assistance that will have a direct impact on their quality of life.

CLASS comes into effect when a person is at his most vulnerable. For example, when individuals are unable to clothe or bathe themselves. CLASS would allow some individuals to remain in their home. It gives the aging, the disabled and their families a viable option. Long-term care encompasses a wide range of services for people who need regular assistance because of chronic illness or physical or mental disabilities.

Although long-term care might include some skilled nursing care it consists primarily of help with basic activities of daily living, such as bathing, eating, and dressing, and with tasks necessary for independent living such as shopping, cooking, and housework, in essence helping people who need help.

Traditionally, most long-term care is provided informally by family members and friends. Some people with disabilities receive assistance at home from paid helpers, including skilled nurses and home care aides. Nursing homes are increasingly viewed as a last resort for people who are too disabled to live in the community, due to a number of factors, cost being one.

Madam Chair, I believe that we must leave the framework that exists in place and work with seniors, families, industry, HHS and others to find a way to make the CLASS Act or an alternative long-term care program work. We cannot and we must not allow Medicaid to continue to be the only affordable long-term care service available to Americans. American families should not have to spend down their savings or assets to access long-term care. We must not forget that this is an issue we must address. As of January 1, 2011, baby

boomers will begin to celebrate their 65th birthdays for that day on 10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the next 20 years

My career in Congress has been dedicated to expanding access to affordable, quality health care for the residents of the state of Texas, Houstonians, and all Americans, and the CLASS Act furthers that goal. It is clear that the CLASS Act is not perfect, and almost no piece of legislation can ever be, but that's why we rely on the professionals in federal agencies to work on implementation of the law.

I strongly believe that we can find a way to make this program work and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with me to ensure that affordable long-term care is available for anyone who needs it.

American families spend almost twice as much on health care through premiums, paycheck deductions, and out-of-pocket expenses as families in any other countries. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in many areas that is the envy of many. Yet, they do not receive significantly better care than countries that spend far less.

Considering the amount that we spend on health care, it is surprising that Americans do not live as long as people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. Our health care system was in need of an overhaul. The landmark bill signed by President Obama in 2010 is designed to provide coverage to millions of people who currently lack it.

Under the Affordable Health Care law more than 32 million additional Americans are expected to get insurance, either through an extension of Medicaid or through exchanges where low and moderate income individuals and families will be able to purchase private insurance with federal subsidies.

A key part of the new health law also encourages the development of ``accountable care organizations'' that would allow doctors to team up with each other and with hospitals, in new ways, to provide medical services. There are dozens of good provisions in the Act that will ultimately benefit the public, if they are not repealed one title at a time. The CLASS Act is a good provision too--I stand by that notion-- but just improperly designed.

At this stage, any change is difficult and change especially during a recession is extremely difficult. It is not possible to change a system as large and as hugely flawed, as ours without some disruptions. We are using fresh thinking and innovation to make sure everyone benefits--our citizens, our health care providers, small businesses, large corporations. I think the public is starting to slowly accept it. Over the course of several years and as more beneficial provisions take effect, this law will be more accepted, popular and possibly expanded.

Unfortunately, some in this Congress seems intent on not just undoing the CLASS Act, but the entire Affordable Health Care law. Everyone should have equal access to affordable health care and affordable health care service. Repealing a program that is intended to assist the aging and the disabled is not where this Congress should be spending its energy. We should be focused on legislation, like the one I proposed that would reduce the deficit, boast our nation's energy production, and create jobs. It appears as though my Republican colleagues seem more focused on putting forth bills that would cut taxes, cut services to the aging and disabled, and cut discretionary spending. Our priority should be to focus on legislation that will create jobs.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, first of all, let me say that I was on the floor yesterday regarding the CLASS Act and my approach to the CLASS Act. And I recognize that we have had some difficulty with putting together the right balance, the right financial structure for a very large program. But it does not mean that it does not have purpose.

The CLASS program deals with long-term care. In my readings I've determined that private families and loved ones have given in essence $450 billion in private care, meaning that they have taken care of their loved ones on their own; $101 billion has been spent by the Medicaid program. And I said yesterday that I've had the experience of taking care of a dear mother who I lost in 2010, and right now an aunt who I am taking care of in 2012. And I've seen a number of friends and others who need long-term care. And so the idea of disposing of it to me seems incomplete, without projecting back to Health and Human Services how can we get this done.

My amendment would not repeal the CLASS Act until the completion of a macroeconomic study.

We must determine the cost of not having long-term care insurance on the Federal, State and local governments before we repeal any programs like CLASS that are self-sustaining. CLASS is not taxpayer funded. The lack of affordable care is a very serious problem which, if not addressed, will only add to our growing national debt. H.R. 1173 would repeal the CLASS Act in its totality, and I believe that that is the wrong direction to go. And so I would be offering my amendment to help 26 million Americans who need long-term care services in the near future.

The CLASS Act is a positive intent, and it deals with the fact that we all must have balance of burden and benefit. We have to recognize that there

are those whom we have to help. My amendment would ask for that study to be engaged and to ask for the Secretary to come back with an analysis of how devastating the impact would be and how high the deficit would grow. As the former executive director for the National Governors Association noted, failure to reform the underfunded, uncoordinated patchwork of long-term care supports and services is a failure to truly reforming health care.

Long-term care is not just for the elderly. It's for those who have had catastrophic illnesses, maybe the injured football player or the injured skier or a major accident when our loved ones need our attention. And, oh, how much can be done with long-term care. How do I know it? My mother went into a nursing home and could not walk--but she walked out.

Yes, there is value to helping people restore their lives. And baby boomers are already turning 65; 10,000 people will turn 65 every day as of January 1, 2011, over the next 25 years. And I'm grateful that because of health care and the Affordable Care Act, they will be living longer. Therefore, I'm asking that we not throw the baby out with the bath water. Allow the Secretary to do this study and to do this study that will be helpful to all of us. By 2050, the number of individuals using long-term care will increase.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Let me just say, Madam Chair, to my disappointment, I wanted to reserve to engage with my friend. But let me just say this: that care involves home residential care, skilled- nursing facilities, and it will likely double from the 10 million services in 2000 to, as I said earlier, 26 million people.

So it makes sense to accept my amendment that would allow this macroeconomic study to look closely at the benefit and the burden of not having long-term care. I can assure you that we will be better informed to be able to have those instructions, and I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #2, to H.R. 1173, ``The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011.'' My amendment would delay the repeal of the CLASS PROGRAM until the completion of a macroeconomic study. We must determine the costs of not having long-term care insurance on the federal, state, and local governments before we repeal programs, like CLASS, that are self sustaining. CLASS is not tax payer funded! The lack of affordable care is a very serious problem which, if not addressed, will only add to our growing national debt.

H.R. 1173 would repeal Title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports (CLASS) Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information (clearing house). H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information.

I ask my colleagues to ensure that the 26 million Americans, who will need long term care services in the near future, will be able to purchase this care at reasonable prices.

The CLASS Act is a noble and notable attempt to legislate this issue but when the Administration realized that the legislation did not do what we thought it would they came forth and did the right thing and deemed it to be unsustainable.

Policy won out over politics because it would be easy to obfuscate and forge ahead with implementation even in the face of an obviously problematic bill. This indeed was a bold act of integrity for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The inclusion of the long term care infrastructure (CLASS) in health care reform was a signature issue for one of the foremost advocates in this bicameral body, the late Senator Ted Kennedy who worked tirelessly to achieve its enactment.

As Raymond Scheppach, former Executive Director for National Governors' Association noted, ``failure to reform the under-funded, uncoordinated patchwork of long-term care supports and services is a failure to truly reforming health care.'' This failure defines the revolving door of our health care system.

An estimated 10 million Americans currently need long term care services, and that number is projected to reach 26 million by 2050. Nearly half of all funding for these services is now provided through Medicaid, which is an ever-growing and inexorable burden on states and requires individuals to ``spend down'' or, become and stay poor to receive the help they need.

This spend-down activity runs contrary to the American notion of putting something away for a rainy day, or to allow for passing on to your heirs so that they can see a better day than you.

Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without assistance may double today's level. CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is self sustaining, at no cost to tax payers.

As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly double as a share of the economy by 2035.

Baby boomers are already turning 65. As of January 1, 2011, 10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the next 20 years. It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers will increase the demand for long-term care.

In addition, individuals 85 years and older are one of the fastest growing segments of the population. In 2005, there are an estimated 5 million people 85+ in the United States; this figure is expected to increase to 19.4 million by 2050. This means that there could be an increase from 1.6 million to 6.2 million people age 85 or over with severe or moderate memory impairment in 2050.

Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are too high for many American families, including many in my Houston district, to afford.

An estimated 10 million Americans needed long-term care in 2000. Most but not all persons in need of long-term care are elderly. Approximately 63% are persons aged 65 and older (6.3 million); the remaining 37% are 64 years of age and younger (3.7 million).

The lifetime probability of becoming disabled in at least two activities of daily living or of being cognitively impaired is 68% for people age 65 and older.

By 2050, the number of individuals using paid long-term care services in any setting (e.g., at home, residential care such as assisted living, or skilled nursing facilities) will likely double from the 10 million using services in 2000, to 26 million people. This estimate is influenced by growth in the population of older people in need of care.

Of the older population with long-term care needs in the community, about 30% (1.5 million persons) have substantial long-term care needs-- three or more activities of daily living limitations. Of these, about 25% are 85 and older and 70% report they are in fair to poor health. 40% of the older population with long-term care needs are poor or near poor (with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level).

Between 1984 and 1994, the number of older persons receiving long- term care remained about the same at 5.5 million people, while the prevalence of long-term care use declined from 19.7% to 16.7% of the 65+ population. In comparison, 2.1%, or over 3.3 million, of the population aged 18-64 received long-term care in the community in 1994.

I thank the gentleman. Madam Chair, first of all, I want to make sure that my amendment is amendment No. 2 to H.R. 1173, and I have another amendment which is amendment No. 1.

But I do want to respond to the gentleman and just indicate that best practices have not been assessed. The point of my amendment is to get us focusing on what the numbers need to be to increase the viability of life and care for those needing long-term care, juxtaposed against the enormous debt and deficit that will occur if no one has long-term care or we continue to have to utilize Medicaid, which is at $101 billion, private insurance is only at $14.5 billion, and then the burden on family members, aging family members, their care. They have put in their pound of support at $450 billion. We can at least pay attention to new numbers by asking for best practices to be assessed.

I believe if we do that, we will have the opportunity to do the right thing by the American people; and we will be, in essence, being productive. No one can deny the fact that having insurance that has people being eliminated from insurance for preexisting conditions is not good. No one can say that having children on your insurance to 26 is not good. No one can say that not being kicked out of a hospital bed because you have flat-lined on your insurance is not good. It is good.

We recognize that coming together in a bipartisan manner, we can, in fact, make this right, and we can find a way to help those families right now. Alzheimer's, where families are taking care of that loved one, they need support; and they need it in a structure that can help provide them with resources for long-term care.

I ask my colleagues to support a thoughtful amendment that deals with providing additional information. I thank the gentleman for his time. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee No. 2 amendment on a macroeconomic study on the benefits and burdens of repealing the CLASS Act.

I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment, No. 1 I believe.

Madam Chair, I rise with great concern about H.R. 1173. And, again, I want to make it very clear that in all the course of traveling throughout my district when the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, there was a great deal of emotion and celebration. I take, for example, those senior citizens who were continuously falling through the hole on Medicare part D. This particular legislation helped close the doughnut hole where seniors' prescription drugs did not skyrocket, so they would not have to make a decision among their drug prescriptions or their rent or what they ate.

This amendment is very clear. It simply states Congress resolves that health care is necessary for a healthy population, humane treatment of impoverished citizens, and to help reduce the budget deficit, and that long-term care insurance represents one-third of Federal and State spending on Medicaid. It's a simple statement of fact, Madam Chairwoman, and I would ask that this simple statement of fact be added to this legislation. I think it will be a positive statement. It will give us the connectedness to say that we have got to get back to the drawing boards and make sure that we have, in fact, the right kind of insurance for people in need.

I can't imagine why we would want to abandon those who need long-term care. As I've indicated, it may be a young person who faces a catastrophic illness or accident; it may be a child suffering from a chronic disease; it may be some of our friends who suffer from issues dealing with mental health. In my own community, just recently, one of our major hospitals with mental health beds was closed down, 148 beds. Who knows what will happen to those patients, some of whom actually stayed in that facility for a period of time. We know we don't have enough mental health beds and beds for those who need long-term care, suffering from conditions dealing with their mental health.

My amendment is recognition of the fact that the issue of long-term care services is not going away. The enormous cost of not providing the rainy-day umbrella, the cushion for families and those who are suffering from devastating disease just cannot happen. It cannot be swept under the rug. The cost curb is steep and growing, and we cannot continue to kick the can down the road. Long-term care, again, is fundamental. And so, this particular legislation acknowledges that.

Forty percent of long-term care users today are between the ages of 18 and 64, as I said. While most people who need long-term care are in their seventies and eighties, as I said, many younger people are facing the horror of disability or a disability without any way of paying for it, without giving relief to their family members. Long-term care is expensive and can quickly wipe out hardworking families' savings, which gives many families a Hobson's choice: spend down and wipe out years of hardworking services to qualify for Medicaid.

For those of you who don't know how Medicaid works, because we want to be responsible with Federal tax dollars, you have to be down to zero--your house has to be sold, your car has to be sold, any assets have to be sold, and everything you have goes back into the system.

Well, I know there are people who believe that they want to pay part of this burden, but there are others who understand that, in addition to paying, why should they be made completely indigent? Why can't that person remain in their home, even with care--which is another part of long-term care. It gives the opportunity for families to be together and for that individual who is injured to be able to be taken care of inside their home with a loving family but yet having the long-term care providers.

This is a simple statement. I hope my colleagues will not oppose the idea that long-term care is important and that we have to respond to it by way of ensuring that we don't grow the deficit.

The average lifetime long-term care spending for a 65-year-old is $47,000; 16 percent will spend $100,000 and 5 percent will spend $250,000.

There's no doubt that we need relief. Nationwide, the median annual cost of a nursing home in 2010 was $75,000, room and board, in an assisted living facility. This is a crisis that will impact the debt; and, therefore, I would argue that repealing the CLASS Act without a positive statement, Madam Chair, of how important it is is tragic.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Stand up and be counted for the value of long-term care support here in America.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #1 to H.R. 1173, ``The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011.'' My amendment states, ``Congress resolves that health care is necessary for a healthy population, humane treatment of impoverished citizens, and to help reduce the budget deficit; and that long-term care insurance represents one-third of federal and state spending on Medicaid.''

H.R. 1173 would repeal Title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports (CLASS) Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information (clearing house). H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information.

My amendment is recognition of the fact that the issue of long-term care services is not going away. It cannot be swept under the rug. The cost-curve is steep and growing. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road: long-term care is fundamental.

As our nation's population ages, there is an increasingly urgent need to find effective ways to help Americans prepare for their individual long-term care needs. Almost seven out of ten people turning age 65 today will need some help with their activities of daily living at some point in their remaining years.

Forty percent of long-term care users today are between the ages of 18 and 64. While most people who need long-term care are in their 70s and 80s, many younger people, particularly those living with a significant disability, also may need assistance.

Long-term care is expensive, and can quickly wipe out hardworking families' savings, which gives many families a Hobson's choice: spend- down and wipe out years of hard-earned savings to qualify for Medicaid.

While costs for nursing home care can vary widely, they average about $6,500 a month, or anywhere from $70,000 to $80,000 a year. And these costs are only becoming more expensive.

People who receive long-term care at home spend an average of $1,800 a month. The average lifetime long-term care spending for a 65 year old is $47,000; 16 percent will spend $100,000 and 5 percent will spend $250,000. And many of these people have other expenses as well.

Nationwide, the median annual cost of a nursing home in 2010 was $75,000; room and board in an assisted living facility, with no additional help, was $37,500; an attendant that provides home care and no medical tasks, like the dispensing of medication, is paid approximately $19 an hour.

These expenses are left to America's seniors and people with disabilities (and their adult children) to pay for out of pocket until their pockets are all but empty. As this body knows well, Medicare only covers short-term and limited long-term care services, and the Medicaid safety net is only available to those who have depleted virtually all of their resources as a result of being frail or suffering from dementia. Many people are left in dire situations and are truly at society's mercy.

Today, there are many Americans with disabilities who want to and are able to work and thereby maintain independence and contribute financially to their families. However, if they depend upon an attendant to drive them to their job or help them shop, use the toilet, or bathe, they must have enough additional financial resources to pay for such assistance, or have low enough incomes to qualify for Medicaid.

Long-term care insurance is the most popular of the private options available, but less than 3-percent of the American people have long- term care insurance, meaning there is a wide gap and acute lack of awareness. The CLASS Act sought to bridge this gap and has come up a little short. However we cannot, as a Congress, pretend the problem is going away.

My amendment recognizes that long-term care must be addressed as millions of baby boomers have already begun turning 65. The aging population and the disabled need viable options for their care. Taking away a program that is intended to meet the future needs of our aging is the wrong approach. We should be focused on ways to boost our economy, providing increased access to affordable care to seniors, low income, and the disabled, and job creation. We should not be eliminating programs that aim to sustain our aging population.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

My good friend from Georgia, some things bear repeating. I love February 2. It happens to be my daughter, Erica's, birthday. Some call it Groundhog Day. I call it a day of great celebration for a bit of joy that came into our lives.

So it's a day for many that is happy. It's a day that many humorously look forward to great weather. Some remember our good friend, Bill Murray, and it is a day that symbolizes repetition.

Sometimes the pain of Americans deserves to be repeated over and over again. And I'd like to answer my good friend, not speaking for Mr. Pallone, but, in actuality, we have the opportunity now to have bipartisan hearings. Nothing is precluded. Mr. Pallone's statement was accurate. He was not writing the structure of long-term care. He was indicating that, for Americans, it was vital.

What is disappointing is that my friends on the other side of the aisle are willing to give up so easily. I don't understand that. Where's the American genius?

Of course, they will cite HHS; but they know that Congress directs HHS. They know that the repeal of this legislation for long-term care will simply kill the opportunity for Americans to find relief.

As we look to the future, we are just a month away until taxes go up on middle class families, and Americans looking for work lose their unemployment insurance, and seniors face losing access to their doctors. We could be working on that, move the conference committee a little faster. But we're now adding an extra burden. Let's repeal the CLASS Act.

It doesn't disturb me that HHS has made several tries, and in a time frame has not found a cure yet. But knowing research and knowing science and being near and in the community of the Texas Medical Center, I know how long it takes to get a good answer in health care.

But what I do want to stress to my friends, can they deny that 82 percent of Americans say that taking care of relatives who are aging or ill is demanding? Eighty-two percent of them say that; 72 percent indicate that taking care of them is overwhelming; 56 percent said that as they are taking care of their sick relatives, they are getting ill.

Yet we want to abandon the discussion on long-term care when I've already said on the floor of the House that $450 billion of that long- term care is already in private hands. It's in families. It's through their labor. They are overwhelmed.

Only $14 billion is in the private industry sector. See how much they're standing up to the bar, and $101 billion in Medicaid.

We have to find a solution that balances benefit and burden. Listen to a constituent from Texas who took care of her son after he was seriously injured in a roadside bombing while patrolling in Iraq. She did not return home 7 years in order to be with her son.

Debbie initially took a leave of absence from her job, but ended up resigning to become a full-time caregiver

for her son. Because she no longer had a paid job, and her husband was the only one working, they had to start using their retirement savings to survive. Her son is now better, great news, and active in the community. And she continues her work. But the catastrophic impact to the family continues on.

Rhonda has gone from a part-time, visiting caregiver to her elderly parents to a live-in, full-time caregiver. Even after the death of her own 23-year-old daughter in a car accident, and her only brother becoming disabled after an illness, before 2001 she was a full-time working mother of two.

Where is the relief for these humans, these individuals, these people in need? Where is it? It's in the amendment I offered that indicated that it is important to note that long-term care is important, and a study should engender to be able to determine that.

But more importantly, let's, again, look at this in a way that we take our time and look at the macroeconomics and take into consideration how we can best configure this. But let me tell you very clearly that if we repeal this CLASS Act, the burden will fall on local and State governments and the millions of caregivers who already, through their own effort and their own toil, with love, I will tell you with love, expend $450 billion that we don't compensate them for, lose their jobs, raise the deficit, add to the debt because they are not able to take care of themselves.

And as we see, some 76 million baby boomers, Mr. Chairman, going forward. Let me just say, don't repeal this bill. It bears repeating. Help those who need your help.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. Today, I am joined by Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to call attention to the grievous threats posed by to H.R. 1173, ``The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011'', to key provisions in the Affordable Health Care Act.

H.R. 1173 bill would repeal title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports (CLASS) Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports.

This piece of legislation is yet another example of the Republican Majority failing to act on the top priorities of the American people. At a time when we should be focused on building our economy; advancing underserved and underrepresented communities, addressing the needs of our Nation's seniors; and focusing on the deficit, as well as, unemployment insurance. Instead of generating bold new ideas to help small businesses hire more Americans, to aid in the revitalization efforts of our manufacturing industry, to advance the cause for energy independence, to address the needs of families hurt the most by this economic down turn.

Instead, The Republicans have brought forward a bill to repeal a self sustaining program for the aging and the disabled. The CLASS program is meant to help someone who is unable to bath, cloth, or conduct basic life actives. We should not be attacking programs that are designed to address issues of long term care.

Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information (clearing house). H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information.

The CLASS Act was designed to provide an affordable long-term care option for the 10 million Americans in need of long-term care now and the projected 15 million Americans that will need long-term care by 2020.

Individuals need long-term care when a chronic condition, trauma, or illness limits their ability to carry out basic self-care tasks, called activities of daily living (ADLs), (such as bathing, dressing or eating), or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (such as household chores, meal preparation, or managing money).

Long-term care often involves the most intimate aspects of people's lives--what and when they eat, personal hygiene, getting dressed, using the bathroom. Other less severe long-term care needs may involve household tasks such as preparing meals or using the telephone.

Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without assistance may be double today's level.

CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is self sustaining, at no cost to taxpayers.

As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly double as a share of the economy by 2035.

Baby boomers are already turning 65. As of January 1, 2011, baby boomers have begun to celebrate their 65th birthdays for that day on 10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the next 20 years.

It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers will increase the demand for long-term care.

Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are too high for many American families, including many in my Houston district, to afford.

In 2000, spending from public and private sources associated on long- term care amounted to an estimated $137 billion (for persons of all ages). By 2005, this number has risen to $206.6 billion.

Individuals 85 years and older, the oldest old, are one of the fastest growing segments of the population. In 2005, there are an estimated 5 million people 85+ in the United States. This figure is expected to increase to 19.4 million by 2050. This means that there could be an increase from 1.6 million to 6.2 million people age 85 or over with severe or moderate memory impairment in 2050.

An estimated 10 million Americans needed long-term care in 2000. Most but not all persons in need of long-term care are elderly. Approximately 63 percent are persons aged 65 and older (6.3 million); the remaining 37 percent are 64 years of age and younger (3.7 million).

The lifetime probability of becoming disabled in at least two activities of daily living or of being cognitively impaired is 68 percent for people age 65 and older.

By 2050, the number of individuals using paid long-term care services in any setting (e.g., at home, residential care such as assisted living, or skilled nursing facilities) will likely double from the 13 million using services in 2000, to 27 million people. This estimate is influenced by growth in the population of older people in need of care.

Of the older population with long-term care needs in the community, about 30 percent (1.5 million persons) have substantial long-term care needs--three or more activities of daily living limitations. Of these, about 25 percent are 85 and older and 70 percent report they are in fair to poor health.

Forty percent of the older population with long-term care needs are poor or near poor (with incomes below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level).

Between 1984 and 1994, the number of older persons receiving long- term care remained about the same at 5.5 million people, while the prevalence of long-term care use declined from 19.7 percent to 16.7 percent of the 65+ population. In comparison, 2.1 percent, or over 3.3 million, of the population aged 18-64 received long-term care in the community in 1994.

While there was a decline in the proportion (i.e., prevalence) of the older population receiving long-term care, the level of disability and cognitive impairment among those who received assistance with daily tasks rose sharply. The proportion receiving help with three to six ADLs increased from 35.4 percent to 42.9 percent between 1984 and 1994. The proportion of cognitive impairment among the 65+ population rose from 34 percent to 40 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. One is, as was pointed out, this is not truly an open rule--there is a preprinting requirement. But there is also a cap, a time limit of 3 hours on the total debate for this bill. So if Members have an idea about an amendment they want to offer and it bumps up against the 3-hour time limit, they're out of luck.

I would remind my colleagues that this is an important issue. This is about long-term care, health care, mostly for our senior citizens. This is an important subject. We should be talking about this. We should be deliberating on this, and it deserves the necessary time to do this issue justice.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because we can't get this leadership to bring up not only legitimate health care bills to help improve the quality of health care for our citizens, but we can't get them to bring up jobs bills. We can't seem to get this leadership to bring up anything of any consequence or any significance to the American people or anything that will improve the quality of life for the citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to portray this as a very simple debate. They want everyone to think that this is a bill that just ends, as they put it, a problematic or a failed program, a bill that says we're going to run our government more effectively and more efficiently, a bill that says that we're going to get health care right for the American people.

But, Mr. Speaker, nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. And let me be clear: This bill is just one more example of how the Republican majority in this House stands with Big Insurance instead of the American people. It's another example of how Republicans want to rig the health care system so insurance companies can continue to discriminate based on preexisting conditions and can continue to reap big profits at the expense of our families.

Democrats stand for improving access to the best health care system in the world. We want Americans to be able to take care of themselves and to plan for long-term care should they need it.

The debate in the Rules Committee last week was a telling example of how my friends on the other side of the aisle view this critical health care issue. During that debate, one of our colleagues, Republican colleagues on our Rules Committee, compared long-term care planning to owning a swimming pool, a luxury, saying that since the government shouldn't build a swimming pool for everyone in the country, that we shouldn't be providing long-term care advice or help

with long-term care planning for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is where the discourse on health care has landed. We talk about how to lower costs and to increase access to health care, and my Republican friends talk about swimming pools. They are in over their heads, which is why their poll numbers are sinking to the bottom. This bill may appear to be fairly simple, but it will have a devastating impact on Americans as they plan for the future.

H.R. 1173, the so-called Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act, would repeal the CLASS Act and defund the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. The CLASS Act is a national voluntary insurance program for purchasing long-term or disabled care for things like nursing home fees. Let me repeat that: It's a voluntary program. There's no mandate, no requirement, no obligation for anyone to participate.

This bill also converts mandatory funding for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information into discretionary funding. While they say that this saves $9 million, the truth is Americans will lose access to critical information that can help them decide what kind of long-term care coverage they may or may not want, they may or may not need, as they grow older.

We need to figure out how to best address the cost and availability of long-term care in the United States, and the reality is that voting for this bill is the same as putting your fingers in your ears or covering your eyes. Surely you may not want to be able to hear or see what is bothering you, but it doesn't mean that these problems go away.

So why are we doing this today? Why are we repealing this without any replacement, without any thought given to how we might help the American people?

Well, if you listen to the Republican rhetoric, you'd think that some unnamed and unseen person is going to send you off to a dark room in an isolated nursing home, and you have no choice where to spend your golden years. That is, of course, if you listen to their ridiculous rhetoric.

It's true that the Obama administration has suspended enactment of the CLASS Act. They have done so after carefully assessing how they could implement a long-term, financially stable CLASS program. Unfortunately, they did not see a way forward at this particular point, but that doesn't mean we should just give up, throw up our hands and walk away.

While the CLASS Act is a sound premise, it clearly needs more work if it's going to be a viable program. The problem with H.R. 1173 is that it repeals the CLASS Act. We need to fix the CLASS Act, not destroy it. We need to engage on how to solve this problem, not to walk away from it, not to turn it into yet another piece of campaign rhetoric.

But that's not how the Republicans operate in this House. Their goal, it appears, is to tear down the health care system and to prevent people from getting adequate health care. How else can you explain their actions to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to end Medicare?

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans began the 112th Congress with an effort to ``repeal and replace'' the Affordable Care Act. Well, the House voted to repeal the new health care law, but we still haven't seen their replacement. They voted for repeal without replacement.

I should also point out to my colleague from Texas, it wasn't brought up under regular order; the repeal was brought up under a closed rule-- but that's not unique in this House either.

The Republicans in control of the House of Representatives have found the time for bills on abortion and guns, bills to defund Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio and bills reaffirming our national motto, as if our national motto needs reaffirming. But when it comes to improving the quality of health care for the American people, my friends on the other side of the aisle are strangely silent.

As we near the second anniversary of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, it's important to look at the success of this law and explain why repeal, as they have advocated, would cause real harm to the American people. We know for a fact that the Affordable Care Act is lowering costs and expanding coverage for millions of Americans.

The truth is crystal clear: 2.5 million young adults gained health insurance, 2.5 million young Americans gained health insurance. More than 40,000 Americans with preexisting medical conditions gained affordable health care coverage. Three hundred fifty new community health centers were built, and nearly 19,000 new jobs were created last year alone. Americans are benefiting from greater protections from unreasonable private insurance premium hikes.

More than 2 million senior citizens saved more than $1.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2011. Again, let me repeat that: More than 2 million senior citizens saved more than $1.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2011.

They want to repeal the bill, the affordable health insurance bill, which closes the doughnut hole, and all of a sudden senior citizens will see a tax hike the next time they look at their prescription costs.

Seniors in Medicare Advantage plans saw their monthly premiums decrease 14 percent from 2010 to 2011. Millions of women, seniors, and people with disabilities accessed preventative services.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice stopped $3 billion in fraudulent claims in 2011.

We also know that the quality of care is improving because of the Affordable Care Act. I'm talking about an expanded workforce, including primary care workers, better coordinated care for Medicare patients, and improvements in preventable hospital care and readmission conditions, just to name a few. In fact, the entire debate within the health care community is changing on how we can better keep our citizens well.

Finally, we know that the health care industry is hiring more workers because of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, 514,900 new health care jobs have been created since the Affordable Care Act was enacted almost 2 years ago. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is working, and benefits will continue to grow as we move towards full implementation by 2016.

But by opposing the Affordable Care Act by pursuing repeal of the bill, Republicans have made it clear that they're against protections for people with preexisting conditions, that they are against expanding coverage for 2.5 million young adults who can't get health care on their own, that they are against new community health centers, that they are against the new jobs created by the Affordable Care Act.

And with this bill today, they are announcing that they are against planning for long-term care. This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. Americans need to think about long-term care. They need planning options for the future.

Currently 10 million Americans need long-term care, and 5 million more will need long-term care over the next decade. Yet only 8 percent of Americans currently buy private long-term care insurance. Instead of forcing people to migrate towards Medicaid, the only other long-term care option available, we should be providing Americans with the tools they need to plan for the future. That's what the intention of the CLASS Act and the purpose of the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information is all about.

I know my friends will say: Trust us; we're going to come up with something down the road. Wouldn't it have been refreshing, in the spirit of bipartisanship, if we had come up with something before they chose to just outright repeal this provision? Maybe this would have been an opportunity for people to come together. But, no, we're told we're repealing it. You know, that fits in with our campaign rhetoric for 2012: We're going to repeal it; and the American people, just trust us. Take two tax breaks; call me in the morning. That's all you need to worry about.

The American people expect Congress to work each and every day to make this country better. Like Social Security and Medicare before it, the Affordable Care Act is an example of responsible legislating that is improving people's lives. It's not perfect. We need to build on it. We're going to need to make corrections. But there's not a piece of legislation that we have ever passed in any Congress that hasn't needed to be corrected and adjusted

and tweaked as time has gone on. But it is an important step in the right direction. And notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, it has made a real difference in the lives of many millions of Americans who otherwise wouldn't have access to health care.

We must not and we will not let the Republicans drag us down with them on this issue. Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

If I'm not mistaken, the allowance to let families keep their kids on their health insurance until they are 26 years old has kicked in.

No, no. Under your repeal bill, that would go away. That was part of the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the many things that has kicked in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I just want to point out to my colleagues, in case they may have forgotten, that the CLASS Act was actually debated in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And do you want to know what the vote was? It passed by voice vote. There were a lot of other provisions in this health care bill that did not pass by voice vote where my Republican friends insisted on an up-or-down vote; but on this one, it passed by a voice vote. I want to point that out just so there's no misunderstanding.

The other thing I also think is important so there's no misunderstanding is that somehow nothing in the Affordable Care Act has kicked in. A lot has kicked in already. Blood pressure screenings for adults aged 18 and older, every 2 years for those with normal readings and annually for those with elevated results; cervical cancer screenings; child services, including screenings for autism; cholesterol screenings; colorectal cancer screenings; diabetes screenings; diet counseling; evaluation for depression; immunizations; mammograms, all aimed at encouraging people to get preventative care so that they can avoid some of the debilitating results from not being checked. Those are all being covered under the Affordable Care Act.

My colleagues, over a year ago--over a year ago--it's now January 31--well over a year ago, you brought up on this floor under a closed rule a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And you said, oh, we've got some ideas on how to fix the health care challenges in this country. It's been a year. Nothing. What have we been doing here? Well, we had a very rigorous debate on National Public Radio, something I'm sure everybody is concerned about all across this country.

We had a bill brought to the floor on reaffirming the national motto of this country, ``In God We Trust.'' There it is, ``In God We Trust,'' in gold letters right above where the Speaker sits. It's on the dollar bill. I didn't know it needed reaffirming, but we had to come to the floor and have this debate and vote on reaffirming our national motto.

We had votes on every hot-button issue that you can imagine; but when it comes to things like health care, improving the quality of life for people, we can't find the time. My friends say they have all these great ideas. It's been over a year since you voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Do you want to repeal all these new services that are covered, all these tests to help people stay well, and in staying well, controlling health care costs?

My grandmother used to say an ounce of prevention keeps the doctor away. She was right. There's wisdom in encouraging people to seek out preventative-care services. If we can provide those services without a cost to encourage more people to take advantage of them, then more people will stay well, and we will control health care costs in this country.

We're having a discussion as a result of the Affordable Care Act about results-oriented health care, how do we keep our populations better. Not just how we could have the best doctors to do heart surgeries, brain surgeries and all these very complex surgical procedures which we want to make sure we still have the very best in the world, but maybe there are people who can avoid getting to that point.

Already, because of the passage of this bill, more and more people are taking advantage of these screenings. That's a good thing. And my colleagues, every one of them on the other side of the aisle, voted to repeal outright all these things. All these things would have gone away. Senior citizens would be paying more for prescription drugs today if their repeal bill made it through this process. So there are some good things that are happening.

I know it's tough to ever concede that this President has done anything good; but under this, the Democratic Congress, with no help from the Republicans on the other side of the aisle in this House, and the President of the United States, actually, I think, took a step in the right direction. As time goes on, more and more people are appreciating what is covered in that legislation.

So I point that out because my friends on the other side have a tendency to say ``no'' to everything. It's very easy to say ``no.'' You don't have to take responsibility for anything. You said ``no'' over a year ago when you voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and you've said ``yes'' to nothing since. Today, you're asking us to join you in saying ``no'' again to the issue of making sure the people have the ability to take care of their loved ones and themselves in the case where they need long-term care. You're saying, say ``no'' to that. And replace it with what? Oh, trust us, we'll get back to you. Don't worry about it. We know what we're doing here. Well, again, it's very easy to say ``no.'' It's more difficult to say ``yes,'' and you've said ``yes'' on nothing when it comes to positive improvements in our health system.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I think it's important to make it clear that there was a voice vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. There were 2 days of debate on this CLASS Act, 2 days of debate. And the language in the amendment apparently was even changed before there was a voice vote. So to somehow diminish that there was some sort of a real vote or not-- there was a real vote; 2 days of debate and a real vote.

Secondly, just so there's no misunderstanding, my friends keep talking about the debt and the deficit we face. First of all, as a Democrat, I want to say that I don't need a lecture from my friends on the other side of the aisle about deficits and the debt. We saw how this country went from surplus to deficit with the passage of the Bush tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy that weren't paid for. Every economist will affirm that they brought us into debt. Two, the prescription drug bill--that was much more expensive than my friends on the other side of the aisle told us it was going to be, and then they didn't pay for it on top of it. And then add to that two wars that aren't paid for. We are fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we didn't pay for them. We didn't look for offsets in the budget. They didn't even go to

the American people and say, we're at war, we have to have a war tax, or we have to find a way to pay for the war. No. Soldiers go fight, you know, their families suffer, and we do nothing. So you want to know why we're in debt? That's why we're in debt.

And just for the record, this CLASS Act that we're talking about is not this taxpayer-subsidized, endless government funding type of a program here. I mean, it has to be self-financed by the premiums that people pay who volunteer to get into it. It says in the law that this cannot be funded by the dollars of taxpayers. What this is is a framework, a framework to get us to focus on the issue that we need to address, which is long-term health care in this country.

Now, I'm from Massachusetts, and I may be a little sensitive on this issue because one of my heroes, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, championed this issue. He understood that there was a need out there, and he saw, as we all have seen, what families go through when loved ones can't afford or families can't afford to pay for the long-term care of loved ones. So it took us decades to get here, to get to this point where we have a framework. Yes, it is true: This is not perfect. It needs more work. But we have a framework here. And it's not a framework which calls for endless subsidies by the taxpayers. It says we've got to come up with a program that can self-sustain itself, that is financed by those who want to be enrolled in it. Why would you throw this away? Why would you throw this away?

My friend on the other side of the aisle talks about false promises. Please, give me a break. False promises? You got up over a year ago and said we're repealing this health care reform bill, the Affordable Care Act, and we're going to replace it with something. It's been over a year. Nothing, nothing, not a single thing. You know, it's not like we haven't had time to do it or to talk about these issues or debate these issues. I mean, this has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. National Public Radio funding, we had to debate that on the floor. Reaffirming our national motto ``In God We Trust,'' we had time for that. Issues on abortion and every hot button issue you can think of, including we had a debate on making it easier for unsafe people to bring concealed weapons from State to State to State.

Now, I don't know about Texas or about other countries, but I've got to tell you, people talk to me about a lot of problems and about a lot of things that keep them up at night. Some of the things that you've brought to this House floor never even enter their minds, because what keeps them up at night are things like this:

What happens if I get sick, will I be able to take care of myself? What happens if my spouse gets sick, seriously ill, will I be able to care for her? Will I be able to care for him? What if it's my child? What if it's my mother, or what if it's my father? Will I be able to take care of them over a long period of time? Those are real-life issues that real people worry about each and every day.

So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, first of all, vote down this rule, because I think it is insulting to bring a rule to the floor on the issue of long-term care and say we're going to cap debate at 3 hours. I think this is too important. This is more important than reaffirming our national motto, number one.

Number two, I would urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle, understand that what this represents is a framework and understand how long it has taken us to get to this point. And I've got to tell you, if we throw this framework away, I doubt very much that at any time in the near future this Congress is going to do anything meaningful on the issue of long-term health care.

So let's get serious about dealing with the real challenges that the American people are faced with. Let's not say that this is going to add to the deficit. It's not going to add to the deficit. In the law, it says it has to be self-sustaining; if not, it doesn't work. It says that we are not going to be subsidizing this program. That's what it says.

If you want to get serious about the deficit, you know what? Then make sure Warren Buffett pays the same tax rate as his secretary. If you want to get serious about the deficit, that's what you can do to help us deal with the issue of the deficit. But going after this with all these smokescreens I think is unfortunate.

So I would urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1173 and insert any extraneous material on the bill.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, it has been more than 2 years since the CLASS Act was first debated as part of the President's health care takeover debate. We knew then that the program was flawed and unworkable; yet the Democratic-controlled Congress ignored these concerns and instead rushed the CLASS program through as part of the President's health care law.

Now, 2 years and more than $800 billion later, we have finally heard from the President and his administration that while they have wasted taxpayer dollars, this program is in fact not implementable. Surprised? Well, you shouldn't be.

The truth is that unbiased analysts such as the American Academy of Actuaries had raised concerns with the program as early as July of 2009, some 5 months before the President's plan was even considered on the Senate floor. Members from both sides of the aisle also raised concerns about the program's long-term sustainability during this debate. Most disturbing is what we came to find in a bicameral investigation last year that revealed concerns from within HHS were rampant during PPACA debate, but they were never brought to light by the Democratic leadership or the Obama administration. Yet the program was rushed through so that we can, as then-Speaker Pelosi noted, ``find out what's in it.''

On October 14, 2011, Secretary Sebelius announced what honest accounting told us was inevitable: the Obama administration finally admitted there was no viable path forward and, therefore, was halting any further efforts of implementing the CLASS program.

The failure of Health and Human Services to implement the CLASS program certainly is not a surprise. However, it is a catastrophic consequence of what happens when Congress rushes to enact costly policies and dismisses warnings from independent experts. Most troubling are the budget gimmicks used to sell the CLASS program and, indeed, the entire law.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated the CLASS program would save money by collecting premiums from enrollees, premiums that will now never be collected in light of a failed implementation.

We knew, Madam Chair, the savings estimates for the President's health care plan were wrong. It defied common sense that such a massive spending expansion would have no cost. Now the President will have to explain to the American people why the health care law--ObamaCare, PPACA, Patient Protection, Affordable Care Act, Unaffordable Care Act-- he'll now have to explain to the American people why this health care law will cost them $80-plus billion more than what they were told.

That is more than $80 billion on top of the trillions the President has added to the books since he took office in January of 2009.

Today, we will have the opportunity to start over on long-term care reform, an issue that's important to all of us as we hear from constituents regularly about the growing cost of long-term care services. The market has not even been penetrated 10 percent, Madam Chair. We will now begin that process. But first, we must take this section out of the health care bill known as CLASS. We must take it off the books.

I urge my colleagues to support just what this bill does, remove CLASS from the statute, H.R. 1173, repeal the failed CLASS program so that we can now move forward with reforms that do work.

With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, as the co-lead sponsor of this bill, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1173. I commend Dr. Boustany and Chairman Pitts for their leadership on this issue, and I thank Mr. Lipinski on the Democratic side.

In response to a question I put to him in March of last year, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote: ``The Secretary of Health and Human Services has now concluded that the CLASS program cannot be operated without mandatory participation so as to ensure its solvency.'' HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the program insolvent, and Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the program in 2009 a Ponzi scheme. In fact, he went on to say that it would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Madam Chair, during its consideration in 2009, CMS Actuary Richard Foster told the Obama administration staff: ``Thirty-six years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant Federal subsidies to continue.'' He was ignored. In fact, he was eventually cut out of the email loop. The Health Committee on the Senate side and the staff of Senator Kennedy didn't want to hear any more from him.

Subsequently, in December of 2010, the President's fiscal commission recommended Congress reform or repeal--not amend--the CLASS Act. The commission report stated: ``Absent reform, the CLASS program is . . . likely to require large general revenue transfers or else collapse under its own weight. The commission advises the CLASS Act be reformed in a way that makes it credibly sustainable over the long term. To the extent this is not possible, we advise it be repealed.''

In February of 2011, Secretary Sebelius testified before a Senate Finance Committee hearing that the CLASS program was ``totally insolvent'' as structured and needed to be reformed in order to work. Then, in October of 2011, the Secretary released a report on the CLASS Act that essentially found the Obama administration could not make the program actuarially sound or credibly sustainable, to quote the President's fiscal commission, over a 75-year period.

Thank God for Senator Judd Gregg for putting that amendment in on the Senate side that called for fiscal sustainability and the certification by the Secretary over a 75-year period of time or it could not go forward, and that's exactly what happened.

Based on the evidence the CLASS program is not simply flawed--it is broken. As currently written, it poses a clear danger to the fiscal health of our budget and to the American taxpayer. In defending this broken program, some of my colleagues have told me that there is no need to repeal CLASS because the Secretary has already abandoned it. Yet every day that we delay in repealing CLASS, we prevent Congress from passing meaningful, true long-term care reform. All sides admit that CLASS does not work, so the prudent step is to repeal it.

In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can get to the meaningful reform of long-term care and have the marketplace work its magic in regard to this so that the penetration is greater than the current penetration, which is less than 10 percent.

With that, Madam Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to support the repeal of a broken, failed program, the CLASS Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment No. 5, or Deutch 2, is an amendment essentially that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has already looked at, some of these provisions, in eight different ways in trying to come up with some possibility of certifying the fiscal solvency of this CLASS Act within the 75-year budget window, the out-years.

Thank goodness, Mr. Chairman, for the wisdom of Senator Judd Gregg on the Senate side when that amendment was accepted in the health committee. I don't know whether it was unanimously accepted by the Democrats, but I think it was. Again, the prescience and the wisdom of Senator Gregg is something the American people should be, and I think will be, eternally grateful for.

The Secretary looked at the possibility of saying that we'll make this fiscally solvent if we eliminate eligibility for anybody with a preexisting condition. Then they said, Well, no, that's not going to work. So let's say, how about a 15-year waiting period for someone with preexisting conditions. Finally, ultimately, looked at the possibility of yet again making this part of ObamaCare, the CLASS program, a mandatory participation. How has that worked out for them thus far in regard to the exchange in young people being forced, under the ruse of the Constitution, of the commerce clause, to do that under the penalty of law, increase taxes or penalties, or whatever they want to call it? Well, the Supreme Court will ultimately make that decision.

Mr. Chair, the Secretary had every opportunity to look at this. We are

talking about, I say to the gentleman from Florida, over an 18-month period of time, and they absolutely could not certify it.

You can delay and delay and delay, but what part of ``no'' does the gentleman not understand? No, this will not work. This amendment is unnecessary. We know that this program will not work.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want to leave the provision in the bill. They want to let it stand there so they can somehow maybe with the next administration or with the next chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee or whomever on their side of the aisle might want to resurrect Freddy Krueger one more time on the backs of the American taxpayer. This is a fiscal train wreck.

Mr. Chairman, the bill actually calls for the provision of a plan at a date certain, October of 2012. I'm an OB/GYN physician. That's less than 9 months. That goes quickly. I know that about 9 months.

When you get there, folks that are looking and counting on the CLASS program long-term care insurance, they want to sign up for it. And the Federal Government says, I know it's on the books, I know it's still part of the law, I know we are obligated to have a program for you to choose from by October 1, 2012; but we decided not to go forward with it. What's to prevent them from suing the Federal Government? While these lawsuits are pending and going on and on and on--as an attorney jobs bill, it would have some merit. In the meantime, the private market for long-term care insurance, they are not innovative. They are not going to do anything until the legality of that is cleared up.

We feel very strongly that this would be a bad amendment, and I strongly oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

My good friend, my very good friend from Georgia, the gentleman from DeKalb, made the statement about what is the reason; there is really no reason to strike this; why not leave it on the books. And I think that's the argument we have heard all afternoon in regard to the position of the Democratic side.

But let me just read a few passages from a report that we requested from the Congressional Research Service as to why, in response to my friend from DeKalb and my good colleague from Georgia:

Judicial review assumes that the Secretary takes no further action to comply with the CLASS Act's statutory mandate to designate a benefit plan by October 1, 2012.

The Secretary would appear to be committing a facial violation of the statutory requirement to designate such plan. Her failure to take such action conceivably could be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act, APA, which defines agency action to include the failure to act.

They go on to say:

The CLASS Act does not preclude judicial review and the Secretary's designation of a benefit plan is a mandatory, as opposed to a discretionary requirement.

So judicial review does not appear to be precluded. Therefore, if the Secretary fails to perform the action required by the statute, that inaction would appear to be reviewable.

I continue:

A failure by the Secretary to designate a CLASS benefit plan by October 1, 2012, presumably predicated upon a determination by her-- that is not possible to develop three actuarially sound benefit plans that meet all the requirements of the act--would appear to be a final agency action from which ``legal consequences will flow.''

Inaction by the Secretary in designating a plan by the deadline could be found by a reviewing court to constitute noncompliance with a statutory mandate. Thus, after October 1, 2012, the Secretary's failure to take an action legally required of her would appear to meet the standard for judicial review of agency inaction unlawfully withheld under the APA, Administrative Procedure Act, provision prescribing the scope of judicial review of agency action.

I asked one of my colleagues a few minutes ago, What part of ``no'' do you not understand?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, look, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is an attorney. I'm just an old country doctor. But, you know, this is plain language, and I'll be happy to provide his office with a copy of this Congressional Research Service report. I'm not going to get deep into the weeds of the legal argument back and forth, but this is about as plain as the nose on your face.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my good friend and the good doctor, my colleague from the State of Washington, who made reference to, I think, Groundhog Day.

Now, my name, Mr. Chairman, is Phil Gingrey, but as I sat here over the last couple of hours listening to the argument on the other side of the aisle, I feel like Phil Connors, and that was the weatherman. Bill Murray, if you recall, played that role, the weatherman at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, covering Groundhog Day. And believe me, we have been listening to Groundhog Day from my colleagues on the other side over and over and over again, and it is indeed getting just a little bit tiring.

My friend also said, the gentleman, the doctor from the State of Washington, Mr. Chairman, and I quote him: ``I've never seen a Congress that has failed as much as this one.'' Well, I'm going to tell you, I have never seen a provision of law in a bill that has failed as much as the CLASS Act. And they can beat this to death--and I think they have done that, Mr. Chairman--but I have in my hand here a summary sheet of the HHS analysis of the CLASS Act over an 18-month period of time.

And they have tried to model eight different options to make this fiscally solvent, and required by the law--thank goodness, thank goodness for the amendment from the Senator from Rhode Island, the Honorable Judd Gregg, at the time chairman or ranking member of the Budget Committee. The eight options, none of them work. I mean, there are things like a work requirement. There are things like not allowing anybody with a preexisting condition to be in the program, allowing people with preexisting conditions to be in the program but only eligible for a benefit for 15 years, and on and on and on. Actually, the one option that's not on this printout, I guess, is option number nine, and that would be the option, Mr. Chairman, of requiring every individual to sign up for the long-term program under the CLASS Act.

Now, the question on all of these options was: Does the Secretary have legal authority? And in most of the eight: Not completely; HHS vulnerable to legal challenge. Not completely; vulnerable to legal challenge. Not completely--again, vulnerable. No authority. No authority. No authority. No authority.

Well, number nine, individual mandate, making everybody sign up for it, yes, got the authority to do that. She could have done that. But I'm sure that my colleagues and her advisors and the administration probably--and I state this rhetorically. Do you want another mandate to which the American people can rail against us in the next election? And she is smart enough to know that option number nine was not unacceptable.

So, again, we could go on and on. We could do this for another couple of hours and continue this Groundhog Day ruse, but, as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, what part of ``no'' do they not understand?

Now, look, when this amendment was added at the last moment back in 2009 by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Pallone, during the Energy and Commerce Committee debate on the CLASS Act, Chairman Pallone stated, and I quote him: ``I can't stress enough that we are not actually setting this up. We are simply suggesting.'' That was the end of the quote. In fact, Chairman Pallone asserted that the program would not take effect until subsequent legislation was passed.

Well, Mr. Barton, who, at the time, was the ranking member of the overall Committee of Energy and Commerce, said this: ``Well, reclaiming my time, I am going to support the Pallone amendment without binding anybody on my side to support it, with the understanding that if this moves forward, there will be a hearing on this in this committee, and there will be bipartisan efforts to flesh it out. Do I have that assurance from the chairman?'' And Mr. Pallone responded, ``You certainly have my assurance.''

And then the chairman, Henry Waxman, overall chairman of the committee said, fine with me, but he is the subcommittee chairman.

We never had one hearing. We never had an opportunity to flesh it out.

Defeat this amendment.

Well, here again, when Mr. Barton, the ranking member of the committee, asked very specifically, Mr. Chairman, when he asked very specifically in the markup on the House side back in 2009, if I vote ``yes'' for that, will we have hearings to--I think it was ``to flesh this out.'' He was assured, of course, by the chairman at the time of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, and also the chairman of the overall committee, Mr. Waxman of California, said, Hey, it's okay with me. No hearings were held.

So this business of can't we work this out, but yet we were reaching out, and it never happened.

I yield back to my friend.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked me a specific question, and I want to respond to my friend.

You know, the point I will make to him is that we can work together. We absolutely can.

Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this with Mr. Pallone. I have done so personally, as I know my physician colleague on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Burgess, has had a conversation with Mr. Pallone.

We can work together, but we have to remove this failed program first because of that looming deadline of October 1, 2012, where we'll get sued if we don't have a program. So I'd be glad to work with the gentleman.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

In regard to you yielding an additional 5 minutes to me, in fact, that is not true.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the gentleman from Tennessee, Representative Fincher, moved to strike the last word and was afforded the 5 minutes, as we all are, and he yielded to me.

I certainly would oppose the gentleman's unanimous consent request for you to--I don't think you have the authority to do that quite honestly.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to insist on regular order here.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California in mentioning these categories of suffering seniors, people with Alzheimer's disease, chronic diabetes, heart disease, advanced stages of cancer, disability, or traumatic injury, I'd like to tell the gentleman and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the aisle always have these victims in our mind, in our heart, in our prayers. But we have the compassion and the honesty not to promote and present a ruse and false hope. That's what this so-called CLASS Act non-program does to these suffering individuals that suffer from these chronic medical conditions and disabilities.

H.R. 1173 is an opportunity for this Congress to reverse one of the most costly coverups--yes, coverups--this administration has imposed upon the American taxpayer. The failure of this administration to implement the CLASS program came as no surprise to the many of us who had actually listened to the concerns from the unbiased actuaries--even the administration's own chief health actuary, Richard Foster, from CMS--about the certain failure of the CLASS program.

The concerns, Mr. Speaker, were bipartisan during debate on the President's health care law, and even the President's own fiscal commission called for the program's repeal.

So today we have the opportunity to finally get this failed program off of the books. This administration has spent millions of dollars and, yes, eight ways of Sunday, here they are, colleagues, eight ways, short of having yet another mandate that all people have coverage.

They have tried to implement a program that never had a chance of being implemented, and today we're faced with an $80 billion hole in the budget that this administration claims would be filled by the implementation of the CLASS program.

Listen, colleagues, key Senate Democrats, like Senator Harkin, believe that there is still one last option worth considering: another unconstitutional mandate on every American. In fact, in comments to reporters yesterday, Senator Harkin made the claim that the problem with the current CLASS program is that it is voluntary. In the opinion of the esteemed Senator, it needs to be mandatory.

The need for long-term care reform is an important issue, and I am confident that solutions can be accomplished and that we can do this in a bipartisan way as they have been done before on this issue. We cannot, however, continue to deny the fact that the CLASS program is an abject failure and that its repeal is necessary today.

I say to my Democrat colleagues, admit your failure. You rushed this provision into the health care law. I understand your compassion toward the late Senator Kennedy and your wanting this to be a legacy for him, but it was his staff that maybe misled the committee and the Democrat majority. Admit your failure. Get over it. Vote to repeal this failed CLASS Act, and live to fight another day.

I recommend that we vote down this motion to recommit and for the bill to be repealed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 522 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 522 provides a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 1173. This rule allows for any amendment prefiled in the Congressional Record which complies with the rules of the House to be made in order. That's pretty simple.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1173, the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011, which was introduced on March 17, 2011, by the gentleman, my dear friend from Louisiana, Congressman Charles Boustany, and was reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 33-17 on November 29, 2011.

Additionally, the bill was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on January 18, 2012, by a vote of 23-13.

This legislation has been through regular order. Members from both sides of the aisle on several committees have had opportunities to submit perfecting ideas, and those amendments have been considered. With the modified open process brought forward by the Rules Committee, every preprinted amendment will be given full and fair consideration by this body.

Mr. Speaker, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, also known as the CLASS Act, was a budgetary gimmick introduced by congressional Democrats in the ObamaCare bill to fit a 10-year budget score, not to provide reliable insurance coverage. This is why we are here today. Built on an unstable foundation, this long-term health insurance system was broken from its inception, and yet was used to sell ObamaCare to those who did not fully comprehend its future implications.

Let's review the facts of this case. The CLASS Act establishes a long-term health coverage program that would be operated by the Federal Government. The program is a guaranteed issue, meaning no one can be turned away. The program provides subsidized premiums to those under the age of 22 and to those below the poverty line. Finally, it can use no government funding. If that isn't a recipe for failure, I'm not sure how else you would design the program. Giving reduced premiums to some and mandatory coverage to all necessarily drives up the monthly premium. The Department of Health and Human Services indicated that the plans, as designed, would cost $235 and $391 a month and could rise to as much as $3,000 a month for those in the program. Anyone who is healthy and above the poverty line would most certainly turn to the private sector, leaving the program woefully underfunded. These are the facts. The program is not viable and is not sustainable.

In reference to the program, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius, finally agreed on October 14, saying, ``I do not see a viable path forward at this time.'' It makes you wonder what other sections of ObamaCare might not be fiscally sound, given a closer review as well. Oh, by the way, this Republican Congress is doing that right now, in committee, under regular order. Apparently, however, we had to pass the bill to find out about the CLASS Act and what was in it and how it might work.

Mr. Speaker, we are not solving the problem by creating programs that are unsustainable. We continue to double down, taxing Medicare and Medicaid relentlessly to where they cannot pay for themselves. President Obama and congressional Democrats actually cut $500 billion in Medicare in order to fund the CLASS Act and flawed programs like it in the ObamaCare package. The majority of Republicans in this House are committed to protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for future generations, not passing empty promises--those that cannot sustain themselves and those that would be headed for failure from their inceptions. I believe we are abandoning the core mission of entitlement programs, which was meant to bring necessary coverage to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I, like many Americans, can speak on a personal basis about what a disappointment this is, not just the ObamaCare bill, but the provisions laid out in it. You see, I'm not unlike many Americans. I have a disabled son at home. I have an 18-year-old Down syndrome young man. I, and Alex, perhaps at some point, will count on the government's being able to uphold its real responsibility. I believe government should have a mission statement, and that government should have a role in the lives of Americans, but it should be one which is very narrow and well understood.

I understand and believe that we should have a government that does help people who need help, and that we do have a government that can give assistance. However, I believe that able-bodied people should not be included in these programs. I believe that the people who should be a part of this government assistance should be those who have an intellectual or physical disability, those who are seniors--our parents. Because of their ages and their service to this great country, they have earned this and should be given that help. Lastly, those who are poor--those, in other words, who are at or below the poverty line-- should be a part of this as well.

I believe that what this bill has done--and the philosophy of the Democratic Party, including that of this President--will diminish the real role that government should be playing, because, in fact, it has gone so far out of its intended purpose, or of its ability to sustain what it should be doing, that it will be a sham system and unable to help those it should have been intended to help in the first place. I have seen this many times. I have seen it in professional sports where, as an analogy, people will buy a season ticket and get a parking pass with it. There are sometimes 10,000 or 15,000 people who buy season tickets for 4,000 parking places. In other words, there may be 10,000 people who have the right to come to those parking places, but there is only room for a few.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our government and the leaders of this government, including Secretary Sebelius, recognize the limitations and the failures of this piece of legislation. This one piece alone is what we, as Republicans today, are trying to highlight, and Dr. Boustany is right in bringing it to us.

We should not be creating a system that would be outside the scope of what the government should actually be doing, which is to help those who cannot help themselves or who deserve that opportunity to have help. In other words, by creating a larger-than-life scenario which cannot be sustained, they've, in fact, put the underpinnings of something that could be good at risk--selling too many parking places for the ones that need to exist. The parking places that need to exist need to be on a one-on-one basis now for the people who need them the most. That is what the government should be doing and doing well, not going outside of its mandate and not promising something that is unsustainable and that they cannot deliver on.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit and suggest that some Democrats will rise today to defend this bill, the CLASS Act, but the facts of the case are now known and well understood so that even the President and his administration are walking away from this part of the bill. The program is fatally flawed, and a full repeal is the only realistic way we should approach this.

Now is the time to be serious with the American people. Now is the time when we need to say that this should not have been a part of what this health care bill is about. It will surely not deliver on what was sold or do what it was intended to do; and before we engage in that, we ought to be realistic and honest about what this is doing.

Now is the time to be serious with the American people about expectations from the Federal Government as related to this program. House Republicans are committed to providing affordable, patient-driven solutions to the problems facing our health care system; and we recognize, in going through the bill, that this stands out as a prime example of what is broken about the legislation that is law today.

So we are here forthrightly, through regular order, to talk in a polite and sensible way about how we should handle what we now know and what we should have known then but failed to do. Not reading the bill is just another example of the flawed process that we were going through.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this modified open rule, which allows for the consideration of all preprinted amendments that comply with the rules of the House, and to vote for the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find very interesting my friend's arguments. First of all, the health care bill hasn't even kicked in, so millions of people have not gotten the advantages of this bill yet.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

And that was a bipartisan agreement.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, at the time the bill was passed, we agreed to a number of things that we did think were good ideas. That was a good idea.

The $500 billion of cuts in Medicare that Republicans talked about, we did not set that up for this election. They did that 2 years ago. That's one of the reasons why the American people, 50-plus percent of the American people, another reason why they do not like this bill.

But to suggest that all of the advantages that are occurring as a result of this bill would be a misnomer. As a matter of fact, it's causing almost 80 percent of small business owners not to make decisions about hiring people for the future; and it's causing intense financial problems, not only upon small businesses but upon other businesses who don't hire people. It's causing a substantial problem on the amount of money that we are spending by this government right now.

Oh, by the way, that legislation also said in certain pieces of it that it's not for review by judicial or congressional oversight, that whatever these panels do is a decision that they would make. It's very restrictive. It's a government-run system, and it's causing enormous financial distress to this country.

I appreciate the gentleman trying to take all of the high attributes for it. It's a system that Republicans will vote to repeal, and we will replace that with a system that is market-based and that works.

Lastly, I will say that the gentleman talked about how cost effective it is. Insurance rates are raising 30 percent this year alone for people in the private sector, and that's nonsustainable.

Mr. Speaker, today, however, we are talking about a larger issue, and that is a piece part of that bill, the CLASS Act. I'm very pleased today to have a gentleman who is a great member of our conference, a physician by trade. It's just of enormous consequence that we have a person who understands why this piece of the bill in particular, today, must be repealed.

I'm delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), the original sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, the beautiful part of this body and really the historical context of the United States Congress is that people can come down and advocate for things that they see, things that they want. We go through, have hearings, we pass bills. We're not here today to say what's good or bad or right or wrong in terms of how we help people. We're here saying the government cannot make this program work.

To make the program work means that it has to have the underpinnings of an understanding, not just how it will work and who will pay for it, but really, what are the services that are going to be provided? The gentlewoman from Texas was very genuine in talking about the needs of people. I deeply believe in those needs also. But it also goes back to, this administration is the one that is walking away from the legislation, and it does us no good to try and act like, it's okay, we'll just ignore that.

The Congressional Budget Office today released its viewpoint for the coming year, and once again this administration, President Obama, will have a $1 trillion deficit on his hands. The prior record before President Obama had been $459 billion. We are going to be a trillion dollars--again--in the hole. At some point someone needs to recognize we cannot sustain all these great and wonderful ideas because if you cannot pay for something, you have set an expectation of performance that will not ever come true. That is cruel. That is cruel, and that is exactly what this ObamaCare bill and this CLASS Act is all about. It is about substantially telling the American people that something will be there when it never will be there because it's not put together where it's sustainable. The President's own people are saying it's not sustainable. And we as Members of Congress are trying to work with the administration on how it might work, and they're saying it can't and won't.

So the reality base of this is that the Republican Party does recognize the need. I recognize the need personally. I think Charles Boustany, Dr. Boustany, who is the sponsor of the bill, recognizes a need. But the way that it is defined and was defined in the Energy and Commerce Committee was, it's a concept and an idea; let's voice vote this or agree that we'll get something back later. The bill was not voice voted. The agreement that they would come back later and look at it was.

In fact, Republicans are not guilty as charged. We are people who primarily go back home every weekend. I've never spent a weekend in Washington, D.C., in the 16 years I've been a Member of Congress. I go back out of Washington and try and go home to listen to people about the concerns that they have. It doesn't take much of a person who goes back every weekend to recognize there are great needs in this country. But to try and put together a program that cannot sustain itself, that offers a false hope and cannot be met, is cruel.

So today, Republicans, without calling anything bad, we're simply saying it cannot be sustained. It cannot be sustained by the government. The government cannot figure out a way to make it work. The managers of the business cannot figure out a way.

So, we've heard today we should hold hearings. We should. We should take up this issue. Dr. Boustany talked about the need to do that, and we're going to. But the way the law looks right now, it's unsustainable, and we should tell the truth about that. And that is what Republicans are on the floor of the House doing today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think what we've done today is fair and honorable. We've talked about a problem. We've talked about a potential answer. First of all, an answer is that, since we do not have a workable program without bringing it back to the Congress, we ought to work with the administration. I think we've been responsible. But we have heard feedback from the administration, in a hearing, that said, we can't make that program work; we cannot make that program work.

So I think that what we are doing today is the fiscally responsible thing, to end the program, to end a program that is not going to work and was not designed to work, and then start back over, if we choose to, and put it into a workable mode. But only to have a false hope out there of something that cannot be sustained and something that the managers of the government cannot make work is a bad idea.

We've got another trillion-dollar deficit that is facing this country, another $1 trillion. We know who that is. That's Pin the Tail on the Donkey, Mr. Speaker. They are the ones responsible. They are the ones that are happy with that, and they are the ones that try to justify that.

Today we are coming together to find the solution to a long-term care issue in this country by talking about it, doing something that cannot be sustained, and then admitting, as Mr. Boustany did, that we need to do something better. And we should not throw the idea away. Today we are going to vote on something that will do no further harm.

I applaud my colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Boustany, for introducing the bill. I appreciate him coming before us. I respect and appreciate my committee, the Rules Committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for bringing this debate here in such an open and transparent process. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a very valued member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Madam Chair, I just want to remind everyone that under the CLASS Act there's not one person in the United States who would receive long-term care benefits under that act because it doesn't work.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I'd like to speak to H.R. 1173, the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011, which repeals the CLASS program which was rushed into law in the President's health reform bill.

Last February, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius publicly admitted that the more than $80 billion CLASS Act was ``totally unsustainable.'' But it was not until 8 months later, on October 14, that the Department of Health and Human Services announced it was not moving forward with the implementation of the CLASS program ``at this time.''

On October 26, 2011, Assistant Secretary Kathy Greenlee testified before our subcommittee that the Department had spent $5 million in 2010 and 2011 trying to implement the program. The Secretary's conclusion that the CLASS program could not meet the law's 75-year solvency requirement and was not sustainable was not a surprise to anyone who had been following the issue. Even before its inclusion in the President's health care law, PPACA, in March of 2010, we were warned by the administration's own actuary, the American Academy of Actuaries; Members of Congress from both parties; and outside experts that the program would not be fiscally sustainable. On July 9, 2009, approximately 8 months before PPACA was signed into law, CMS's own actuary, Richard Foster, wrote ``36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant Federal subsidies to continue.''

I support the intent behind the CLASS program to help Americans purchase long-term care policies that most of us will end up needing at some point, but only about 9 million Americans actually purchase. Long- term care costs are frighteningly high, and many Americans face bankruptcy or ending up on Medicaid, or both, in order to get the care they need.

But while the goals of the program were worthy, good intentions do not make up for fundamentally flawed, actuarially unsound policies designed to show the illusion of savings. The President has left us with a budget hole of more than $80 billion. The irresponsible nature of the CLASS program's inclusion in the health care law is just a sample of the budget gimmicks used to pass the health care law in the dark of the night nearly 2 years ago. The President will have to explain why, years later, the taxpayers are left with a failed program that will cost this Nation at least $80 billion. That is more than 150 Solyndra scandals.

Shelving this failed program is not enough. As long as it is on the books, it will continue to create substantial uncertainty in the private sector about what the government's role in long-term care insurance will be. Let's repeal the CLASS program, not try to tinker around the edges of a fundamentally flawed model, and take up real solutions to this problem instead.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1173, to repeal the failed CLASS program so that we can move forward with reforms that work.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

It is unconscionable to promise something to people when you know it won't be there.

Your own administration admits the CLASS Act doesn't work. Zero people will be enrolled in the CLASS Act. They have a program that does not work, a program they know that does not work. That is building a false sense of security in people instead of working on the real policy.

I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), our conference chair.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I believe we have the right to close, and we have just one speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to close on our side, I yield such time as he may consume to a distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, again, this amendment continues to ignore the reality around the CLASS program.

The CLASS program has been reviewed by outside analysts, by the HHS actuary and the Congressional Budget Office; and just last year the Obama administration finally admitted what so many already knew, the CLASS program is not workable. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has certified that not a single person would ever receive benefits from the CLASS program. Any effort to preserve a failed program on the books simply delays any real attempt to ensure every American has access to affordable long-term care coverage.

From the start, the CLASS program was a Big Government idea that independent analysts believed was flawed and unworkable. The American Academy of Actuaries, the Congressional Budget Office and even officials at the Department of Health and Human Services run by Secretary Sebelius had grave concerns about the workability of this program. It has been studied. It does not work. If you would have done this study before you passed it, we would not have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on a program that was

doomed from the start. Perhaps we should visit what the failed implementation of the CLASS program has done, rather than spend millions on a study of what its removal would do.

I begin by reminding my colleagues that the CLASS program has done nothing to help reduce Federal or State spending. In fact, the Department spent at least $5 million to implement a failed program and an $80 billion hole in the Federal budget. I would also remind my colleague that the CLASS program has done nothing for consumers who are left with a failed program that was overpromised to the public as part of the President's monstrous health care law.

We must move to take the CLASS program off the books so that we can move forward with solutions that work with the private market that are affordable for consumers and don't place additional strain on the Federal and State budgets.

Madam Chair, this amendment continues to ignore the reality. The CLASS program is simply not workable. Keeping the CLASS program and pretending that it will ever work does absolutely nothing and offers no help to millions of Americans who want to maintain their health. Any effort to preserve a failed program on the books simply delays any real attempt to ensure every American has access to affordable, long-term care coverage.

From the start, the CLASS program was a Big Government idea that independent analysts believed was flawed and unworkable. In fact, the Obama administration officials pointed out serious concerns with the CLASS program as early as the beginning of 2009. While those concerns went ignored by the administration until earlier this fall, now is not the time to stall its repeal.

Yesterday, Senator Harkin told reporters that the only way to make CLASS work is to make it mandatory. Are the supporters of the CLASS Act really advocating another mandate? Keeping CLASS on the books is a step in that direction.

Keeping the CLASS program on the books also further threatens the private market and the nearly 8 million Americans who have private long-term care insurance today. You cannot have a functioning long-term care insurance market if there is a continued threat of a government takeover of that market.

We need long-term care reform that builds on what the private market provides, not destroys it. I hope that those on the other side of the aisle have the courage to admit their mistake, repeal this law, and begin to work on a real, workable long-term care policy.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply ignore the millions of dollars that have been spent by this administration to reach the same conclusion that so many unbiased analysts had said for years: The CLASS program is unworkable, causing a liability for the potential beneficiary and the taxpayers alike.

This amendment would promote reckless governing that maintains a failed program for further meddling. The CLASS program has done nothing to decrease Medicaid spending, and its inclusion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a budget gimmick, a budget gimmick that will cost the American taxpayers $80 billion over the next 10 years.

Alternative policies, such as the Long-Term Care Partnership Program, which was signed into law by President Bush, have decreased Medicaid spending and deterred Americans from making Medicaid their primary payer of long-term care services. That program alone has done more for Medicaid spending than CLASS ever will.

We can and should do more to decrease Medicaid spending and ensure Americans have the access they need to affordable long-term care coverage, but government intrusion into the market is not the way to go. However, we cannot move forward in thinking about better long-term care policies with this failed program hanging over us.

Yesterday, Senator Harkin made it clear that the problem with the CLASS program was that it was voluntary. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote in favor of another mandate on the American people.

Enough is enough. We must get this failed program off the books so that we can move forward in establishing long-term care policies that work for the American taxpayers, not those that further bankrupt this country.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, to summarize briefly, first of all, there is no CLASS program. The gentlelady was right; this is a woman issue. Women have been promised something that they'll never get with the CLASS Act. Zero people will be enrolled in the CLASS Act. They have a program that doesn't work, they know it won't work, and it's a false sense of hope to say that it will.

HHS studied for 18 months eight different scenarios to fix the CLASS Act from $391 a month premium to $3,000 a month premium. They concluded the same result: The CLASS Act is not fixable. Short of a mandate, there's no way to fix the CLASS Act.

Now, our friends on the other side have had several opportunities to offer amendments to fix the CLASS Act. First of all, H.R. 1173 was marked up in the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, and they didn't offer an amendment. At full committee, the Democrats didn't offer a comprehensive plan to fix the program. And now, with nearly 4 hours of debate, still no amendments to fix the program. Without a mandate, there's no way to fix it.

Mr. Chairman, we must get this program off the books and start over. It was wrong when it was passed. It's simply a liability in our budget, and the American taxpayers who would reject any further attempt by the Federal Government to require something upon them, that is another mandate.

I urge a vote for H.R. 1173 to repeal this CLASS Act. Let's start over again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair