Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, imagine you come to a fork in the road. You look on your GPS, and you see that the path to the left leads to an old bridge that is falling into the river. The path on the right leads to a brand-new bridge that is guaranteed to get your car over the river. Obviously, everyone would go over the new bridge.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Medicare, we have a GPS provided to us by the Medicare trustees. They clearly say that if we stay on the same road, Medicare will be broke by 2024. Republicans want to provide a new bridge that protects and preserves the program for current and future retirees, a program that gives future seniors the option to stay in traditional Medicare or to choose a new plan that best fits their needs.

Unlike current Medicare, the Republican plan provides greater benefits for low-income and sick seniors and requires more from wealthy seniors. The Medicare trustees have put up a bright orange sign saying: ``Bridge Out Ahead.'' We can either heed their warnings and turn down a new path or plow right through and end up in the river.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Supreme Court began its deliberations on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Clearly, with 3 days of deliberations, this is the most important case the Court has considered in decades.

I had the pleasure of being able to attend this morning's deliberations considering whether the Court should rule immediately or wait until the penalties are assessed a few years from now. Tomorrow, they will consider the heart of the matter, whether the Constitution allows the government to compel individuals to purchase health insurance--the so-called ``individual mandate.''

At this time, it is critical to remember that the Supreme Court is not the only body charged with protecting and defending the United States Constitution. This Congress, we've been working to restore rights to the American people. We have passed legislation to fully repeal this law, to eliminate many of its harmful provisions, and to defund irresponsible spending.

No matter how the Court rules, we must continue the fight to restore our constitutional liberties.

Madam Speaker, on Sunday in the Yemeni city of Tah-izz, al Qaeda terrorists viciously gunned down American Joel Shrum.

Joel grew up in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in Mount Joy and was a football star at Donegal High School.

He leaves behind a wife and two young sons who lived with him in Yemen.

Joel worked as a teacher at the International Training Development Center, which focused on giving vocational training to the poor.

Joel was a Christian, but he was not in the country to proselytize. According to his father, Joel was there to teach and break down barriers. The organization he worked for is staffed by both Christians and Muslims and has worked in the country for over 40 years.

The people of Yemen are appalled at this violence. Hundreds of activists took to the streets yesterday to demand justice for the killers. They carried photos of Joel and chanted: ``Yemen is not a place for terrorism'' and ``We love you, Joel.''

Joel Shrum selflessly served the poor in a country far from home. He will be dearly missed by his family and by the people he came to serve.

Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. Chairman, I would much rather hear from some of our doctor friends who are speaking so eloquently. I have another doctor, a member of the Health Subcommittee, from Pennsylvania. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, Dr. Tim Murphy.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to take 30 seconds to respond to the distinguished ranking member before I yield to Mr. Bass.

He mentioned that this so-called expert panel could have physicians and health care professionals. I refer him to section 3403(g) of PPACA on page 423, specifically on the majority for the panel. There's a specific prohibition that you can't have a majority of health care providers or physicians on IPAB. And as far as these being recommendations, you can't appeal; you can't sue this board. Only with three-fifths vote in both Chambers with commensurate cuts can you overturn their recommendation.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to another distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), another valued member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, another distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to one of our leaders, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, they said PPACA would cost less than $1 trillion. The CBO's new estimate says it's going to cost over $1.7 trillion. Stay tuned.

I now yield 2 minutes to the author of the IPAB repeal, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to another doctor, Dr. Harris, from the State of Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to another doctor, the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another doctor, the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another health care professional--a nurse--the gentlelady from North Carolina, Renee Ellmers.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the gentleman who just spoke signed a letter to former Speaker Pelosi on December 17, 2009, that says the IPAB provisions severely limit the congressional oversight of the Medicare program and eliminate the transparency of congressional hearings and debate. Moreover, the creation of a Medicare board would effectively eliminate State community input in the Medicare program, removing the ability to develop and implement policies expressly applicable to different patient populations. So IPAB or an equivalent commission, they said, could not only threaten the ability of Medicare beneficiaries but of all Americans to access the care they need.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

May I ask the gentleman how many speakers he has remaining?

I'll yield to myself at this time, then, such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare Act, the PATH Act, not only fixes our broken medical liability system; it also repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board, one of the most ominous provisions in the President's sweeping overhaul of health care.

Medical liability reform will preserve access to quality health care in States like Pennsylvania by allowing doctors in high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and neurosurgery, to practice without the fear of frivolous lawsuits and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to reduce the Federal deficit by $48.6 billion over the next 10 years.

According to the President's health care law, the purpose of IPAB is to reduce Medicare's per capita growth rate. The board is made up, as we've heard, of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who will be paid $165,300 a year to serve 6-year terms on the board. If Medicare growth goes over an arbitrary target, the board is required to submit a proposal to Congress that would reduce Medicare's growth rate.

These recommendations will automatically go into effect unless Congress passes legislation that would achieve the same amount of savings. In order to do so, Congress must meet an almost impossible deadline and clear an almost insurmountable legislative hurdle.

The board has the power to make binding decisions about Medicare policy with no requirement for public comment prior to issuing their recommendations. Individuals and providers will have no recourse against the board because its decisions cannot be appealed or reviewed. In other words, the board will make major health care legislation essentially outside the usual legislative process.

The board is also limited to how it can achieve the required savings. Therefore, IPAB's recommendations will be restricted to cutting provider reimbursements. In many cases, Medicare already reimburses below the cost of providing services, and we're already seeing doctors refusing to take new Medicare patients--or Medicare patients at all-- because they cannot afford to absorb the losses.

Any additional provider cuts will lead to fewer Medicare providers. That means that beneficiary access will suffer. Seniors will be forced to wait in

longer and longer lines to be seen by an ever-shrinking pool of providers or will have to travel longer and longer distances to find a provider willing to see them. Clearly, Medicare growth is on an out-of- control trajectory that endangers the solvency and continued existence of the program. IPAB, however, is not the solution.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for our close, I just want to remind him of a statement by the chairman. Representative Stark of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, during the debate and passage of PPACA, he called the establishment of the board ``a dangerous provision that sets Medicare up for unsustainable cuts.'' We should be reminded of that.

At this time, I yield the balance of my time to one of the authors of the legislation, a distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee and a doctor, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, on February 23, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article, entitled, ``After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?''

The authors argue that an infant child can be killed since they do not have the same moral status as a ``person.'' They go even further to say that adoption is not always in the best interest of an unwanted child.

The furor over this article has been immense. Unfortunately, the editors defend publishing this article on the basis that there should be reasoned engagement on the subject.

This article may have the form of scholarly argument, but its substance is madness. The authors maintain that a baby can only be granted personhood through the recognition of other human beings. They fundamentally reject something that we all hold dear: that all men are endowed by their Creator with the right to life.

A healthy amount of anger over this article is not only natural but also right. It is shocking and sad to see such destructive arguments given credence in a premier medical journal.

Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives lost a distinguished Member who served with honor for more than two decades. I had the pleasure of working with Donald Payne many times over the years. He had an incredible heart for Africa and suffering people in every corner of the continent.

From Morocco to South Africa, he was a tireless advocate for freedom and self-determination. We worked together speaking on behalf of the Sahrawi people in Western Sahara. Representative Payne watched Western Sahara closely, working toward a peaceful resolution that would allow for a free referendum that could establish self-government.

We also worked together in 2007 to recognize the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the British slave trade and to honor the legacy of William Wilberforce.

And in one amazing episode, he risked his life seeking peace in Sudan and nearly had his plane shot down in 2009.

Donald Payne never missed an opportunity to advocate on behalf of the oppressed, and his work has had a lasting impact on the human rights of people around the world. I'm proud to have fought the good fight alongside of him.

He will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, since President Ronald Reagan declared the first celebration in 1983, the Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA) and its 97 member eye banks have designated March as National Eye Donor Month--an opportunity to honor eye donors and corneal recipients, and increase awareness of the need to donate eyes.

Through corneal transplants, over 1,000,000 people have had their sight restored since the EBAA's inception in 1961. This is precisely why it is so important to educate the general public about the donors and their families who afford life-changing corneal transplantations for over 50,000 people annually.

Of the EBAA's 97 member eye banks, five are located in Pennsylvania, and they have a deep-rooted commitment to restoring sight by providing corneas for sight-saving transplant procedures. In 2010, charitable eye donations made by Pennsylvania residents allowed our state eye banks to provide in excess of 2,900 corneal transplants to help our fellow Pennsylvanians regain their sight, and almost 1,200 corneas for research and educational purposes.

The Pennsylvania eye banks' efforts have not gone unnoticed, changing the lives of thousands of Pennsylvanians through the selfless gifts of donors and their families.

The Center for Organ Recovery & Education in Pittsburgh will soon offer surgeons pre-cut corneal tissue, which will greatly enhance post- operative recovery time for those recipients undergoing Endothelial Keratoplasty.

In Hershey, the Gift of Life Eye Bank educates the public about eye donation and coordinates the recovery and allocation of corneas for transplant. Serving the eastern half of Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and Delaware, the Gift of Life Eye Bank also supports research into the causes and cures of blinding eye conditions.

Located in the City of Brotherly Love, the Lions Eye Bank of Delaware Valley recently acquired the latest technological device to prepare donated cornea tissue for the most modern, highly-effective surgical techniques.

For over 52 years, the Lions Eye Bank of Northwest Pennsylvania in Erie has been dedicated to sight restoration. In November 2011, they accomplished a first; procurement of a cornea from a living donor and successful transplantation into a young man from Philadelphia.

Celebrating 55 years of eye banking, the Northeast Pennsylvania Lions Eye Bank in Bethlehem is a charter member of the EBAA, and to date, has placed over 25,000 corneas for transplantation.

Even with the tremendous advancements eye banks have made in corneal transplantation, much remains to be done to offer more people the opportunity to receive life-changing corneal transplants.

I encourage all Americans to register to become eye donors. Inform your family of your wishes; designate yourself as a donor on your driver's license; and register as an eye donor through your state donor registry.

I urge my colleagues to work with their local eye banks and the EBAA to promote the importance of eye donation and its life-enhancing effects on corneal recipients.

During March 2012, let us remember the donors whose gifts of sight make corneal transplants possible, celebrate the corneal recipients whose lives are forever changed and work with the EBAA and its member eye banks to continue restoring sight worldwide through public education and ongoing advancements in corneal transplantation.

Mr. Speaker, this evening the House will consider H. Res. 556, condemning Iran for their persecution, imprisonment, and sentencing to death of Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. Pastor Youcef has been in prison for 2\1/2\ years now under the charges of apostasy and condemned to death by hanging. His wife, too, was arrested and condemned to life in prison, but later released.

Christians and other religious minorities are under assault in Iran today. Hundreds have been imprisoned and many have been executed on trumped-up charges. In fact, while the official charges against Pastor Youcef are apostasy and evangelism, the state media said that he has been charged with rape and extortion.

The authorities in Iran know that they are violating both their own constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in their treatment of Pastor Youcef and other minorities.

This week, the House will call on Iran to respect these agreements and to release Pastor Youcef so that he, his wife, and children may practice their religion freely and not according to the dictates of the state.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 556) condemning the Government of Iran for its continued persecution, imprisonment, and sentencing of Youcef Nadarkhani on the charge of apostasy, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leaders on both sides of the aisle for allowing this resolution to come to the floor so promptly.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience

and religion; this right includes freedom to change his

religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community

with others and in public or private, to manifest his

religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and

observance.

Iran was one of the original signers of the declaration and has not removed their country from the agreement, even through changes in government.

In October of 2009, Youcef Nadarkhani was alarmed to find out that his children were being forced to participate in Islamic religious instruction at their local school.

Pastor Youcef had no radical reaction to this revelation. Indeed, he only went to the school and asked that his children be granted their rights under the Iranian Constitution to freedom of religion. These rights explicitly include parents' rights to bring up children under the religious teaching of the family.

For the crime of asking that his rights be respected, Pastor Youcef was summoned to a tribunal. There he was arrested and charged with unlawful protesting. This charge was later changed to apostasy.

After almost a year in prison, Pastor Youcef was convicted and sentenced to death. A panel of judges demanded that he recant his faith. When confronted with this demand, Pastor Youcef stated, ``I cannot.''

While it is difficult to peer past the gates of an Iranian prison, we have some evidence that there has been continued pressure on Pastor Youcef to recant and that there may have been attempts to trap him into blaspheming Islam. Despite this pressure, he has remained faithful.

With our religious freedom protected by the First Amendment, it is difficult for any of us to imagine what Pastor Youcef has been going through, torn away from his children and family, placed in a high- security prison, with the likely outcome being the hangman's noose.

Today, we're not asking Iran to respect our laws or our conventions. We're asking them to abide by the agreements at the United Nations that they have signed on to.

The authorities in Iran are not proud of sentencing Pastor Youcef to death. Indeed, the Iranian Government doesn't even want their own people to

know that Pastor Youcef has been charged for practicing his religion. State media have actually reported that he is charged with rape and extortion, not apostasy.

Millions of Iranians are members of a minority religious group. Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are all proud to call Iran home. They want to live in peace with their neighbors, and they want to follow the law, but they cannot do so when their faith is under assault.

This evening, I'm proud that we have bipartisan support for this resolution. I'm proud to join with Representative Keith Ellison on this resolution. We stand together tonight in support of basic human rights, and we appeal to the highest authorities in Iran to spare the life of Youcef Nadharkani.

Please let this father return to his wife and his children. Further still, let the Iranian people freely practice their faith. Stand by your commitments to your people and to the world.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a champion of human rights, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security and a member of the Helsinki Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness.

I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he is prepared to yield back. I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Tonight, as Pastor Youcef sits in prison, awaiting a hangman's noose, I want him to know and the people of Iran to know and the people of the world to know that we stand with him. Our thoughts and our prayers are with him.

I would say to those international guests who might watch this telecast that you will never understand America until you understand that, in our Constitution, the very First Amendment contains the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. It contains the freedom of religion. It is not our Second, our Sixth, our 16th, or our 26th Amendment. It is our First Amendment. It is the first thing mentioned in the First Amendment--the freedom of religion: Congress shall not act to establish a religion and shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof. That comes before the freedom of the press or speech or assembly or petition of grievances.

If you want to understand America, you must understand this basic belief that the Americans have in the right of the freedom of religion.

So we ask, we implore, the authorities in Iran: free Pastor Youcef. Keep faith with the documents you've signed. Free him. Return him to his family.

I urge support, Mr. Speaker, of the Members for House Resolution 556.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, why do we say that the President's health care law is a government takeover? Because, under the law, the government can force religious organizations to violate their conscience. Because, under the law, the Independent Payment Advisory Board can cut Medicare reimbursements without the consent of Congress.

This same board could start running with minimal congressional oversight, given the President's attempt to broaden the definition of a recess.

It is a government takeover because the minimum essential benefits package will effectively dictate the level of coverage for every health care plan in the Nation. It is a government takeover because the United States Preventive Services Task Force will determine what services have to be provided without any copayment.

Finally, when the government can force you to purchase a service that it firmly controls, it's a government takeover. The list could go on and on. Clearly, the Federal Government is now in the driver's seat. The President's health care law is already failing, which is why we need to end it before it's fully implemented.

Mr. Speaker, today, on Valentine's Day, millions of Americans will celebrate with a box of chocolates or candy. All told, consumers are expected to spend more than $1.5 billion on candy this holiday.

What they don't know is that government sugar controls are making that heart-shaped box more expensive than it needs to be. What they don't know is that American companies are struggling to compete against foreign producers who pay half as much for sugar.

Because of government price supports, marketing allotments, and import quotas, U.S. consumers and businesses pay almost double the average world market price for sugar. By some estimates, this could be costing us more than 20,000 jobs. Many of us have watched good jobs lost because the government guarantees the profits of a relatively small group of growers and producers.

Reforming our sugar program isn't a partisan issue, which is why I've been proud to introduce H.R. 1385, the Free Market Sugar Act, with my friend from Chicago, Danny Davis.

Maybe next Valentine's Day can be sweeter for American workers and consumers.

Madam Speaker, the first Monday in February every year is supposed to be the day the President releases his budget, but this year the budget was delayed a week. Last year the budget was delayed a week also. The release date for the budget has been the same for decades, yet this administration seems to be incapable of completing their work on time.

Back when I was a high school teacher, turning in your work a week or two late meant you failed. Now is no time to fail on budgetary matters, not when we are $15 trillion in debt and have deficits every year of more than a trillion dollars.

The Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 1,000 days. We need a realistic plan to get our country back on track. When the House put forward a plan last year, it was met with an attack that the nonpartisan PolitiFact called ``the lie of the year.''

The Federal budget affects every American, especially those who are looking for jobs. Right now, uncertainty abounds and employers wonder whether destructive taxes will hold back growth.

Let's get back on a sound fiscal track. Let's end the uncertainty. Let's pass a budget on time again this year.

Mr. Speaker, institutions across the country are facing an impossible choice: Do they continue in their mission to provide for their employees, or do they violate their conscience?

When the Affordable Care Act passed, there was no thought in the minds of many Catholics that the law would eventually force them into such a terrible choice. In fact, my former colleague from Pennsylvania, Kathy Dahlkemper, recently came out and said, I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception.

I might add, this rule that will go into effect on August 12 includes not only contraceptives, but abortifacients, drugs like Ella and Plan B, as well as sterilization services.

Catholic and other religious organizations have cared for the sick and educated Americans of all religions since the founding of our Republic, and they've done this because their conscience compels them to show their love to all mankind. Never before has the Federal Government compelled them to violate their conscience in such a terrible way. There are fundamental questions about life and morality that the government has no business forcing on organizations and individuals. To force them to violate their conscience is wrong.

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).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, before Congress left Washington in December, we asked the President a simple question: Will he stop blocking the Keystone XL pipeline?

Congress established laws to govern pipeline approval; the State Department published regulations; and typically, approval takes 18 to 24 months. However, Keystone has been sitting on the shelf for more than 40 months now. The President, ignoring standard procedures, ordered duplicative environmental reviews that would extend the approval process to more than 52 months.

Is this because Keystone is unprecedented? No. TransCanada has already built and operates a pipeline that crosses the U.S. border. Additionally, thousands of pipelines already crisscross the proposed route.

The difference is the political pressure brought by extreme environmental groups. Politics is blocking tens of thousands of new jobs. Politics is blocking a reliable new source of energy. It's time to stop letting politics stand in the way of a project that could help grow our economy.