transportation, from the end of 2009, there was one person in the department of transportation earning a salary of $170,000. yet 18 months later, there were 1,690 employees in the department of transportation earning at least $170,000 in compensation. i would also point out that since president barack obama took office until now, there are an additional 144,700 civilian federal employees. these are new people, added to the payroll, more than 144,000 new people on the payroll. . in 2010, more than 50% of all general schedule employees received a step increase or a promotion. hardly a pay freeze that president obama would have let us to believe happened. also for 2010, 62.9% of all general schedule employees

received an award or bones -- bonus. in these dire economic times as people try to tighten their belts in the private sector, i think it's stunning close to 63% of our general schedule employees, federal employees, got an award or a bonus. now, this new c.b.o. study that came out this week, right here, the average federal benefits that exceeded the private sector level by 48%, the benefits being given to the federal employees exceed the private sector by 48%, according to the c.b.o. and the total average federal compensation is 16%, when you weigh that in with the other base pay, 16% above the private sector. now, you can find a case where maybe somebody is being undercompensated, but you can find more of people being overcompensated. now, most people -- if you're asking how many federal employees out there are earning at least $100,000 in their base

pay? madam speaker, that number is in excess of 450,000 people on our federal payroll are earning in excess of $100,000. in fact, if you go back and look at the payroll, the total federal payroll for the federal government, 2008 it was roughly $400 billion, 2011 it's projected to be $452 billion. you should also look at one of the more stunning numbers that i saw, madam speaker, and that is from 2010 to 2011 there were 16,000 federal employees that moved up to having at least a base pay of $100,000. so to suggest there's been some sort of pay freeze in place i would argue is wholeheartedly incorrect. it is a matter of fairness and balance. i appreciate mr. duffy for his fine work in bringing this bill forward because we should limit the pay of members of congress, we should also do so for the federal civilian work force. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the gentleman from -- mr. cummings: i find it interesting the other side brings up the c.b.o. report. the much better report is the bureau of labor statistics report. they are more experienced at this. they show that federal employees were paid 26% less than private sector employees. with that i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, washington is the headquarters of the congress. it is not the headquarters of federal employees. 85% of them live in our cities and towns and suburbs. let's all agree that deficit reduction is a priority. and it is appropriate to lead at the top. nor should federal employees be exempt from this leadership by

example. but it does stop at the top not at the bottom of the federal work force. these employees live under often greatly differing standards of living depending on where they live in the country. it is up to us to lead by example not federal employees, although they should not be exempt from this leadership role. it is an unfair ruse to pair the most favored federal employees, members of congress, with the least favored, federal employees across the board. some come from -- some are paid a great deal, some are paid very little, some come from high cost areas of the country, some come from low cost areas of the country. look, most of our constituents will understand who we were voting for and who we were voting against. democrats have a long history of respecting civil servants.

republicans have spent years deriding them in good times and bad. they know full well also that congress would not dare take a raise now and they know that federal employees should not become as they apparently have the proverbial piggy bank to pull down for all purpose deficit reduction. when we had freezes that were almost automatic on federal employees, that's the very reason why this bill should be sent to committee to determine what is fair now in the third year after 60 -- $60 billion -- may i have 30 seconds? mr. cummings: additional 30 seconds. ms. norton: pricely because there have been two almost automatic freezes with no hearings means it is the time to send this bill to committee to determine what is fair for federal employees, have they contributed enough or using my

standard, leadership by example, have they tribbed -- thud they contribute more? you want to -- should they contribute more? you want to lead by example, members of congress should stand up and ask for a freeze for themselves by themselves like men and women. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. cummings: how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i grant two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the -- madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3835, which would extend the current two-year pay freeze of federal workers for an additional year through 2013. this will be the third year of a

pay freeze. similar to most of my colleagues who have spoken here today, i do support a freeze for congress. i do. i have voted six times to freeze congress' pay. but -- and while my good friend from utah does point out that there are some high-end -- high salaried federal employees, you have to remember that we have surgeons at the v.a., very competent doctors at the v.a. that serve our veterans, we have scientists at n.i.h., we have very, very good attorneys at the s.e.c. prrkting very complex fraud -- prosecuting very complex fraud cases. to attract those people we need to attract very competent and highly skilled individuals. that's where those higher salaries are aggregated. but we should be reminded that the vast majority of our federal employees are middle income earners. and oddly enough we could have addressed this if this bill had gone through committee, through

regular order. this bill has come to the floor without going through committee. it has not been subject to amendment. we could have come up with a bill that said, ok, we are going to freeze the pay of high income federal employees. we didn't do that. so you got people out there making $30,000, $40,000 a year, as secretarieses and other staff, that their pay has been frozen, it will be -- if this goes through it will be three years. so we could have done a better job if this bill had gone through the regular order and gone through committee. i'm also concerned about the rational behind this legislation. similar to many of my colleagues today, while i support the freeze on congressional pay, we see a lot of legislation coming up in this congress that attacks federal employees, and i think this is one more example of that. i totally oppose it. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman an additional minute. mr. lynch: i thank the

gentleman. this is another in a series of legislative attack that is have targeted our federal workers throughout the 112th congress. it will further erode employee morale and diminish the federal government's ability to attract the best and brightest to perform the important jobs that we need to perform. our dedicated civil servants play a vital role in such critical areas as law enforcement, national defense, public health, and delivery of servicings to america's veterans, elderly, and disable. they should not bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to addressing our nation's budget problems. i urge my colleagues to join me to oppose any further efforts to balance the budget on the back of our hardworking federal employees by voting no on h.r. 3835. thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah, one minute. mr. chaffetz: earlier it was referenced there was another study showing that 26%, the

compensation was 26% lower than the private sector. i would point out that that did not include compensation for benefits. certainly when you look at some of these total compensation, you look at the benefits. i would also point out the c.b.o. study on page 10 and 11, the total compensation is actually more off -- more askew for the lower educated people. people that are earning high school diplomas or less are getting a 36% more than they would in the private sector. it's actually the entire, what people with professional degrees, are probably being undercompensated according to this study. they only account for about 7% of our work force. if you look at the bulk of our work force, 93%, you are going to see double-digit percentage increase versus the private sector. this is not an attack on our federal work force. be grateful you have a job. which we have to understand it's the taxpayers' money and we have

to be frugal with it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam chairman. i thank my very good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the committee for yielding me the time. to rise in strong opposition to an extension of the current pay freeze for federal employees. this legislation is a cynical attempt to tap into misguided resentment fostered by the far right against the federal government and the two million men and women who serve our nation as civil servants. of those two million let me point out to my colleagues nearly two out of three civil servants work for the department of defense, department of homeland security, the department of veterans affairs, and department of justice. in other words, two out of three federal employees work in jobs related to our national security, at home and abroad, or caring for our veterans.

every one of those employees now seems to be the target of this body's misguided anger. that's wrong. most of our federal employees work for the defense department to enhance our security. works to ensure nuclear materials aren't smuggled into our country by those who want to do us catastrophic harm. the federal bureau of investigation works to investigate and prrkt -- prosecute cybercriminals. this body claims to care about preventing nuclear terrorism and cybercrime, yet we want to punish those charged with carrying out that mission. last year a constituent of mine was awarded what's called a sammy from the partnership for public service for his work at the v.a. helping to address veterans struggling with the human toll of warfare. my constituent has devoted 40 years of a career building a national network of small

community based centers where veterans traumatized by combat obtain counseling, job assistance, medical referrals, and other services, the partnership awarded him last year. today the house wants to forfeit his pay raise for a third consecutive year. this bill is the product of a ideologically icks treatment group of people who got elected by insisting our government is broken. now they are elected they want to try to prove that be the case. it is not the case. we ought to be proud of our government and reject this. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: madam speaker, as i listen to the debate and listen to the other side, and then -- do i want to associate myself with the words of my colleague, mr. moran, and the others that have spoken, over and over again we seem to -- we hear on one side of the mouth coming from our republican colleagues that they love our federal employees so much, and

that they do such a great job, but on the other hand they say they want to freeze their pay. one of the things that i found so interesting and we have heard the argument over and over, is when it came to the -- that is the taxes with regard to the upper -- millionaires and billionaires, they didn't want to tax them one penny more. not one dime. but yet the person who works here in this building, the ones that work social security and other places, the one that is mr. moran just talked about, the ones who are protecting the homeland, say to them we want to make sure we freeze your pay. there's something awfully wrong with that picture. i believe very strongly in --

that we all should share in benefits, but we should all share in sacrifice, too. didn't ask for one dime, not a dime more from the millionaires and the folks making all the money, but yet and still you've got people in the federal system, according to the c.b.o. report, and that c.b.o. report says that those people with a master's degree or above they are making 23% less. what about them? . what about the people who sacrifice every day and could be making more money, what about them? some of them, by the way, on our staffs. i would just urge the, again, there's been -- it's been

implied that we on this side have a problem with a pay freeze for members of congress. we don't have a problem with that. we'll go on the record saying that. and these issues should be divided. and so, with that, madam speaker, i urge the members of the congress to vote against this very bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has tyke pired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i'm new here. i'm a freshman, i'm one of those freshmen who have been told you don't know how washington works. successive four years of trillion-dollar deficits is the way washington works, i don't want it working that way. i wasn't sent here to learn how washington works, i was sent here to change the way washington works. when we have a president -- mr. ross: when we have a president cutting our military

budget while private sector payrolls go down, there's something wrong with the way washington works. washington is broken. i submit we need to lead by example. we have done so by reducing our accounts by 11%, by reducing our committee budgets. we need to go further. if we're going to lead by example. leadership is not a title, leadership is an act. i submit to you that today we lead by example and i urge my colleagues to support the passage of h.r. 3835 and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. all time having expired, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h r. 3835. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from florida. mr. ross: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until downed. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 496. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 104, house resolution 496. resolution adjusting the amount provided for the expenses of certain committees of the house of representatives in the 112th congress. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. brady, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.res. 496. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: i rise in support of h.res. 496. this resolution adjusts the amount provided for the expenses of the select and standing committees of the house of representatives in the 112th congress. last november, the committee on house administration held a

full-day hearing at which we heard from chairs and ranking members. at that hearing, we discussed how each committee absorb the 5% budget reduction implemented at the beginning of the 112th congress and how, as we continue to reduce government spend, they will manage additional reductions this year. madam speaker, i know as a committee chairman myself that we face the difficult task of doing more with less. yet i also know that my states, all of our constituents, need us to do more with less and to rein in government spending. they can constantly, we have been required, that is, families have been required, to tighten their belts and they ask us to do the very same thing. they do not suggest it is easy because it has not been easy for them, but they ask of us that which they have asked of themselves. today's economy has forced our constituents to sacrifice and as i said, tighten their financial belts to make ends meet at home. congress should not and will not be immune.

while most committees are taking a 6.4% cut in line with the reduced funding levels of the 2012 legislative branch appropriations, certain committees faced with additional oversight responsibilities in 2012 were cut at a smaller percentage in order that they might be able to conduct their work. particularly daunting will be the armed services charge of managing the automatic sequestration of $600 billion in defense cuts triggered by the budget control act. i hasten to add that is in addition to or on top of the $400 billion cut that is already being enforced by prior decisions by this congress and the president. in addition to armed service the ethics committee, tasked with holding members and staff to the highest ethical standards, has requested and will receive a reprieve from funding reductions. to help offset these exceptions and match the reduced appropriations, we've identified

and reduced authorizations of three committee budgets that we feel are able to absorb a slightly larger reduction in 2012. in addition to our committee, the committee on house administration, the committee on science, space, and technology, and the committee on small business, will receive a slightly higher reduction than the 6.4% applied to the remaining house committees. madam speaker, as we've demonstrated over the past year, this house is committed to living within its means and lead big example by putting an end to excessive spending. our committees do vitally important oversight of the executive branch and agencies, and that should be underscored. if we are going to be successful in holding down excessive spending in the executive branch, we, the legislative branch, are the extension of the people we represent in an oversight capacity and that's an extremely important responsibility. our committees, as i said -- as

i say, do vitally important oversight of the executive branch and while these reductions in committee funding will require committees to allocate their resources more judicially -- judiciously, i'm confident, based on the hearing we had, that they are prudent and manageable. madam speaker, these are extraordinarily times. -- extraordinary times. we face extraordinary debt, deficit and unemployment. trillion dollar deficits year after year after year would be practically unheard of just a couple of years ago. yet unfortunately, they have become common place. that is unacceptable. the unemployment rate. we had an unemployment rate, well, we haven't had an unemployment rate at the levels we have seen for such a sustained period of time since the great depression. those are not facts that i like to recite on this floor but those are the facts that face our constituents every single

day. unfortunately, in my area, over the last several years, we have had a higher unemployment rate than that which has prevailed in this country. california has had an unemployment rate that i believe is third worst in the entire country. we are not immune from what is being felt by the rest of the country. when i am home, as i am sure other members have found in their districts when they are home, we constantly hear the refrain, where are the jobs? and following that, we hear the refrain, why don't you get your house in order? referring to the entire federal government. why don't you bring spending under control. because we believe it has a specific and direct and immediate drag on our ability to create jobs in this country. that ought to be, along with national defense, homeland security, our greatest objective. and so, this is just a small part of our effort to be

responsible. through the adoption of this resolution and the 5% cut during our first session, -- first session of the 112th congress, this house is doing its job to step up to the plate and reduce spending and find cost savings wherever possible. we are taking bole steps to demonstrate our commitment to reduce spending and tighter budgets. this is not easy. i don't suggest it is. it is not easy to say that we're going to bring our budgets down. and that our employees are not going to have increased salaries along with members of congress. but it is at least what we ought to do. combined, i would say, these measures, that is last year and this year, represent the largest percentage cut to committee budgets since the 104th congress when the house then adopted a resolution with an amendment. by then, house administration committee member john boehner, by -- to reduce spend big 30%.

h.res. 546 was reported out of committee in december, i support h.res. 496 and ask my colleagues to do the same and reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i rise in opposition to house resolution 496 and yield myself such time as i may -- as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i rise in opposition to house resolution 496 which will reduce spending of most committees of the house by an average of 6.4% below the level provided in house resolution 197 adopted last march that cut committee funding 5% lower than the levels for the 111th congress. i have been pleased to work in a bipartisan fashion with my friend and chair mr. lungren to find ways to reduce the cost of running congress. we have worked together in funding -- fining cuts in

printing, sub scrigs and other services. we have worked together to oppose cuts to capitol police. but this deeper cut to committees is the wrong cut at the wrong time. in reality, we have no idea what the effect these new cuts will have on committee operations. testimony in our committee oversight hearing last november by both chairs and ranking members confirmed that additional budget cuts could undermine our ability to conduct oversight operations. i'm fearful that further cuts could reduce our ability to oversee the executive branch. we may not agree on this resolution but we certainly agree that congress is the first watchdog on executive power and executive spending. we need the necessary tools and they need the necessary tools to do that work. i urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. i urge a no society and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, chairman of the committee on elections on house administration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. harper: thank you, madam speaker. as a member of the committee on house administration, i rise in support of h.res. 496, the 2012 committee funding resolution, with full knowledge of the impact reduced funding levels contained in this measure will have on the committee system. for example, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, on which i also serve, stated in the day-long hearing in this resolution that his committee would not be able to hold valuable hearings and would have to restrict other committee activities. more than one ranking member stated that committee staff would have to be laid off as a result of the funding reductions contained in the resolution. this is unfortunate. but many american families have faced reduced activities and layoffs as a result of the current economic times and congress cannot exempt itself

from such pain. this resolution will roll back committee funding to pre2007 levels and is, i think, a necessary action as we cut spending throughout the federal budget. the committee went to considerable lengths to be fair both to all the chairmen, but also to the minority with no change made to the traditional funding split between majority and minority. this resolution will mean that the current congress will spend almost 10% less than the previous congress did. it requires every member of this body in a nonpartisan manner to participate in the austerity that the american people and the rest of their government are experiencing. i commend chairman lungren for his work on this resolution and i urge a yes vote on the resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey, chairman of the subcommittee on oversight on the house administration

committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong support of h.res. 496, the chairman of the house administration committee, mr. lungren. with all due respect to the ranking member, mr. brady of pennsylvania, i have to agree with the chairman that this runaway spending that we have seen occur over the last four to six years has got to stop. the american people clearly, madam chairman, are looking to members of congress to tighten their own belts and that's why i think it's very important that we give them the message that we're willing to cut our own salaries, we're willing to cut our own benefit package, an we have done that. we have voted to do that. and these cuts, as painful as they are in regard to house committees, indeed, 9.5%, when

we include this cut overall of the committees, although we do cut the house committee on armed services by a lesser amount, and we plus up the house ethics committee and we think that's very important, it is so crucial that we bite the same bullet that everybody else has to bite. . this rupp away spending that occurred during the previous majority in this house has got to stop. spending $850 billion on a failed stimulus program, increasing the deficit, doubling it in fact, having over $1 trillion worth of deficit spending for now four years in a row when we anticipate the president's next budget, this has got to stop. we have to put our money where our mouth is. we have to walk the same walk that everybody else. and we have to tighten our belt. madam speaker, that's why i stand here today as a member of the committee on house administration and one of the

subcommittee chairs in strongly endorsing and supporting these necessary painful cuts in house res. 496. i hope we'll have support on both sides of the aisle. i'm confident we will. i respect, as i say, the ranking member, he's a great member, he works in a bipartisan way, and that's what this is all about. and we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: thank you. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. new gent, a distinguished -- nugent, a distinguished member of the house administration committee and rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this resolution. this is an important resolution because it brings us back to the greatest cut since the 104th congress. tough times like today where the american people are pinching pennies to get by, shouldn't they have the same expectation

of those that served them in this great house? i believe they should. in talking to people in my district, they ask and say, what are you doing to get your house in order? and so by supporting this piece of legislation, this truly talks about cutting the spending in d.c. while it's a small amount in comparative to the whole budget, it is in the right step in the right direction. it is about doing more with less. the american people are doing that today. so why shouldn't this government do the same thing? i appreciate what the chairman has brought us, mr. lungren, who's brought us in regards to this important piece of legislation. it really moves us in the right direction. cuts across the board are tough, and if you notice what this committee did is it didn't cover everybody the same. didn't treat everybody the same. and under chairman lungren's

leadership and also the ranking member, they did it, i believe, in a bipartisan way. they dew point take away from the minority in regards to funding as it relates no differently than they did from the majority. madam speaker, i support, strongly support this resolution as we move forward to cut the budget of committees in this house. just like the american people have had to cut their budgets in their house. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: madam speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close out the debate. i have no other speakers. if the gentleman would finish his time, i would be happy to as well. mr. brady: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution and urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: madam speaker, i

would just say that this is an effort on our part to give an example to the rest of the government. this will be a culmination of about a 10% cut overall to the committees of this house. we have had combined cuts in terms of our own m.r.a.'s, that is the amount that each member has for his budget, and i think as we go forward and having to make some very difficult decisions with respect to future controls of spending on the federal establishment in its entirety, it will serve us well that we have shown the way that we could make difficult decisions in this regard and that this is an appropriate, responsible action to take. with that i would urge my colleagues to vote for h.res. 496 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 496.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 90 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 90, concurrent resolution authorizing the printing of the 25th edition of the pocket version of the united states constitution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? california. the gentleman from california.

mr. lungren: thank you. the original sunshine state. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house concurrent resolution 90. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the standards for the electronic posting of house and committee documents and data which were adopted by the committee on house administration in december 16, 2011 be printed in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the standards for the electronic posting of house and committee documents and data. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. boustany: madam speaker, i mouf to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3567 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3567, a bill to

amend title 4 of the social security act to require states to implement policies to prevent assistance under the temporary assistance for needy families, tanf, program from being used in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, and the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boustany: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: i rise today, madam speaker, in support of h.r. 3567, a bill to ensure taxpayer dollars in the temporary assistance for needy families program are used as intended, that is to provide support for low-income families and children and to help them move from welfare to work. the tanf program was created in

1996 replacing the prior welfare program with one focused on work. providing short-term help, childcare, and other work supports to get people back on their feet and earning a paycheck. in the years following, tanf was lauded as one of the most effective reforms in our social welfare system in american history. employment rates of those on welfare surged, caseloads plummeted, child poverty rates fell, and taxpayers were confident they were actually helping poor families knowing that they were providing them with a hand up and not a hand out. unfortunately, madam speaker, an issue has arisen in tanf that is eroding public confidence in the program. this is the issue of tanf funds, money, meant to help poor children and their families being accessed and used in liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos. what started less than two years ago as research by one reporter

in los angeles has grown into dozens of investigations across the country with each new investigation adding to the story of how millions of dollars in tanf funds have been accessed in these locations. let me just mention some of what has been uncovered. in arizona an investigation found welfare funds were accessed in liquor stores over 100 times in just three months. a california reporter uncovered that welfare recipients cashed out over $4.8 million in tanf funds in casinos over a three-year period. a colorado news organization found cash was being withdrawn in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores despite a state law on the books prohibiting such transactions. an investigative report in georgia revealed $150,000 in tanf money was withdrawn in liquor stores, bars, and nightclubs. king five news in seattle found 13,000 tanf recipients who will

collectively withdrawn approximately $2 million from casinos in 2010. madam speaker, this is unacceptable. this is unacceptable to the american people. when the "l.a. times" revealed their shocking statistics on the millions on welfare that had been accessed in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs, the governor of california took action to block these transactions immediately. washington and new mexico have prohibited access to welfare benefits and casinos, texas prohibits the use of welfare benefit cards in liquor stores and casinos as well. the legislation before us today would ensure that taxpayer dollars in the tanf program are being used as intended, that is to assist poor families with their basic needs and to support them in their efforts to become self-sufficient. under this bill states would be required to block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs, and would be penalized if they do not

implement such policies within two years of this bill becoming law. this bill will also help restore the public's trust in the integrity of the program while ensuring families across the country continue to receive the assistance they need to move from government dependence to independence. the bill we are considering today simply consists of one of the tanf provisions in h.r. 3659, the welfare integrity and data improvement act that was unanimously passed in the house in december. a provision closing what has been called the strip club loophole was also included in the middle class tax relief and job creation act that also passed the house in december and is now in conference with the senate. with the exception of several technical changes suggested by the department of health and human services, it is also identical to bipartisan legislation introduced in the senate last year by senator hatch and co-sponsored by

senator baucus, the ranking member and chairman of the senate finance committee resecretaryively. i thank them for their hard work on this bill as well. passing this bill today will send three clear messages. first, the house is serious about this bipartisan, bicameral reform becoming law, ensuring welfare funds are spent on families and children as intended. second, conferees on a year-long payroll tax u.i. and tanf extenders bill should include this bipartisan provision in their conference agreement. and third, those conference discussions -- if those conference discussions break down, the senate will be able to join us in quickly passing this important bipartisan reform and getting it to the president's desk. i urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: i yield myself such

time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: madam speaker, i'm against fraud. i think everyone here is against it. i'm for what's in this bill, that's why i voted for it back in december and i'll vote for it next month, too, if that will make for more cooperation here in the house. you i think in -- i think in a way this election year's welfare cadillac. and i was against welfare cadillac he if there were any of those. this year we have the strip club loophole that has been defined as a political term to suggest that we have a lot of problems with poor people abusing their benefits. and to the extent that any poor person abuses even a dollar of these benefits and keeps those benefits out of the mouths of hungry children, providing the clothes those kids need to go to school, i'm against it and plan to vote against it today. . i favor comprehensive

legislation against fraud in public assistance. it concerns me when a pharmaceutical company ends up having to settle for $158 million in my home state of texas because they allegedly lied about drug safety and bribed officials. it concerns me when a pharmaceutical company in the state of texas has an $84 million fraud case brought against them. i think we need to be concerned about fraud in all of its aspects. i'd feel better about this bill, however, because i think we passing it will accomplish practically nothing, i'll feel better about this legislative effort if there were just an ounce of the concern voiced about the very few people who abuse these benefits if the same level of concern was expressed about the many who are there who are counting on the safety net,

as flawed and frayed as it is. who were concerned about them and their families and their struggle to share in the american dream and were doing something to get that approved. yes, we approved this piece of legislation as part of a broader extension of the temporary assistance to needy families program in december and why hasn't that become law? it is separate legislation pending in the senate. it is also part of the broader legislation extending the provisions on unemployment, on payroll tax relief, it ought to become law because we need to be concerned about those families that are playing by the rules as well as the very few who are not playing by the rules. now the gentleman has said that in some states, action has already been taken. california, notably, to deal with the few who might be cashing their benefits at a casino or a liquor store or

whatever. texas, my home state, was cited as one of those states that has already taken action. i think that's great. there is not anything to keep the states from taking action on this already, if this is a serious problem. some of them have not acted, not because of a lack of concern about fraud, but because the mechanics of correcting these electronic benefit cards may actually be more expensive than the cost that is being experienced by the small number of people that might abuse the card. you take arizona, for example. governor brewer has plenty of time to shake her finger in the face of the president of the united states torque enact legislation, support legislation, to discriminate against hispanic families who have been in that state for longer than she and her family have been in the state. if she thinks this is a serious problem, why doesn't she act at the state level, as texas and some other -- california, and some other states have done to address this problem.

i would submit that while i don't object to this legislation in and of itself, that the bigger problem that we face is that the number of poor american families has surged over the last four years up 27%. 10 million people are below what is officially agreed on as being the poverty line. and this temporary assistance to needy families program provides a very small portion of those families a little bit of assistance to have a chance to turn their lives around until they can find longer term employment to provide for their families. and how much money are we talking about that might be abused or wasted at one of these facilities which might just happen to be the maintenance crew at the casino that used their benefit there is, or might just happen to be the only store convenient in a poor

neighborhood is one that's mostly selling alcoholic beverages, that they choods to do that. how much might they be abusing? in my home state of texas, the median benefit or a single parent with two children is $244. for an entire month. to take care of those two children. 16% of the poverty level. i want to be concerned, yes, about a dollar that is wasted. these are hard-earned tax dollars that go into these programs. we need to be concerned about every cent of abuse. but we also need to be concerned about the many who stand to benefit, who stand to have hope taken away if they don't see these benefits extended. my concern about that is not merely academic. because last year, the bipartisan agreement that had extended through many years called the supplemental program, which was really a survival program for temporary assistance for needy families in poorer

states like texas, the republicans chose to discontinue that program. even though it had enjoyed bipartisan support, had received support letters from a number of republican officials in our area, they chose to not continue that and that has severely weakened the safety net in our state. that's not being continued. whether they intend to abandon the entire temporary assistance for needy family program or cut it back substantially, it's hard to tell, the fact that they're going on with the -- only with the modest provisions of the bill and not pushing to provide assistance to all of those who need that help. with that, i would yield back, reserving the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from louisiana. >> madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on human resources on the house ways and means committee, the gentleman, geoff davis, from the great state of kentucky, the

author of the tanif re-authorization, who cares deeply about the program. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: i would like to take a moment before speaking on this measure to respond to the gentleman's remark, my friend, the distinguished gentleman from texas, and ranking member on the subcommittee, we've worked very hard over the last year on the issue of data standardization, correcting flaws in the system, got the first data standardization language in the history of the country enacted that would begin to address issues like that, i would beg to respectfully disagree with the position that the ranking member took on this, talking about the idea of convenience with a casino or adult establishment, as somebody who grew up in interesting circumstances and has done a lot of volunteer work over the last 30 years work folks with challenges, the first question i would ask is, if somebody is in need of

assistance, what in the world are they doing using a card to get cash inside of a casino. i'm not impugning anybody's integrity but as somebody who can look across the river from where i live, there are several casinos, there are more than enough establishments. the deeper question we have to ask is how are our -- how our funds are going to be used to help people in need. we've got to make sure this program is tight, that it has the integrity to function so every dollar is going to meeting those basic needs. i think it's a very small thing to bring this type of integrity to the program. i rise in support of h.r. 3567, the welfare integrity now for children and families act of 2011. the temporary assistance for needy families, or tanif, provides support for low income families and children that helps them move from welfare to work. it was a successful reform, since it replaced the new deal era welfare programs in 1996.

tanif has been successful at cutting welfare dependence by 67%. are there opportunities to improve the program, to strengthen the program? absolutely. there are a variety of issues that need to be addressed to bring more private sector practices into the management and -- into the program. to allow us to understand how funds are being used and how belter to serve those being helped by providing information to those on the frontline. even more importantly, by promoting work among single parents, the most common welfare recipients, it helps reduce child poverty in female-headed families over time. even at today's rate, tanif continues to promote more work and earnings. despite this progress, tanif can and should be strengthened. recently, there's been concern about tanif funds used at strip clubs and liquor stores.

this is an abuse of taxpayer dollars and a violation of taxpayer trust. many local news investigations have verified this unfortunate abuse of a well-intended program. one of the most shock reports was from king-5 news in seattle, washington, they discovered that 13,000 tanif recipient withdrew approximately $2 million in tanif funds at casinos in 2010. we have to ask why are they in the casino in the first place and the use of these dollars can't be meeting basic grocery needs in an establishment like that or any other type of adult establishment. some states like washington, new mexico, and texas have begun to take action on a local basis, but i believe this is one issue we immediate to address at the federal level, at the core, first by stopping this problem as a symptom and dealing with the deeper systemic and process issues we can establish through data standardization so these

cards won't work in such an establish. h.r. 3576 would close the so-called strip club loophole within two year ofs of enactment. the state would be required to block welfare club use in strip clubs and casinos and liquor stores. the same provision was included in h.r. 3630 as well as h r. 3659, a stand-alone tanif extension bill introduced by congressman paulsen, both of which passed the house in september. this bipartisan, bicameral integrity provision will safeguard the program from abuse and ensure that tanif benefits continue to provide a helping hand to families in need. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3587 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: thank you. commending the gentleman for his service as our subcommittee chair and on the data issue, that will be important in

reducing any kind of abuse of public assistance, i would now yield two minutes to my colleague from the budget committee and someone who is very knowledgeable about this, ms. moore of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is reck thesed for two minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much. thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strident opposition to the underlying bill. i think it's fairly cynical in these tough economic times, when half of all americans are either in poverty or at the precipice of poverty, that republicans want to impose even more barriers on families trying to access much-needed benefits. this is simply -- i really don't think that this bill adds to self-sufficiency or families, but rather is just more mean-spirited berating of low-income people who are

eligible for these benefits. much like the mythical welfare queen or even the food stamp president. this bill that includes the provision that blocks e.p.t. cards being used at liquor stores, strip clubs and casinos, the proponents of this argue that there's no reason to use e.p.t. cards in places like this. but i say it is an issue of yoo universal access -- access. if you want to stop to buy gas for your automobile, you work -- you live in nevada, you work at one of the clubs or hotels. or you're living in a food desert in chicago where the closest a.t.m. is a liquor store, what stops people from going to whole foods and using the a.t.m. card there and then going to a casino? it is just another effort to berate those people who are in

the lower class. my colleagues already mentioned the additional burdens that this imposes on states and financial institutions to reconfigure thousands of a.t.m.'s. my friends on the right side love to use the term class warfare and they love to say we're trying to pick on the 1% of the country. will you yield 30 more seconds? mr. doggett: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: i say who is working for the least of these? instead of hindering the american people, we need to be helping them to provide greater access and instead of passing unproductive, mane-spirited pieces of legislation, we need to create jobs and opportunities. i hope the american people, madam speaker, can see the difference. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from louisiana.

mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentlewoman for raising the concern about ensuring that tanif recipients have adequate access to their benefit, this bill requires states to block access in casinos, liquor stores and strip clubs. however we know some grocery stores and convenience stores may sell groceries and alcohol and in some states have gambling machines as well. this allows states to make exceptions for these stores so they don't have to block access in a grocery store. there are provisions made in this. i thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue, but i'm glad that we can ep sure the integrity of this program. i would submit the most important thing we can do is ensure the integrity of the

program so it's there for the children and families that need it. . we want to ensure that there is not an overt abuse of these funds in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores. while allowing for reasonable exspecials -- exceptions. also the gentlelady and the ranking member from texas raised the issue of cost of implementation. i want to address this issue as well. i thank you all for raising that concern. that some states have express the we have a loophole that could potentially be too costly or difficult to close. however i want to point out that these difficulties have been overstated. washington state said the same thing when they were told $2 million in tanf funds were being withdrawn in casinos in one year. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an article from king five news in seattle, washington state, that speaks directly to this

issue. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boustany: this article talks about the surprising number of tanf withdrawals and casinos in the state and reports the state said the same things that we are hearing today. that it may be hard to close this loophole or that it would be too expensive to stop, but this article goes on to say, and i quote, it turns out the fix was not difficult or expensive. for the iron horse casino it took about four minutes on the telephone. clearly the casino owner says in minutes, and at no cost. his a.t.m. vendor blocked e.b.t. cards. many other casino owners didn't wait for the orders from the state, they already reprogrammed their a.t.m.s. he's a board member of the washington restaurant association, which he says is preparing to ask bars and at that verns, businesses -- taverns to block e.b.t. access to their machines. that would mean another 2000

a.t.m.'s couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits. i appreciate the concerns about the cost, but i believe closing this loophole simply won't be as difficult as some are making it out to be. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: i yield myself 30 seconds and ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from the national conference of state legislatures and from the american public human services association, the national association of state tanf administrators. and the gentleman may be right. he clearly lacks a confidence in state's rights in these areas. the letter from the national conference of state legislatures poins out that there is a financial -- points out that there is a financial burden that would be imposed on the states. of that the states have existing contracts with vendors that may have to be changed at significant cost to the state. let's hope that's not true. they come out firmly in opposition to this bill. i do not share that opposition. but i think they raise a

legitimate concern about the added cost and the lack of confidence of these gentlemen in the ability of the states to police their own programs. and with that i yield two minutes to a former member of the house ways and means committee, very familiar with these issues, and i hope a soon to return member of the house ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for yielding. you know as i listen to the debate and the discussion and as i listen to my colleague from wisconsin walk about universal access, i am he reminded of something i read relative to the period of not just assent but takeover of germany. and i remember something that a rabbi said. they came for the communists, i was not a communist.

they came for the socialists, i was not a socialist. then they came for me and nobody was left. and it seems to me that when we go after those individuals who are the most vulnerable people in our society, categorize and stereotyping, making believe that if they get a card that they are going to be at the casino. that they are going to be at the strip joint. i can tell you that the people that i know who get cards as tanf recipients are not usually found at a casino, they are not found at a strip joint, as a matter of fact if i thought that this legislation would provide one iota, one scintilla of help for tanf recipients, i would be the first in line to support it.

the reality is i don't believe it provides any help, does not provide any assistance, and i will certainly not be voting for it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the human resources committee, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky for as much time as he may consume. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i do feel compelled to respond since the famous german pastor, christian pastor, who was quoted after world war ii talking about inaction, was dealing with an issue, the holocaust, the scale of which was so unbelievably pond the pail of -- pale of a small technical fix we are talking about here. i believe the gentleman diminished the value of whatever argument he was making by quoting him. if i seem to recall my history correctly when i was running a business in 1996, during the

welfare debate martin neemo was resurrected from the dead again using the same quote somehow if we just touch anything that will provide integrity to our program, we want to help the poor, that in fact this is the march down the slippery slope to complete takeover and removal of civil rights. come on, folks. this is a technical business discussion. if we were running a business together, which i believe the government should be run that way, i think we would be sitting around the table in the operations room planning ways to legitimately cut costs to more efficiently help our customers and eliminate waste. this is a question, again, using the gentleman's own argument that he brought up, if the vast majority, which i happen to agree with him, don't go in those places in the first place, why would we not want to put in a simple program control that for that small percentage that does, to prevent them from wasting taxpayer dollars? i know from the casinos that we have across the river and some of the economic hardship that comes from that that my constituents who are families that have been damaged by this,

walking inside any number of the casinos on the ohio river, i'm not seeing grocery stores, provision for food. what i'm seeing are a.t.m.'s and access to free chips and for gambling, not to eat, and i think this begs the deeper question. does the average man or woman on the street if we ask the question is it reasonable? absolutely. i want to bring this back to the central point here what this does. first of all, the idea it costs too much. i'll speak from my other life as a systems professional, the fixing of the system is easy to do and we'll find ready participation and cooperation from those who are involved because they understand the stakes in this. the goal of their business is not to further recycle the poverty, the goal of their business is to make sure to some degree that money is not used in a manner that reflects poor stewardship. i think ultimately this is a backstop to assure that money that belongs to the united states taxpayer that's being

given to them as assistance will be used in a proper manner. at the end of the day that refutes the baseline of these arguments. i think we make a mistake, again going back to the great success that our staffs have had, that the gentleman from texas and i have had over the course of the last year, to really begin to move serious nonpartisan process reforms that will help to fix deficiencies in the system that are not democrat or republican in their roots, addressing real questions of broken processes. if we are sitting there among ourselves in a business together that we were running or with our families and we notice that there was an issue, hey, we could put a stop to that and we could fix that. why don't we do the same thing here? it's not an unreasonable request to look at that. i would ask again some of the speakers are not in our subcommittee. i think we had a great success of keeping the tone of the debate focused on the core process problems. not on extremely energetic and emotional rhetoric that doesn't address this root issue.

that would be my request as we move forward. and with that i yield back the balance of my time noting that this is a good fix. it is a cheap way to save taxpayer money to legitimately help those in need. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. madam speaker and members, i came to the floor to address this issue despite the fact that i understand it's kind after good political issue in an election year where many people will use this to say i'm saving the government money and i'm keeping those folks on welfare who don't deserve government support anyway from using this money or this e.b.t. card to have access in ways that will allow them to take advantage of

casinos and strip joints, etc., and it's a very sexy argument and it looks good and you'll get a lot of play off of it. so i understand that coming to the floor to protect the poor and the most vulnerable is not popular, but think about it. just think about it. many of you come from districts where there are liquor stores. these are small businesses and most of these liquor stores now serve more other products than they do liquor. they have milk, they have juice, they have bread, they have meats, they have the kinds of things that many of these poor families need and they buy at liquor stores. why do they buy them at liquor stores? because they are in these food deserts that you heard the first lady talk about. areas all over this country whether it is rural or whether it is urban, where they don't have grocery stores. they don't have the big chains.

all they have are these small businesses that are liquor stores who carry all of the products that a family could use to feed that family not just liquor. and so i would ask you to take a real close look at this and at least exclude the liquor stores. these small businesses are very important all over this country. yes, they sell liquor, and many of us don't like the idea that even in some of these places there are problems, but the folks who go there don't have to buy liquor, and if there are problems at any of these liquor stores, local law enforcement should do its job. another 30 seconds. mr. doggett: yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: when you include liquor stores, all you're doing is attacking some small businesses who are providing foodstuffs, not just liquor, but foodstuffs, not only in inner cities but in rural communities

that families need. so this is fun -- punishment, this is being very harsh on the most vulnerable people in our society to include liquor stores in this group of stores that you would not like to have the welfare recipients use. again, i can go along with strip joints. i could go along with casinos. as i travel across the country, i cannot go along with excluding liquorer stores from being able to provide food that's needed to these poor families that live in these food deserts where there are no grocery stores, no chains, no other place for them, and when they have transportation problems, it really does wreak havoc on them trying to get even to a place where they can buy food. so if you would understand that and work to try and make sure that this doesn't stay -- mr. doggett: yield an additional

30 seconds. mr. waters: i yield to the gentleman. mr. boustany: they charge no fees. for cashing the checks because they want people to get the cash to gamble. mr. stark: many of our districts in california they don't have to go to these payday loan places and pay exorbitant fees to get a check cashed. it's really in many ways it's helpful in our community. ms. waters: it's very helpful. with the liquor stores they help to zhrate the economy -- stimulate the economy. they hire few people. some families have three and four family members. yes, i would ask that you exclude liquor stores from this consideration. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i thought i made it clear i think chairman davis did also earlier that there are provisions to allow for exceptions as long as the facility serves food.

we are talking about stores that purely sell liquor. so i think the gentlelady's concerns are addressed with the bill as written. furthermore, i would just say that on this side of the aisle we care very deeply about this program. there's broad agreement it's a valuable program, it's worked, and if you care about children, and you care about needy families in this country, then you should care about the integrity of the program and making sure the dollars that taxpayers put forth for these needy families, these needy children actually go to those families. . and not buying liquor and patronizing strip clubs and going to casinos. so that's what this bill intends to address. that's what it does address. it creates the proper flexibilities for the concern that the gentlelady has and others on the other side of the aisle have about access. if food is sold, access will

not be denied. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. >> i couldn't agree about preserving and the integrity of this program. mr. doggett: that means that none of the public funds are wasted or used in an improper way. it also means that the program's integrity is preserved to deliver the assistance that is needed for the many, many families that are playing by the rules and need a helping hand and that's the only area we have difference in this regard as far as i'm personally am concerned. the house has already spoken on this electronic benefits issue. i don't see any harm in the house speaking this week or next week or next month. i don't see a gain for repassing it but why not? but what i do see harm in is the many, many people playing by the rules and need this

assistance see their safety net shredded the way these same folks shredded the safety net last year when they did not renew the bipartisan tanf supplemental program that's been so important in poor states with large populations of poor people like texas. there are families there, there are state programs there that are harmed by the unjustified refusal to extend that program. at least with what's left in the temporary assistance for needy program, which we passed here as a free-standing bill in december with this provision in it, let's pass the whole thing so hopefully this message gets september back, the house bill feels the same way it felt six weeks ago and that's fine but let's get this entire temporary assistance for needy family program approved and in place so the states and families that depend upon it will have it there. and with that i yield back if

the gentleman has no further speakers except for himself. the speaker pro tempore: would the gentleman like to reserve his time? ms. hanabusa: i have a request for another 30 -- pln mr. mr. doggett: i ask for 30 seconds and then i'll yield back. ms. waters: a liquor store that sells just juice or milk will not be considered a store that sells food, is that correct, is that your understanding? i yield to the gentleman. mr. boustany: if food products are sold at a store -- if any type of food product, like milk, is sold in the store, states can accept those from the provisions in this bill. ms. waters: reclaiming my time. that is not my understanding, and i would hope that we could work somehow -- mr. boustany: the definition is staple food which includes

milk. ms. waters: milk is not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: madam speaker, i would ask if the gentleman yielded back his time. mr. doggett: is it just yourself concluding? the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back all of his time? mr. doggett: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman who has diligently worked in good faith with the ranking member to re-authorize a tanf program with integrity that ensures that children and needy families get the assistance that they need. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for the balance of the time which is three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i again remind my colleagues when we talk about such matters it's helpful to focus on tone. one thing i am going to respond to is when the comment was made

that you people shredded, i would have to remind all of the members in the chamber and the speaker that in fact that was passed in a democratic house when the speaker was ms. pelosi and the leader of the senate was senator reid. we have worked in good faith through this process and what i would remind folks about the fundamental question as we look at this, the real issue here -- and i grew up in a dysfunctional family. i know what it means to see dysfunctional alcoholism with a stepfather leaving and spending money in places that were inappropriate, to say, wait a minute, if dad wants to run off with the card and go to indiana, we as a body have the responsibility to say, wait a minute. that's not an appropriate use.

the businesses themselves will cooperate. there is an issue to allow the states to deal with the specific uniquenesses of providers of foodstuff, but at the same time i think if an e.d.t. card is used in a place that may have a drink rack inside of it and pole dancers on the other end, that is not under any standard of morality a place that the e.d.t. card can be used. i could think of no mother that wants the money used there. having my own stepfather come home drunk and beat up me and my mother after running on town with what money my mother earned is unacceptable. that's come back to the real world. i am not going to yield my time. let's come back to the real world and look at the reality of this. what is being asked is a procedural and a process changed to give better stewardship to a program on which we agree about the

fundamentals. specifically the data standardization and control. there's virtually no cost to this. i understand we have honest differences of opinion here, but i would appreciate that the rhetoric be toned down and focus on the reality of this if we ask any mom or dad or recipient or taxpayer on the street this fundamental question i think overwhelmingly when they heard it in the context of reality and not sometimes the things that happen in the chamber here, they would look at it from a different perspective. that's what we're asking and with that i ask all of our members to support this very reasonable, very measured, very balanced way to fix a flaw in a program that can be made better as a result of that, be better stewards our of taxpayers' dollars and with that i urge passage and yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3567. as amended. and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 1173 and insert any extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

pursuant to house resolution 522 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1173. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to provide over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1173 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to repeal the class program. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the ranking minority member of the

committee on energy and commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 20 minutes. and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 10 minutes. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. mr. gingrey: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, it's been more than two years since the class act was first debated as part of the president's health care takeover debate. we knew then that the program was flawed and unworkable, yet, the democratic controlled congress ignored these concerns and instead rushed the class program through as part of the president's health care law. now, two years and more than

$800 billion later, we have finally heard from the president and his administration that while they have wasted taxpayer dollars, this program is in fact not implementable. surprised? well, you shouldn't be. unbiasedage ised such as the american academy of actuaries have raised concerns of the program some five months before the president's plan was even considered on the senate floor. members from both sides of the aisle also raised concerns about the program's long-term sustainability during this debate. most disturbing is what we came to find in a bicameral investigation last year that revealed concerns from within h.h.s. were rampant during debate but were never brought to light during the democratic

leadership or the obama administration yet the program was rushed through so we can, as then speaker pelosi noted, find out what's in it, and that's a quote. on october 14, 2011, secretary sbeelias announced what honest -- sbeelas announced what honest accounting was inevitable. the obama administration finally admitted there was no viable path forward and therefore was halting any further efforts at implementing the class program. the failure of the health and human services department to implement the class program certainly is not a surprise. however, it is a catastrophic consequence of what happens when congress rushes to enact costly policies and dismisses warnings from independent experts. most troubling are the budget gimmicks used to sell the class program and indeed the entire

law. the congressional budget office, c.b.o., estimated the class program would save money by collecting premiums from enrollees, premiums that will now never be collected in light of a failed implementation. we knew, madam speaker, madam chair, we knew the savings estimates for the president's health care plan were wrong. it defied common sense that such a massive spending expansion would have no cost. now, the president will have to explain to the american people why the health care law, obamacare, patient protection, affordable care act, unaffordable care act, he'll now have to explain to the american people why this health care law will cost them $8 1990 billion -- $80 billion-plus more than what they were told. that's $80 billion on top of

the trillions the president has added to the books since he took office in january of january of -- took office in january of 2009. today, we'll have an opportunity to start over on long-term care reform, an issue that's important to all of us as we hear from constituents regularly about the growing cost of long-term care services . the market has not even been penetrated 10%, madam chair. . we will now begin that process but first we must take this section out of the health care bill known as class, we must take it off the books. and i urge my colleagues support just what this bill does, remove class from the statute, h.r. 1173 repeal the failed class program so that we can now move

forward with reforms that do work. with that, madam chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: there are millions of americans currently in need of a long-term care program and many more that will require these services in the future. despite the great achievements of our country the u.s. lacks in affordable and ethical system of financing long-term care services. the class program is a significant step towards finding a realistic solution to this program. however, many of my republican colleagues have taken a stands against -- stance against class without proposing any real solutions to long-term care access in america. i strongly oppose h.r. 1173 and consider it to be a blatant disregard of a growing crisis in this country. madam speaker, republicans continue to propose repeal of various aspects of the

affordable care act. we heard my colleague from georgia today and how many other times, how many on the other side have said, let's just repeal the affordable care act. let's repeal pieces of the affordable care act, but they never come up with any meaningful alternatives. the same is true today. we are talking about outright repeal of class without any meaningful or suggestion of an alternative. my message to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, that we should amend the class act and not end it. this country is already facing a long-term care crisis, but the problem is only going to get worse as our population continues to engage, an estimated 15 million people are expected to need some form of long-term care support by 2020. if we don't solve the need for affordable long-term care in this country soon, we will also jeopardize our entitlement programs. currently medicaid pays 50% of the costs of long-term services and that price tag could be rising every year. the class program was designed

to allow people to stay at home and prevent the cost of nursing home care that burdened medicaid. now, i want to correct one thing. i know in the rules committee some of my colleagues talk about the administration's position on this bill. the administration made it quite clear in the hearing that we had on this bill that they are opposed to repeal of the class act. they acknowledge there were workable solutions under the class program that didn't feel they had the legal authority, i stress legal authority to implement them. so the department of health and human services has more work to do and i have suggested on numerous occasions that the class advisory council, which is organized under the legislation, be convened in order to off their expertise. the class program is a framework that will facilitate a solution to our long-term care crisis. however, all i continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that congress can't do anything. this is negative attitude. the idea that congress can't address any problem. i just sincerely hope that my colleagues when they come to the

table, come up with a workable solution. don't just tell me we have to repeal things. we can't do anything. the government can't do anything. cowardly running away from the problem to repeal is preliminary now -- simply not the answer. overall it promotes personal responsibility and independence. that's the values you talk about a lot. it allows the government to put choice in the hands of consumers while saving medicaid dollars. american families have two >> long-term care options and they need our help. rather than repeal class, we need to continue the dialogue and development of a viable plan forward. again, let's amend it not end it. moving forward with h.r. 1173 shuts the door on the problem that simply cannot be ignored. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, a very valued member of the subcommittee on

health. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you very much. madam chair. i rise today in support of repealing the class act. in hearings before the energy and commerce committee, my colleagues and i learned that the class program was a ticking time tomorrow fiscally. -- time bomb fiscally. kathleen a we'llous has said it's totally unsustainable financially. richard foster, chief actuary of the centers for medicare and medicaid services wrote in 2009 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue. the subject committee chairman kent conrad has called the program a ponzi scheme of the first order. to her credit secretary sebelius in october called for an end adding there is not a viable

path forward for class implementation at this time. madam speaker, we have a serious long-term care problem that is driving patients into bankruptcy and weighing down an overburdened medicaid program. but before we can develop bipartisan solutions to address this important issue, we must first repeal the misguided class program. only then can we begin anew and properly address the long-term health care problem. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. waxman: thank you for yielding that time to me, mr. pane loan, and madam chair. i rise -- mr. pallone and madam chair. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1173. this bill is another republican attempt to tear down and dismantle programs that provide

health care in the united states . we have medicare, and the republican alternative to medicare is to shift more costs on to seniors, give them a voucher, let them pay more if they want more than that voucher will provide. and that voucher won't provide much over time. on medicaid they just want to shift the costs on to the states. so the states could tell a lot of very poor people i am he a sorry, we don't have enough -- i'm sorry, we don't have enough money to take care of you but we are not required to under federal law. they said they didn't want the affordable care act, they wanted to repeal it, but they haven't told us what they want to put in its place. they said that this was going to be repeal and replace. they proposed a repeal, we have no proposal to replace it. the republicans now want to take a part of the affordable care act, the class program, that is

a one and only significant initiative to put in place to deal with our country's long-term care crisis. they said those that are supporting this bill that the class act is not the right solution to our long-term care problem. i don't think it's perfect, either, but the solution is to amend the program to make it work, not just repeal it and leave nothing in its place. if we leave nothing in its place, we have the status quo. and what is the status quo? the status quo means that for some who are on medicare they'll have a minimal amount of coverage for their long-term care services. and to get any other help, people will have to go through the indignity of impoverishing themselves. a system that is in place for

the very poor would be called upon them the medicaid system to cover the their long-term care needs, especially if they had to go to a nursing home. many elderly and disabled individuals will be forced to leave their families and community of friends for institutionalization because that's all that some states will cover. families will have to do it because they'll spend down, they'll have to spend their money until they are in poverty. so they lose their dignity along the way in order to qualify for medicaid assistance. the class act was trying to take some of the burden off medicaid, some of that indignity away from seniors. medicaid expenditures for the most part are paying for long-term care, and that will escalate even further. in 2010 alone the medicaid spending for these services cost

some $120 billion. and we have a baby boomer population continuing to age. the number of americans in need of long-term care assistance will grow compounding each of these problems. what is the republican answer to this problem? nothing. just repeal the program that attempts to give some effort to deal with these costs for people who need long-term care. let's not lose this incremental piece. let's figure out how to add on to it. how to change it. but don't repeal it. i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 1173 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i just want to remind everyone that under the class act there is not one person in the united states who would receive long-term care benefits under that act because it doesn't work. i yield at this time two minutes to the gentleman from west

virginia, mr. mckinley. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in favor of h.r. 1173. this bill would save hardworking taxpayer dollars and eliminate a costly and flawed obamacare provision known as the class act. this program is sold as a self-sustaining program, one that would reduce federal spending. however the program was problematic from the start. the president and the democrat leadership in congress knew this fact for over a year and a half a -- ago and still include the class program in the health care bill. during an investigation it was revealed that the obama administration officials and senate democrats were very much aware that this was not going to work. and that the department officials warned for a year before passage the class program would be a fiscal disaster. as far back as may of 2009, the

c.m.s. chief actuary sent an email that warned officials that the program doesn't look workable. these 200 pages of exhibits from exhibit show that the department officials were voicing concern to senate leadership all the way up until passage in december of 2009. this was concealed from congress and the american public. after enactment, the concerns continued. on february of 2011, secretary sebelius testified before the senate finance committee that the class program is totally unsustainable in its present form. and finally, this past october the department announced that the program was still not financially feasible. what we are seeing now as well intended as it is, the class program is unworkable. the objective of providing long-term health care is

laudable and should be a priority of congress. therefore we must identify long-term commonsense solution for our health care. that is why last week i asked g.a.o. to conduct a study on the medicaid long-term care partnership program and survey states on how to improve the partnership program so that more americans can properly plan for their long-term care needs. this public-private partnership between states and long care insurance plans were designed to reduce medicaid expenditures by lessening the need of some people to rely on medicaid to pay for long-term health care. the partnership program is not the only solution to our long-term health care, but it is a helpful tool to help americans plan for their health care long needs unlike the unsustainable and costly class act embedded in obamacare. the repeal of the class act marks a small victory. let's not try to forget that

this program shouldn't be forced on the backs of hardworking taxpayers of america. thank you very much. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the champion for senior citizens, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman. there is a lot of areas of agreement. we all agree we are in the midst of a long-term care crisis. we agree that today there are 10 million americans in need of long-term care services and support. and by 2020 that number will grow to 15 million and by 2050 that number of seniors who need long-term care will reach 26 million. the cost associated with long-term care are high. we agree on that. nursing homes can cost over $70,000 a year and 20 hours a week of home care can cost nearly $20,000. but repealing the class act does

nothing to address the glaring need for adequate coverage of long-term care services and supports. the class act addressed a number of critical needs including providing a way for persons with disabilities to remain independent in their community and bringing private dollars into the long-term services system to rereliance on medicaid without impoverishing individuals and families, and we also agree that the class act is far from perfect. . but it does provide a framework to begin to deal with the problem so it seems to me if we all agree on the need, not only the need for long-term care but the need to do better, then instead of repealing the class act and passing h.r. 1173 with no effective alternative we could right now today sit down and work together to repair this program. by ignoring it or even postponing this long-term care

crisis simply is not going to make it go away. i thank the gentleman for the time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'd like to speak to h.r. 1173, the fiscal responsibility and retirement security act of 2011 which repeals the class program which was rushed into law in the president's health reform bill. last february h.h.s. secretary kathleen sbeelias is he bielias publicly admitted -- sebelias publicly admitted that the class act was, quote, unsustainable, end quote. but it wasn't until october 14 that the department of health and human services announced it

was not moving forward with the implementation of the class program, quote, at this time, end quote. on october 26, 2011, kathy greenley testified before our subcommittee that the department had spent $5 million in 2010 and 2011 trying to implement the program. the class program could not mean the law's 75-year solvency requirement and was not sustainable, was not a surprise to anyone who had been following the issue. even before its inclusion in the president's health care law, ppaca, in march of 2010, we were warned by the administration's own actuary, and the american academy of actuaries and members of congress from both parties and

outside experts that the program would not be fiscally sustainable. on july 9, 2009, approximately eight months before ppaca was passed into law richard foster wrote, quote, 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue, end quote. i support the intent behind the class program, to help americans purchase long-term care policies that most of us will end up needing at some point but only about nine million americans actually purchase. long-term care costs are frighteningly high, and many americans face bankruptcy or ending up on medicaid or both in order to get the care they

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

not -- sheffing this failed program is not enough. -- shefbling this of failed program is not -- shelving this failed program is not enough. let's repeal the class program. not tinker around the edges of a model and take up real solutions to this problem instead. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1173, to repeal the failed class program so that we can move forward with reforms that work and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield, madam speaker, two minutes to the gentlewoman from california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague from new jersey for yielding. madam speaker, i rise today in opposition to this bill. we all know that we have a long-term care crisis in this country. what we have now is an unsustainable patchwork approach with wealthy people

having access to private plans while almost everyone else finds the costs incredibly prohibitive. these are the folks who fall through the cracks every day. spending down all their assets until there is nothing left and then relying on our strained medicare program for care. this is what the class program tries to avoid. it would provide a benefit for individuals to stay out of costly nursing homes, benefits they already paid into. we can all agree that the class program currently written in the statute is not perfect but few things are. we can use it as a framework upon which to fix and implement this program, one that would be amended, improved and made sustainable rather than destroyed. repealing the class act does not remove the nation's need for long-term care. rather, it makes the path to sustainable solutions much more difficult. moreover, in the majority's rush to repeal, they have overlooked a vital component that will also be affected by this bill, the national clearing-house for long-term

care. the clearing-house, which was established with close to unanimous republican support, is the only dedicated place for individuals to learn about their long-term care options. however, a vote for this bill is a vote to strip funding from this vital public resource. in fact, the original bill abolished the program altogether until i fought to save it in our committee. and while the authorization has been saved, we all know that a program without any funding is not much of a program. so the result is yet one more obstacle for american families trying to care for their loved ones. these are the people who will lose out and definitely lose out by this repeal. so i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the -- this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. lipinski: i rise today in

support of fiscal responsibility and in support of h.r. 1173. the class program was created with a good intention, releaving the crushing burden of long-term care. but we've known from the beginning this program would not be able to sustain itself without a massive bailout from taxpayers. the c.b.o. said so. medicare's chief actuary said so. more recently, secretary sebelius concluded the class act was totally unsustainable and decided not to implement it. and for this i give her credit. but the program is still a law, and given the $1 trillion deficit that we face, the only option right now is to make sure that taxpayers are not left with an unsustainable program in a big bill. this debate should not be about the health care law in general. it should be about this

program. it should be about doing what is fiscally responsible and that is eliminating the class program and getting to work right now in a bipartisan manner on a solution to long-term care. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, can i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: madam speaker, at this time i'd yield a minute and a half to mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam chairman, and i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding. h.r. 1173 would eliminate the potential for many of our citizens to be able to afford long-term care that he provides services and other supports -- that provides services and

other supports. this is not the solution but instead a faulty and irresponsible policy initiative which will burden people and our health systems. regardless of when individuals may need these services, there's a lack of financing options to help them pay for the services they need, to maintain their health independence and dignity when they lose the capacity to perform basic daily activities without assistance. medicare does provide limited pay, long-term care services. medicaid does cover but pays only for services with people with very limited means. many private long-term care insurance plans are costly and difficult to acquire. and so i say that the real answer is to retain the services that we currently are poised to provide. i oppose h.r. 1173 and yield

back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i yield one minute to another member of the health subcommittee, mr. guthrie, the gentleman from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. guthrie: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 1173, to repeal the class act, establishing the patient affordable care act. the class act was unsustainable and unworkable from the time it was enacted. even at the time the health care bill was passed, it was evident that the program was completely unworkable. it is such an egregious budget gimmick that even health and human services secretary, kathleen sebelius, said this is unsustainable. repealing the class act is not as scary as those on the other side would have you think it would be. the obama administration has already acknowledge the program is unworkable in its current form. however, the class act remains

on the books. i strongly support ensuring americans have access to long-term care, but in order to move forward with a new plan we need to get the class act off the books. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. delauro: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the repeal of the class act. we are at another start of another session of the congress, and this majority is following the same playbook as last year. the american people are waiting for this institution to do something, anything to create jobs and restore our economic prosperity. instead of putting forward ideological bills that have nothing to do with jobs and that are intended to roll back health care and senior care in america, right now, less than 10% of americans over 50 have

long-term health care insurance. even though a large percentage of individuals will need long-term care services at some point. some studies indicate that up to 2/3 of americans that live beyond 65 will need long-term care. the class act, a bipartisan addition to the 2010 health reform, seeks to help to provide access to quality, affordable insurance for long-term care. the program must be actuarially sound and legally solvent. why? why would we repeal this bill? it is time for the majority to stop playing games, to get serious about fixing the economy. america needs more jobs, not less health care. i urge my colleagues to stand up for seniors and oppose this repeal, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back.

the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york -- excuse me -- from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: is it just too much to ask that seniors who are struggling in a nursing home after a lifetime of work get a little economic security, that they get a little dignity? is it too much to bring just a little piece of mind to a family that is burdened with a parent that's suffering from alzheimer's or some other debilitating condition? sadly, this does appear to be too much to ask for some. one year ago the house republican majority's first major action once they gained control of congress was to repeal health insurance reform. and at the time they did that they said they were for repeal and replace, and they replaced their repeal with a little

flimsy 1 1/2-page bill that i call the 12 platitudes. it appeared to be that because during the intervening months they did nothing about long-term health care or any other kind of health care for the american people. today, they continue to deny americans' actual solutions to health care problems and once again they have a flimsy 1 1/2-page bill. they don't have repeal and replace. they have repeal and deny. they are in a state of denial that there is a problem with long-term care and they continue to deny meaningful relief to families that are struggling with health care bills and particularly long-term health care bills. there is a 75% chance that some american who reaches age 65 will find themselves in need of long-term care. and paying for that care can bankrupt a family and the children of a parent who needs that kind of care.

an average cost for nursing home services, for example, of $70,000, can surely and quickly sink a lifetime of savings. this bill is far from perfect, as it exists as part of the law. it needs to be changed. but instead of repealing it, we ought to be focusing on the change. where is the commitment to doing something about long-term care? there haven't even been hearings on how to resolve this problem. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. doggett: do you have another 15 seconds? >> i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. doggett: a republican leader in the -- in this body said, it takes a master car penter to build a barn but any mule can turn one down. it's time to find a long-term solution for health care, not just tear it down.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> it is unconscionable to say this isn't fair, they have a program they know does not work. that's building a false sense of security in people instead of working on the real policy. mr. pitts: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, our conference chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is clear that the president's policies have failed. one in seven now have to rely on food stamps. half of america, now, is either classified as low-income or in poverty, and millions remain unemployed. yesterday, the congressional budget office announced one more of the president's failures, and that is, he is on track to deliver his fourth, fourth,

trillion-dollar-plus deficit in a row. somebody needs to tell the president, we've got to quit spending money we don't have for jobs we never get. one more failure, ma tam chair, is the president's -- madam chair is the president's plan. not a week goes by that i don't hear from people in my district, one businessman, i could start two companies and hire people, but based on the lack of facts in this obamacare, i'll continue to sit and wait. i heard from a gentleman who ran a music business in pal steyn, texas, who said, quote, our business is hampered by the uncertainty of tax regulations and obamacare. i had one in dallas, texas, after having to lay off 2 people, he said, swreel to terminate one more in february, due almost entirely to the impact on my business of the health care reform we have.

we are stymied. there is no doubt that the president's health care plan is killing jobs, house republicans have repealed it in its totality, it's been blocked by the president, by democrats, and so if we can't do it in its totality, we'll do it piecemeal. we need to start out by repealing the class act, which secretary sebelius said to is totally unsustainable. senate committee chairman kent conrad called it a ponzi scheme in the first order nevment's policies have fail. it's time to enact the house republican plan for america's job creators. it's time to repeal the class act. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. i yield two -- >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from fuge, mr. pascrell. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, madam speaker. i'm tired of hearing the president is a failure. i'm tired. you can smirk all you want. there's no perfection on this floor, there's no perfection down the street. and you didn't give these speeches in 2008 when we were losing 500, 600, 700 jobs a month. not one of you came to the floor. shame on you. and now, what we want to do, we want to turn our backs on those 10 million americans currently who need long-term care. we have no alternative, we all agree that there needs to be change, and -- change in the present system, that has yet to work, we have to find a way to make long-term care both accessible and affordable. these problems will not simply disappear. they're not going to go away. this bill certainly does not fix

these problems, the bill does not provide an alternative. all it does is attack the progress made in the affordable care act. you've tried to take it down, you tried to take all the money away that's going in order to have a system in this country that change that was not sustainable in the first place. 62% of small businesses over the last five years went under because they couldn't pay their health care bills. and you stand there with no alternative whatsoever. whatever happened to the replace part of the repeal and replace? remember that? repeal and replace? that nonsense we heard last year? without the class act, or an alternative, people who struggle the most with daily tasks due to illness will be the ones to suffer. you know that. you know that. there are millions of people out

there suffering. yet we have not come up with an alternative plan. yet you condemn us, you accuse everyone of failing. where is your heart for the middle class? have you no heart? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members should remember that all remarks should be addressed to the chair and not to one another. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from new jersey has two minutes remaining. mr. pallone: and the -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has four minutes remaining. mr. pallone: i -- i think -- i suggest that you go next because i only have myself and then we move to ways and means. mr. pitts: i believe we have the right to close. the chair: that is correct.

mr. pitts: i reserve. mr. pascrell: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i hear that people should take personal responsibility. the idea of the class act, people pay into the trust fund and then when they need it, they take money out to pay for services so they don't have to stay in a home. this is their own money being spent to keep them in their home, in their community so they don't have to spend down and become a ward of the state, essentially because medicaid ends up paying for their nursing home care. this is a solution to a long-term care problem. not a complete solution but a partial solution. i agree with mr. pascrell, which is that when i listen to the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from texas was quite clear, let's repeal the entire affordable care act. if we can't afford -- repeal the entire thing, we'll repeal it

piecemeal, piece by piece, which is what's going on here today. it's not a very responsible position unless you come up with an alternative. we're in the energy and commerce committee. we've had hearings on this. i've yet to hear anyone come up with on -- on the republican side with an alternative. all they keep saying is, let's just repeal this and we'll figure out something else down the line. the problem with that is, mr. pascrell said there are 10 million americans who need long-term care. soon it will be 15 or eventually 20. so every day that goes by, there's not a solution for these people. and the disabled community and the senior citizen community are crying out for some kind of relief. so all i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, don't just keep talking about repeal. i'll use the term mend it, don't enit. let's not end the effort to try to fine long-term care solutions for america's seniors and the disabled.

it simply isn't fair to come here on the noor repeatedly and say, repeal, repeal, repeal, and not have an answer. i'm more than welcome, the chairman of the subcommittee or any other member torque sit down with any of you at any time and come up with a bipartisan solution. but i haven't heard it yet. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. to close on our side, i yield to the distinguished member of the health subcommittee, dr. gingrey, for such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, as co-lead sponsor of this bill, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1173. i commend dr. boustany and chairman pitts for their leadership on this issue and i thank mr. lipinski on the democratic side. in response to a question i put to him last year, the c.b.o. director douglas elmendorf

wrote, and i quote, the secretary of health and human services has concluded the class program can't be operated without mandatory participation so as to ensure its solvency. h.h.s. secretary kathleen sebelius called the program insolvent and the chairman of the senate budget committee called the program, in 2009, a ponzi scheme. in fact he went on to say it woult make bernie madoff proud. in its consideration in 2009, the c.m.s. actuary, richard foster, told the obama administration staff that, and this is his quote, 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue, end quote. he was ignored. in fact, he was eventually cut out of the email loop so that they didn't want to, the health committee on the senate side and

the staff of senator kennedy they didn't want to hear any more from him. subsequently, in december of 2010, the president's fiscal commission recommended that they reform or repeal, not amend, but reform or repeal the class act. the commission report stated that, quote, absent reform, the class program is likely to require large transfers or else collapse under its own weight. we recommend the class act be reformed in a way that makes it credibly sustainable over the long-term. to the extent this is not possible, we advise it be repealed, end quote. in february of 2011, secretary sebelius testified before a senate finance committee hearing that the class program was, quote, totally insolvent, unquote. as structured, and it needed to be reformed in order to work. then in october of 2011, the secretary released a report on

the class act that essentially found the obama administration could not make the program actuarially sound or credibly sustainable, to quote the president's fiscal commission, over a 75-year period. thank god for senator judd gregg, madam chairman, in putting that amendment on the senate side that called for fiscal sustainability, sert -- fiscal sustainability certification by the secretary over a 75-year period of time or it could not go forward. that's what happened. the class program is not simply flawed, it is broken. as currently written, it poses a clear danger to the fiscal health of our budget and to the american taxpayer. madam chairman, some of my colleagues, in defending this broken program have told me there's no need to repeal class because the secretary has already abandoned it. yet every day that we delay in repealing class we prevent congress from passing

meaningful, true, long-term care reform. all sides admit that class does not work system of the prudent step is to repeal it. madam chairman new york closing, i urge all my colleagues, support this legislation so that we can get to meaningful reform of long-term care and have the marketplace work its magic in regard to this so the penetration is greater than the current penetration which is less than 10%. with that, madam chairman, i yield back and urge all my colleagues to support the repeal of a broken, fails program, the class act. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> madam speaker, i rise to claim the time allotted to the ways and means committee in this debate. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i yield such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is reck thesed. mr. boustany: as a physician, i know of the dire need to solve this problem for many families across the country who are struggling with long-term care needs. as the oldest of 10 children, my father is a physician, he died 10 years ago from a lengthy illness, he did not have long-term care and we gladly bore that burden and were able to provide for him, even though it was somewhat of a strain. this is a problem for every single american family in this country. what we've seen now is a

program that was created in obamacare, a program that is clearly unsustainable by the administration's own admission. after almost a year now of rangling about this they finally come to the conclusion that we knew even before the bill passed that this was unsustainable, it was unworkable, it was fatally flawed. i know as a physician the worst thing you can do for someone is create false hope, and that's what this has done. as long as this stays on the books, on the statute books, we're not going to get anything conon this. we are not going to off -- anything done on this. we are not going to solve this. there are bills on both sides of the aisle that i believe we can work together in a true bipartisan fashion and solve this problem. but the class program is clearly not the answer. washington should learn three lessons from this debacle. obamacare's failed government-run program. first, don't ignore reality.

democrats ignored the expert actuary warnings when they used class as a budget gimmick in obamacare. president obama cannot create a self-funded sustainable program that prohibits underwriting unless he intends to force healthy americans to participate. what does that mean? madam chair, that means an individual mandate, another individual mandate. many constitutional scholars think that this is unconstitutional. we don't need another individual mandate. in fact, senator harkin said the problem with class is that it's voluntary. i think he basically put the cards on the table and showed what they want to do to fix class is to give us another individual mandate. most enrollees in class will be high risk causing premiums to skyrocket under the current program making class even less appealing to average american families. the premiums will be

unsustainable. it will require subsidies from the taxpayer. so first lesson, don't ignore reality. second lesson, don't break the law. the administration planned to break the law by excluding americans made eligible by the made and when the congressional research attorneys warned of lawsuits i sent letters to secretary sebelius for her legal authority to make this change. she then subsequently suspended the program but this didn't create the bad law. and unless we repeal class, the department of health and human services will break the law. when it misses deadlines in october and again in 2014. that's not very a very good example to set for the american people to have the administration breaking the law. this letter i have, i ask unanimous consent to submit the letter for the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. so, first, don't ignore

reality. second, don't break the law. third, don't compound our nation's long-term fiscal problems. a democrat, former congressional budget office director, alice rivlin, under the clinton administration, i quote, sin the class program is a new unfunded entitlement it should be repealed because it will increase the deficit over the long term, end quote. in fact, the president's own deficit commission agrees our grandchildren cyrimly cannot afford a new budget-busting entitlement. we can do better than this, madam chair, and we can work together to solve this problem, and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the -- support this class repeal, support h.r. 1173 and beyond this we'll have the impetus to actually do some real work to create a real program that works for the american people. we can make it easier for disabled americans to save for future needs, expand access to

affordable private health care coverage and better educate americans on the need for retirement planning. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: thank you, madam chair. i want to point out the last time i watched television they told me that we still have troops in afghanistan who should be brought home and we've not addressed the medicare physician payment cuts , the payroll tax cut extension, unemployment extension, roads, bridges and public transit systems are falling apart and congress hasn't brought forth legislation to invest in the infrastructure? mr. stark: to repair those vital sfructures. and we continue to have an imbalanced tax code that lets members of congress get richer

at the expense of working families. and we've done nothing to change that. yet, rather than tackle any serious problems, the republicans are using the very little time that they permit congress to be in session to debate repealing the law that the president has already made clear will not be implemented. in other words, we should repeal a law that isn't going to happen. now, that's a vital use of our time. he's clearly stated, the president has, that the class act is part of the affordable care act, can't meet the tests put in statute. now, remember that republicans probably would like to repeal all of obamacare, and i'm not sure exactly which part they want mostly to repeal.

in other words, i assume that the 2 1/2 million youngsters who now get health insurance, the republicans like to kick them off the rolls and let them go to work or earn their own way to health insurance. and it's lowered prescription drug costs, obamacare has, for millions of seniors, for a bill that the republicans wrote that was too costly. i presume the republicans would like to raise the cost of pharmaceuticals for seniors. republicans generally like to do anything that pharmaceutical lobbyists asks them to do. and i'm surprised they haven't brought that up yet. i understand that my good friend, dr. boustany, actually has the makings of a bill that would help long-term care. and i also understand that the only reason he hasn't introduced it -- i'd be glad to

make it an amendment, if it's ready to go now, is that the health insurance industry doesn't like it. well, if they don't like it must be spectacular and i hope we'll see it. maybe he'll tell us a little bit about it, and i'd like to applaud it because he's done some great work in this area. and we need to do this. the fully implemented obamacare health care, whatever you want to call it, by 2014 will extend affordable quality medical care to 32 million uninsured americans. that's the plan. maybe we can change it. make we can make it quicker. maybe we can save more money. but that has to come from the other side of the aisle. we've proposed this and i would hope that our republican friends would work with it to improve it and move us in that direction. how much time do i have remaining?

the chair: the gentleman from california has 7 1/2 minutes remaining with -- 7 1/2. would the gentleman like to reserve or -- mr. stark: could i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin? the chair: is there objection? the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. stark: two minutes. mr. kind: thank you, madam chair. i like to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. i rise in support of the resolution. i do so because i believe the time the class act was inserted in the affordable care act was not a sustainable program. and sure enough when secretary sebelius and those at the department health and human services tried to analyze it and implement it they reached the same conclusion. i just hope that today my republican colleagues don't take too much glee or dwight over the fact that this legislation will pass and it is the repeal of yet another small tex of the affordable care act. but just repealing without

replacing doesn't solve the problem. with the rising long-term health care costs that our nations faces. and i know my friend, dr. boustany, shares my interest in trying to find a fix to this situation, and i hope that the parties are able to come together and address some of the paramount challenges we are facing in health care. how do you insent young healthy people to invest in health care issues? very difficult to do. i am glad that people recognize the challenge we face trying to come up with a solution. this just wasn't the answer. and to my democratic colleagues, i never believe with passage of the affordable care act, which i did support, was the end all, be all of health care reform. in fact, the great potential of the affordable care act was the vast experimentation that needs to take place in reforming the health care delivery system and payment system to learn what's working and isn't working. and then drive the system to greater efficiency, better bang for our buck. that to me is what health care

reform is going to look like in the years to come. it's going to be an ongoing effort, trying to determine what is working and what isn't. the class act, clearly the way it was structured, was something that wasn't going to work. so i agree with the resolution today that we should repeal it. it's the same conclusion that the administration, having a chance to look at it, reached themselves but it doesn't leave us off the hook of trying to find a solution to one of the great challenges of long-term health care in this country. so i would encourage my republican colleagues, and i know many of whom share this sentiment that this does not end the work that has to go. we have to figure out a way to start talking to each other, listening, trust each other to come up with some solutions. this isn't that solution today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam chair. i now am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, the chairman of the health subcommittee on house ways and means committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1173, the fiscal

responsibility and retirement security act. it's now clear that the -- that long before the democrats' health care overhaul was passed, the obama administration knew that the class act was a seriously flawed program that could not be implemented. for example, medicare actuary rick foster said way back in june of 2009, quote, 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue, closed quote. yet, these warnings went unheeded and the class act remained in the health care bill nine months later because it created an illusion of budget savings, an illusion based entirely on the fact that it would design to collect

premiums for a full five years before it would have to start paying benefits. yesterday, the congressional budget office estimated that the cost of federal health care entitlement programs will more than double over the next decade. madam chairman, for the sake of our nation's future, we must get these costs under control. the class act is an unsfeanable program that if it ever -- unsustainable program that if it ever begins operating would need a major taxpayer bailout. by repealing it today, congress can send a clear message that we are going to start finding solutions to rising health care costs instead of making the problem worse. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. stark: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: madam chairman, how much time do we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from

louisiana has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield, madam chair, 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, ms. jenkins. the chair: the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there aren't many areas where the former kansas governor and current secretary of health and human services sebelius agrees on. with you thing that we can agree is that the class act needs to be stopped. that's why i was glad that the secretary backtrack and pull the plug on the program and that's why i support a statutory repeal of the class act today. this act was designed as a new national entitlement for purchasing community living assistance services and was used by this administration as a pay-for to substantiate their faulty claim that obamacare was going to reduce the deficit.

however, as i and many others pointed out at the time, the deficit reduction claim was bogus and based on budget gimmicks that proved false when h.h.s. began implementation. you see, the c.b.o. can only project the cost of bills in a 10-year window so the obama administration used a budget trick by setting up the class act to begin collecting premiums in 2012 but not paying out benefits until 2017. a great for years one through 10 but bad later. this led c.b.o. to report that the program would reduce the deficit but it doesn't take a c.p.a. to realize that these initial savings can't be sustained over time. while we anxiously await the supreme court's decision on the constitutionality of obamacare as an individual mandate, i urge my colleagues to support the repeal of this failed portion of the bill today so we can get this budget gimmick off the government's books. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california.

mr. stark: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield one minute to mrs. black, a member of the house ways and means. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of my colleague from louisiana's legislation repealing this unsustainable budget gimmick that created to make the health care law look less expensive. the class act was a long-term entitlement plagued with problems from the very beginning. from day one, concerns raised about the class act's program on sustainable cost structure, the administration ignored it. i have a chart that was presented to us in our ways and means on the markup of this bill and from the very beginning, there was six -- there were six different occasions, up until march 20, when it was passed, of

experts who said this was unsustainable. they have been referenced in the past speakers. since that time of passage, there were four others, including secretary sebelius in october of 2011 who said i do not see a viable path forward for the class implementation. i think what is so sad is we continue to put our head in the sand make the american people believe that this program is somehow workable. this needs to be removed from our law so that we can start again. this is a nonpartisan issue. we all need to work together in a bipartisan way. as a nurse for over 40 years, working with elderly, i recognize the need for long-term care. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. stark: madam chair, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. pending that, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record a letter of support.

the chair: the request will be considered under general leave. the gentleman from louisiana has the right to close. the gentleman from louisiana has one minute remaining. the gentleman from california has five and a half minutes remaining. mr. stark: madam chair new york closing, i repeat that there are real problems in this country. much more -- of much more urgency than trying to repeal a bill that doesn't do anything, that won't work, that the president has said won't be affected. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this republican agenda to tear down our health system. it's mugwumpish, it sticks your head in the stand, it says let's repeal thing, let's not go about fixing things. i'm sure dr. boustany has a great bill. i'm hoping he'll bring it to us

and we can proceed to deal with the problem of long-term care for our senior citizens. i have seven children who would like to see that done very quickly and get me off their hands, thank you very much. so anything we could do together, i'll look forward to working with the distinguished gentleman. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield the remaining time to mr. allsen, a distinguished member of the house ways and means committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to rise in strong support of repealing this misguided class act. we knew from the start that the class act was fiscally unsustainable but the president and those who supported the new health care law used this and inserted it into a budget gimmick to help pass the law this new program was an illusion, an illusion craft sod the government would start collecting funds long before it

would pay anything out, making it seem as if it would raise revenue and save money. it was clear that the program would have disastrous effects. the c.m.s. chief actuary himself said if implemented, the program would collapse. after months of failed attempt, even the administration has admitted the program is unworkable. minnesota families and small businesses are tired of the smoke and mirrors coming out of washingtonful let's do the right thing and repeal this terrible program and focus on what's really important, putting americans back to work. i want to thank my colleague from louisiana, he's a doctor, he's a physician, he's a lead for the health care, let's do the right thing and repeal this. the chair: all time for debate has expyred. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours. the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered

read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those received for printing in the congressional record designated for that purpose in its daily issue dated january 31, 2012, or earlier, an except pro forma amendments for the purpose of the debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered read as printed. are there any amendments? would the gentlewoman please classify which amendment?

the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas and a -- the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, let me first of all thank you for your courtesy as we were meeting in the back and so allow me just a moment.

madam speaker, 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 have determined that private families and loved ones have given in essence $450 billion in private care, meaning they have taken care of their loved ones on their own. $101 billion has been spent by

the medicaid program. i said yesterday that i've had the experience of taking care of a dear mother, who i lost in 2010, 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. 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 program, 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 program. like class, -- any program, like crass, that are self-sustaining.

class is not taxpayer funded. the lack of -- lack of affordable care is a problem which if not addressed will only add to our growing national debt. h.r. 723 would repeal the class act and -- in its totality. i believe that that is the wrong direction to go. so i will be offering my amendment to help 26 million americans who need long-term care services in the near future. a class act -- 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 who 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, how high the deficit would grow, as the former executive director

for the national governors association, failure to reform the underfunded, uncoordinated patch work of long-term care support 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 -- in a major accident when our loved ones need our attention. how much can be done with long-term care. how do i know it? my mother. she went into a nursing home and cowl not walk but she walked out. yes, there is value to helping poo -- 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 help to feel all of us. by 2050, the number of individuals using long-term care will excel. i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman may not reserve the balance of her time. ms. jackson lee: let me just say, madam speaker, 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 will 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. with that, madam speaker, i yield back my time. the chair: the jerusalem's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: madam speaker, again, this amendment continues to ignore the reality around the class program. the class program has been reviewed by outside analysts, by the h.h.s. actuary, the congressional budget office, and just last year, the obama administration finally admitted what so many already knew. the class program is not workable. in fact, the congressional budget office has certified that not a single person would ever receive benefits from the class program.

any effort to preserve a failed program on the books simply delays any real attempt to ensure every american has access to affordable, long-term care coverage. from the start, the class program was a big government idea that independent analysis -- analysts believed was flawed and unworkable. the american academy of actuaries, the congressional budget office, and even officials at the department of health and human services, run by secretary sebelius, had grave concerns about the workability of this program. it has been studied, it does not work. if you would have done this study before you passed it, we would not have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on a program that was doomed from the start. perhaps we should visit what the

failed implementation of the class program has done, rather than spend millions on a study of what its removal would do. i began by -- i began by reminding my colleagues that the class program has done nothing to help reduce federal or state spending. in fact, the department spent at least $5 million to implement a failed program. and an $80 billion hole in the federal budget. i would also remind my colleague that the class program has done nothing for consumers, who are left with a failed program that was overpromised to the public as part of the president's monstrous health care law. we must move to take the class program off the books so that we can move forward with solutions that work with the private market that are affordable for consumers and don't place additional strain on the federal and state budgets. with that, i yield back.

the chair: are there further members seeking recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: i yield time to the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman, for sure. madam speaker, first of all, i want to make it very clear that my amendment is amendment number 2 to h.r. 1133. i might have misspoken earlier. i have another amendment, amendment number 1. i just want to respond to the gentleman and indicate that best practices have not been assessed. the point of my amendment is to get us focusing in what the numbers need to be to increase

the viability of life and care for those needing long-term care, jucks to pose 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 families 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. and 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 eliminated people being e--

eliminated from insurance by pre-existing condition is good? no one can say that having children at the age of 26 is not good? no -- we recognize 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 that loved one, they need support and they need it in a structure that will help provide them with resources for long-term care. i ask my colleagues to support a thoughtful amendment that deals with providing additional information, and i'm happy to yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his time. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee number 2 amendment on a macroeconomic study on the benefits and burdens of repealing the class act. mr. pallone: i thank the gentlewoman and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nose -- the nos have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: does the gentlewoman ask for a recorded vote? ms. jackson lee: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have amendment number 1. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you so very much, madam chair and, again, 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 falling through the holes of medicare part d. this particular legislation helped close the doughnut hole where seniors, prescription drugs did not skyrocket and therefore they could not make a decision between their prescription or between their rent or what they ate. this resolution is very clear. it simply states that congress resolve that health care is necessary for a healthy population, humane treatment of impoverished citizens and help reduce the budget deficit and that long-term care insurance represents 1/3 of federal and state spending on medicaid.

it's a simple statement of fact, madam chair woman, 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 got to get back to the drawing board and make sure that we have in fact the right kind of insurance for people in need. i can't imagine why we 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 stay 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 costs 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 curve is steep and growing and we cannot continue to kick the can down the road. long-term care again is fundamental. so this particular legislation acknowledges that. 40% of long-term care users today are between ages of 18 and 64, as i said, while most people who need long-term care are in their 70's and 80's, 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 american families savings which gives them a choice, spend down and wipe out hardworking services to qualify for medicaid. for those of you who don't know how medicaid works, because we want to be responsible for federal tax dollars, you have to be down to zero. your house has to be sold. your car has to be sold. any assets has to be sold and everything you have goes back in to 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 should that person not remain in their home without care? it gives them 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. the loving family, yet having the long-term care providers. this is a simple statement. i hope my colleagues won't oppose the idea that long-term care is important and we need to ensure that we don't grow the deficit. the average lifetime long-term care spending for a 65-year-old is $47,000. 16% will spend $100,000 and 5% will spend $250,000. there's no doubt that we need relief. a nationwide medium annual cost of a nursing home in 2010 was $75,000 room and board in 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 values of long-term care support here in america. i yield back, madam chair. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? pethspeths madam chair, i rise in opposition -- mr. pitts: madam chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: madam chair, this amendment continues to ignore the reality. the class program is simply not workable. keeping the class program and pretending that it will ever work does absolutely nothing and offers no help to he millions of americans who want to maintain their health. any effort to preserve a failed program on the books simply delays any real attempt to ensure every american has access to affordable long-term care coverage. from the start, the class program was a big government idea that independent analysts believed was flawed and unworkable. in fact, the obama

administration officials pointed out serious concerns with the class program as early as the beginning of 2009. while those concerns went ignored by the administration until earlier this fall, now is not the time to stall its repeal. yesterday, senator harkin told reporters that the only way to make class work is to make it mandatory. are the supporters of the class act really advocating another mandate? keeping class on the books is a step in that direction. keeping the class program on the books also further threatens the private market and the nearly eight million americans who have private long-term care insurance today. you cannot have a functioning long-term care insurance market if there's a continued threat of a government takeover of that market. we need long-term care reform

that builds on what the private market provides, not destroy it. i hope that those on the other side of the aisle have the courage to admit their mistake, repeal this law and work on a long-term policy. i urge members to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. is anybody -- any other member wish to have time? the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i oppose the amendment and i stand here today in support of repealing the class act. you know, it's been almost two years that we saw passage of the obamacare bill in this chamber and it is something that we have worked since taking the majority to repeal this and get it off the books and indeed what we are seeing is a need to get this class act

off the books. despite the federal government's best efforts, there is no way to show that this is going to save money. indeed, in a budget gimmick, as we were discussing this bill in committee a couple years ago, what they did was to come in and say, oh, this will save $80 billion. oh, let's add title 8 to the bill. let's add sections 8,001 and 8,002 to this legislation and let's create this little pool here where we're going to have near-term expenses that are supposed to yield us some long-term savings. the problem is all the new math you wanted to put to work on this, madam speaker, there was no way to show that it was ever going to save money. and indeed secretary sebelius, who is the health and human services secretary, was forced to admit last october that

there was no path forward for this program. so what we need to do is to say this was a mistake. it doesn't save money. it is not going to address the problem. it is something that needs to come off the books. it is a way we can step forward and we can take a program off the books. and i encourage my colleagues to support ending the class act, getting it off the books, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. does anyone seek time? the question then is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it -- the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: would the gentleman please specify which amendment? >> amendment number 4. the chair: clerk. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, madam chair. although i regret that this congress is considering the full repeal of a promising effort to address the looming long-term care crisis in this country, i have to admit i am not surprised. this is the action of a congress deserving of america's low opinion of us. we know the facts. a vote against this amendment is a vote for increased medicaid spending. no one is immune from becoming disabled or growing old. yet just 10% of americans over

age 50 can afford long-term care insurance. as a result, a staggering 90% of americans rely on long-term care provided by medicaid. it is no wonder that over a third of medicaid spending is on long-term care. not on checkups for impoverishes children, not on prenatal care for poor expectant mothers. no, it is the expensive, institutionalized long-term care funded by medicaid. the goals of the class program represented an alternative to this system on which we all could have agreed, a fully solvent, affordable, premium financed, long-term care program. it emphasizes personal responsibility. lessens the burden on taxpayers. reduces unnecessary medicare -- medicaid spending. sometimes, as things happen here, congress passes imperfect legislation. rather than address the

imperfections, the legislation before the house today gives up on our grappling with this long-term care crisis altogether. we have overcome challenges like this before. in the early 1980's, social security faced a crisis. what happened? did my republican friends, concerned about having an imperfect law on the books, castigate what they called roosevelt's care and bring to the floor a two-page bill to revoke the social security act? that's not, thankfully, what happened. what did happen is democrats an republicans worked together with president reagan and strengthened social security. as a result, social security continues to keep millions out of poverty, ensuring against the universal risks of ole age, disability or death of a breadwinner. the amendment i offer today would prevent repeal of the class act from taking place if failure to implement the class program would increase state and federal medicaid spending. greater reliance on the safety net has led many to conclude

that medicaid has become unaffordable. instead of cutting basic health care for our most vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled, poor children, we ought to reduce medicaid spending. we ought to put more americans back to work. we ought to make private health insurance more affordable. there are many scriptions for reducing medicaid spend bug repeal of the class act and upholing our long-term care try crisis is not among them. the congressional budget office estimates that even if if the -- that even the imperfect class bill that passed would reduce long-term care spending by $2 million. if more people had access to long-term care, more middle class families could receive care in their own homes instead of spending down to qualify more kead cade. we are saying the current system, which incentivizes elder

poverty, is just fine. save nothing. pass what you do have on to your children before you get sick. own little property and don't purchase long-term care insurance. follow this plan and you'll be eligible for expensive, institutionalized care through medicaid. if class is repealed, it is exactly the children and grandchildren that my friends on the other side say they worry about who will pay the cost. a premium financed long-term care program would shift people from reliance on medicaid. this should be our shared goal. we ought to work together to fix a problem that -- a program that represents the first real path toward making affordable long-term care available to middle class families who want to secure thems against possible poverty. i respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment because reducing medicaid spending while improving the lives of seniors and persons with disabilities is a conversation worthy of this office and with that, i yield

back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: mr. chairman, this amendment would simply ignore the millions of dollars that have been spent by this administration to reach the same conclusion that so many unbiased analysts have said for year the class program is unworkable. causing a liability for the potential beneficiary and the taxpayers alike. this amendment would promote reckless governing that maintains a failed program for further meddling. the class program has done nothing to decrease medicaid spending. and its inclusion in the patient protection and affordable care act was a budget gimmick. a budget gimmick that will cost the american taxpayers $80 billion over the next 10 years. alternative policies such as the

long-term care partnership program which was signed into law by president bush have decreased medicaid spending and deterred americans from making medicaid their primary payer of long-term care services. that program alone has done more for medicaid spending than class ever will. we can and should do more to decrease medicaid spening. and -- spending and ensure americans have the access they need to affordable long-term care coverage. but government intrusion into the market is not the way to go. however, we cannot move forward in thinking about better long-term care policies with this failed program hanging over us. yesterday, senator harkin made it clear that the problem with the class program was that it was voluntary. a vote in favor of this amendment is a vote in fare of

another mandate on the american people. enough is enough. we must get this failed program off the books so we can move forward in establishing long-term care policies that work for the american taxpayers, not those that further bankrupt this country. that i -- with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is in the agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the amendment -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. deutch: mr. chairman, this

amendment reads, the secretary shall develop three actuarially sound benefit plans. this amendment's small fix gives the administration the ability to implement a program that enjoys the support of 2/3 of all americans, including, i should add, over half of republicans. the stipulation for moving forward, however, is that class is implemented on an actuarially sound basis. the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, author of the underlying bill, has expressed some opposition to my amendment, suggesting it will waive the solvency requirement. i respect the gentleman's work and service but i regret that the claim is simply untrue. this amendment gives the secretary's -- secretaries waiver authority only after three requirements are met. the plan must be actuarially sound. it must address adverse selection. and it must have market appeal.

the deliberate obfuscation of this amendment's intention is a textbook example of why americans are fed up with washington. i would work with anyone in any party to protect the financial security of middle class and near retirees but when attempts to improve the existing law in a fiscally responsible way are treated in this manner, it is no wonner we can't get things done. the bill's proponents say, trust us. we'll replace this unfortunately, over a year ago, they said the same thing about the affordable care act. instead, we have repeal and replace, minus the replace. as we all know, the class program as drafted is facing challenges of implementation. critics have focused on fiscal sustainability. the good news is, there a fiscally sustainable path forward. with greater flexibility, a program could be designed that addresses adverse selection and improves market appeal.

we must remember that even with implementation, class would only be a start addressing a very serious long-term care crisis. looking back on our history would serve us well today. in the infancy of social security, senator william kain a democrat from utah, supported a clark amendment which would have undercut the social security program. he was concerned that social security would crowd out private pensions and conditioned his support of social security upon a guarantee that the clark amendment would later be taken out. when congress returned, the senator was asked about the amendment he said forget about the amendment. the passage of the social security act has got everybody talking about pension plans. you can forget it forever. americans ought to be talking about long-term care. and we should all be lucky enough to grow older, we should all be lucky enough to retire in south florida. however, no one, no one is immune from the frailty of old age. and no one is exempt from

disability. i can't help but think of a very impressive man from south florida, a good friend named allen brown, who on january 2, 1988, at the age of 20, was hit by a strong wave at the beach that caused a catastrophic spinal cord injury that leaves him a quadriplegic to this day. mr. brown has an endless list of expenses from his wheel chair, med case, disability accessibility transportation. even while holding two jobs he struggles to support his family in the face of rising health care costs. as lawmakers, it is our responsibility to remember that those who are young and healthy may not always remain so. and act on the fact that long-term care is out of reach for the majority of americas. any one of us could experience an unpredictable accident like mr. brown. and if that is not compelling enough, the nevittability of aging should be. what -- the nevittability of

aging should be. why should americans be thinking about long-term care if their leaders in congress answer a complicated and systemic problem with a politically charged two-page bill? if the secretary for given the flexibility in my amendment, the class program would remain the furthest thing from an entitlement, as it would remain fully financed by premiums. this fix to class is a -- is true fiscal responsibility, an individual retirement security, and i respectfully ar urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. amendment number five, or deutch two, is an amendment essentially

that the secretary of health and human services has already looked at some of these provisions in eight different ways. mr. gingrey: and -- in trying to come up with some possibility of certifying the fiscal solvency of this class act within the 75-career budget window, the out years. thank goodness, thank goodness, mr. chairman, for the wisdom of senator judd gregg on the senate side. side when that amendment was accepted, -- on the senate side, when that amendment was accepted by the committee. i don't know if it was unanimously accepted by the democrats, but i think it was. thes preyens and wisdom of senator gregg is something the american people should be and i think will be eternally grateful for.

look, the secretary looked at the possibility of saying that we'll make this fiscally solvent if we eliminate eligibility for anybody with a pre-existing condition. then they said, well, no, that's not going to work. let's say, how about a 15-year waiting period for someone with pre-existing conditions. finally, ultimately, looked at the possibility of yet again making this part of obamacare, the class program, a mandatory participation. how has that worked out for them thus far in regard to the exchange and young people being forced under the rules of the constitution, of the commerce clause, to do that urn the penalty of law, increase taxes

or penalties or whatever they want to call it, the supreme court ultimately will make that decision. so the secretary, madam chair, mr. chairman, excuse me, mr. chairman, had every opportunity to look at this. we're talking about, and i say to the gentleman from florida, over a 15 or 18-month period of time, and they absolutely could not certify it. now, you can delay and delay and delay but what part of no does the gentleman not understand? no, this will not work. and this amendment is unnecessary, we know that this program will not work and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want to leave the provision in the bill, they want to let it stand there, so they can somehow, i guess, maybe, the next administration or the next chairman of the energy and commerce committee or whomever on their side of the

aisle might want to resurrect freddy kruger one more time. one more time. and on the backs of the american taxpayer. this is a fiscal train wreck and the bill actually, mr. chairman, calls for the provision of a plan at a date certain, october of 2012. i'm an ob/gyn physician. that's less than -- less than nine months. that goes quickly, i the that about nine months. and when you get there, folks who are counting on the class program, long-term care insurance, they want to sign up for it and the federal government says, well, i know it's on the books, i know it's still part of the law, i know we obligated to have a program for you to choose from, by october 1 of 2012, but, hey, we decided not to go forward with it. what's to prevent them from suing the federal government? and while these lawsuits are

pending and going on and on and on, i mean, you know, an attorney jobs bill, i guess it would have some merit, but in the meantime, the private market for long-term care insurance, they're not innovative, they're not going to do anything until the legality of that is all cleared up. so, you know, we feel very strongly that this would be a bad amendment and i strongly oppose it and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from florida. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin seek recognition?

ms. moore: here we are again. the lights are up, the music is playing and my republican colleagues are doing the same old song and dance for the american people. the republicans have spread out their sand and they're doing their best routine, trying to convince the american people that the repeal of this bill is in their best interests. as the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. yet we find ourselves here debating the repeal of a law that would have sought to address the long-term health care crisis burgeoning in this country. mr. chairman, to most people finding a solution to the long-term care insurance crisis in this country seems like a good law. it must be if 56 national groups, including aarp and seiu,

are against repealing the class act. but once again my republican colleagues are trying their best to distract the american people from their not seeking a solution with this repeal the bill side show. you know, as we debate this repeal, i have heard so many of our colleagues refer to the president as -- him needing to come and apologize for introducing this provision in the affordable care act. it occurs to me, mr. chair, that the effort to embarrass the president, to harass him, to defy him, that this is more important than finding a solution to the growing challenge of the aging population. and indeed it is an emerging, burgeoning problem.

10 million americans need long-term care. over the next decade another five million americans will require this care. bringing the total to 15 million people. and the problem is only becoming more challenging with estimates that nearly 70% of people, the baby boomers, will need some level of long-term care after turning 65. an additional issue is that this is a heavy burden on family budgets. this law was seeking to provide a national, voluntary and self-sustaining insurance program for assistance to aid elderly and disabled people. it would allow individuals to live independently at home and in the community for as long as possible without impoverishing themselves. you know, it seems that my republican colleagues are

content to defer the dreams of millions of americans who live with some sort of dignity as they age and it reminds me of one of my favorite poets, an african-american poet, as we enjoy this black history month, who would be 110 years old today. langston hughs. what happens to a dream deferred? does is it dry up like a raisin in the sun or fester like a sore has been run? does it stink like rotten meat or crust and sugar over like a syrupy sweet? maybe it just sags like our heavy load or does it explode? millions of americans -- republicans want to put one man out of a job and would defer the dreams of millions of americans but while they continue their song and dance, mr. chair,

denying singers -- seniors the long-term care they need and deserve, putting more and more americans out of work, i hope the american people recognize who is really on their side before we see the american dream of living and retiring in dignity explode. and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> let me thank congresswoman moore for her compassionate and clear statement. and also congressman ellison. both of them for their unwavering leadership and conviction on the real issues facing the american people today. ms. lee: as a former co-chair of the congressional progressive caucus and cow found -- co-founder of the congressional out of poverty caucus, let me say i rise in strong opposition to this bill. mr. chairman, members of the progressive caucus are here because once again the

republican leadership would rather attack the president than help the millions of struggling seniors, people with disabilities and their families who are faced with a system that fails to meet their very basic needs. and this should really be a nonpartisan issue. we're here today because republicans are more focused on ending medicare and repealing a long-term care program than they were on creating jobs to put -- than they are on creating jobs to put americans back to work. last year republicans' first order of business was to eliminate, mind you, eliminate the medicare guarantee for america's seniors under the ryan budget proposal. this year it's the same old story. instead of focusing on jobs or on extending middle class tax cuts, unemployment assistance or fixing the medicare physician pay rate, this tea party congress continues to waste time on pointless bills just to score political points.

repealing the class program would do nothing, nothing to address the long-term crisis for the 10 million americans who need care now and the five million more who will require it over the next 10 years. killing this program without offering any alternative is frankly irresponsible. the law may not be perfect but repealing the bill does not make the problem go away. we should be doing everything we can to ensure that senior citizens and the disabled also have a shot at the american dream. we should not destroy this for them just because of their age or their disability. why in the world would the republican tea party want to throw them under the bus? we should work together to find a real solution that meets the needs of the millions of baby boomers who are retiring now, senior citizens and the disabled and should work to ensure that they get the long-term care over the next decade which they will need. rather than repeal this bill

today, we need to give experts time to identify changes that would make the class program stronger and congress needs to focus on the real priorities of the day and that's jobs and the economy. we have work to do and we don't have a minute to waste. let's not waste another year without a jobs bill and without extending vital unemployment benefits and payroll tax reductions to millions of americans while our economy continues to roar. it's time -- recover. it's time for the republican tea party to stop caulking -- walking away from our senior citizens and the disabled and to work with us to continue middle class tax cuts, unemployment assistance and ensure that seniors can keep seeing their doctors. we need to come together now to enact both programs and policies that provide equal opportunity and equal access for every single american, no matter their race, no matter their employment status, no matter their humble beginnings, no matter their age, no matter their disability. we can't wait, americans can't

wait. this congress should not wait. and so we need to really figure out a way that we're going to do the right thing on behalf of our senior citizens and the disabled. but i have to say today unfortunately this bill moves us in the wrong direction. thank you and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 1173, the republican legislation to repeal the class program. class was designed to be the first federal voluntary long-term care program making long-term care more accessible and affordable for millions of americans. the idea behind the class program is to provide americans, especially our seniors, with piece of mind if they suffer from an unexpected long-term illness or injury. we have a long-term care crisis in this country. according to secretary sebelius,

an estimated 15 million americans will need some kind of long-term care and fewer than 3% have a long-term care policy. ms. hahn: because medicare and other existing programs do not cover these services, we must work together to find a solution. and my republican friends know, however, the class program as enacted will not be implemented. secretary sebelius informed congress last october that she did not see a viable path forward for class implementation at this time. so in other words this legislation we're debating today is not needed. instead of legislation to create jobs and grow our economy, our republican friends are focused on repealing a program that's already been suspended. i want to encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to take a step back and focus on the things we can be doing together to make long-term care more affordable and accessible. the issue of providing long-term care, i've encountered this in my own life.

my dear sweet mother, before she passed away last summer, received long-term care services for years before she passed away and i -- and i will always remember the warmth and affection her caregivers showed her and my family day in and day out. and what we should be doing today is to ensure that the hardworking american and women who provide care for our seniors in their own homes earn a living wage because these jobs are the jobs that make a difference and bring happiness to those whose help they need the most. with robust job growth predicted in the health care sector over the next decade, it's imperative that we support long-term care services and those that provide them. this is a win-win for the american economy and not only do long-term care services provide jobs, but we know that if our seniors can be taken care of in their own home, it saves americans money in the long run. i fear, however, that this legislation is meant as a step towards dismantling the health care reform law that congress passed and the president signed.

a law that does help millions of americans obtain better and more affordable health care coverage over the next decade. and thanks to the affordable health care act, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. thanks to this affordable care act, americans now have access to free preventative care services. and thanks to the affordable care act, small businesses can receive tax credit to provide their employees with health coverage. and thanks to the affordable care act, children can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26. we just hope they don't move back home. my colleagues, let's -- on the other side, let's not work to strip these provisions and put power back in the hands of for-profit insurance companies. we do not need this legislation. instead of repealing a program that is not moving forward, why don't we work on replacing it with a better long-term care program? the affordable care act is not a perfect law but that's why we should be working together to

fix the problems, not just repeal it. these problems will remain even if we repeal this part of the law. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to stop this needless debate and legislation and get to work on the real issues at hand. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the class act. we all get old, hopefully we'll all get ole, reach an elderly status, and we will then perhaps become physically unable to get around a whole lot and we may need to have some long-term care . mr. johnson: tea partiers will need it, occupy wall streeters

will need it. mitt romney and his group of 15% taxpayers will need it. the only question is, whether or not the 99ers and the tea partiers will be able to afford it. that is the only question. we're in the same boat. the class act was included in the health care law in order to help elderly and functionally disabled americans purchase the services they need which would enable them to continue living in their communities as opposed to being forced into expensive private care which most of us can't afford. so i understand that h.h.s. has determined that the class act

cannot be implemented as written based on financial considerations. but ladies and gentlemen, that's no reason to throw out, or to repeal this worthwhile initiative. we certainly need to improve it. but there's no need to repeal it. no matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, you cannot ignore that we need to improve access to long-term care. approximately 10 million americans are in need of long-term care and this number is excepted to increase to 15 million over the next decade. america is aging. in 2009, an estimated 62 million unpaid family care givers provided $450 billion in care.

at what cost to their jobs, to their family life with their children? in 2011, the average annual cost of a nursing home was $70,000. who can afford that? the cost of long-term care is an unsustainable burden on family members who, while also holing a job and raising a family, struggle to provide their disabled or elderly relatives with the care that they need to continue living within their own communities. the class act is a voluntary program. it's no mandate, don't get it twisted, there is no mandate, individual mandate for the class act. it's a voluntary program that relies on free market principles of responsibility and competition. my colleagues in the republican

party claim to revore those principles. there's no mandate in this program. it would allow families of all means to plan for a secure future where a long life or a disability does not lead to financial ruin. take, for instance, one of my constituents, linda rollins. linda was the primary caregiver for her elderly mother until her recent passing. linda told me she supports the class act because millions of americans just like her feel overwhelmed or face financial distress due to their roles as family care givers who cannot receive any kind of assistance. although linda's mother received long-term care through a local senior assistance program that enabled her to continue living at home, linda knows that not everyone is so lucky.

having access to long-term care services enabled linda's mother to live independently with grace and with dignity. it allowed linda to keep her job and helped relieve the emotional and financial strains placed on her and her family as she oversaw her mother's care. linda and i feel like everyone should have that kind of support and the class act is a good place to start resm peeling the class act without any attempt to improve it is a rash political move and i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman. move to strike the last word. the chair: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. gingrey: i move to strike the requisite number of words.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i thank the courtesy of my colleague from minnesota. he'll have the opportunity as well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i thank you for that ruling, mr. chairman. because i felt like it was important for me to respond directly, in immediate proximity to my colleague and food friend, very good friend, from georgia the gentleman from dekalb. he made a statement about, what is the reason? there is no reason, really to strike this. why not leave it on the books. i think that's an argument we've heard all afternoon in regard to the position of the democratic side. but let me just read a few passages from a report that we requested from the congressional research service as to why, in response to my friend from dekalb and my good friend from

georgia. judicial review assumes that the secretary takes no further action to comply with the class act's man cate to designate a benefit plan by october 1, 2012. the secretary would appear to be committing a violation of the statutory requirement to designate such a plan. her failure to take such action conceivably could be challenged in court under the administrative procedures act, a.p.a., which defines agency action to include the failure to act. they go on to say that the class act does not preclude judicial review and the secretary's designation of a benefit plan is a mandatory, as opposed to discretionary, requirement. so judicial review does not appear to be precluded. therefore if the secretary fails to perform the action required

by the statute, that inaction would appear to be reviewable. i continue. a failure by the secretary to designate a class benefit plan by october 1, 2012, presumably predicated upon a determination by her that it is not possible to develop three actuarially sound benefit plans that meet all the requirements of the act, would appear to be a final agency action from which, quote, legal consequences will flow, unquote. inaction by the secretary in dez igthating a plan by the deadline could be found by a reviewing court to constitute noncompliance with a statutory mandate, thus after october 1, 2012, the secretary's failure to take an action legally required of her would appear to meet the standard for judicial review of agency inaction unlauflly --

unlawfully withheld under the a.p.a., administrative procedures act, described in the scope of agency action. i asked one of my colleagues a few minutes ago, what part of no do you not understand? this is pretty darn clear. i.d. be glad to yield to my friend. -- i.d. be glad to yield to my -- i'd be glad to yield to my friend. mr. johnson: what you've said is a fill your to act torque publish regulations or to promulgate regulations that would lead to the enactment of this class act becomes a final agency action. in other words, failure to act becomes a final agency action which then ena -- enables an appeal or judicial review, the

review being for the purposes, i suppose, of failing to follow the law which would, of course, be in support of the underlying legislation, the class act. so i would argue that the regulation that you cite would actually enhance the ability of us to come to a reasonable way of financing this -- mr. gingrey: reclaiming my time from the gentleman. look, the gentleman, mr. chairman, is an attorney. i'm just an old country doctor. but you know, this is plain language and i'll be happy to provide his office with a copy of this congressional research service report. i'm not going to get into -- all deep into the weeds of legal argument back and forth but this is about as plain as the nose on

your face, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: i'll tell you what's as plain as the nose on your face, what's as plain as the nose on your face is that the republicans are getting rid of a plan for long-term care without offering any altern tiff plan in its place. they're stripping what's there without saying here's what we're going to do. but i have a memory. what i remember is that between -- for long stretches of time in the last decade, the republicans had both houses and the presidency, didn't do anything on health care except a big giveaway to big pharma. when the democrats get in, we pass the affordable care act. does it need tinkering?

probably so, like all bills do, but instead of trying to work with us, the republicans say, we're just going to stip the democratic plan for long-term care. this is too bad because it seems to me that long-term care, mr. speaker, is a legitimate issue for us to work together on. but we're not working together. one side passes a will -- a bill, the other tries to get rid of it. i think it's high time we start to work together but we don't have a cooperative partner. washington republicans have proven once again they would rather try to embarrass president obama than help america's seniors. last year's republicans' first order of business was to eliminate the medicare guarantee for america's seniors. this year, it's the same old story, mr. speaker. no health care, no medicare, no long-term care for millions of americans. instead of a plan to create jobs or to extend middle class tax cuts, or to address unemployment

assistance, or to fix medicare physician pay rate, republicans are wasting time. mr. gingrey: would the gentleman yield to me for a moment. mr. ellison: i respect the gentleman desire to have me yield but i can't because i have limited time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia -- mr. ellison: i don't -- the chair: the gentleman from georgia will suspend. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. if i have extra time, i'll be happy to yield to the gentleman but it will have to be when i'm done. today, we could be dealing with a real issue, fixing the long-term care crisis. i'm sure that all the -- everyone in this whole body, republican and democrat, ought to be concerned about it because all of us, no malter what our ideological beliefs may be, have people who need long-term care. we've got to be about this business. you know what, mr. speaker, 10

million americans currently need long-term care and the problem is only getting worse. a number of americans, 62 years and older, is 20% higher than it was 10 years ago. long-term care is a huge burden on families. an estimated 62 million, let me say that one more time, mr. speaker, 62 million unpaid family care givers provided care valued at $450 billion in twipe, more than the total spending in -- in 2009, more than the total spending in medicare that year. the republicans are offering no solutions to the long-term care crisis. they may say anything they want but they're not coming here with a bill that we can debate. they're just attacking what has already been done. which is so easy to do. way better to be a critic than to be someone who produces solutions. so, mr. speaker, i want to tell you a little bit about somebody in my district, mary, mary, here's what mary says. my mother is 90 and seriously ill and now in a nursing home.

her bill is over $6,500 a month, mr. speaker. mary goes on to say that she will soon run out of money, referring to her mom. why do people have to become indigent before they receive help? that's a good question, i think. that's a question warranting our attention. our republican friends have no plan to protect families like mary's. they're not here with a plan. they just want to strip and rip and take down what democrats have already done. and people are in need of help. so, mr. speaker, repealing the class act will not help mary's family. we need to make the class act program stronger, not get rid of it. we need to mend it, not end it. we need to improve it. and that's why 56 national groups wrote to congress saying, please don't repeal the class act. including aarp, mr. speaker, seiu and the national council on aging.

people who really know what they're talking about when it comes to long-term care. and so i urge our republican friends on both sides of the aisle to come together with us to make a strong long-term program for seniors rather than just tearing down and stripping down. it's as plain as the nose on the face, mr. speaker, americans need long-term care and i do yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? >> i to move strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: you know, we have a serious challenge here. we have people that need long-term care, we've got very significant fiscal constraints. in the question before us -- and the question before us really is do we repeal the program altogether when there is a serious long-term problem, as if by legislative magic a repeal suddenly makes the serious and acute problem van inner altogether. we know that -- vanish altogether.

we know that doesn't happen. it may address a fiscal issue but it doesn't solve the fiscal issue and enormous emotional pain that individuals who are trying to take care of their senior parents will face. so the problem doesn't go away if this legislation is passed. it simply means the pain will continue and probably intensify. so the real challenge for congress is that when there is a problem that we acknowledge is real and rising for the american people and the folks who need long-term care are in red states and blue states, they're in your district and they're in mine, the real question is whether we address that as actively and as aggressively as we can, taking responsible steps to make certain that we can pay for what we promise. the worst thing we can do in my view is pass legislation that

has almost as its predicate the notion that by repealing the commitment that this congress made two years ago, the problem doesn't exist. it does and we all know that. you've heard the statistics, 10 million americans currently need long-term care. that is a tough challenge for those families. over the next decade that is going to rise to 15 million. that is a rising challenge, the longer we defer, the more difficult it will be for us to address it. 62 million americans, good americans, generous americans, service as unpaid care givers to elderly family members. how long can that be sustained? and while nearly 70% of americans will need some level of long-term care in their lifetime, only 8% are able to buy long-term care insurance. and that's where we do need a public policy program that's going to match the resources required with the need that's

rising. the class act was designed to make progress, giving older americans and their families some sense of security. it's not perfect. the most vigorous proponents of that legislation acknowledge it's not perfect. but what that -- but what we pass on the democratic side or the republican side can any of us claim is perfect? what we need to try to do together is make an imperfect bill better understand but what we can't do -- better but what we can't do is abandon the challenge that those people have. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for

five minutes. ms. waters: mr. speaker, -- mr. speaker and members, this bill is just another attempt to dismantle health care reform. last year house republicans passed h.r. 2 to repeal the entire affordable care act. the reform law that was enacted almost two years ago is what i'm referring to. the affordable care act has already made a difference in the lives of millions of americans. let me just recount for the members of this house what the affordable care act has done and is doing. it prevents insurance companies from dropping people because they.net sick. it prevents -- because they get sick. it prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. it allows young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance until they turn 26. it provides free preventive care to seniors under medicare. it is phasing out the doughnut holes and helping seniors obtain affordable prescription drugs.

finally it provides tax credits to help small businesses purchase health insurance for their employees. when it failed to move in the senate, house republicans began passing bills to dismantle the affordable care act piece by piece and inch by inch. they passed h.r. 1213 which repeals funding for the organization of health benefit exchanges marketplaces where american families will be able to choose an affordable health care plan. they passed h.r. 1214 which repeals funding for the construction of school-based health clinics. they passed h.r. 1216 which repeals funding for the training of primary care physicians. now they're trying to repeal the class act. the clag class act is -- the class act is the community living assistance services and supports act and it establishes

a program to facilitate access to a long-term health care services. who can be against that? the class act is a voluntary program to provide participants with a cash benefit that can be used to purchase a variety of long-term care services such as home modifications, accessible transportation, personal assistance services, home maker services, respite care, home health aides and nursing support. the programs will be funded entirely by the premiums paid by those who choose to participate. house republicans' class act repeal also repeals funding for the national clearing house for long-term health information. the clearing house provides online information about long-term care costs and planning options. our nation is indeed facing a long-term health crisis.

people are living longer. as a result there's a growing need for long-term care for elderly and disabled americans. there are 10 million people who need long-term care in the united states today. that number is expected to grow to 15 million in the year 2020. there are an estimated 52 million unpaid caregivers providing long-term care services in american homes today. american families are paying more than $50 billion every year on out-of-pocket expenses for long-term care. these families need options and they need our support. the class act does not need to be repealed. if house republicans believe this program should be fixed then they should try and fix it. however, they've not even attempted to improve this program or develop other options to make long-term care services available to american families who need them. it is long past due the house

republicans to stop trying to dismantle health care reform and start working with us in a constructive, bipartisan manner, to improve our nation's health care system. i would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and support solutions to america's long-term care crisis. ladies and gentlemen, what we are discussing today is precisely what occupy wall street was all about. it's about what are we going to do to deal with that 99% out there who simply need some safety net that their government could easily assist with? health care is a problem in this country, not everyone can afford it and i would take -- i would ask my colleagues to take the politics out of this issue. the american public needs this health care reform. and the occupy wall street people who are out there simply sent a message to say, ok,

america, stop being simply on the side of the 1%. look at the 99%. i would urge my colleagues to do that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this bill to repeal the class act. last year we watched as republicans implemented a slash and burn offensive against almost every and any federal program that helps speech -- people. no mat thart program helps women or children or seniors or sick people. let's get rid of it. apparently this year is no different. with this bill republicans have set their eyes on the class act which when implemented would help provide some relief to aging americans as well as to those who love and care for them. the class program was designed to combat the costs of long-term

care, costs that currently account for nearly half of all health care spending in this country. by helping enrollees in the program to afford a variety of long-term care services such as home modifications, assisted technology, accessible transportation, respite care, home health care aides and nursing support. currently long-term care facilities cost on average $70,000 per year and home health care aides can cost $25 per hour in some areas. how many middle class families can afford that? i understand the concerns that my republican colleagues have voiced. as currently structured the congressional budget office estimates that the program will not be solvent beyond about 2029. about 20 years from now. but what is the republicans' kneejerk solution to all budget issues? to trash a program, a necessary program, that will provide much-needed support for seniors

today and in the future. this is completely wrong headed. we should not destroy this program and ignore the problem. people will still grow older, hopefully, and they will need assisted living, they will need home health care, they will need accessible transportation. at some point we are going to have to face this issue. the current situation where medicaid will pay for this but only after the family has impoverished itself and elimb natted all their assets -- eliminated their assets is not long term solution or a tolerable solution. why should middle class families who have worked all their lives have to impoverish themselves if an elderly relative needs home health care or assisted living or a nursing home? our job here is to make people's lives better, to identify problems and to find solutions. we've certainly identified a problem. there's simply no denying that only the wealthiest among us can possibly afford to pay $70,000 a year for a nursing home.

so let's do our jobs. let's roll up our sleeves and work to make this program better. let's work to make it solvent. not simply eliminate it. let's not simply abandon middle class americans who are scared to death that after working their entire lives and playing by the rules they will have to bankrupt their children and grandchildren just to have any sense of dignity as they grow older. this is not the american dream. we don't want to tell our old people, get lost. get out of sight. go into the poor houses we had before social security. we don't want to tell our seniors, you can't have the health care, the home assisted live, the home health care aides that you need. we don't want to tell our families that you must impotch rib -- impoverish yourself, sell off all your assets because your mother or your grandmother is sick or can no longer live independently. this is why we have government to. solve problems for all you was that we cannot solve for ourselves individually.

that is the reason for government. to provide for the common welfare as the constitution says. we know we have this problem. we know as the population ages that the problem's going to get worse and more intense, not better. we know the problem's not going to go away. so let's deal with it. after many, many years congress and the affordable care act finally passed the class act program to start dealing with this. there are problems with it. yes, the financing that was brought into that program is only sufficient for about 20 years. that gives us only 20 years to fix the program. now, the sooner we fix it, the sooner we amend the financing, the easier it will be to do it. the longer we wait the harder. so what do the republicans want to do? kill the whole program, put our heads in the sand, ignore the problem and to heck with the senior citizens and to heck with their children who worry about how they're going to have their parents live their last years in dignity. that is not the american dream. it is not right. i urge mying are rp colleagues i urge mying are rp colleagues to rethis i -- my