Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of a loss that so many have spoken about over the last week, and that is the loss of Whitney Houston. I would imagine that everyone would acknowledge the beauty of her music and certainly the beauty that she was as a person and a human being. What a very sad loss for her daughter, Bobbi, and her mother, Cissy, her aunt, Dionne Warwick, and the extended family members who loved her dearly.

We cannot help but be reminded of Whitney's beautiful voice singing ``The

Star Spangled Banner'' after and during the Gulf War. Or the words that she sang, ``Yes, Jesus Loves Me'' in the song that she sang in the first acting effort that she did in ``The Bodyguard'' that was so superb. And we can't help but be reminded of that song ``I Will Always Love You'' that has touched everyone's heart. Whitney touched our hearts. And my constituents, Kim Burrell, Bishop Woodard and others, are deeply saddened. And our good friend, Congressman Don Payne, who has been in touch with the family and is helping, he has been a comfort as well.

I simply wanted to say: Whitney, you've given us much joy. We'll remember your music of the seventies and eighties. Many of us danced to it, but many of us were made happy by it. And we realize that your legacy will survive. We thank you, and we thank your wonderful family for sharing you for some more than 20 years. And we thank you for that beautiful, beautiful voice that sang ``The Star Spangled Banner'' like we've never heard it before. We will always love you. God bless you, and may you rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee, both the chairman and the ranking member, and, as all have applauded, Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Walz for their continued leadership. And I am very pleased to have been one of the, as they say, long-suffering cosponsors since, I believe, the 110th Congress.

It's important for our colleagues to understand that I think we all come here with the intent to serve this country, and to serve it well. And I believe that when we self-regulate, we only enhance this institutional body that has such enormous history because of the changing times.

I don't believe that Members of Congress are spending their time dwelling on information that they have and using it for self-purpose, but we now stand here united saying that Members of Congress, employees of Congress, and all Federal employees are prevented from using any nonpublic information derived from the individual's position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress, or gain from performance of the individual's duties, for personal benefit.

That is waving a flag to all of our constituents, to the Nation that says that we're here to stand united for you. I hope that helps us as we move forward on payroll tax relief and unemployment. But there is a challenge that I think we have missed, and I think Senator Grassley has carefully analyzed why he is in essence offended, even with 16, if you will, drafting errors, which I hope that as we move to conference--that we must do--will be corrected.

I will yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for clarifying it.

I still think that we should rush quickly to conference because what is missing from this--and we can't say it more often than over and over again, from the Abramoff matter that all of us knew of years ago and by ``political intelligence'' refers to information that is potentially market-moving, is nonpublic, or not easily accessible to the public, is gathered and analyzed. Therefore, we are missing a large gap by leaving out the provision on political intelligence, a $100 million industry.

Yes, we're going to support this legislation, but we can't get to conference soon enough to make this bill comparable and ready for the American people. We must regulate ourselves because they have trusted us to lead this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate the S. 2038--Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, STOCK, Act which would amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Ethics in Government Act. The legislation would require the Senate and the House of Representatives to implement an electronic filing

system for financial disclosure forms and provide the public with on- line access to that information in a searchable database. S. 2038 also would make clear that Members of Congress, Congressional employees, and federal employees are prohibited from using nonpublic information for personal financial benefit. In addition, the legislation would require more timely reporting of information about financial transactions by Members and staff.

The STOCK ACT would prohibit Members of Congress, employees of Congress, and all federal employees from using ``any nonpublic information derived from the individual's position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress, or gained from performance of the individual's duties, for personal benefit.''

The bill before us today is not the same measures that had received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate or the House. The measure before us today has been brought onto the Floor under the cover of darkness. There was zero transparency in the process and there is no opportunity to offer amendments.

I firmly and unequivocally believe that the American people deserve to know that their elected officials only have one interest in mind, which is doing what is best for the country rather than their own financial interests. This behavior is particularly disturbing at a time when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. Members of this body and any public servant should not have a financial edge because of information they have attained while serving the American people.

The issue before us today is not whether a insider trading law should exist for lawmakers. The issue before us today is one of fairness and transparency. As we attempt to shine a spotlight on those who may profit on insider knowledge, the Republican led majority in the House has closed out the possibility of improving this bill.

The night before last, the Rules Committee passed a rule on a straight party-line vote. The rule has allowed the Republican majority to bring up their own version of the STOCK Act under a suspension of the rules.

Let me be clear; Republican leadership has brought a bill onto the Floor under a suspension of the rules. They utilized the most restrictive process the House has to offer. In fact, this process is so restrictive that it is often reserved for noncontroversial items such as naming post offices, buildings, or even playgrounds.

For this bill, of all bills, to be brought up under suspension of the rules is unfathomable. The Republican-led majority has given Democrats no opportunity to offer their own amendments in order to improve the bill. In addition, there is no chance for the Democrats to offer our own alternative, under a Motion to Recommit.

As a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I find the actions of the Republican-led House to be outrageous. It is a direct contradiction to the original bipartisan effort supported in this House by 285 Members of this body pushed by Ms. Slaughter, a bill which was composed over the course of 6 years.

Further, considering the bipartisan support received for the initial Senate version of the STOCK Act and the significant bipartisan support received by the bill introduced by my dear colleague Ms. Slaughter it is curious that the Republicans have chosen to put forward their own version of the STOCK Act which waters down government reform and leaves out a critical piece of the STOCK Act--namely, the registration of the political intelligence industry.

Registration of the political intelligence industry was included in the Senate passed bill, but stripped out of this watered down Republican version. Instead of requiring registration, my Republican colleagues only require a study of the industry.

It is as though the Majority wishes to ignore the fact that regulation of the political intelligence community was supported by 285 Members of Congress who were co-sponsors of the original Slaughter-Walz bill. Instead, what we now know is that after emerging from behind closed doors, the bill introduced by Republicans does nothing to regulate the political intelligence community.

Regulating the political intelligence industry is vital to this piece of legislation. A study will not have the same impact as a requirement that these firms register and come out from the shadows.

Political intelligence firms or people who have special relationships with government officials can obtain nonpublic legislative information or learn about pending legislative decisions by attending lobbying sessions, or communicating directly with lobbyists and lawmakers.

The term ``political intelligence'' refers to legislative information that is potentially market-moving, is nonpublic or not easily accessible to the public, and is gathered, analyzed, and sold to or shared with interested parties by firms or people with access to such information. Political intelligence is typically sold to independent companies or third parties whose business demands knowledge of upcoming market and industry affecting legislative decisions.

The political intelligence industry must be regulated. These firms have grown drastically over the last few decades, and are now a $100 million a year industry. Every day these firms help hedge funds and Wall Street investors unfairly profit from nonpublic congressional information. These firms have no congressional oversight and can freely pass along information for investment purposes. In 2005, insiders profited from a last-minute government bailout of companies who were embroiled in asbestos litigation. We must prevent such windfalls from happening again.

The U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Manual states that its members should ``never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit,'' and the Senate Ethics Manual states that its Conflict of Interest Rule 37(1) provides for ``a broad prohibition against members, officers or employees deriving financial benefit, directly or indirectly, from the use of their official position[s].'' No arrests or prosecutions, however, have ever been made against members of Congress for insider trading based on nonpublic congressional knowledge.

While Members of Congress are not exempt from federal securities laws, including insider trading prohibitions, it remains unclear whether a member of Congress has a fiduciary duty to the United States--misappropriating information gained through an employment relationship is illegal, but case law conflicts as to whether members of Congress actually constitute ``employees'' of the federal government--whether the information on which the Member trades is ``material''--Is there ``a substantial likelihood'' that a reasonable investor ``would consider it important'' in making an investment decision?--and whether the information on which the Member traded is ``nonpublic.''

The bill before us today has utilized Senate language which clarifies federal ethics rules and establishes a fiduciary duty against insider trading by all three branches of government. This measure does give the Securities Exchange Commission, SEC, Department of Justice, DOJ, and Commodities Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, clear authority to prosecute insider trading cases throughout the federal government, as well as clarifying that 28,000 executive branch employees will be subject to the same online, public financial disclosure rules as will be applied to Congress. In addition it adds more specific disclosure restrictions on executive branch officials, and requires that their disclosures be online within 30 days of submission.

Even so, this measure is still a watery version of Ms. Slaughter's bill. We have been denied the opportunity to amend the bill on the Floor today in a manner that would ensure bipartisan support.

Again, Republican-led House has gone too far. They not only not eliminated the political intelligence registration requirement and replaced it with a 12-month GAO study. They have also removed from this measure the anti-corruption provision that restored criminal penalties in some public corruption cases. This provision had been unanimously approved by House Judiciary in December.

House Republican leadership should have allowed this bill to be finalized in an open and transparent manner. Instead, the Majority continued their ``my-way-or-the-highway'' approach. They shut out their colleagues, and made partisan changes to what was a bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an irresponsible Republican bill that will soon come to this Floor. This measure is an attack on those who are unemployed at when they need the most assistance. I am not alone in my outrage, I am joined by Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to call attention to this repeated attack on workers in this country who find themselves without a job at this time.

When the Great Depression was upon us Congress did not put forth education requirements in order for unemployed men and women to get potential future jobs, Congress along with the President worked together to create jobs. It is my hope that this Congress will work together with the President to put Americans back to work.

This bill proposed by my Republican colleagues is the latest chapter in the Republican scheme to sabotage our recovery. It is a known fact that when Americans have more money in their pockets, they spend it which enhances our economy. When Americans have more money in their pockets then small businesses can hire more workers which creates more American jobs. Unemployment Insurance pays for itself.

Last December, Republicans threatened to terminate the last bit of income received by over one million unemployed Americans by refusing to extend unemployment benefits. Now that our economy is on the road to recovery, Washington Republicans, once again, aim to take money out of the pockets of working Americans. Slashing unemployment benefits would cut off a lifeline that more than 1 million Americans depend on to put food on their tables.

This latest Republican scheme would hit hardest states with the most Americans looking for work. They intend to cut the length of unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks in 22 states.

Under the Republican plan more than 194,000 Texans would lose their Unemployment benefits. Even with the recent good news on job creation, long-term unemployment remains at near record levels.

This is primarily because our economy still has 5.5 million fewer jobs than before the recession, which makes returning to work particularly difficult right now. Rather than acknowledge these facts, Republicans in Congress seem intent on blaming the unemployed for their unemployment.

The Republican proposal on unemployment insurance would result in 40 fewer weeks being provided to many long-term unemployed workers, reducing benefits to nearly 3 million workers compared to an extension of current law.

The draconian cut in the Republican bill is squarely focused on the States with the highest rates on unemployment--the same places where finding a new job is the hardest. Consider this fact: under the GOP bill, a worker in the State with the highest level of unemployment would lose nearly three times as many weeks of benefits as a worker in the State with the lowest unemployment.

In addition to drastically cutting Federal unemployment benefits, the House bill proposes a series of new barriers to unemployment benefits that would reduce access to UI for years to come. Many of these provisions are changes to permanent law, not to the temporary federal programs that were established in response to the worst recession since the great depression.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving us an opportunity to share some crucial human catastrophes that are occurring around the world.

I'm challenging all of my colleagues and those who would listen that sometimes we are, in fact, through peaceful means, our brothers' and sisters' keeper. First, as we have seen the ascending violence occur in Syria, a nation-state that I have visited, bloodshed that has included the loss of women and children, hearing news reports where citizens of Syria are begging for someone to do something, it is almost as if you came out of your house and stood by as your neighbor's house burned. We know

in America many would try to get a garden hose, others call 911; but they do something because of the horror of what they're seeing.

Constantly, our media airwaves are being beat with the sounds of gunshots, smoke and devastation and a steadfast refusal of Dr. Assad to step down. His first representation was that these were al Qaeda and terrorists, and we need to listen to him. There is a general respect for the sovereignty of a nation. And I'm not one pushing the immediate attack by the United States. The American people have spoken on their cautiousness--our soldiers and their treasure are precious. But just as I was with a number of our men and women this past Saturday who had been to Iraq or Afghanistan or are prepared to go elsewhere, our soldiers are always prepared to defend the needs of people who cannot help themselves.

But I call upon today the recognition that the United Nations has to fix itself. For as a consensus was coming together for the right approach--possibly U.N. troops to maintain the peace, as was done in places on the continent of Africa--who raises their selfish voices? Two countries, China and Russia, veto the consensus of many to try and help these people who are in need--children and women dying in the streets, not able to live in peace.

So I believe that those who had an idea need to go back to the Security Council. They need to make sure that we know that the U.N. is the entity that it was crafted to be in the late 1940s, the voice of reason, the ability to step in. They need to pressure these two, in essence, outlanders--those who want to stand out of the circle of care just because of selfish reasons of oil--to get out of the way or be part of the team.

I believe it is important as well, as we look at Libya and its quietness now, working quietly to try and restructure. Many people fought against that. I was delighted to be with a number of my colleagues, the first Members of the United States Congress to go stand in front of the Libyan Embassy and say Qadhafi must go. Sometimes you have to step out of the circle of comfort.

I ask Syrian Americans to stand up and be heard. Go to the United Nations; ask that your countrymen be safe. Let us hear your voices. Likewise, I ask for Egyptian Americans--we have been allies with Egypt for a long time, and I am trying to understand the tension or confusion between governments. But my point is, this is a government-to- government issue. Let my people go. Let the Americans go. You can find no basis that they have intently, with intent, done anything that deserves that they are, one, indicted and, two, cannot travel out of the Egyptian boundaries. I call upon Egyptian Americans to rise up and be heard, for our alliance is better than a few Americans.

I take great issue with Republican Presidential politics trying to claim this is the same thing as the hostages in Iran. Let us make no political statement about this. These are Americans. We want them out; we want them out now. But the idea is that there must be some responsible leadership in Egypt to recognize that spoiling or ending the alliance between Egypt and the United States is not worth this petty action.

So I ask for Syrian Americans, Mr. Speaker, and Egyptian Americans to go to my Web site, Sheila Jackson Lee--you can find it. Let me know what you want to do and how you're going to support the efforts of making peace or having peace in Syria and saving our fellow Americans in Egypt. Now is the time. It is no time for languishing in fear.

I'm always in awe at the gentleman from the Rules Committee who has just spoken so eloquently about consensus and coming together. I've seen him in action in the Rules Committee. And certainly we thank the members of the Rules Committee for their service. We know that his history brings him here after being a staffer, so he knows this institution. He knows where all the bathrooms are. He knows about how much good we can do. I'm grateful for him acknowledging our friends, Congresswoman Slaughter and Mr. Walz, who have been working and, of course, who wanted to have their bill come forward in a way that would be transparent and to have the opportunity for all facets of this bill to be understood. So I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for his leadership. So it begs the question of how we have the cloak-and-dagger midnight legislation trick that really is not befitting of this carefully drawn initiative.

Let me share with my colleagues why I am so concerned about good work that should be presented as good work. At this moment, we are trying to make sure that no one has insider trading. And if we had a sledgehammer here, we would go around and make sure to stamp it out. But we are doing it through legislation, and you can't do it by legislation and half-fix it. We can't misrepresent to our colleagues and the American people.

Right now, the language that was in Ms. Slaughter's bill dealing with political intelligence firms that have grown dramatically over the last few decades and are now a $100 million industry and are sharing moneys and resources and information, intel, with Wall Street every single day, and investors who are unfairly profiting at the benefit or the loss of the American people----

I thank the gentleman.

Some single mother, some hardworking parents are being taken advantage of because they--our friends on the other side--have taken language out that would deal with the transferring of political intelligence by political insiders.

We need to be able to vote ``no'' on the previous question to allow this language to come up. And it's a closed rule, and it's by suspension. For those of you who know that, nobody gets a chance to do anything. It's a super majority. Then to add insult to injury, they've got an expedited veto bill in here that would take away the powers of the three branches of government, slam the Congress that should be here doing its work--that's what you asked us to come here to do--and allow this expedited veto to go forward and to undermine the give-and-take of the three branches of government, which is what the Constitution asks us to do.

I would ask us to vote ``no'' on turning the lights out and using dagger politics to keep the American people from knowing what is going on. I ask for a ``no'' on this vote.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge today the honoring, or the recognition, of National Black HIV/AIDS Day in acknowledging the work that many organizations have done to stop the devastation of HIV/AIDS in certain populations.

I will submit a statement into the record extensively acknowledging the work that has been accomplished; but I rise today to address a very important international issue that appears to be politicized by those running for President in the Republican primary.

First of all, we should all be concerned for Americans who are being held by ally Egypt, and we should be concerned for the safe passage of those Americans as quickly as possible. Yet it is ridiculous to associate this incident with the taking of hostages in Iran some decades ago. But, of course, where there is foolery, there is opportunity.

I call upon Egyptian Americans to work with this administration to stop the holding of American citizens and to have them released immediately, and I will continue pressing for this as the weeks and days go on.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

As I understand this legislation, it is to establish a commission that deals with the civilian property realignment for this Nation. Some 340 million-plus square feet, I understand, is within the jurisdiction of the General Services Administration.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member on many issues dealing with property around the Nation. Thank her for that leadership.

My amendment is a simple amendment that expresses that the commission, or other appropriate Federal agencies, should conduct a public-information campaign to advise small, minority, women-owned businesses of the available contracts under this particular commission and report to Congress.

Just this morning, before I flew to Washington, I had a room full of small, minority, and women-owned businesses clamoring to understand how to interact with the Federal Government. In fact, one particular women- owned business stood up and said that they had been certified for however long and never could get any information on how to access opportunities that could be utilized by their small business to create jobs.

This amendment is a sense of Congress that provides a public awareness campaign that would help to ensure that a broad swath of the small business community is reached. It is imperative that these businesses are aware of the existence of contracts. It is also imperative that the process for obtaining a Government contract is clear, which is why it is extremely important that the commission, along with other appropriate Federal agencies, implement an awareness campaign targeting small, minority, and women-owned businesses.

I further believe there should be accountability as to which firms are receiving these lucrative contracts, and a system of monitoring. Everyone has said on the floor of the House--bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats--we are for small businesses. So am I. I want them thriving, growing, surviving, and getting the information to do business with this huge Federal Government.

This amendment, which is a sense of Congress, I believe gives them an opportunity to play on an equal playing field.

We know what will happen with a commission: that those who have always known how to access the system will be at the front of the line. Let's give these small companies an opportunity to also achieve their dreams and aspiration for the American Dream.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to debate H.R. 1734, the ``Civilian Property Realignment Act.'' I offered an amendment to this measure which acknowledges the challenges faced by small, minority, and women-owned businesses that participate in the government contracting process. However, I have several reservations about this bill. The failure to include language that would require an environmental impact analysis of these properties does not make sense.

The original bill waived Title V of the of the McKinney-Vento Act, which provides for the free transfer of surplus federal properties to homeless providers, as well as, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Homeless providers have claimed less than 1 percent of the thousands of properties available to them because of the size of the properties. I was led to believe that an agreement had been reached to ensure that a provision that applied the McKinney-Vento requirements to properties of a certain size and value would be in this bill, it is unclear whether that will be the case.

In addition, the bill contains a second poisonous pill, as it waives the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires a thorough public examination of the environmental impacts of a project or property transfer, to avoid an unintended adverse effect on a surrounding community and a harmful precedent of waiving appropriate environmental review on major infrastructure projects.

Many of these properties are decades old. These buildings may contain asbestos among other issues that may have a direct impact on those who renovate them, as well as, the surrounding communities in which they are located. Allowing those communities to express their concerns through a public comment period is reasonable. In addition, ensuring that the federal government does all that it can to remediate its own property prior to transfer or renovation is an example to all other sectors of the importance of adhering to environmental safety standards. If these concerns can be addressed this bill serves as a reasonable vehicle to help combat the deficit. If these concerns cannot be address this bill may be fatally flawed.

Would require federal agencies to compile environmental information about all property being considered for action and provide for a limited review of property by homeless service providers.

President Obama, first proposed this bipartisan measure in his budget last year as a means to decrease unnecessary government spending and reduce the deficit. It is my hope that the issues that have been raised can be addressed before we must vote on this measure.

H.R. 1734 establishes the Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) to better manage federal buildings and facilities. This measure would give the Commission broad new authorities to consolidate, dispose of, or sell some government properties. In addition, the Commission is required to sell at least five facilities that have a combined estimated fair market value of at least $500 million.

I believe that if this legislation passes that the newly formed Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) should take steps to educate and assist small, women, and minority-owned businesses when awarding contracts related to the sale or redevelopment of federal property. However the bill does not address concerns raised related to the impact on the homeless and it removes a provision that requires an environmental impact study before the transfer of any federal land. These studies are a tool to determine the land, air, and water quality of the property being transferred and the intended use of said property. I believe that it is not in the best interest of the government or local communities to remove this vital safety feature.

H.R. 1734 is similar to the Department of Defense Base Realignment Commission (BRAC) law, which allows the federal government to make the best use of surplus and underused properties under the jurisdiction of various federal agencies, and to dispose of properties the government does not need to help with debt reduction.

It is important to remember that the federal government owns a significant amount of property. The role of the CPRC is to present an accurate view of how that property is currently utilized and consolidate certain activities. For example, currently 30 different agencies have 30 different leasing methods; the CPRC would streamline the process by taking over leasing authority.

The General Services Administration (GSA) one of the largest real estate organizations in the world, with an inventory consisting of 8,920 assets with over 342 million square feet of rentable space across all 50 states, 6 U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia. They serve approximately 1 million Federal employees at 59 different agencies. The GSA has a portfolio which consists primarily of office buildings, courthouses, laboratories, border stations, and warehouses.

GSA's current inventory consists of 8,932 assets totaling 387,841,174 gross square feet

(gsf) nationwide. When these assets are separated between leased and owned, the portfolio consists of 1,884 owned assets totaling 218,983,699 gsf and 7,048 leased assets representing 168,857,475 gsf. The annual operating costs for FY2005 were $1.5 billion, $800 million for government owned and $650 million for leased locations. The replacement value of the owned inventory is $37.2 billion.

They have reduced the percentage of underutilized and non-performing assets from 42 percent to 26 percent;

Reduced vacant space from 9.2 percent to 6.8 percent, significantly below the 2005 industry average rate of 12.5 percent; and,

Reported excess 204 assets and demolished 50 buildings and, as a result, eliminated 3.1 million rentable square feet of vacant space and achieved a cost avoidance of $400 million in capital reinvestment needs.

As of October 1, 2002, federal agencies reported a total of 927 vacant and underutilized real properties--including facilities and land--located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico in 294 cities.

The Veteran's Administration (VA) reported the most properties-577;

General Service Administration (GSA) reported 236 properties, and United States Postal Service (USPS) reported 114 properties.

Most of these properties--807 of 927--were facilities that represented about 32.1 million square feet and ranged from office buildings to hospitals to post offices.

Although VA reported the highest number of facilities, GSA facilities made up more than half of this square footage. The remaining 120 properties were vacant lands reported only by VA and USPS, most of which were 10 acres or less.

One-third or 125 of GSA's underutilized and unutilized assets have been reported excess and accepted for disposal. These assets account for almost 9 million gross square feet (gsf) and $10.9 million in operating expenses that will be eliminated upon completion of the disposal action. Another 18 underutilized assets with approximately 1 million gross square feet (gsf) and $1.5 million in operating costs are projected for disposal in the next five years pending customer relocation.

There were 89 leased facilities that were determined to be underutilized with operating costs totaling $6.2 million in FY2005. GSA eliminates vacant leased space by backfilling space with other customers, terminating the lease or vacant portion thereof or buying out the remaining lease term whenever possible. At the end of FY2005, GSA's leased vacancy rate was at a record low level (below 1.5%).

With an aging inventory it is imperative that we reinvest in our federal facilities to maintain a quality workplace for our federal agencies. At any given time a significant portion of our vacant space is under renovation.

As of September 30, 2005, GSA had 21 assets vacated for major renovations accounting for almost 9 million gross square feet and $39.6 million in operating expenses. As the current projects are completed, the space will be backfilled and these assets will once again become utilized.

At the same time, new projects will begin in different assets keeping the amount of assets that are underutilized due to major renovations fairly constant.

The Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) will review all federal properties and leases utilized for civilian use to determine an accurate number of properties that are either vacant or underutilized.

The independent Commission (CPRC), operating under the GSA, will transform how federal real estate is managed. The purpose of the Commission will be to convert real estate inefficiencies into reductions in the Federal deficit. By facilitating and expediting the sale and disposal of unneeded properties; reducing our reliance on costly leased space; and sell or redevelop high value assets that are underutilized.

I firmly believe this Commission should consider the impact of their decisions on the small business community. Specifically, small, minority, and women-owned businesses which face many challenges when trying to learn about the existence of government contracts for which they can apply, as well as, maneuvering through the complex government contracting process.

As the decisions of the Commission will impact local communities, revitalize neighborhoods, decrease government spending, and reduce the deficit. The Commission should recognize the important role that small businesses play in our economy.

My amendment simply expresses that the Commission or other appropriate federal agency should conduct a public information campaign to advise small, minority, women-owned businesses of the available contracts.

In order to ensure that a broad swath of the small business community is reached it is imperative that these businesses are aware of the existence of contracts. It is also imperative that the process for attaining a government contract is clear; which is why it is extremely important that the Commission, along with all other appropriate federal agencies, implement an awareness campaign targeting small, minority, and women-owned businesses.

The only way to ensure a diverse representation of businesses is through targeted awareness campaigns followed by a clear process, along with adequate support.

Further, I believe there should be accountability as to which firms are receiving these lucrative contracts. The Commission should report to Congress and the President every 6 months. This report should include the amount of contracts awarded to business firms. The report should also include small, minority, and women-owned businesses, as well as, subcontracts awarded to these businesses.

Few would argue with the premise that small business is the backbone of our economy and the heartbeat of our nation. The small business owner reflects a valued principle in our nation's heritage. The belief that an individual or a group of individuals can come together to build a business from the ground up then employ their neighbors.

Mr. Chair, let me just say that the evidence of how important this language is is by way of a group in Texas that was able to secure by legislation--with the gentlelady from the District of Columbia's excellent assistance--a military museum that was held by the General Services Administration. This group of veterans is making it a productive site and a productive part of our local community that evidences what we can secure with this language.

Again, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of Mr. Carnahan's amendment, and he ran out of time. First of all, I see a lot of comity and collegiality on the floor tonight. I've known the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for a very long time. Mr. Carnahan said something that struck my conscience, and that is that we are able to master this legislative process that allows us to negotiate to the moment that we might get this on the floor, which I understand may be tomorrow.

I would encourage whatever it is possible to do, Mr. Denham. I've gotten to know you--whatever is possible for a bill as important as this. You mentioned the possibility of language, reconciliation. I cannot speak for the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, and I don't intend to do so. But I do know her as a person who keeps her word, who loves this Capitol, which she represents, and has a deep and abiding concern about the homeless and obviously this issue of the use of property.

I only entreat you to see what is possible as you have debated on the floor this evening for Mr. Carnahan and my amendment. I would encourage that there be further discussions if you and the gentlelady can secure that opportunity. I think both would be able to hopefully have dialogue, but I do want to have on record my high esteem and respect for her leadership on these issues. You are very kind to have yielded to me.

Let me thank Congresswoman Christensen for her leadership as well as thank our chairman, Emanuel Cleaver. We had the opportunity to host him in Houston this past weekend, and he raised the issue of the challenges of voter protection.

I see that we are joined by our colleague from Ohio. Marcy Kaptur has been a champion on these issues as well, and, frankly, has seen her State be in the crosshairs of trying to protect all citizens' right to vote.

I just want to follow up and say the Voting Rights Act is an act that dignifies all voters because its premise is one person, one vote. The tenets and the premise of the Voting Rights Act as passed: No matter what your background in this Nation, you have an opportunity to vote. If we keep with the integrity of the Voting Rights Act, the gist of its message is don't block individuals from voting. That's simply what its message is.

This is more than appropriate for which to rise to the floor today because this is the month of the birth of Barbara Jordan, February 21. Last year was her 75th year, and we're still commemorating it in Houston. She was, again, part mother of the Voting Rights Act by adding language minorities. By doing that, she spread the coverage of the Voting Rights Act beyond the Deep South, which was the original core group of States that was signed into law in 1965.

So I say thank you to the Honorable Barbara Jordan, one of our colleagues and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. I stand here today to reject any undermining of the legislative

intent and the coming together of Republicans and Democrats who voted for that extension at the time she was in the United States Congress.

Now we've come more than 30-some years later. When we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2007, there were a lot of rumors and thought that we were extinguishing the Voting Rights Act. In fact, I want to put all of our colleagues on notice that the Voting Rights Act is always, in essence, in the crosshairs or in jeopardy for people who believe wrongly about the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act and protecting voters' rights, again, is to make sure that seniors, to make sure that the disabled, to make sure that those who face hardships--as we recall, there were enormous hardships during Hurricane Katrina, when the citizens of New Orleans were literally blocked from voting just because of the infrastructure collapse; and there were terrible conditions in Alabama and Missouri with tornadoes.

I recall the infrastructure of the 2004 election in Ohio when our dear, late colleague Stephanie Tubbs Jones, worked so hard, along with Marcy Kaptur, to thwart the breakdown of machines. I remember it well. We came to the floor. We took issue with the election because how is it that, all of a sudden, you have a breakdown of voting machines, interestingly enough, in the minority community?

So this issue of voter protection is far-reaching. It is not necessarily as clear-cut as some would like to say, ``It's for those people.'' It's not for ``those people.'' In fact, it is for all Americans.

And right now, we have a dilemma. The dilemma is that we have an epidemic. Some 40 States have passed what we call voter ID. Texas happens to be one of those States. Ohio was one of those States--and I'm not going to give Ms. Kaptur's comments, but I do want to congratulate Ohio for the work that they did. And she will tell you, it was in the crosshairs. Again, I use that frequently. It was conflicted, but it has been resolved; and she will, I'm sure, address that.

But there are other States who now are subjected to the oppressive, depressive voter ID law. In the instance of the State of Texas, might I say, that State allows you to use your gun license to vote; but a student State-issued ID cannot be used. Elderly people now have to travel miles, many of whom were born with midwives and missing birth certificates, as was my mother who held onto her voting card that she legitimately got until the end of her life. But she could not vote today because, try as we may, for Ivalita Jackson to find her birth certificate--we went halfway around the world and still were not able to secure a certified copy of her birth certificate. I knew she was born because she lived. And then I have had seniors in my own district in wheelchairs, where they went with their family members to the site where they are to get their voter ID, waiting long hours.

Right now in the State of Texas, we don't have an election date. We don't even know what to tell our constituents about getting a voter ID because--thank goodness, if I might say--we're now presently being reviewed by the Department of Justice whether to preclear or not to preclear this voter ID law. I hope that truth will prevail that it is depressive and oppressive.

So I am very grateful that the Congressional Black Caucus will be traveling to cities in a variety of regions of this Nation, including our Southwest region, to argue vigorously for voter protections and for ensuring the protection of all people's right to vote. I hope, as we experienced in 2010, that the King Street Patriots who plagued our inner city precincts--many of whom I saw--will not intimidate our voters. I hope that when this election comes--for poll watchers and others that come into our voting areas, minority and poor areas, people who have the right to vote--that we will be there protecting everyone's right to vote.

Let me be very clear: Poor is not a respective color. It impacts all. And poor people who have difficulty in going somewhere to get a voter ID, or in some States paying $40, a new poll tax, or can't get off from work, that's voter protection. You can imagine there are people who work who are afraid to ask their bosses for the allotted time off for them to be able to vote.

The efforts of the Congressional Black Caucus, joining with our colleagues, will stand up for each and every American. I am glad that President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Texan--I was just marveling at him today; and his daughter, Luci Baines Johnson, joined us when we honored Barbara Jordan's 75th birthday just a few months ago. We will continue that with additional commemoration.

But the key is loving the right to vote, protecting the right to vote; and supporting the Voting Rights Act is not solely with respect to color. We welcome everyone who will accept the fact that it is our birthright, as citizens, to be able to not be thwarted and stopped and blocked from going to a poll and expressing our right to democracy.

Finally, let me say, I had the privilege of working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and I might say, it wasn't that long ago. It was some years ago, but it wasn't that long ago. And my friends, let me tell you, I traveled throughout Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, the core States, among others, that started out with Dr. King's great march and great efforts to push the Congress and the President toward recognizing how many people were left out of the right to vote. As a worker for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the 1970s and beyond, I would go into places where people of African American descent were frightened to vote, were not registered to vote, were sharecroppers on plantations-- and I venture to say that there are crises in communities like that even today. For us to go into those places was almost as if we were creating an overthrow of the government.

I remember very distinctly--and I will say it on this floor--going up to a leaning shanty building which was the place where these sharecroppers and others who lived in the area were supposed to be voting. The voting booth was, if you will, a ragged cloth covering an area that you allegedly were going to vote in. Sitting on the front porch of this tattered general store was a gentleman sitting with a rifle across his lap to suggest no one is welcome here. When I went up with my then rather young self, starry-eyed and trying to ask if this was the voting site, all I could hear my colleagues say is ``Run; he has a gun.'' And the next thing I heard as we were bending down behind cars--something I had never heard that close to me--was shots ringing out. This is not a joke. This is not something we don't take seriously. I'll never forget that day for as long as I live, that someone would block anyone from coming to a sacred and somber place to cast a vote for a person of their choosing.

I want to thank the gentlelady for allowing me to participate, recognizing that this fight is a fight that we should never give up, and we should never categorize that voting rights is something about those minorities. Voting rights are American rights, and they're rights vested in the Declaration of Independence, which starts out by saying, We all are created equal, with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

With that, I yield back to the gentlewoman, closing and saying, the right to vote is part of the pursuit of happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today joined by my fellow Congressional Black Caucus Members to speak about a challenge facing millions of Americans. This challenge skews the Constitutional fabric of our American society. This fabric, woven together by liberty, justice, and equal rights, has endured tremendous odds throughout the history of this great nation.

During Black History Month, we celebrate the vast contributions of African Americans to our nation's history and identity. Throughout America's history, African American men and women have persevered through much hardship and prejudice to enrich our national life in innumerable ways.

There are new landmarks to celebrate as time marches forward. In November 2008, Americans elected the first African American to be President. In October 2011, the new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on the National Mall was dedicated. On February 22, there will be groundbreaking ceremony, on the National Mall near the Washington Monument, for the National Museum of African American

History and Culture, which Congress authorized in December 2003. It is expected to open in 2015.

The theme of Black History Month this year is ``Black Women in American Culture and History.'' This gives all Americans the opportunity to pay tribute to the role African American women have played in shaping our nation--with African American women often serving as champions of social and political reforms.

Many African American families are still bearing the brunt of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. In September, President Obama sent to Congress the American Jobs Act, which would strengthen the economy and is estimated to create 1.9 million jobs. Over the last several months, Republican obstruction has been blocking this bill from moving forward.

``Jobs and the economy are the number-one issue for African American families, just as they are for all American families,'' commented Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. ``That is why my immediate focus is on fighting for a payroll tax cut for 20 million African American workers and to extend the lifeline of unemployment insurance for those who have lost a job through no fault of their own.

I will also continue to work for the enactment of other provisions of the President's American Jobs Act, that create jobs by helping small businesses hire and grow, putting construction workers back on the job rebuilding America, and preventing the layoff of teachers, firefighters and police officers. These steps are critical to helping improve the lives of African American families all across the country.''

As we celebrate Black History Month let us pay tribute to the extraordinary contributions of past generations of African Americans and work to reignite the American Dream today and for the next generation. We must continue to work for an America that fully lives up to its ideals and allows all Americans to reach their full potential.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this Body about the need to protect democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution.

As we enter into Black History Month, it is important to recognize the legacy that the right to vote has placed upon our nation. Black History Month is a celebration of people who have gone before us and on whose shoulders we stand, of people who stand among us today transfixed on a goal to achieve even more. It is a time to pause and renew our commitment to realize the progress and achievements of our people and to go much further as we write our own chapter; a time to continue the legacy of African American History. Today, African Americans, as other minorities, know that we have not yet overcome the weight of not being treated as full citizens of this great nation.

During Black History Month, we recognize and celebrate the countless contributions of African American pioneers. These honorable men and women faced unimaginable hardships and refused to allow the racial inequalities and injustices of our past to inhibit their destiny. While we recognize these celebrated American heroes, it is important to understand that Black History Month was also designed to highlight the extraordinary lives of ordinary people who have helped build our great nation. Let us celebrate the African Americans who made amazing sacrifices in the name of justice and equality in the past and let us recommit ourselves to continuing to work for an America that fully lives up to its ideals and ensures that every American has the tools and opportunity to pursue the American Dream. In the present era, our African American elected officials and the presidents of the various civil rights, fraternal, business and religious organizations continue to encourage our nation to keep its commitment to freedom and equality.

I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for her courtesies of extending time on a bill that we have been waiting for for a very long time. I was speaking, as I was coming to the floor, and thinking about whether or not we could work together in a bipartisan manner.

I represent a number of airports generally, and specifically I represent Bush Intercontinental Airport, which has a reputation for being one of the top airports around the Nation. A couple of months ago, we stood together with our airport director and workers in the community, asking for an FAA authorization bill.

We are in need of repairs, and we are in need of growth. And how exciting it is to know that this has been one of the best job-growth months in our time, 243,000 jobs. We're on the right track, Ms. Slaughter, and this bill would have certainly been on the right track.

But why in the world do we put in this bill a poison pill that some say is a settlement, a resolve, that takes a configuration of counting that is absurd? For those who want to come together as the First Amendment allows you to do, the right to assemble in unions and employee organizations--which to date has not harmed our airport industry--for those who want to come together, an absurd configuration of retirees and people who are not there are counted when you have an election to become a union.

Just yesterday, the Governor of Indianapolis, Indiana, signed a right-to-work. We have right-to-work States. We have recognized their existence. Whether we like them or not, they exist. Why can't unions have the right in a fair way to organize?

I thank the gentlelady for her kindness.

If any Member, any Governor had to go to the polls and work to bring people to the polls to vote in an election in a democratic process and in that election they had to count the people who were home, asleep in their beds, some who did not desire to vote--that was their democratic choice, although we want everyone to vote--most people would say that is absurd, including my friends on the other side of the aisle. Why did this have to be the scourge in this particular legislation?

Let me also say that, as the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee and as formerly the chairperson, I believe in working together. We had a pilot program dealing with privatization in some small airports of the Transportation Security Administration. But the gentlelady is from New York. And if I recall, we were privatized on that fateful date of 9/11. The idea is to make our TSOs at a level that is responsible across the Nation. And we had language in this bill that said that we may look at other requests or make decisions on other requests for using privatization. No, they go and change the language.

Now, ``the Secretary shall.'' She has to. And there is no credible evidence that suggests that the privatization of TSOs or the Transportation Security Administration is going to make our Nation safer. Why do we mix infrastructure work--getting our airports safer and credible and ready to expand--with these kinds of poison pills in the box, in-your-eye initiatives?

So, Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to say that I am shouting for the fact that we have finally come together in what could be a way forward; but, unfortunately, we have decided to use the poison pen strategy, divide but not conquer. We're going to fix this as we go forward.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule.

I, too, want to rise today to acknowledge both the chairman and the ranking member. I know that this has not been an easy task. And I certainly want to express my appreciation to Mr. Costello for the work that he has done and the friendship he has shown to Members, but also the understanding that he has had for this industry.

For those of us who represent airports, I cannot deny that this is an important bill and legislative initiative. So let me thank you and thank you, as well, for the late hours that all of you who are on the Transportation Committee engaged in.

Might I, for a moment, before I speak of this bill, thank the ranking member and Congresswoman Brown and Congressman Johnson for saving Houston, again, in its light rail. This is something I've worked for for almost 20 years, and the amendment last evening that would have defunded Houston's rail, light rail, was absurd and, frankly, an outrage. I hope, as we proceed, we'll find a way to recognize that Members' projects for their constituents for regional mobility should not be tampered with by those living miles away from their community. So I am just thankful for the recognition of the importance of rail and job creation.

As I indicated, I do rise in support of the infrastructure aspects of this bill. We cannot deny that I am grateful for the airport trust fund language dealing with how do you do the airport fees for the NextGen technology; but I serve as the ranking member on the Transportation Subcommittee, and there is language in there about TSO officers. Remember, we were privatized on 9/11.

Despite having never been debated by the Committee on Homeland Security--the committee of jurisdiction--and having no Members being appointed conferees on behalf of the FAA conference committee, section 830 of the conference report for the FAA reauthorization has been tampered with.

It limits TSA's flexibility to approve or deny an application from an airport to opt out of using the Federal screening workforce for passenger and baggage screening. Let me remind you, the airports had privatized security on the day of 9/11. That's why we went to the transportation security officers.

It places an arbitrary time limitation of 120 days on TSA to determine whether approval of an airport's application would compromise security, affect cost efficiency or the effectiveness of screening capability.

It increases administrative burdens on TSA by requiring a tedious paperwork exercise each time an application is denied.

It provides a waiver for the existing law that requires private screening, and it says that we shall do it.

I thank the gentleman.

It provides a waiver for the existing law that requires a private screening company contracted will be owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States, meaning that it waives the fact that you have to be a United States citizen to provide security for those who are traveling.

And it requires--it says you ``must'' privatize some of these airports. Did we learn from 9/11?

So besides the poison pill on labor, counting people who don't even show up to vote, now we have a situation where we are forcing our Nation's airports to privatize their security.

I ask my colleagues to reflect on this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 658, ``the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.'' This bill would authorize appropriations, mainly over the 2011-2014 period, for activities of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, and other federal programs related to aviation.

In addition, the measure contains intergovernmental and private- sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, because it would impose new requirements on both public and private entities that own aircraft or airports. CB0 estimates that the aggregate cost of intergovernmental mandates in the bill would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($71 million in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation).

It would impose additional private-sector mandates on operators of certain aircraft, entities registering or obtaining certification with the FAA, commercial air carriers, employees in air or rail industries, and unions.

As a Senior Member on the House Homeland Security Committee I have been one of the foremost proponents for the swift passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act. But in its current form I cannot vote for this measure. Our national air transportation system is fundamental for the future growth of our economy. However, Congress must ensure our safety and our national security is not at risk without a comprehensive, long- term reauthorization of the FAA Act and not with Homeland Security issues being decided. There are two provisions that have been placed in this bill which are poison pills and must be addressed prior to its passage.

Despite having never been debated by the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee of jurisdiction, and no Members being appointed conferees on behalf of the Committee, section 830 of the Conference Report for the FAA Reauthorization deals with the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, which falls under the jurisdiction of the House Homeland Security committee which I sit on.

Under this Conference Report TSA will be limited in approving or denying an application from an airport to `opt-out' of using the federal screening workforce for passenger and baggage screening. It also places an arbitrary time limitation of 120 days on TSA to determine whether approval of an airport's application would compromise security, affect cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of screening capabilities.

It also increases administrative burdens on TSA by requiring a tedious paperwork exercise each time an application is denied. And lastly it provides a waiver for the existing law that requires a private screening company contracted with be owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States.

As concerned as I am about the aviation security policy changes made in the bill, I am equally concerned about the process that got us to this point. The Committee on Homeland Security has sole jurisdiction over TSA. It has debated several aviation security bills during the 112th Congress, including a TSA Authorization bill.

The language in the Conference Report to the FAA Reauthorization was never debated by the Committee and no hearings were held by the Committee to examine the merits of the changes. Indeed, the Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security is scheduled to have a hearing on the program addressed in this legislation next week with

the Administrator of TSA set to testify. Unfortunately, it appears that hearing will come up ``a day late and a dollar short.''

Section 830 of the Conference Report for the FAA Reauthorization:

Limits TSA's flexibility to approve or deny an application from an airport to ``opt-out'' of using the federal screening workforce for passenger and baggage screening;

Places an arbitrary time limitation of 120 days on TSA to determine whether approval of an airport's application would compromise security, affect cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of screening capabilities;

Increases administrative burdens on TSA by requiring a tedious paperwork exercise each time an application is denied; and

Provides a waiver for the existing law that requires a private screening company contracted with be owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States.

As concerned as I am about the aviation security policy changes made in the bill, I am equally concerned about the process that got us to this point. The Committee on Homeland Security has sole jurisdiction over TSA. It has debated several aviation security bills during the 112th Congress including a TSA Authorization bill.

The language in the Conference Report to the FAA Reauthorization was never debated by the Committee and no hearings were held by the Committee to examine the merits of the changes. Indeed, the Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security is scheduled to have a hearing on the program addressed in this legislation next week with the Administrator of TSA set to testify. Unfortunately, it appears that hearing will come up a day late and a dollar short.

The National Mediation Board, NMB, has ruled that in order to organize, aviation workers need to have a majority of the voting workers for that particular election. My Republican colleagues however overturned the NMB determination by requiring a majority of all workers, rather than a majority of all voting workers. This has significantly watered down the ruling by the NMB. I cannot stand by and witness the rights of workers being stripped away one piece at a time. If this is the standard that is going to be set for workers who wish to form a Union, then Members of Congress in our fine Democracy should also have the same standards. Rather than a majority of voting citizens, it should be a majority of citizens. If this is not a requirement upon which our democracy is based. It should not be the requirement for Unions.

I believe that aviation contributes over 1.2 trillion in economic activity and provides 11 million jobs annually. Indeed, the partial FAA shut down had a negative impact on the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, furloughed employees, and stop work order measures that have halted construction on key infrastructure projects, such as the $25 million construction of Replacement TRACON in Houston. However, something must be done to address the privatization of airports--the impact on TSOs as well as the ability of workers to have a fair and democratic vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I, too, want to express my appreciation to the Rules Committee for allowing my amendment to come in. And I acknowledge the ranking member of our Budget Committee for his excellent service, Mr. Van Hollen. I thank Dr. Price for his presence here today and engaging in this discussion.

In a few days, I will be meeting with a number of my clergy, along with my small business community, coming from all walks of life, and all of us have found in our hearts and our minds to recognize that small business is in fact the backbone of this country. So I would ask that, as we look at the issue of macroeconomic analysis of this legislation, that we include a well-defined concept to understand what the impact will be on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act.

H.R. 3582 would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a large budgetary effect, and under this bill, there would be analysis that would come about on a number of issues that would, in fact, involve the gross domestic product.

The Small Business Administration administers several programs to support small businesses, including Historically Underused Business Zone empowerment contracting, better known as the HUBZone. The HUBZone program is an effective program. It's a small business Federal contracting assistance program that crosses the land. Wherever you live, you have the opportunity to participate in a HUB program, whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities, irrespective of your location and your background. It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low-income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of set-aside, sole-source awards and price evaluation preferences.

Mr. Chairman, this could happen to any community. One moment you could be thriving, and a tornado could come to you in the next moment and you fall in the category of a HUBZone to revitalize small businesses. So I ask my colleagues to support an amendment that spreads across America, and to make the determination that the vitality of small businesses is important to all of us and an assessment should be made using the HUBZone and the impact such legislation would have.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for extending his analysis, but I am saddened by the fact that issues dealing with income inequality, where we're simply trying to acknowledge and overtake comments by Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney: I'm not concerned about the poor-- my point about the poor is that you're rich today and poor tomorrow. Catastrophic illness, devastation through a natural disaster, man-made disaster, a terrorist act will put many of us in conditions that we would have never imagined.

What Dr. Price has failed to acknowledge, and our Republican friends, is that the dynamic scoring is rooted in anti-tax. It is clear that the bill's language and approach is designed to make it easy to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts.

Keeping the Bush tax cuts are not going to improve the economy. Small businesses will. And ensuring that we don't have revenue will definitely send this Nation down a periled road of no return.

Their own friend, former chairman of the Budget Committee, Jim Nussle, testified it may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, the tools are broken, but it may be that we're not using it. He, too, acknowledged the faultiness of dynamic scoring.

What I'm doing here today is to ask for this amendment to take into consideration hardworking small business owners, assess whether or not they will be impacted negatively.

We already know that agencies are going to have a difficult time in scoring this. We already know that this scoring will have no impact on improving the economy. But the increase in taxes that our colleagues want to do, with no balancing increase in revenues to be able to bring down the deficit, is the peril that they're sending us to.

They have had hearings, and there have been those who've acknowledged that dynamic scoring does little; but it may impact negatively those hardworking businesses that need to have the resources that would be provided to them by the Small Business Administration in their time of need or in their time of growth.

I ask my colleagues to add one more element of information that will give us guidance as to what dynamic scoring will ultimately mean. There is no doubt that an overwhelming number of Americans agree that we must do revenue, and certainly we must respond to the needs of the American people.

None of us are reckless with taxes or increasing taxes, Mr. Chairman. We want to be balanced in what we do. I believe my amendment is a balanced amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #5 to H.R. 3582, ``The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2011.'' My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUB ZONE areas as defined by the Small Business Act.

H.R. 3582, would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a large budgetary effect. Under this bill the CBO would be required to provide an analysis of the impact on the economy of any bill that would have an estimated budgetary effect of greater than 0.25 percent of gross domestic product, GDP, in any fiscal year.

CBO macroeconomic analysis would include the estimated effect on revenues and outlays of a change in GDP resulting from the legislation being evaluated. Those estimates would have to assume that certain tax policies not currently in CBO's baseline are extended. Furthermore, CBO would be required to publicly provide the assumptions and models underlying those analyses.

In all actuality, Mr. Chair, this bill could very well be entitled the, Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that is in essence what is going on here.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere; in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the super committee.

Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.

It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts. The bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.

None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping. That has been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate than the current way.''

Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better Mr. Chair, I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.

Mr. Chair, where have we heard that before? I recall that the Bush administration attempted to impose the use of dynamic scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a trickle-down form of budgeting.

Unfortunately Mr. Chair, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to look at the affect, should this measure pass, on HUB Zones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

The Small Business Administration, SBA, administers several programs to support small

businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUB Zone program. The HUB Zone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program ``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities.'' It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of ``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and price-evaluation preferences.

According to the Congressional Research Service, In FY2010, the federal government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the HUBZone program.

Mr. Chair, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because that's what we should be talking about on the House Floor today.

The Budget Committee has held two hearings on the general topic of budget process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, testified that ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not even being used.''

Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office, CBO, staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that ``My main message is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''

And Mr. Chair, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time-- though--In the interest of fairness to the small businesses in distressed communities, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, even though I have serious reservations about dynamic scoring.

[From Center for American Progress, Nov. 23, 2011]

Five Problems With Dynamic Scoring

(By Sarah Ayres)

Dynamic scoring--an attempt to measure the macroeconomic

effects of policy changes before they happen--continues to

pop up everywhere, even in negotiations by the erstwhile

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, better known as

the super committee. Long a favorite tool of antitax zealots,

dynamic scoring poses a number of problems that make it a

poor tool for estimating the cost of proposed legislation,

and the agencies tasked with making these estimates have

rightly rejected it for years.

Among those who advocate this method, it is confined to

revenue estimates, but it could be applied to spending as

well. Fans of dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for

themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth

that revenues will actually increase on net. In particular,

the Bush administration lobbied for the use of dynamic

scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that

tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves.

Of course the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, instead

causing our national debt to explode.

Dynamic scoring was a bad idea then and it is still a bad

idea today. Here are five reasons why we shouldn't use

dynamic scoring.

Conventional revenue estimates already include behavioral

responses

While some proponents of dynamic scoring explain it as an

alternative to ``static'' standard scoring estimates, the

conventional cost estimates prepared by the Congressional

Budget Office, or CBO, and the Joint Committee on Taxation,

or JCT, are not actually static. In estimating the budgetary

effects of proposed legislation, CBO and JCT both

incorporate the microeconomic behavioral effects of policy

changes into their estimates. For example, when they score

a gas-tax increase, they account for the reduction in gas

purchases that would result.

What they don't do is attempt to measure the macroeconomic

effects--the effects a policy will have on the overall growth

of the economy. As JCT explains, ``estimates always take into

account many likely behavioral responses by taxpayers to

proposed changes in tax law . . . [including] shifts in the

timing of transactions and income recognition, shifts between

business sectors and entity form, shifts in portfolio

holdings, shifts in consumption, and tax planning and

avoidance.'' The official JCT scores do assume that GDP will

not change from the projected CBO baseline.

We cannot accurately measure the macroeconomic effects of tax

changes

One problem with attempting to measure macroeconomic

feedback is that estimates depend on a lot of assumptions.

Broad economywide responses to tax policy changes are complex

and often contradictory. This reflects the wide range of

effects a tax change can have on different actors.

As an example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

or CBPP, notes that reducing marginal tax rates can lead to

two different behavioral responses. Increasing the after-tax

compensation that a worker receives for an additional hour of

work could incentivize the worker to take on additional work

because the awards are greater. At the same time, increasing

a worker's take-home pay for the same hours of work could

also incentivize the worker to work a fewer number of hours

for the same amount of money. Which of these two effects will

be larger, and by how much? The empirical record simply does

not offer us a clear-cut answer to that question. The same is

true of myriad other questions that dynamic scoring

implicitly or explicitly raises. There is no set of accepted

rules that can be applied universally to all tax-policy

changes occurring in a variety of economic environments.

Even if we had clear-cut answers, there are practical

limits to the level of sophistication that the estimating

agencies could bring to dynamic scoring. Former CBO director

Rudolph Penner describes the problem: ``Consistent dynamic

scoring is logistically impossible given current technology.

Scoring is a hectic process. The CBO and JCT produce hundreds

of scores each year. Congress always wants scores

instantaneously, and analysts often work through the night to

keep them happy. Dynamic scoring would force analysts to make

many more judgment calls than they do today. Quality control

would be difficult, and that implies a high risk that

ideological biases will pollute the analysis.''

Estimates require making assumptions about future policies

Will a tax cut be paid for by spending cuts now or by

taking on future debt? Macroeconomic responses may differ

greatly depending on how policymakers choose to pay for the

policy. Requiring budget analysts to guess how the policy

will be paid for in order to score it opens up the

possibility that their assumptions will influence the

projected macroeconomic changes as much or even more than the

policy itself. In testimony before the House Committee on

Rules in 2002, CBO director Dan Crippen expressed concern

that his office would be stepping into a political minefield

by making these guesses: ``CBO could make an assumption about

what the next five Congresses and at least two presidents

will do, but doing so would subject us and the results to a

chorus of controversy.''

Even if dynamic scoring worked as advertised, there is

evidence the effects are quite small

In 2006 a CBPP analysis of cost estimates for President

Bush's proposal to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent

found that the dynamic estimates did not differ greatly from

conventional estimates. Two dynamic estimates prepared by the

CBO differed by less than 4 percent from the conventional

estimate. Even the Bush administration's own estimate found

that macroeconomic feedback would offset less than 10 percent

of the conventionally estimated cost. There is no evidence

that we are missing out on large macroeconomic effects using

conventional scoring methods.

Lawmakers can pass policies regardless of their score

If Congress and the president believe a policy will have

positive macroeconomic effects, nothing about conventional

scoring prevents them from passing it into law. The Bush tax

cuts were enacted despite their score because policymakers

believed they would be good for the economy. With

conventional scoring, everyone generally knows what's

included in the estimate and can make their own judgments

based on that knowledge. Dynamic scoring would only introduce

more obscurity to the process.

For these five reasons, CBO and JCT have rightly chosen not

to include dynamic scoring in their official cost estimates.

Switching to dynamic scoring would greatly reduce

transparency in the revenue-estimating process. Macroeconomic

forecasting is an imperfect science and the underlying

evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. Using

dynamic scoring would greatly pressure estimating agencies to

make assumptions--assumptions that would be hard to pick out,

difficult to evaluate, and likely very important at their

extremes. CBO and JCT already incorporate behavioral

responses into their cost estimates, and attempts to measure

macroeconomic effects of the proposed policies will be

fraught with inaccuracies and perceived as politically

biased.

We may be able to resolve some of these problems in the

future but for now there are many reasons why it doesn't make

sense to use dynamic scoring.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I continue to wear a yellow ribbon to remind us of the wonderful troops who were able to come home finally from Iraq.

I want to congratulate the city of St. Louis that introduced and held the first Welcome Home the Troops from Iraq parade on January 28. I look forward to communities around this Nation raising up their voices to say thank you to those who worked and dedicated their lives and their commitment to the freedom of this country. That's why, Madam Speaker, it's so important that we do our work. Not a

minute should we wait to pass the payroll tax extension, unemployment extension, and the ability of our seniors to see their doctors with the Medicare fix for our doctors.

What we say to our soldiers by welcoming them home is all in our acts and our deeds, how we treat their relatives, their friends, and extended family members and community. It's time for Congress to wait not one minute to extend the American Dream to all and provide this benefit to those who are in need.

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.

I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine for providing an opportunity for civility and dialogue on the true grit of the American constituency.

I am amazed, I'm shocked, that we would be here on floor of the House denigrating an institution that has been accepted as a rainy day umbrella, I have said it often, for individuals who've toiled in the hot sun and skyscrapers on building infrastructure, on driving buses and trains, or however they may have provided for their families, and they have now lost their jobs.

They dutifully paid into the insurance pool called unemployment insurance. They followed the laws of their State. Some of them may be veterans who are now in the civilian workforce, and they are chagrined that they find themselves unemployed. Now we have those who would say idle hands are the devil's workshop and who want to insist that these are drug addicts, that they're uneducated, that they need a GED, and that they have all kinds of baggage that will not allow them to be gainfully employed.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry to say that is not true. I know in my own community we are more fortunate than others regarding the amount of unemployed individuals.

But I know in the devastated communities people want to work. I have had individuals come to my office over and over again. I have seen people line up in the hot sun across this Nation this past summer attempting to get jobs. So I simply want to join with the gentleman's motion to instruct.

I want this to be the motion to instruct for dignity. I want to thank you for insisting that workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are not, in essence, drug addicts. That means conspicuous drug addicts because sometimes people need counseling. Rather than stigmatizing, why don't we have a component that says you have job skill training, if you need counseling, you get counseling.

Let's not denigrate the unemployed. Pass the unemployment insurance. Let's call for dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1022, ``Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act.'' This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to study alternatives for the commemoration and interpretation of the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the national parks.

America's national parks are a treasure of nature's magnificent wonders--84 million acres of the most stunning landscapes anyone has ever seen. The story of the national parks is the story of people from every conceivable background who were willing to devote themselves to saving a portion of the land they loved. Among them were Buffalo Soldiers.

Our country began the arduous task of rebuilding itself after a brutal civil war. In this war former slaves fought in Union regiments to pursue the ultimate goal to end slavery. These Black soldiers were later used in 1866, when Congress created six segregated regiments that ultimately became four black regiments that later became known as the original Buffalo Soldiers. Because of prevailing attitudes following the Civil War, these soldiers could only serve west of the Mississippi River. Their main charge was to protect settlers as they moved west and to support building the infrastructure needed for new settlements to flourish.

Buffalo Soldiers conducted campaigns against American Indian tribes on a western frontier that extended from Montana in the northwest to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in the southwest. They engaged in several clashes against such great Indian Chiefs as Victorio, Geronimo, and Nana.

``Buffalo Soldiers'' was the name given the black cavalrymen by the Plains Indians. Reason for the name is uncertain. One view is that the Indians saw a resemblance between the black man's hair and the mane of a buffalo. Another view is that when a buffalo was wounded or cornered, it fought ferociously, displaying unusual stamina and courage. This was the same fighting spirit Indians saw in combat with black cavalrymen. Since Indians held the buffalo in such high regard, it was felt that the name was not given in contempt.

Those Buffalo Soldiers not only fought in conflicts along the western frontier, but they were indispensible in the treacherous and desolate trails of the Wild West. They helped protect and build up our new country as it expanded west. They built roads. They protected new territories where they escorted settlers, cattle herds, and railroad crews, while battling Mexican revolutionaries, outlaws, rustlers and hostile Native American tribes. The Buffalo Soldiers were the protectors of the western frontier.

Buffalo Soldiers played a central role in protecting national parks-- Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. They were, in fact, our national parks' first ``guardians.'' These Soldiers kept the park free from poachers and from the ranchers whose grazing sheep destroyed the parks' natural habitats. They built roads, including the first wagon road into the Giant Forest of Sequoia.

At a time when most of the country would not recognize their humanity, these brave patriots stood up to fight and protect a country that was just as much theirs as any other American. And I think it is fitting and symbolic that at a time when our Nation was rebuilding itself after being torn apart, it was former slaves and children of former slaves--Buffalo Soldiers--that rebuilt and protected our new and expanding country.

As our country progresses, there will continue to be sites of historic and cultural significance that need to be added to the national park system. Commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the national parks will ensure the historical contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will always be remembered. Celebrating the role of Buffalo Soldiers serves to interpret, articulate, collect, display and preserve historical artifacts, documents, and other historical memorabilia relating to these brave men.

It is America's mandate to acknowledge and reflect America's diverse stories. The story of Buffalo Soldiers is an underrepresented cultural theme in our national parks. Commemorating Buffalo Soldiers in the history of the nation's national parks is a step in the right direction. It reflects our cultural heritage and ensures their stories are told for our children and grandchildren to enjoy throughout posterity.

At this time I would also like to take a moment to thank a special Legislative Fellow in my office, Byron McKie. He has been working diligently to enhance the opportunities of children through STEM education.

Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and let me thank my colleague from Texas.

This is a very important debate. It brings about a lot of emotion for two reasons for me. In that same year on our debate on Affordable Care Act, I lost my mother, and she was in need of long-term care. As I speak, there are two elderly, senior-citizen relatives who likewise are in the midst of long-term care. They are of a different era. They did not have the opportunity to plan as much because of their economics and because of their station in life for their later life. But as I've watched the intensity of the care, I realize that we cannot make health care a political football.

I remember distinctly that very emotional time in March of 2010, and my recollection serves me not one friend on the other side of the aisle, not one Republican in this House, voted to help save the lives of Americans and provide them with a safety net of health care.

My good friend from Massachusetts has already given a litany of provisions that are already saving lives, from the 26-year-old being on insurance to not being kicked out of the hospital and many others. But let us focus on long-term care, a very personal part of one's life; 21 million people in 2008 had a condition that caused them to need help with their health and personal care. Many of them may be young people who've had serious, catastrophic illnesses and/or accidents. Medicare does not cover long-term services and supports--about 70 percent of people over 65.

But the real point that I want to make is if you want to talk about money, let me tell you how many of the family caregivers or how much their kind of help is equated. Some $450 billion comes out of the family's either personal care or resources. This is not a throwaway. This is not throwing money away.

We recognize that the administration has thoughtfully said it needs to look at this long-term care in order to do it right. So I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts that this should not be a throwaway; this should be a fix-up. One of the amendments that I had suggested was the idea of letting the Secretary come forward with best practices. For no one can intrude into the most personal time of your life when you are desperately in need, when you are catastrophically ill, or when you have aged to the point that there are people who you need to do the most personal things in life, in essence, to clean you up because of personal hygiene.

I thank the gentleman.

Long-term care is needed by a projected 15 million people. As I indicated, chronic conditions, trauma, or illness brings you to this, but the real idea is personal hygiene, getting dressed, using the bathroom. Do you want to put in the sunset of life or in time of great desperation the idea that no one is thinking about how we can best do long-term care? This repeal turns a light out, closes a door, abandons those family caregivers who are already giving $450 billion of their time, their heart, the devastation--Medicaid giving $101 million, but personal is $14 billion.

Mr. Speaker, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us not, if you will, pass this bill that denies that America has a heart in the most difficult times of Americans. Who would raise their hand and say, I want someone to help me in my personal hygiene, I need someone to help me get to the bathroom, or something even more? This is what we're talking about. This is not the way to do it, Mr. Speaker. I demand that we vote against the CLASS Act repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res 522, ``Rule Providing Consideration on the Bill 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.

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 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, baby boomers have begun to celebrate their 65th birthdays. From 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 rose to $206.6 billion.

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.

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.

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% to 42.9% between 1984 and 1994. The proportion of cognitive impairment among the 65+ population rose from 34% to 40%.