WIN for Children and Families Act

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3659.

This bill was taken out of the 360-page tax extenders bill, and essentially the authors of this bill have brought it up so that they could just have another kick at poor people. The bill sort of suggests that people who are poor are of very low moral character and that they can't be trusted to use their EBT cards in liquor stores or casinos, so therefore we need to make some restrictions on how they can use EBT cards.

But before we start kicking poor people yet another time, I just want to remind everyone of data that were just released today which indicate that one half of all Americans are poor and that these people may find themselves eligible for benefits under this Electronic Benefit Transfer card.

Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I tried to strike this language from the bill--with no success.

The provision that blocks EBT cards from being used in liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs doesn't consider a couple of things. It doesn't consider the tremendous cost that this will have on financial institutions, which will have to reconfigure their cards. It also

doesn't consider the distance for many Americans. There are 23 million Americans who live in so-called ``food deserts'' where there is not access to a grocery store or to an EBT machine within walking distance.

Before I close, I would just like to mention one personal experience that I had just this last week.

After having suffered an aneurysm, one of my sisters was on her way back to the hospital this morning. Because I didn't have access to a vehicle, I went and purchased the last meal that I gave her before I journeyed back to Washington, D.C. I bought her 100 percent orange juice from a liquor store that was within walking distance of my home.

So it may be an unintended consequence, but this is just a mean- spirited effort to, one more time, kick the poor people who are now half of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. Like a broken record the Republican leadership continues to play the same sad song. One that claims to help the poor and middle class but in the end will only exacerbate our already weak economy.

As always, the devil is in the details. This so called Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act will only help to make an already broken program worse while also restricting access for our most vulnerable families.

But be careful.

New Census data released today reveals that 1 in 2 Americans have fallen into poverty. One half of all Americans are now either poor or low-income!!!

The rate at which women and children are being thrown under the bus is a strong indication that TANF has systematically failed to close the expanding poverty gap, build pathways to sustainable employment, and has done little to alleviate the problem of growing chronic poverty.

Now, as we go into TANF's third extension, Republicans want to impose additional barriers on families to further hinder their ability to access much needed benefits in these tough economic times.

This bill includes a harmful provision that blocks EBT cards from being used at liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of access. In many neighborhoods, the closest ATM is located in a nearby liquor store.

We don't want to encourage people to go to liquor stores or casinos but what are low-income families supposed to do when they can't even access benefits to feed their families in their own neighborhoods?

There has been no consideration of the cost associated with implementing this policy, or to the kinds of burdens that it will undoubtedly place on states and financial institutions who will have to reconfigure thousands of ATMs.

Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I attempted to strike this language from the tax extenders bill, but Republicans refused to consider any amendments both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.

Here we are. Up against many deadlines and someone took the time to pull this language out of a 370 page bill so that they could kick people who are down with further restrictions.

I hope that the American people can see that Republicans are simply playing political theater, trying to further humiliate and marginalize poor people while stonewalling any and all efforts for Democrats to pass meaningful legislation that will truly provide opportunities for all people.

[From the Economic Research Service, June 2009]

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food

Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences

Report to Congress

Increases in obesity and diet-related diseases are major

public health problems. These problems may be worse in some

U.S. communities because access to affordable and nutritious

foods is difficult. Previous studies suggest that some areas

and households have easier access to fast food restaurants

and convenience stores but limited access to supermarkets.

Limited access to nutritious food and relatively easier

access to less nutritious food may be linked to poor diets

and, ultimately, to obesity and diet-related diseases.

Congress, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,

directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct

a 1-year study to assess the extent of the problem of limited

access, identify characteristics and causes, consider the

effects of limited access on local populations, and outline

recommendations to address the problem.

This report presents the findings of the study, which

include results from two conferences of national and

international authorities on food deserts and a set of

commissioned research studies done in cooperation with the

National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. It

also includes reviews of existing literature, a national-

level assessment of access to supermarkets and large grocery

stores, analysis of the economic and public health effects of

limited access, and a discussion of existing policy

interventions. A variety of analytical methods and data are

used to assess the extent of limited access to affordable and

nutritious food and characteristics of areas with limited

access.

Findings

Access to a supermarket or large grocery store is a problem

for a small percentage of households. Results indicate that

some consumers are constrained in their ability to access

affordable nutritious food because they live far from a

supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy

access to transportation. Three pieces of evidence

corroborate this conclusion:

Of all U.S. households, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live

more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to

a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2

percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile

and do not have access to a vehicle.

Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people

live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of

the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal

poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a

supermarket or large grocery store. However, not all of these

23.5 million people have low income. If estimates are

restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income

areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total

U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile

from a supermarket.

Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in

low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more

time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the

national average (15 minutes). However, 93 percent of those

who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to

the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household

member drove.

These distance and time-based measures are national

estimates that do not consider differences between rural and

urban areas in terms of distance, travel patterns, and retail

market coverage.

Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized

by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income

inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food

access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most

defining characteristic.

These area- or distance-based results are in line with a

nationally representative survey of U.S. households conducted

in 2001. Responses to direct questions about food access show

that nearly 6 percent of all U.S. households did not always

have the food they wanted or needed because of access-related

problems. More than half of these households also lacked

enough money for food. It is unclear whether food access or

income constraints were relatively greater barriers for these

households.

Supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices

than smaller stores. A key concern for people who live in

areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery

or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed

for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other

food at higher prices. This report examines whether prices of

similar foods vary across retail outlet types and whether the

prices actually paid by consumers vary across income levels.

These analyses use proprietary household-level data that

contain information on food items purchased by approximately

40,000 demographically representative households across the

United States. Results from these analyses show that when

consumers shop at convenience stores, prices paid for similar

goods are, on average, higher than at supermarkets.

Low-income households shop where food prices are lower,

when they can. Findings also show that food purchases at

convenience stores make up a small portion of total food

expenditures (2 to 3 percent) for low-income consumers. Low-

and middle-income households are more likely to purchase food

at supercenters, where prices are lower. Administrative data

on SNAP benefit redemptions from 2008 show that 86 percent of

SNAP benefits were redeemed at supermarkets or large grocery

stores. Research that considers the prices paid for the same

food across household income levels indicates that while some

of the very poorest households--those earning less than

$8,000 per year--may pay between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent

more for their groceries than households earning slightly

more, households earning between $8,000 and $30,000 tend to

pay the lowest prices for groceries, whereas higher income

households pay significantly higher prices.

The study also examined food shopping behavior and the

types of food purchased for SNAP participants and other low-

income households. Data from the 1996/1997 NFSPS show that

SNAP participants were, on average, 1.8 miles from the

nearest supermarket. However, the average number of miles

both SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants traveled

to the store most often used was 4.9 miles. These same data

show that SNAP participants who did not shop at supermarkets

purchased less noncanned fruit, noncanned vegetables, and

milk than SNAP participants who shopped frequently at a

supermarket.

Easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to

specific healthy foods, may be a

more important factor in explaining increases in obesity.

Many studies find a correlation between limited food access

and lower intake of nutritious foods. Data and methods used

in these studies, however, are not sufficiently robust to

establish a causal link between access and nutritional

outcomes. That is, other explanations cannot be eliminated as

the cause of lower intake. A few studies have examined food

intake before and after healthy food options become available

(either within existing stores or because new stores opened).

The findings are mixed--some show a small but positive

increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables, while

others show no effect.

The causal pathways linking limited access to nutritious

food to measures of overweight like Body Mass Index (BMI) and

obesity are not well understood. Several studies find that

proximity of fast food restaurants and supermarkets are

correlated with BMI and obesity. But increased consumption of

such healthy foods as fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, or

whole grains does not necessarily lead to lower BMI.

Consumers may not substitute away from less healthy foods

when they increase their consumption of healthy foods. Easy

access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific

healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining

increases in BMI and obesity.

Understanding the market conditions that contribute to

differences in access to food is critical to the design of

policy interventions that may be effective in reducing access

limitations. Access to affordable and nutritious food depends

on supply (availability) and consumer demand. Consumer

behavior, preferences, and other factors related to the

demand for some foods may account for differences in the

types of foods offered across different areas. Food retailer

behavior and supply-side issues such as higher costs to

developing stores in underserved areas may also explain

variation across areas in which foods are offered and what

stores offer them.

If high development costs serve as a barrier to entry for

supermarkets in some areas with low access, then subsidy

programs or restructured zoning policies may be effective

solutions. If consumer demand factors, such as inadequate

knowledge of the nutritional benefits of specific foods,

contribute to differences in access by reducing demand, then

a public health campaign may be a preferred strategy. Several

local and State-level efforts are underway that could provide

the basis for a better understanding of the types of

interventions that may work best.

Food has been used as a tool for community development.

Projects such as farmers' markets, community gardens,

promotion of culturally specific foods for ethnic minorities

and Native Americans, local food production and promotion,

youth agricultural and culinary training programs, and many

other types of programs have all been implemented in a

variety of settings, both urban and rural. USDA's Community

Food Projects Competitive Grant program has much experience

in funding and nurturing such programs.

The current state of research is insufficient to

conclusively determine whether some areas with limited access

have inadequate access. Future research should consider

improved methods to measure access levels, availability, and

prices of foods faced by individuals and areas. More research

is needed to understand how access, availability and price

affect the shopping and consumption behaviors of consumers.

Data linking information on the types of foods consumers

purchase and eat with measures of consumers' levels of access

and the prices they face could help explain the economic

consequences of food access. Studies that use improved

methods and data to determine how food access affects diet,

obesity, and other health outcomes are also needed to help

explain the health consequences of food access.

Methods

To conduct the analysis of the extent of food deserts, a

comprehensive database was developed that identified the

location of supermarkets and large grocery stores within the

continental United States. Food access was estimated as the

distance to the nearest supermarket or large grocery store.

The analysis was refined by examining households without

vehicles and specific socio-demographic subpopulations drawn

from the 2000 Census. Multivariate statistical analysis was

applied to identify the key determinants of areas with low

access to supermarkets and large grocery stores.

Research also examined national-level data on questions of

household food adequacy and access from the 2001 Current

Population Survey. This information was complemented with

national-level data on time spent traveling to grocery stores

from the 2003-07 American Time Use Survey. To consider the

economic consequences of limited access, ERS also analyzed

demand for certain nutritious foods for a sample of

participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), using data from the

National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS) of 1996/1997.

Variation in prices for similar foods purchased at different

store types, as indicated by hedonic models and data from the

2006 Nielsen Homescan panel, was also estimated.

ERS collaborated with other agencies and institutions to

complete this study. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

compiled information on an extensive body of work examining

food access for SNAP and other low-income households. USDA's

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

(CSREES) provided information on the Community Foods Projects

and lessons learned in the administration of the projects.

The national-level food desert analysis was complemented by

a review of existing literature and the commissioning of

additional studies by experts in the field. A workshop held

in October 2008 convened leading experts in the study of

retail food and grocery store access, key stakeholders from

community development organizations, grocery retailer

organizations, other government agencies, congressional

members and staff, and related public interest groups. The

workshop included presentations and panel discussions of such

topics as defining and describing dimensions of food deserts,

implications of low access for food and nutrition assistance

programs, consequences of food deserts, and programs and

policies to mitigate the adverse effects of food deserts.

USDA, in cooperation with the National Poverty Center at

the University of Michigan, commissioned several studies by

experts in food access to better understand concepts of low

access to affordable and nutritious foods and the degree to

which access varies across different types of areas. The

intent of these papers was to describe characteristics of the

food environment and the demographic, economic, and health

conditions that typify areas with low food access and to

complement the national-level findings with more detailed and

local-level information. Results from studies were presented

in a conference.

USDA, in cooperation with the Institute of Medicine of the

National Academies, conducted a 2-day workshop in January

2009 on the public health implications of food deserts.

Workshop presentations covered methods for assessing and

research findings on the impacts of food deserts on such

outcomes as diet (including examination of specific foods,

such as fruit and vegetable consumption and intake of high-

energy, low-nutrient foods), prevalence of obesity and

overweight; and diseases associated with poor diets. In

addition, presentations covered promising strategies for

mitigating the impacts of food deserts that have been

suggested, implemented, or are in the planning stages. The

workshop provided the basis for the review of the public

health literature.

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.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3567) to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to require States to implement policies to prevent assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program from being used in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

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

I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of H.R. 3567, a bill to ensure taxpayer dollars in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program are used as intended, and that is to provide support for low- income families and children and to help them move from welfare to work.

The TANF program was created in 1996, replacing the prior welfare program with one focused on work, providing short-term help, child care, and other work supports to get people back on their feet and earning a paycheck. In the years following, TANF was lauded as one of the most effective reforms in our social welfare system in American history. Employment rates of those on welfare surged, caseloads plummeted, child poverty rates fell, and taxpayers were confident they were actually helping poor families, knowing that they were providing them with a hand up and not a handout.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, an issue has arisen in TANF that is eroding public confidence in the program. This is the issue of TANF funds, money meant to help poor children and their families, being accessed and used in liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos. What started less than 2 years ago as research by one reporter in Los Angeles has grown into dozens of investigations across the country, with each new investigation adding to the story of how millions of dollars in TANF funds have been accessed in these locations.

Let me just mention some of what has been uncovered:

An Arizona investigation found welfare funds were accessed in liquor stores over 100 times in just 3 months;

A California reporter uncovered that welfare recipients cashed out over $4.8 million in TANF funds in casinos over a 3-year period;

A Colorado news organization found cash was being withdrawn in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, despite a State law on the books prohibiting such transactions;

An investigative report in Georgia revealed $150,000 in TANF money was withdrawn in liquor stores, bars, and nightclubs;

KING 5 News in Seattle found 13,000 TANF recipients who had collectively withdrawn approximately $2 million from casinos in 2010.

Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable. This is unacceptable to the American people.

When the L.A. Times revealed their shocking statistics on the millions in welfare that had been accessed in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs, the Governor of California took action to block these transactions immediately. Washington and New Mexico have prohibited access to welfare benefits in casinos. Texas prohibits the use of welfare benefit cards in liquor stores and casinos as well.

The legislation before us today would ensure that taxpayer dollars in the TANF program are being used as intended, and that is to assist poor families with their basic needs and to support them in their efforts to become self-sufficient. Under this bill, States would be required to block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs and would be penalized if they do not implement such policies within 2 years of this bill becoming law.

This bill will also help restore the public's trust in the integrity of the program while ensuring families across the country continue to receive the assistance they need to move from government dependence to independence.

The bill we're considering today simply consists of one of the TANF provisions in H.R. 3659, the Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act that

was unanimously passed in the House in December. A provision closing what has been called the ``strip club loophole'' was also included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that also passed the House in December and is now in conference with the Senate.

With the exception of several technical changes suggested by the Department of Health and Human Services, it is also identical to bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate last year by Senator Hatch and cosponsored by Senator Baucus, the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, respectively. I thank them for their hard work on this bill as well.

Passing this bill today will send three clear messages:

First, the House is serious about this bipartisan, bicameral reform becoming law, ensuring welfare funds are spent on families and children as intended;

Second, conferees on the yearlong payroll tax, UI and TANF extenders bill, should include this bipartisan provision in their conference agreement;

Third, if those conference discussions break down, the Senate will be able to join us in quickly passing this important bipartisan reform and getting it to the President's desk.

I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources on the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman Geoff Davis from the great State of Kentucky, the author of the TANF reauthorization, who cares deeply about the integrity of this program.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for raising the concern about ensuring that TANF recipients have adequate access to their benefits in a variety of locations. That's a very important consideration.

This bill requires States to block access to welfare benefits in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. However, we know some grocery stores, convenience stores, and local markets may sell groceries but also sell alcohol and that some States may have gambling machines there as well. Because of this, the bill allows States to make accommodations for such stores so that they would not have to block transactions in places that sell groceries but that also sell alcohol. If a grocery store happens to have a gaming machine or if it's located in the same building or complex as a casino, there are provisions made in this.

So I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue, but I'm glad that we can ensure the integrity of this program. I would submit the most important thing we can do is to ensure the integrity of the program so that it is there for the children and families that need it. Yet we want to ensure that there is not an overt abuse of these funds in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores while allowing for reasonable exceptions.

Also, I thank the gentlelady and the ranking member from Texas for raising the concern as to the issue of implementation cost, and I want to address that as well.

Some States have expressed that we have a loophole that could potentially be too costly or too difficult to close. However, I want to point out that these difficulties have been overstated. Washington State said the same thing when it was told $2 million in TANF funds were being withdrawn in casinos in 1 year.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an article from KING 5 News in

Seattle, Washington, that speaks directly to this issue. It talks about the surprising number of TANF withdrawals in casinos in the State, and it reports the State said the same things that we're hearing today in that it may be hard to close this loophole or that it would be too expensive to stop.

This article goes on to read:

``It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the Iron Horse Casino, it took about 4 minutes on the phone. Kealy,'' the casino owner, ``says, in minutes and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked EBT cards . . . Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders from the State. They already reprogrammed their ATMs . . . He's a board member of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more alcohol than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash machines. Kealy says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits.''

So I appreciate the concerns about the cost, but I believe closing this loophole simply won't be as difficult as some are making it out to be.

[From KING5.com, Sept. 23, 2010]

More Businesses May Pull Plug on Welfare Cash Cards

(By Chris Ingalls)

Many casinos in the state have taken steps to cut off the

flow of cash to welfare recipients. This follows a KING 5

Investigation that showed millions of tax dollars being

dispensed through casino cash machines.

Now we've learned thousands more ATMs could be blocked at

other businesses where welfare dollars may not belong. Bars

and taverns in Washington may follow the lead of casinos,

which have already started reprogramming their ATMs so they

won't dispense cash from EBT cards that are distributed to

welfare recipients.

State records show the two ATMs at the Iron Horse Casino in

Auburn dispensed $780 in welfare in the month of July alone.

``Whew! It's unbelievable,'' said Iron Horse customer Louie

Vaccaro. ``We have so many problems in this state. To hear

something like that is mind boggling.''

``I was surprised by that,'' says the casino's owner Chris

Kealy. ``I did not know those cards could be used at these

machines.''

Kealy saw our stories last week that showed more than $2

million in welfare cash withdrawn from ATMs in and around

casinos in the last year. Initially the Department of Social

and Health Services, DSHS, said putting a stop to those

questionable withdrawals might be too difficult or costly.

``If we find that this is a small incidence that's

happening, it might not justify the expense that it would try

to prevent that activity,'' said Deputy DSHS secretary Troy

Hutson in a story we aired last week.

It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the

Iron Horse Casino, it took about four minutes on the phone.

Kealy says in minutes, and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked

EBT cards--debit-type cards which DSHS uses to distribute

cash benefits to 68,000 of the state's most needy residents.

Organizations representing both tribal and non-tribal

gambling establishments in Washington pledged their full

support when DSHS's secretary made an announcement two days

after KING 5 Investigation aired.

``I want to shut down every ATM in gambling establishments

that has EBT access,'' said Susan N. Dreyfus.

Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders

from the state. They already re-programmed their ATMs. And

Kealy isn't stopping with his own casino. He's a board member

of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is

preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more

alcohol than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash

machines. Kealy says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs

couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits.

``The taxes you are paying are supposed to help fund basic

needs, human services,'' Kealy says. ``We're all in this

together. I'm supportive of that. But I'm not supportive of

those dollars being used in facilities like this.''

Gambling is one of the few restrictions on the use of

welfare cash. It is illegal. Welfare cheats can still get

their money at other ATMs, but casinos hope to stack the deck

against them and send the message that welfare dollars aren't

welcome on gaming floors.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Davis.

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

I thought I made it clear, and I think Chairman Davis did also, earlier, that there are provisions to allow for exceptions as long as the facility serves food. We're talking about stores that purely sell liquor. So I think the gentlelady's concerns are addressed with the bill as written.

Furthermore, I would just say that on this side of the aisle, we care very deeply about this program. There's

broad agreement it's a valuable program. It's worked.

If you care about children and you care about needy families in this country, then you should care about ensuring the integrity of the program and making sure that the dollars that taxpayers put forth for these needy families, these needy children, actually go to those families and not buying liquor and patronizing strip clubs and going to casinos.

That's what this bill intends to address. That's what it does address. It creates the proper flexibilities for the concern that the gentlelady has and others on the other side of the aisle have about access. If food is sold, access will not be denied.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If food products are sold at a store?

If any type of food product, including milk, is sold at a store, States can except those from the provisions in this bill.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

The definition is staple foods, which include milk.

Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman has yielded back all of his time?

I am pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the subcommittee, a gentleman who has diligently worked in good faith with the ranking member to reauthorize a TANF program with integrity that ensures that children and needy families get the assistance that they need.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This bill closes a loophole that, if left uncorrected, would continue to allow millions in welfare funds to be distributed in liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs.

Now that this issue has been highlighted by news organizations across the country, we must stop this abuse of taxpayer funds and ensure this money is used as it should be--to help poor children and families make ends meet.

A number of States have already closed this loophole, but this bill will help restore the public's confidence in the program and ensure that States work together to end this abuse once and for all.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this measure, as they have done previously, so that we can ensure taxpayer dollars are used as they should be.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment before speaking on this measure to respond to the gentleman's remark, my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas and ranking member on the subcommittee.

We've worked very hard over the last year on the issue of data standardization, correcting flaws in the system, got the first data standardization language in the history of the country, an act that would begin to address issues like this. I beg to respectfully disagree with the position that the ranking member took on this, talking about the idea of convenience with the casino or adult establishments.

As somebody who grew up in interesting circumstances and has done a lot of volunteer work over the last 30 years with folks with challenges, the

first question that I would ask if somebody is in need of assistance is, what in the world are they doing using a card to get cash inside of a casino. I'm not impugning anybody's integrity, but as somebody who can look across the river from where I live where there are several casinos, there are more than enough establishments, and I think the deeper question that we have to address is how our funds are going to be used when we help those who are in need. There are legitimate needs that these people have, and we've got to make sure that this program is tight, that it has the integrity to function so that every dollar is going to meeting those basic needs. I think it's a very small thing to bring this type of integrity to the program.

I rise in support of H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011, introduced by my close friend from Louisiana, Congressman Charles Boustany.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, is a program that provides support for low-income families and children that helps them to move from welfare to work. It was a successful reform since it replaced the New Deal-era welfare programs in 1996, and TANF has been successful at cutting welfare dependence by 57 percent.

Are there opportunities to improve the program, to strengthen the program? Absolutely. There are a variety of issues and core processes that need to be addressed to bring more private sector practices into the management and administration of the program, like the data standardization that I talked about earlier, to allow us to understand how funds are being used and how better to serve those who are being helped by providing information to those on the front line.

Even more importantly, though, by promoting work among single parents, who are the most common welfare recipients, it helps significantly reduce child poverty in female-headed families over time. Even at today's elevated unemployment rates, TANF continues to promote more work and earnings and less poverty.

Despite this overall progress, TANF can and should be strengthened. Recently, concern has been raised about TANF benefits being withdrawn and used at strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos. This is inappropriate as a use of taxpayer dollars and an outright abuse of taxpayer trust. Indeed, as my colleague from Louisiana highlighted, many local news investigations and exposes have verified this unfortunate abuse of a well-intended program.

One of the most shocking reports to me was from King 5 News in Seattle, Washington. They discovered through an investigation that 13,000 TANF recipients withdrew approximately $2 million at casinos just in 2010.

I think it's very reasonable from an oversight position to ask the question, why are they in the casino in the first place? The use of these dollars can't possibly be meeting basic grocery needs and things like that in an establishment like that or any other type of adult establishment.

Luckily, some States like Washington, New Mexico, and Texas have begun to take action on a local basis, but I believe this is one issue that we need to address at the Federal level, at the core, first by stopping this problem as a symptom and then dealing with the deeper systemic and process issues that we can establish through data standardization and simple controls so these cards will not even work in such an establishment.

H.R. 3567 would close the so-called ``strip club'' loophole within 2 years of enactment. The States would be required to block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. In plain language, welfare benefits could no longer be accessed at any of these facilities.

The same provision was included in H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, as well as H.R. 3659, a standalone TANF extension bill introduced by Congressman Erik Paulsen, both of which passed the House in December. This bipartisan, bicameral program integrity provision will safeguard taxpayer funds from abuse and ensure that TANF benefits will continue to provide a helping hand to families that are in need.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3567.

I do feel compelled to respond since Martin Niemoller--the famous German Christian pastor who was quoted after World War II when talking about inaction--was dealing with the issue of the Holocaust, the scale of which was so unbelievably beyond the pale of a small technical fix

that we're talking about here that, I believe, the gentleman diminished the value of whatever argument he was making by even quoting him.

If I seem to recall my history correctly when I was running a business in 1996, during the welfare debate, Martin Niemoller was resurrected from the dead again, using the same quote that somehow, if we just touch anything that will provide integrity to our programs with which we want to help the poor, that, in fact, this is the march down the slippery slope to the complete takeover and removal of civil rights.

Come on, folks. This is a technical business discussion. If we were running a business together--and I believe the government should be run that way--I think we'd be sitting around a table in the operations room while planning ways to legitimately cut costs to more efficiently help our customers and to eliminate waste.

In using the gentleman's own argument that he brought up, this is the question again: If the vast majority--and I happen to agree with him-- don't go in those places in the first place, why would we not want to put in a simple program control for that small percentage that does to prevent them from wasting taxpayer dollars?

From the casinos that we have across the river, from some of the economic hardship that comes from that and from my constituents who have families who have been damaged by this, I know, in walking inside any number of the casinos on the Ohio River, that I'm not seeing grocery stores, that I'm not seeing provisions for food. What I'm seeing are ATMs and access to free chips and for gambling--not to eat.

I think this begs the deeper question: To the average man or woman on the street, if we ask the question ``Is it reasonable?'' absolutely.

I want to bring us back to the central point here as to what this does. First is the idea that it costs too much, and I'll speak for my other life as a systems professional. The gentleman from Louisiana rightly pointed out that the fixing of the system is actually an easy thing to do, and we will find ready participation and cooperation from those who are involved because they understand the stakes in this. The goal of their businesses is not a further recycling of poverty. The goal of their businesses is to make sure, to some degree, that money is not used in a manner that reflects poor stewardship. I think, ultimately, this is a backstop to assure that money that belongs to the United States taxpayer that's being given to them as assistance is going to be used in a proper manner.

At the end of the day, that refutes the baseline of these arguments-- again, going back to the great success that our staffs have had and that the gentleman from Texas and I have had over the course of the last year to really begin to move serious, nonpartisan process reforms that will help to fix deficiencies in the system which are not Democrat or Republican at their root but are addressing real questions of broken processes.

If we were sitting there among ourselves in a business together that we were running or if we were sitting with our families and if we noticed that there were an issue, hey, we could put a stop to that and we could fix that. Why don't we do the same thing here? It's not an unreasonable request to look at that.

Again, some of the speakers are not on our subcommittee, and I think we've had great success in keeping the tone of the debate focused on the core process problems, not on extremely energetic and emotional rhetoric that really doesn't address this root issue. That would be my request as we move forward. This is a good fix. It is a cheap way to save taxpayer money to legitimately help those in need.

Madam Speaker, again I remind all of my colleagues that when we talk about such matters, it's helpful to focus on tone. The one thing I'm going to respond to, when the comment was made ``that you people shredded,'' I would have to remind all Members in the Chamber and the Speaker that, in fact, that was passed in a Democratic House when the Speaker was Ms. Pelosi and the leader of the Senate was Senator Reid.

We have worked in good faith through this process. And what I would remind folks about the fundamental question as we look at this, the real issue here--and I grew up in a dysfunctional family. I know what it means to see dysfunctional alcoholism with a stepfather leaving and spending the money in places that were inappropriate; and I think it's a fair question, as someone who has lived that as a little boy, to say, wait a minute, if Dad wants to run off with the EBT card and go to one of the boats over in Indiana, we as a body have a responsibility, Democrat and Republican, who care very deeply for this country and for our citizens, to say wait a minute, that's not an appropriate use.

The businesses themselves will cooperate. There's a contextual issue to allow the States to deal with the specific uniqueness of providers of foodstuffs. But at the same time, I think that if an EBT card is being used in a place that may have a drink rack inside of it and pole dancers on the other end, that is not, under any standard of morality, a place where the EBT card should be used.

I can think of no mother who would want the money spent there. I can think of no circumstance that would justify it. And, frankly, having my own stepfather come home drunk and beat up me and my mother after running around out in town with what money she basically earned, I would say in this case it's unacceptable.

Let's come back to the real world, and I'm not going to yield my time. Let's come back to the real world and look at the reality of this. What is being asked is a procedural and a process change to give better stewardship to a program on which we agree about the fundamentals, specifically, the data standardization and control. There's virtually no cost to this.

I understand we have honest differences of opinion here; but I would appreciate that the rhetoric be toned down and we focus on the reality of this. If we ask any mom or dad or recipient or taxpayer out on the street this fundamental question, I think overwhelmingly, when they heard it in the context of reality and not sometimes the things that happen in the Chamber here, they would look at it from a different perspective. That's what we're asking.

With that, I ask all Members to support this very reasonable, very measured, very balanced way to fix a flaw in a program that can be made better as a result of that, be better stewards of our taxpayer dollars. And with that, I urge passage.