To extend the pay limitation for Members of Congress and Federal employees.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They go on to say:

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

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

I continue:

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defeat this amendment.

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

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

I yield back to my friend.

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

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

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

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

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that Members of Congress should receive a pay raise, and that is why I am voting for this bill. However, today's bill isn't just a vote on whether or not to freeze salaries for Members of Congress. The second part of this legislation extends the pay freeze for federal employees for a third consecutive year. This gives me serious pause. These issues should not be tied together. There should be one vote on Member salaries and a separate vote on extending the pay freeze for federal employees.

I am concerned that the language in this bill pertaining to federal employees' pay has not been considered through the normal process. I'm not arguing that freezing Members' salaries needs a hearing. That's obvious. Freezing our pay doesn't need to be vetted.

Federal employees are the issue. This bill has been rushed to the floor less than a week

after being introduced. No hearings have been held. Only 40 minutes of debate are being allowed. No amendments are permitted.

Has anyone fully considered the impact that a three-year pay freeze will have on the CIA, the NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Counter Terrorism Center?

Or the impact on the FBI, which has, since 9/11, disrupted scores of terrorist plots against our country?

Or the impact on our military, which is supported by federal employees every day on military bases across the Nation?

Or the impact on VA hospitals across the country, which are treating military veterans from World War II to today?

Or the impact on the Border Patrol?

Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists, especially on the nine-year anniversary of the tragic loss of the Columbia crew and a week after the 45th anniversary of the loss of the Apollo 1 crew?

Or the impact on NIH, and other federal researchers, scientists and doctors?

Clearly, federal employees don't just sit behind desks. They are members of our communities who are out in the field, often in harm's way, protecting our Nation. Just here in northern Virginia, residents recently mourned the loss of two federal employees who died in the line of duty--U.S. Park Police Sergeant Michael Andrew Boehm of Burke, and National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson, who previously worshipped in Lovettsville.

Their sacrifices remind us that many federal employees are often put in dangerous situations. Since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country, according to the Office of Personnel Management. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent of mine from Manassas Park. I attended his funeral. Over 100,000 CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees have served side-by-side with our military to carry out the War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Two years ago, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a suicide bomber at Forward Operating Base Chapman near Khost on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

And we should not forget that the CIA agents who planned and helped execute the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden are federal employees.

Every day, Border Patrol agents and ICE agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. Federal firefighters work to protect federal lands and mitigate the spread of deadly fires. Immediately following the December 2011 shooting at Virginia Tech, some of the first law enforcement officers on the scene were ATF agents. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees.

Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also dedicated public servants. The medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism are all federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the NIH, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologists who track tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees.

It is cheap grace to claim that today's legislation will in any way address our Nation's fiscal obligations. The national debt is over $15 trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of more than $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. This bill does not even direct the Congress to use the ``savings'' from today's bill to be used for deficit reduction or any other particular purpose.

I am concerned that this vote is merely an attempt to position the House to use federal employees as a ``pay-for'' to fund the further extension of the payroll ``holiday'' legislation that is currently before a conference committee.

This is wrong. And my vote today to freeze Members' salaries should not be construed in any way to indicate that I would support such a position from the conference committee. Let me be clear, the payroll ``holiday'' should expire on schedule at the end of this month. It does nothing more than steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already going broke. And, according to recent polling reported by The Hill, most Americans haven't noticed any benefit from this ``holiday.''

Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits. Because you pay now, a future worker will pay your benefits. That is why, until last year, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties.

Social Security is on an unsustainable path. Today's medical breakthroughs were simply not envisioned when the system was created in 1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and 16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today. Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65. This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these numbers sound sustainable to anyone?

The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2036 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive an across-the-board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system.

After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the deficit, the president and Congress are now continuing to advocate for a payroll ``holiday'' that's barely, if at all, improved our economic outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden.

And does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet changed his buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension? Or did General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness who recently shipped GE's medical imaging division from Wisconsin to China, benefit from this ``holiday?'' Leadership from both parties have stated that extending this policy is paramount. I regret that time is being spent on a flawed policy instead of tackling the difficult choices to address our nation's unfunded spending obligations.

We all know what needs to be done to address the deficit and debt and that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis, including the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget, the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget Control Act.

I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in savings. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would have established critical institutional reforms to ensure that the federal government lives within its means. In addition, since 2006, I have introduced my own bipartisan legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times.

While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration--all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks and loopholes that cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Yet on the floor today, the Congress won't even, at a minimum, commit the savings from this bill towards deficit reduction. There is something fundamentally wrong with this scenario.

I've always had a policy where my staff in Washington, Herndon and Winchester were treated the same as federal employees. They work hard. But when federal employees faced furloughs, so did my staff. And because federal employees work under a pay freeze, my staff is working under a pay freeze. I have always felt that federal employees, and congressional staff, committee and leadership staff, should be treated equally. I feel that the moral choice has always been to treat everyone equally.

Above all, we should not let today's vote distract us from having the difficult conversations that are necessary to ensure that programs and services are reduced in a manner that responsibly lowers the deficit. There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. We must stop leaving piles of debt to our children and grandchildren.

It was disappointing to hear the president deliver a campaign speech from the floor of this House during the State of the Union. It is disappointing that this House is now following his lead.

Federal employees live, work, pay taxes, liaise with contractors and businesses, and spend the money that is driving the private sector growth here in Virginia. We shouldn't use them as offsets for a failed policy that steals from Social Security.

Voting to freeze member pay is the easy thing to do. Let's be sure that today's actions don't distract us from the tough choices ahead. We should let the payroll ``holiday'' expire on schedule. We should put everything on the table--including discretionary spending, tax earmarks and loopholes, defense spending, and entitlements to address our nation's debt. We should be balancing our books to eliminate the need for sequestration. It's time to get to work.

Let's not continue to kick the can down the road as we wait for a better political moment. I stand ready to continue to work with my colleagues to find real, comprehensive reforms to our spending, tax, and entitlement systems to ensure that these programs exist. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

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

I'd like to point out that the last time I watched television, they told me that we still have troops in Afghanistan who should be brought home. And we've not addressed the Medicare physician payment cuts, the payroll tax cut extension, unemployment insurance extension. Roads, bridges, and public transit systems are falling apart, and Congress hasn't brought forth legislation to invest in the infrastructure to repair those vital structures. And we continue to have an imbalanced Tax Code that lets Members of Congress get richer at the expense of working families, and we've done nothing to change that.

Yet rather than tackle any serious problems, the Republicans are using the very little time that they permit Congress to be in session to debate repealing the law that the President has already made clear will not be implemented. In other words, we should repeal a law that isn't going to happen. Now, that's a vital use of our time. He's clearly stated, the President has, that the CLASS Act, as part of the Affordable Care Act, can't meet the tests put in the statute.

Now, remember that Republicans probably would like to repeal all of ObamaCare, and I'm not sure exactly which part they want mostly to repeal. In other words, I assume that the 2.5 million youngsters who now get health insurance, the Republicans would like to kick them off the rolls and let them go to work or earn their own way to health insurance.

It's lowered prescription drug costs, ObamaCare has, for millions of seniors, for a bill that the Republicans wrote that was too costly. I presume the Republicans would like to raise the cost of pharmaceuticals for seniors. Republicans generally like to do anything that the pharmaceutical obviously asks them to do, and I'm surprised they haven't brought that up yet.

I understand that my good friend, Dr. Boustany, actually has the makings of a bill that would help long-term care. And I also understand that the only reason he hasn't introduced it--I'd be glad to make it an amendment if it's ready to go right now--is that the health insurance industry doesn't like it. Well, if the health insurance industry doesn't like it, it must be spectacular, and I hope we'll see it. Maybe you'll tell us a little bit about it, and I'd like to applaud it because he has done some great work in this area, and we need to do this.

The fully implemented ObamaCare, health care, whatever you want to call it, by 2014 will extend affordable, quality medical care to 32 million uninsured Americans. That's a plan. Maybe we could change it. Maybe we could make it quicker. Maybe we would extend it to more people. Maybe we could save some money. But that has to come from the other the other side of the aisle.

We oppose this, and I'd like to think that our Republican friends would work with us to improve it and move us in that direction.

I'd like to highlight a letter of opposition to repealing the CLASS Act that is signed by more than 70 organizations representing millions of senior citizens, people with disabilities, and people suffering from various diseases. These groups include: AARP, the Autism National Committee, the AFL-CIO, and Easter Seals, and United Cerebral Palsy.

They urge Congress to ``reject H.R. 1173, and instead focus on a constructive path forward.''

I ask that this letter be inserted into the Congressional Record as part of this debate.

January 31, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The

undersigned organizations write to oppose legislation, H.R.

1173, to repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and

Supports (CLASS) program and respectfully urge members to

reject such legislation.

In 2008, 21 million people had a condition that caused them

to need help with their health and personal care. Medicare

does not cover long-term services and supports (LTSS), yet

about 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some type

of LTSS at some point during their lifetime. As our

population ages, the need for these services will only grow.

In addition, about 40 percent of the individuals who need

LTSS are under age 65 and LTSS can enable individuals to work

and be productive citizens.

Regardless of when individuals may need these services,

there is a lack of financing options to help them plan and

pay for the services they need to help them live

independently in their homes and communities where they want

to be. Family caregivers are on the frontlines. They provided

care valued at $450 billion in 2009--more than the total

spending on Medicaid that year. Private long-term care

insurance helps some people pay for the cost of services, but

it is not affordable for most, and some people are not even

able to qualify for it. Too often, the cost of services wipes

out personal and retirement savings and assets that are often

already insufficient--as a result, formerly middle class

individuals are forced to rely on Medicaid to pay for the

costs of LTSS. There are few options for individuals to help

them pay for the services they need that could help them

delay or prevent their need to rely on Medicaid, the largest

payer of LTSS.

That's why we support the CLASS program--to give millions

of working Americans a new option to take personal

responsibility and help plan and pay for these essential

services. CLASS could also take some financial pressure off

Medicaid at the state and federal levels--paid for by

voluntary premiums, not taxpayer funds. For us, this is about

the financially devastating impact that the need for LTSS has

on families across this country every day and the essential,

compelling and urgent need to address this issue. Every

American family faces the reality that an accident or illness

requiring long-term care could devastate them financially.

This issue affects the constituents of every U.S.

Representative. CLASS is an effort to be part of the

solution. The CLASS actuarial report established that CLASS

can still be designed to be a ``value proposition,'' although

development work was still needed. The actuarial report also

noted that federal actuaries ``. . . agreed that certain

plans, designed to mitigate the adverse selection risk . . .

can be actuarially sound and attractive to the consumers.''

Rather than repeal CLASS, we urge continued dialogue and

development of a viable path forward. The need to address

LTSS and how these services will be paid for in a way that

is affordable to individuals and society as a whole will

not go away.

Families will continue to need a workable LTSS option to

protect themselves; and a

path forward is essential because the need for these services

will only continue to grow. We appreciate your consideration

of our views that are based on the experiences of millions of

families across this country. We urge you to reject H.R.

1173, and instead focus on a constructive path forward.

Sincerely,

AAPD; AARP; ACCSES; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Alliance for Retired

Americans; Alzheimer's Foundation of America; American

Association on Health and Disability; American Counseling

Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American

Geriatrics Society; American Music Therapy Association;

American Network of Community Options and Resources; American

Society on Aging; The Arc of the United States; Association

of Assistive Technology Act Programs; Association of

University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD); Autism National

Committee; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bazelon Center for

Mental Health Law; Brain Injury Association of America

(BIAA).

California Foundation for Independent Living Centers; Cape

Organization for Rights of the Disabled (CORD); Center for

Independence of Individuals with Disabilities; Center for

Independent Living of South Florida; Inc.; Children and

Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD);

Coalition of Geriatric Nursing Organizations; Council for

Exceptional Children; The Council on Social Work Education;

Direct Care Alliance; Disability Rights Education & Defense

Fund; Easter Seals; Epilepsy Foundation; Health & Disability

Advocates; Inter-National Association of Business; Industry

and Rehabilitation; LeadingAge; Lutheran Services in America;

Mental Health America; The National Alliance for Caregiving;

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); National

Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a).

National Association of County Behavioral Health and

Developmental Disability Directors (NACBHDD); National

Association of the Deaf; National Association for Geriatric

Education (NAGE); National Association for Home Care &

Hospice; National Association of Councils on Developmental

Disabilities; National Association of Nutrition and Aging

Services Programs (NANASP); National Association of

Professional Geriatric Care Managers; National Association of

Social Workers; National Association of State Directors of

Special Education (NASDE); National Association of State Head

Injury Administrators; National Center on Caregiving; Family

Caregiver Alliance; The National Center for Learning

Disabilities; National Committee to Preserve Social Security

and Medicare; The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-

Term Care (formerly NCCNHR); National Council on Aging;

National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare;

National Council on Independent Living; National Disability

Rights Network; National Down Syndrome Congress.

National Multiple Sclerosis Society; The National

Rehabilitation Association; National Respite Coalition NISH;

Paralyzed Veterans of America; PHI-Quality Care through

Quality Jobs; Physician-Parent Caregivers SEIU; Self-

Reliance; Inc.; Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE);

Social Work Leadership Institute/The New York Academy of

Medicine; United Cerebral Palsy; United Spinal Association;

Volunteers of America.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in closing, I repeat that there are real problems in this country of much more urgency than trying to repeal a bill that doesn't do anything, that won't work, that the President has said won't be effective. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this Republican agenda to tear down our health system. It's mugwumpish. It just sticks your head in the sand and says let's repeal things and let's not go about fixing it.

As I said before, I'm sure Dr. Boustany has a great bill, and I'm hoping that he'll bring it to us and we can proceed to deal with the problem of long-term care for our senior citizens.

I have seven children who would like to see that done very quickly and get me off their hands, thank you very much. And so anything we can do together, I look forward to working with the distinguished gentleman.

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