-- i urge my republican colleagues to rethink this. figure out how to finance it better. figure out how to deal with this problem. don't simply says, let's ignore this problem and to to help with our -- to hell with our senior citizens. we must do better. we've made a start, let us continue that start, let us build on, it let us not destroy the beginnings that we have made. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: well, mr. speaker, tomorrow's groundhog's day. we've been in session this year for one month and this is the first day of the second month, and we've had two legislative days and haven't done one single thing for the working americans in this country.

now, this bill is the whole reason why the occupy wall street movement is out there and why the opinion of the performance of the congress is so low. this bill has absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs, training the unemployment, helping businesses grow or moving the country forward. it is about the ninth time we've brought a piece of so-called obamacare -- obama does care, you know -- they brought it out here and they keep trying to repeal it which is not what the people want us working on. instead, the republicans are giving us just a bunch of press releases. i can see them going out of the offices now to the tea party all over the country, rile up the base, oh, yeah and nothing is being done for the people. the second problem is the republicans aren't being straight with the american people. this bill does more than what

the republicans are saying. the republicans aren't just repealing the class act. the republicans are trying to kill another important and inexpensive program that seniors and families depend on. they're defunding the national clearing-house for long-term care information, an important and useful government website that seniors and families use to take an active role in understanding, planning and financing their long-term needs. remember, these are the most frail people in our society and they rely on this information to plan for their futures. mr. speaker, 2/3 of personal bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills and a lot of those astronomical bills are caused by the debilitating cost of long-term care. and the republicans aren't trying to solve the problem. instead, the republicans want to repeal the first-ever

federal law creating a stand-alone long-term care program. bill frist, the republican leader in the senate some years ago, said don't repeal it, fix it. but the republicans can't figure out how to fix it because they don't care about seniors. grant it, this class act needs to be fixed. it's not a perfect bill. we know that and that's what we should be doing so that the country stops allowing long-term health care to bankrupt families. the republicans don't care enough to do anything about chronic bankruptcies caused by long-term care is bad enough, but the republican wrecking ball is going even further. they want to get a scalp. they want to repeal a part of obamacare. that law that ensures 31 million more americans and saves taxpayers money. so-called obamacare, that law that already's driving down health care costs and getting

americans better service for less money. in 40 years of legislating, i've seen state houses shift parties, congress switch parties, but i've never, ever seen a legislative body that failed as badly as this one. this is the most unproductive congress i've ever seen, and if you think this bill's going to go out of here and go over to the senate, even the republican leader, mitch mcconnell, wouldn't want this brought up as the bill that we deal with. the republicans are willing to demonize in the do-nothing agenda and it's having predictable results. it gets the base worked up and angry but it dozen nothing more jobs, nothing -- does nothing for jobs, nothing for health care. the american people need the class act fixed. they need to continue to rely on the clearing-house for long-term care information. as republicans put out nair plan for wasting this en--

their plan for wasting this entire year of 2012 by not serving the american people, the voters should look very carefully at what they are actually doing. when they put out their platform, you know it's going to say what did you do. well, i voted no. i voted no. i voted no. they will have nothing positive to put on that agenda. what did you do? well, i tried to get rid of the e.p.a. i didn't want clean air. i didn't want clean water, and i didn't want labor unions and, and no, no, no. this is a terrible piece of legislation. it should be fixed. there is none of us that would stand up here and say it's a perfect piece of legislation, but i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes.

>> i would like to yield to my friend, dr. bringry, for as much time as i man -- gingrey, for as much time as i may consume. mr. gingrey: i would like to comment to my good friend from the state of washington who referenced groundhog day. my name, mr. chairman, is phil gingrey, bs as i sit here over the last couple of hours listening to the argument, i feel like phil connors, and that was the weatherman, bill murray, as you recall, the weatherman in paw tucksy, pennsylvania, -- pa tucksy, pennsylvania, reporting groundhog day. we've heard our colleagues on the other side over and over and over again and it is indeed getting just a little bit tiring. my friend also said, the gentleman, the doctor from the state of washington, mr.

chairman, and i quote him, i've never seen a congress that has failed as much as this one. well, i'm going to tell you, i've never seen a provision of law in a bill that has failed as much as the class act. and they can beat this to death, and i think they have done that, mr. chairman, but, you know, i have in my hand here a summary sheet of the h.h.s. analysis of the class act over an 18-month period of time. and they have tried to model eight different options to make this fiscally solvent required by the law, thank good, thank goodness to the senator from rhode island, the honorable judge greg at the time chairman, ranking member of the budget committee.

and the eight options -- none of them worked. i mean, there are things like war requirement. there are things like allowing nobody with a pre-existing condition to be allowed in the program. but only eligible for benefit for 15 years and on and on and on. and it -- the one option that's not on this printout i guess is option number nine and that would be the option, mr. chairman, of requiring every individual to sign up for the long-term program under the class act. the question on all of these options was -- does the secretary have legal authority, and in most of the eight, not completely, h.h.s. vulnerable

to legal challenge, not completely vulnerable to legal challenge, not completely, again, vulnerable, no authority, no authority, no authority, no authority. well, number nine, individual mandate, making everybody sign up for it, yes. got the authority to do that. should could have done that but i'm sure that my colleague and her advisors and i state this rhetorically, do you want another mandate to which the american people can rail against us in the next election? and she's smart enough to know that option number nine was not acceptable. so again we can go on and on. we can do this for another couple hours and continue this groundhog day ruse. but i say this, mr. chairman,

what part of no do they not understand? now, look, when this amendment was added at the last moment back in 2009 by the chairman of the subcommittee on health, mr. pleau, during the energy and commerce committee -- mr. pallone, during the energy and commerce committee markup debate, chairman pallone said, and i quote him, i can't stress enough that we are not actually setting this up. we are simply suggesting, that was the end of the quote. chairman pallone said it would not take effect until subsequent legislation passed. well, mr. barton, who at the time was the ranking member of the overall committee of the energy and commerce said this -- well, reclaiming my time, i am going to support the pallone amendment without binding anybody on my side to support it with the understanding that

if this moves forward there will be a hearing on this in this committee and there will be bipartisan efforts to flex it out. do i have that assurance from the chairman? and mr. pallone responded, you certainly have my assurance. and then the chairman, henry waxman, overall chairman of the committee said, fine with me. but he's the subcommittee chairman. we never had one hearing. we never had an opportunity to flush it out. defeat the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. does the gentlelady seek to request to strike the last word? ms. jackson lee: i do. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: my good friend from georgia, some things bear repeating. i love february 2. it happens to be my daughter

eric's birthday. some call it groundhog day. i call it a great celebration for a bit of joy that came into our lives. so it's a day for many that is happy. it's a day that many humor ousley look forward to great -- humorously look forward to great weather. some remember bill murray. and it's a day that symbolizes repetition. sometimes the pain of americans de-- not speaking for mr. pallone but in actuality we have the opportunity now to have bipartisan hearings. nothing is precluded. and mr. pallone's statement was accurate. he was not writing the structure of long-term care. he was indicating that for americans it was vital.

what is disappointing is that my friends on the other side of the aisle are willing to give up so easily. i don't understand that. where's the american genius? of course they'll cite h.h.s. well, they know congress directs h.h.s. they know that the repeal of this legislation for long-term care will simply kill the opportunity for americans to find relief. as we look to the future, we are just a month away until taxes go up on middle-class families and americans looking for work, lose their unemployment insurance and seniors losing access to their doctors. we could be working on that, move the conference committee a little faster but we are now adding an extra burden. let's repeal the class act. it doesn't disturb me that h.h.s. has made several tries and the time frame has not found a cure yet. but knowing research and

knowing science and being near and in the community of the texas medical center, i know how long it takes to get a good answer in health care. well, what i do want to stress to my friends, can they deny that 82% of americans saying that taking care of relatives who are aging or ill is demanding. 82% say that. 72% indicate that taking care of them is overwhelming. and 56% say that as they are taking care of their sick relatives, they are getting ill. and yet we want to abandon the discussion on long-term care. i've already said on the floor of the house that $450 billion of that long-term care is already in private hands. it's in families. it's through their labor. they are overwhelmed. $14 billion in the private

sector, see how much they're standing up to the bar. $101 billion in medicaid. we need to find a solution that balances benefit and burden. listen to a constituent from texas who took care of her son after he was seriously injured in a roadside bombing while patrolling in iraq. she did not return home for seven years in order to be with her son. debbie took a leave of absence from her job. they had to start using their retirement savings to survive. her son is now better. great news and active in the community. and she continues her work, but the catastrophic impact of the family continues on. . she is a full-time caregiver even after her daughter's death and her brother becoming

disabled after illness. where is the relief for these individuals, these people in need? where it is, is in the amendment that i offered that indicated that it is important to note that long-term care is important and a study should engender to be able to determine that. but more importantly, let's again look at this in a way that we take our time and look at the macroeconomics and take into consideration how we can best configure this. but let me tell you very clearly, that if we repeal this class act, the burden will fall on local and state governments and the millions of care delivers through their own efforts and toil, with love, i will tell you with love, expend $450 billion that we don't compensate them for, lose their jobs and add to the debt because they aren't able to take care of themselves. and as we see 76 million baby boomers going forward, mr.

chairman, let me just say don't repeal this bill. it bears repeating, help those who need your help. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. woolsey: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: anguished families are sitting down at their kitchen table and reviewing their financial situation. many are trying to figure out how in the world they're going to afford their personal long-term care needs or that of a loved one or another family member. people who have worked hard their whole lives, who are already coping with the sluggish economy are being crushed under the weight of long-term care costs, depleting their savings and spinning themselves into bankruptcy. as we know, mr. chairman,

long-term care is not covered in most health care plans. if you are already old and sick, you probably can't equal if file for a separate long-term care policy and if you care, it's likely to be insanely expensive. medicare pays only for the first 100 days of nursing home care and medicaid is only available to the very poor. but you don't have to be poor to be overwhelmed by nursing home costs that average $72,000 a year. we can't forget that we live in an aging society. as our largest generation, the baby boomers move into their retirement years. and while advances in science and technology have thankfully allowed us to live longer, it means that many of us will require more extended, more expensive care. all this has created a perfect storm in which the long-term

care crisis will get even worse, not better. in the coming years, mr. chairman, we are going to find ourselves in turmoil over long-term care. so why aren't we putting our heads together on both sides of the aisle and coming up with ideas to solve this dilemma? after all, we're all going to be old. instead, we are here today because the majority appears to want to repeal the one modest attempt to help americans cope with long-term care costs. if the program needs improvement, i ask them, then let's fix it. that's what taxpayers are paying us to do, not throw up our hands and walk away from this problem. but my friends in the majority seem to have a different version and vision of public service. it seems that instead of providing service to the public,

they view it as their job to dismantle and disembowl any government investment that improves the lives of regular people and nothing seems to drive them to distraction like the commonsense reforms of the affordable care act. they have no innovative ideas of their own but no, sir talingic of the cruel and unfair health care system that we have finally begun to leave behind us. so we need to be building on health care reform and don't need to be whittling away at it. vote no on the repeal of the class act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from virgin islands seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. christensen: i cannot help

but remember the individuals with disabilities and very serious long-term needs sitting through the markup a couple of months ago only at the end of the day seeing the committee to vote repeal of the class act. and i had the same expression and i thought the exact same way, disappointed and frustrated, saddened at the very real possibility that they and our seniors would be left out of the cold when they are at their most vulnerable. i'm sure they and millions of people with special needs and seniors are watching this now and they know that repealing the class act will not make 10 million americans' long-term care needs disappear and will not make them affordable for the overwhelming majority of most families. the secretary did the responsible thing. she put the implementation on hold because the actuarial studies do not show the program as designed was sustainable.

none of us who supported and voted for the affordable care act thought that everything in it was perfect. much of it was well put together, well planned and well designed. but there were some who thought that needs to be tweaked or invigorated or but we needed to take the most important step in the right direction to make sure the health care needs of our fellow americans would be met. the secretary in her letter to the speaker said that the report reflected, and i quote, the development of information that will ultimately advance the cause of finding affordable and sustainable long-term care options. so what we should be doing is looking at those options or charging an institute like the institute of medicine and recommend a way forward. everyone knows we have a long-term care crisis in the united states. there are 10 million vulnerable men, women and children who need this care and we know that over the next decade that number will

grow to 15 million. and we also know there are grave ethnic and racial disparities that exist for 10 million americans with unmet long-term health care needs. and so we know that long-term care burdens family budgets as well as medicaid programs in the states that administer them across our nation. only about 8% of americans buy long-term care insurance because the premiums are too expensive in many cases for most individuals to afford. despite these facts and these are indeed facts, and as we have seen time and time again, rather than identify and support a medley, economically and socially responsible solution to this critically important problem and their views to attack the affordable health care act and provisions that have already begun to help our

constituents, our friends on the other side of the aisle would like to slam the door shut. we need to have a plan to ensure access to affordable long-term care and repealing and dismantling the class act with nope safeguards in place first is definitely not the right way to go. i like everyone here, the republican and democrats have 10 million reasons to take a stand and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves and provide a voice to the voiceless and remind our colleagues and those who are watching that we cannot stop until our long-term crisis is addressed and those who need it and it's addressed in a manner that meets the high ideals of this country. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. green green mr. chairman, when it -- mr. green: mr. chairman, when it comes to health care and those who need it and can't afford it, i constantly remind myself that but for the grace of god there go i. if you don't believe in god, but for the grace of chance and circumstance, but for the goodness of luck there go i. the question we have to ask ourselves is what kind of country are we going to be? are we going to be a country wherein health care becomes wealthcare? that only the wealthy can afford

what is available, the technologies available, the pharmaceuticals are available? but only the wealthy can afford. that which is available in the richest country in the world. are we going to be a country wherein pregnancy is a pre-existing condition and if you are pregnant and don't have insurance, you cannot get it. is that the kind of country we are going to be? or are we going to be a country where senior citizens who are in need of pharmaceuticals cannot get them because they cannot afford them. but if you are wealthy, you can. but for the grace of god there go i. no one deserves the status in life to which he or she is born. born wealthy, you didn't earn it. born poor, you don't deserve it.

the question is for the we will understand that it can happen to any one of us and that we are a country that can afford to make a difference in the lives of those who are sick and cannot take care of themselves. so the issue has not been today whether we can afford it, whether we can do it, the question is, do we have the will? do we have the will? we can find the way. and i would yield to my colleague from georgia, whom i have great respect for and whom i hold no animosity. i would just like to ask you, is it not true, my dear friend, that we can work this out and find a way to get it done? is it not true? can we not find a way to get

this done? mr. gingrey: gentleman yielding to me? mr. green: yes. mr. gingrey: here again, when mr. barton, the ranking member of the committee asked very specifically, mr. speaker -- i mean, mr. chairman, when he asked very specifically in the markup on the house side back in 2009 if i vote yes for that, will we have hearings -- i think it was flesh this out. and he was assured, of course, by the chairman at the time of the health subcommittee, mr. pallone, and also the chairman of our committee, mr. waxman of california said hey, it's ok with me and there were no hearings held. so this business of can't we work this out and yet we were reaching out and it never happened. mr. green: if i may reclaim my time.

i do welcome comments about the past, my dear friend, but i'm asking you, given that you do have some degree of influence given that you are in the majority, why can we do now what was not done? and i'm not privy to what was done, why can we not now work to mend rather than end something that can benefit persons who cannot help themselves? why can we not do it now? what prevents us? mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, i think the gentleman is yielding to me again asking me a specific question and i want to respond to my friend. and you know, the point i will make to him is that we can work together. we absolutely can. mr. chairman, we have discussed this with mr. pallone and i have done so personally as i know my

physician colleagues on energy and commerce, mr. burgess, had a conversation with mr. pallone and we can work together. but we have to remove this failed program first because of that looming deadline of october 1, 2012, where we'll get sued if we don't have a program. so glad to work with the gentleman. mr. green: mr. chairman, i'm going to -- may i address the chair? mr. chairman, i ask that i be extended the courtesy that the gentleman from georgia received when he received an additional five minutes. i don't need an additional five minutes. i would like to continue this dialogue. the chair: is the gentleman requesting unanimous consent? mr. green: i ask unanimous consent to continue briefly this dialogue with the gentleman. mr. gingrey: point of order, mr. chairman. in regard to you yielding an additional five minutes to me, in fact, that is not true, mr.

chairman. as you know, the gentleman from tennessee, representative fincher, moved to strike the last word and was afforded the five minutes as we all are and he yielded to me. so i would oppose to unanimous consent or you to -- i don't think you have the thrt to do that quite honestly and i yield back. mr. green: i ask for a ruling from the chair whether i have the authority to do it. and let the record always reflect i will make an apology when i make a mistake. i ask the chair make a ruling as to whether or not we could have the unanimous consent granted. . >> parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the chair may extend time to the gentleman in the committee of the whole if only by unanimous consent. mr. green: now --

>> could i have an inquiry at this time? the chair: does the gentleman have an inquiry? mr. greene: i would like to -- mr. green: i would like to say to my friend for whom i am having a colloquy with -- the chair: the gentleman from texas -- will the gentleman from texas suspend? mr. green: reach some sort of -- the chair: the gentleman from texas will suspend. the gentleman from texas' time has expired. mr. green: i am -- can i ask for unanimous consent now, mr. chairman? the chair: there's been an objection to that request. >> i don't want to make an objection but i do -- the chair: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: is it true that 5:40 is the end -- there will be no members heard on this issue after 5:40? i ask the chair. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i am going to have to insist on regular order here.

mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady's parliamentary inquiry is a three-hour time limit that has not been reached. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for five minutes. ms. schakowsky: you know, roughly 70% of us at some point are going to have difficulty taking care of ourselves independently and we're going to need some sort of long-term care or support, and as the population ages, of course, the need for these services only increases. you know, i've been listening to this debate and on the substance there is -- at least as we identify the problem, there is an enormous amount of agreement. we all know that the costs associated with long-term care

are very inside. nursing homes can cost over $70,000 a year. and just one -- just 20 hours a week of home care costs nearly $0,000 a year. -- $20,000 a year. for working families, there's few practical options in order to plan and pay for long-term care and support services. only about 3% have a private policy covering long-term care, and while the majority are forced to spend their way into poverty to qualify for medicare, safety net coverage of these costs, are forced to spend their way into poverty. so we know this. we all agree on this, and what the class act did is address a number of critical needs, including providing a way for persons with disabilities to remain independent and in their community and bringing private dollars into the long-term care services system to reduce

reliance on medicaid without impoverishing individuals and their families. and we all agree that the class act is far from perfect. but it provides a beginning framework to begin to deal with the problem. i got a letter from jonathan lavin, c.e.o. of options in oak brook, illinois, a service provider. he emailed me actually to say, please do not vote to repeal the class act. such a vote will reverse the hope of millions of americans that one day they may collectively insure themselves for the eventuality -- when we see a vibrant congresswoman and a healthy senator struck by a stroke, we know anyone can suffer from it a disability. a broad-based insurance program, he writes, will face such life-altering challenges.

we all know that the class act is delayed in implementation since the economic situation is so dire, but we cannot understand deliberately to eliminate the potential for such legislation to do so much good after the economy recovers, unquote. every american faces the reality that acts or illness requiring long-term care could devastate them financially. while this issue affects everyone, i want to focus on class act for women in the country. long-term care is very much a women's health issue. women live longer than men. their life expectancy of women exceeds some five years. because they live longer, women are at a greater risk of needing long-term services to help them. women tend to need more resources for long-term care. women tend to be ill for longer periods. and women are likely to have a family member care for them.

over 70% of nursing home residents and home care are women. women are the ones who end up staying at home. sometimes giving up careers to provide care for a sick or disand family member. adults and children -- disabled family member. women make up 3/4 of the work force. class would make these challenges easier. it would help provide the care women require if and when they need long-term care or supports for themselves. it would help provide relief, a break, if you will, for those women who spend all day every day at home taking care of others in need of long-term care. to take away this program is to take away the first real opportunity that the women of this country have to deal with the long-term care challenges they face day in and day out, both as patients and as caregivers. like so many other republican assaults on the carecare, h.r. 117 -- affordable care act, h.r. 1173 is an attack on

women's health. like all assaults we should push back and reject this one. as you heard many times today, let's fix it, not repeal it, so it can work for women and all americans as it was intended. instead of repealing the class act with nor effective alternative in place, we can and should work together to repair this program. ignoring the long-term care crisis won't make it go away. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: i rise to strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: mr. speaker, we have here one for the books. the democrats offer a 100% private sector solution to the most costly health program affecting the congress -- a crisis affecting the congress,

and republicans want to repeal it. this is going to go down in history. the obama administration is a victim of its own honesty. it took the class act into the health care bill knowing that we can't do without it. and then it looked carefully at the cost factors and it did the right thing. it informed the congress that it was suspending implementation of the class act. it certainly will not repeal it or ask for its repeal, nor should we. and here's why. the medicare crisis before us, as i speak, is dwarfed by the long-term health care crisis. we all know it because the class crisis, if you will, is already here. here's how.

if a person must go into a nursing home, and those are the potential long-term people, americans, if such americans must go into a nursing home, first they spend down their resources and then they go into a nursing home. at a cost of about $80,000 a year. that, my friends, is long-term health care. who pays for it? we pay for it. we, the taxpayers, because medicaid pays for it. they're coming at an increasing clip because the fact is that the number of americans who are living longer, who don't have the resources themselves grows

exponentially. government is now paying 100%. let's look at the class act. that was 100% privately financed plan. it said that we should all ourselves, not wait for long-term care to be needed when we would have to ask the government through medicaid to pay for nursing home care, we should begin now to take care of our own long-term needs. what are you going to do if we don't have a class act? pass off the elderly who are in the nursing homes? to where, to whom? clearly this is the only solution unless you want the federal government to continue to pick up care for, and i mind

you for those who need long-term health care and that is what people in nursing homes are there for. only 8% buy long-term health care. now, i bought long-term health care and then i was a little concerned to read that people who have long-term health care find that they are not going to get what they thought they paid for. i think this house ought to be having hearings on what is out there now if we want to encourage people to buy their own long-term health care. we are doing none of that. we are not encouraging people what the class act would encourage them to do. instead, we're saying, repeal this private sector solution. that makes no sense because when the crisis becomes, the elderly are going to come to us. they are going to say they have no long-term care. they want what the last -- you

spend down your resources and then medicaid picks it up. that's the solution on the table now. if you want a private solution, this is golden. it is in law. we should grab it, keep it, have hearings on it. how can we make it feasible? thank the administration for indeed deciding not to implement it. they had an alternative. they could have allowed it to lay dormant, gone on with the rest of the health care bill. instead, they told the truth. now we are here trying to repeal it knowing full well that when the crisis is upon us we will never be able to put forward a private 100% private solution because it will be too late. take this for what it's worth. you have a bird in hand, and i

thank the chair, the speaker. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: thanks, mr. chairman. to summarize briefly, first off, there is no class program. the lady was right, this is a woman's issue. women have been promised something they'll never get with the class act. zero people will be enrolled in the class act. the program doesn't work. they know it won't work, and it's a false sense of hope to say that it will. h.h.s. studied for 18 months eight different scenarios to fix the class act. from $391 a month premium to $3,000 a month premium. they concluded the same result. the class act is not fixible. short of a mandate, there's no

way to fix the class act. now, our friends on the other side have had several opportunities, offer amendments to fix the class act. first of all, h.r. 1173 was marked up in the energy and commerce health subcommittee, and they didn't offer an amendment. at full committee, the democrats didn't offer comprehensive plan to fix the program. and now with nearly four hours of debate, still no amendments to fix the program. without a mandate, there's no way to fix it. . mr. chairman, we must get this program off the books and start over. it was wrong when it was passed and a liability on our budget. and the american taxpayers who would reject any further feament by the federal government to require something upon them that is another mandate. i urge a vote for h.r. 1173 to repeal this class act.

let's start over again and i yield back. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed. amendment number 2 by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number 1 of ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number 4 mr. deutch of florida and amendment number five by mr. deutsche of florida. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-fint vote. -- this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 161, the nays are 263.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: the amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 157, the nays are 264, and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4, printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. deutch of florida the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record

their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 160 --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 1663 -- 163 --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 164, the nays are 260 and the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from fla, mr. deutch

on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 160, the nays are 264, the amendment is not agreed to. the question is the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted it. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1173 and pursuant to house resolution 522, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the question is ordered. the question is on the committee in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to repeal the class program. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the jar qualifies. the clerk: mr. garamendi of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report back to the house with the following amendments. at the end of the bill, add the following, section 3. insuring long-term care for services for seniors with alzheimer's and a, general, section 2, shall not take effect as the secretary of health and human services certifies that a national voluntary insurance program is in effect for

purchasing community living assistance services and support for individuals to, one, have, a alzheimer's disease and other cognitive impairment. chronic heart disease or advanced stages of cancer, c, a disability or traumatic injury, d, any serious health disease or condition. and two, require assistance with two or more assistance such as eating, bathing, dressing and bathing. >> section 2-b shall take effect on the enactment of this act. . the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i want all members to pause for a moment and think about your family. mr. garamendi: think about your community. and the people you represent. and i want you to put in your mind alzheimer's, put in your mind alzheimer's and the effect that it has on individuals and families. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman's correct, the house will be in order. members are will kindly take their conversations off the house floor. mr. garamendi: now are you envisioning the affect of alzheimer's? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you. not only on the individual but on the family. i want to you put in your mind that terrible auto accident that left that young child totally disabled. i want you to put in your mind

the diabetic. think about long-term diabetes and the affect that it has. now, the point of my amendment is not to kill this bill but rather to amend it in such a way that it can be taken up on the floor with all of us supporting this. long-term care, long-term care is a major challenge for families, for individuals and for this nation. 5.4 million americans today have alzheimer's and at the end of this decade it's expected to double. more than 10 million. keep that vision of the alzheimer's patient in your mind. it may be someone in your family. or in your circle.

24 million americans have diabetes. 26 million have heart disease. think of that stroke victim. you know that person. they've been our colleagues, disabled and in many cases totally disabled. what this amendment does is to deal with the profound problem in america, how do we care for those who are disabled, age to care for themselves -- unable to care for themselves for a lengthy period of time? how do we do that? there is no effective way to do it today. until that individual or family is flat broke. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members will take their conversations off the house floor. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. there is no mechanism today to deal with this problem unless

you have become totally bankrupt. no assets. and then you get to go on the medicaid program. a burden on our general fund. and on every state's general fund. this amendment offers a solution. this amendment says that we will keep the class act in effect but seek a national voluntary insurance program. now i happen to know insurance and i happen to know that all of the long-term insurance programs out there have failed to work because they are narrow, because they've been unable to reach across the broad spectrum of america to provide a broad base of risk. you need a very, very large pool to deal with this very large and very expensive problem. if my amendment is adopted we will be able to go forward and to repair the class act into a

voluntary insurance program that would involve the entire nation. and thereby provide a premium that is affordable. the present programs do not. and as we know from the class act itself and the work done by the department of health and human services, it too is flawed. but the problem remains, the problem is not -- has not disappeared. it is in fact in every one of our families and quite possibly with us as individuals. we need a solution. whether you're a democrat or a republican, we have to find a solution to this problem. because now it falls back. when all other resources are gone for the individual and the family, it falls back onto the general fund of the state and the federal government. not a good solution at all. so i ask for your support on this. if you adopt this amendment we

will immediately vote on the class act itself. and it will be repealed but not real. it will be maintained as we work forward toward a solution. that's our task here. that's our task as members of congress. find solutions for the real problems that face every american. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the gentleman from california, in mentioning these categories of suffering seniors, people with alzheimer's diseases, chronic diabetes, heart disease, advanced stages of cancer, disability or

traumatic injury. i'd like to tell the gentleman and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, that we on this side of the aisle always, always have these victims in our minds and our hearts and our prayers. but we have the compassion and the honesty not to promote and present a ruse and false hope and that's what this class -- so-called class act nonprogram does to these suffering individuals that suffer from these chronic medical conditions and disabilities. h.r. 1173 is an opportunity for this congress to reverse one of the most costly coverups, yes, coverups this administration has imposed upon the american taxpayer. the failure of this administration to implement the

class program came as no surprise to the many of us who had actually listened to the concerns from unbiased actuaries. even the administration's own chief health actuary, richard foster, from c.m.s., about the certain failure of the class program. the concerns, mr. speaker, were bipartisan during debate on the president's health care law and even the president's own fiscal commission called for the program's repeal. so today we have the opportunity to finally get this failed program off of the books. this administration has spent millions of dollars and, yes, eight ways of sunday -- here they are, colleagues -- eight ways short of having yet another mandate that all people have coverage. they have tried to implement a program that never had a chance of being implemented and today we're faced with an $80 billion

hole in the budget that this administration claimed would be filled by the implementation of the class program. listen, colleagues, key senate democrats like senator harkin believe that there is still one last option worth considering. another unconstitutional mandate on every american. in fact, in comments to reporters yesterday this is what the senator said. senator harkin made the claim that the problem with the current class program, that it is voluntary. it needs to be mandatory in the opinion of the esteemed senator. the need for long-term care reform is an important issue and i am confident solutions can be accomplished and we can do this in a bipartisan way. as they have been done before on this issue. we cannot, however, continue to deny the fact that the class program is a abject failure and its repeal is necessary today.

i say to my democratic colleagues, admit your failure, you rushed this provision into the health care law, i understand your compassion toward the late senator kennedy and want this to be a legacy for him but it was his staff that maybe misled the committee and the democratic majority. but admit your failure, get over it, vote to repeal this failed class act and live to fight another day and i recommend that we vote down this motion to recommit and for the bill to repeal and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the motion fails.

>> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant of clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 1173 if ordered and motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 3835 and h.r. 3567. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the motion to recommit is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it -- >> mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 267 and the nays are 159. the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3835 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3835, a bill to extend the pay limitation for members of congress and federal employees. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a fiveman minute -- five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 309, the nays are 117. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3567 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. 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 that requires states to implement policies to prevent assistance under the temporary assistance for needy families program from being used in strip clubs, can sinows and liquor stores. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 235, the nays are seven. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are awe spended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor to h r. 3784. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing you should the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 533, resolution providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill h.r. 658 torque amepped title 49, united states code, to authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 to streamline programs, create efficiencies, redeuce waste and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 534, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 578, to emergency

deficit control act of 1975, to provide the budget baseline and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3582 to amend the national budget act to provide for macroeconomic impact of -- analysis of the impact of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 3630, offered by mr. michaud of maine, mr. michaud of maine moves that the

managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing vote of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3630 be instructed to receive from section 2123 of the house bill relating to allowing a waiver of requirements under section 3304-a-4 of the internal revenue code of 1986, including a requirement that all money withdrawn from the unemployment fund of the state shall be used solely in the payment of unemployment compensation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, and the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yealed four minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank my esteemed colleague, mike michaud of

maine, for allowing me to join him and to rise in support of his motion to instruct conferees on a payroll tax cut extension bill that strikes a section that undermines the normal procedures of unemployment compensation to people who are out of work as it diverts those funds to other purposes. here we have the hardest of hearts that exist in this house, the majority on the other side of the aisle, who allow the market -- allowed the market to crash in 2008, putting millions of people out of work, and then throwing millions more out of their homes and turning a coal eye toward them and then propose to cut heating assistance to those who are struggling across this country an then a majority on the other side voting to not extend unemployment benefits to the victims. i didn't see any enthusiasm over

there for prosecuting the big banks on wall street and those who had committed the fraud that got us into this mess in the first place. no, they want to cut it out of the heart os they have victims. the house republican proposal in h.r. 3630 would allow states to apply for waivers to bypass basic protections and standards that now apply to the permanent unemployment extension program. states already have ample flexibility to determine eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits and to set the amount of those benefits but they must now operate under a basic set of rules. for example, states are required to spend unemployment insurance funds solely on unemployment benefits. they must pay benefits when due and they may not condition eligibility on issues beyond the fact and cause of person's unemployment. the republican bill would circumvent these basic protections.

under the proposed waiver policy, states could divert funds to other purposes, which seems particularly ill timed when over half of the state's unemployment trust funds are insolvent because there's so many people still out of wok this diversion policy could lead to jobless individuals being denied weekly unemployment benefits and instead being offered less useful benefits. furthermore, a waiver could allow new requirements to be imposed on unemployment insurance recipients, including a requirement that they perform a community service job to be eligible for benefits. unemployment insurance is an earned benefit for people who have worked hard, it's insurance. effectively they have paid into those insurance funds and have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. these individuals must actively search for work to be eligible. i have people in my district that have sent out 400 resumes, knocked on hundreds and hundreds

of doors. they want to work. many receive services through the federally funded one-stop employment centers. regrettably, house republicans, again, have a proposal here that is consistently targeted, this system -- consistently targetted this system for steep cuts at a time when they are needed most. i wonder why they don't focus as much attention on prosecution of the wall street perpetrators who got us into this mess in the first place. i think you've got the telescope turned around in the wrong direction you ought to be caring for those who have an ethic of work and have earned these benefits. we need to recoup money to balance the budget and meet our societal needs by making sure that prosecution occurs for those who took the republic to the cleaners and are still fat

and happy sitting in the same chairs they were in in 2008 on wall street. i say to the gentleman, i rise in strong support of your effort to instruct conferees and protect the earned benefits of those in our society who build this country forward through thick and thin, no matter what. they have earned the right to their unemployment benefits. i yelled back my remaining time to the gentleman, i thank him so much for yielding me this time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the floor on the motion to recommit. on the motion to instruct. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: thank you. i think there is bipartisan agreement, republicans and democrats, on extending unemployment benefits for a full year. clearly, we're in tough economic times, but here we are, two and a half years after the recession officially ended, and yet we have 27 million people who can't find a full-time job. we have a lower unemployment rate, principally because so

many americans have simply given up looking for work. what we know is the current unemployment system is not working. i think we can all agree, an unemployment check is no substitute for a paycheck. we know the longer a person stays unemployed, the harder it is for them to get back in the work force. most studies show us that after two years, the chances of you getting back in the work force becomes very, very slim. yet, the government today subsidizes that unemployment for almost that full two years. there's agreement that the sooner we get people back to work, the better it is for them and the better it is for our economy. but what federal government is doing today, it isn't working. we have a system from the 1930's. we need an unemployment system for the 21st century, for today's economy. common sense reforms are in order but the democrat motion to instruct that we just heard about destroys those reforms to

put people back to work. under the house bill, we allow states, those who know the economies better, who know their workers best torque put together innovative programs to get people off unemployment and back into the work force where they belong. under the house bill, for example, we require workers to actually look aggressively for a job. you would think that's common sense but under federal law today, a person can go a year and a half receiving unemployment benefits and not be looking for a job. in some states you don't have to look for a job at all. that's not acceptable. those -- those without a g.e.d. or high school diploma, those whose chances of getting a job are the slimmest, those who are laid off first and hired last, they struggle. under the house bill, we allow states to put together programs to actually get those workers

that education. for example, if you're 40 years old and don't have a g.e.d., the truth of the matter is you have a quarter century left in the work force. we want to help you get that education, to be a better applicant torque get a better job, to have a brighter future. but this bill denies states the ability to help get that education for their workers. we give states the ability to tailor job training programs, to give people, again, back to work. this is what the president talked about when he cited georgia works and other issues on job creation. the democrat motion stops states who the their -- know their local economies best from putting these job trainings in place for their workers. finally in the house bill, we recognize and believe it's time to stop subsidizing drug use through federal benefits. i wonder how many people this morning went to work in the dark, how many single moms struggled to get their kids to

school before they went to work, how many people are driving home right now are going to miss their kid's practice, they were at work. how many told their boy scout they couldn't be at the campout this weekend because they had to work on saturday? how many people working one, two, three jobs that washington takes money from their paycheck to help people who are unemployed and all the house bill does is to ensure that people that states are allowed to help people get that education, get that job training in subsidizing drug -- end subsidizing drug use. we don't require states to do this, we allow states to have waivers, to be innovative to do that. at the end of the day, the truth of the matter is we have so many companies who tell us they want to hire good workers with good salaries but these workers can't pass even a basic drug test. look, if you've got a casual drug habit or a more serious problem, finance it on your own. you're not going to take tax

dollars from your neighbor who's working one or two or three jobs to finance your drug habit. in fact, your future is dimmed because of. it and if states decide not to implement a drug screen program, their decision, it's not washington. the democrat motion makes sense only if you work in washington and think that current status quo is working. it is not. so i respectfully oppose the motion, support the proposed waiver authority as well as its other provisions and i would reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i want to thank the gentleman from maine for his ever-present leadership on the issue of unemployment insurance. and also for fighting for jobs for americans. because we're really here

looking at two problems. one is the problem of making sure that those on unemployment are going to get benefits so they can survive and the other one is the massive unemployment that we have in america. i mean, obviously these matters are interrelated. let me speak first to mr. michaud's motions to instruct conferees. this provision to remove section 213 from h.r. 3610, this section severely undermines the unemployment insurance system that nearly eight million americans rely on. it allows states to apply for waivers that would change how unemployment insurance funds are allocated. it does this under the guys of -- guise of strengthening unemployment programs. in reality, these proposed waivers would allow states to use unemployment insurance funds

for purposes other than paying out benefits. think about this. if people are on unemployment insurance, they need those benefits. you don't want the state to find an excuse to siphon those benefits to some other purpose. and by allowing the use of unemployment insurance funds for purposes other than providing unemployment benefits to those who rely on them, we'd be weakening a system that has provided assistance to unemployed americans for decades. the rationale for the reallocation is deceptively camouflaged. it's being described as fulfilling additional benefits to the unemployed such as bolstering job training programs and re-employment programs. yet in reality divertings from the unemployment insurance -- diverting funds from the unemployment insurance fund to other equally important programs is not a viable solution and

will ultimately undermine the unemployment insurance system that millions rely on. the truth of this matter is that this congress has been shirking its responsibility to independently and to adequately fund these programs. section 2123 of this legislation also gives the states the ability to create their own eligibility requirements which could impede otherwise eligible recipients from collecting their benefits. the waivers permitted under section 2123 would give states the opportunity to impose new eligibility requirements on unemployment insurance recipients that are unrelated to their employment history and current unemployment stat us. this includes giving the states the right to require a high school diploma or g.e.d. as a prerequisite for receiving unemployment benefits. now think about that. you have so many people who because of family situations

have not been able to finish high school and are working to support their families, they get laid off and then they're told, well, wait a minute, because you don't have a high school diploma, you can't get any benefits. this is a double punishment for people. what we should be doing is enabling people who are unemployed to be able to get a college education paid for while they're unemployed so that when they are graduated or better educated that when they come back into the work force they can help make a greater contribution or a -- to our country. frivolous requirements like giving states the right to require a high school diploma or g.e.d. as a prerequisite for receiving unemployment benefits will do nothing but prevent benefits from reaching those who need them the most. in my home state of ohio, the unemployment rate is still above 8%. just last week more than 20,000 ohioans were on the brink of losing their extended benefits.

the men and women of this country should not have the added stress of monitoring the government's attempts to deny or delay their unemployment benefits. we have to protect the integrity of the unemployment insurance program and those that rely on it. and while we're at it, we also have to start thinking about creating jobs in this country. we have at least 13 million people unemployed. and another six million underemployed. it's time we got america back to work, then we wouldn't be having this debate about unemployment insurance. if people are unemployed they should get the benefits but we should also be creating jobs and that's not what we're doing. we need new mechanisms to create jobs. we shouldn't tell people, well, the government doesn't have any money, well, we're borrowing money from china, south korea and japan, why don't we start spending the money into circulation? look what the federal reserve does. the federal reserve creates money out of nothing, gives to banks, the banks park the money at the fed, they gain interest, our businesses are starved for lack of capital, what if we, the government, took back the constitutional right that we

have under article 1, section 8, to spend or create money, coin money, spend it in circulation, create millions of jobs, put our country back to work, rebuild our infrastructure, more money for education, more money for health care, america's best days are ahead of it if we start to think about the mechanisms we have to create jobs in this country. and the meantime, we sure better protect those people who are unemployed. the mechanism i talked about, it's called the need act. national employment emergency defense act. we have a means of getting people back to work. in the meantime, if they're not working, let's make sure we don't curtail their unemployment benefits. support the michaud amendment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to one of the leaders of getting this economy and america back on track and people back into good-paying jobs. the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. let me make a couple of points about this motion to instruct

which i oppose. section 2123 which is the issue here allows up to 10 states per year to apply for waivers to test innovative ideas to help people get a job, to help people get back to work. so it's only up to 10 states and waiver programs would have to be cost-neutral, rigorously evaluated and then we could understand the policies. look, i think the folks at home in my great state of oregon are just as compassionate if not more so than what happens here in washington. i think they can be creative, too, in helping and in fact in 2011 oregon launched its version under a waiver of the national career readiness certificate program. now what that did was certify 10,000 -- 10,760 work-ready individuals in the state that they have the appropriate math, reading and other skills necessary to get back and contribute to the work force. now that hiring tool brought nearly 400 businesses, communities and workers together and then simplified the job search/hiring process.

these are the kind of innovative ideas that we could use to help people get a job. now, look, this is a horrible economy. we've had 11 recessions since world war ii. this is the worst one in terms of coming out of it. so the policies that have been in place the last couple of years haven't worked. the american people were promised, if we spent $1 trillion we don't have, including interest on the so-called stimulus, unemployment wouldn't go above 8% and yet here we are. record unemployment. record deficit. trillion-dollar year after year after year deficits under the obama administration and people still out of work. highest poverty level since the great antipoverty campaigns began. this has to change. we have to get people back to work and one of the issues we're going to deal with in the conference committee, i hope, you want to do something about jobs, then let's stop this boiler mact rule from going into place. the e.p.a. boiler mact rule threatens to cripple american manufacturers, we've lost more jobs there than since i think

back to world war ii and this rule by e.p.a. would cut another 200,000 jobs. so let's roll back the job-killing regulations, let's get americans back to work and let's leave creativity to the states to help us find better ways to take care of those who run employed. and i yield back the balance of my -- who are unemployed and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. mr. mitchell: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- -- mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today. at the end of the last session, the house considered h.r. 3630, a bill that would extend the payroll tax cut, as well as the unemployment insurance. unfortunately the bill also included provisions that would undermine the unemployment insurance program as we know it today. while i disagree with many of these provisions, my motion to instruct focuses on one particular provision. the provision would roll back a requirement that states must

spend all unemployment funds solely on unemployment benefits. now, i know that there might be some who disagree with the size of the unemployment program and how many weeks individuals should be able to get their unemployment benefits. but i think we can all agree that money intended to help the unemployed make ends meet while they're looking for work should not be used for something else. there are several reasons why maintaining the integrity of the unemployed program makes sense. first, there are still more than 13 million americans out of work as a result of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. and these americans rely on unemployment benefits to feet their families and pay the rent until they can find another job. to allow states to use these funds intended to support these families for programs to result

in those who have lost their jobs to receive a benefit that does not help them make ends meet and would be useless. some might argue that this provision will give states more flexibility to implement the unemployment program. i strongly support giving states the flexibility to implement national policies in a way that makes sense to some other states. but there's already great flexibility in the unemployment insurance program. states already choose and adjust employers' tax rates, benefit levels and duration and eligibility criteria. this provision goes too far and jeopardizes unemployment benefits themselves. and it won't help the millions of unemployed americans get back to work. second, unemployment benefits help individuals find other jobs.

according to c.b.o. extension of unemployment insurance benefits in the past few years increased both employment and participation in the labor force over what they have -- would have been otherwise. and recent research from the brookings institute concluded that unemployment insurance does not increase the time that people remain unemployed. they found that unemployment benefits may actually keep more people in the labor force through its requirement that beneficiaries seek work. the fact is unemployment benefits remain a crucial resource for american workers who lost their jobs as a result of the great recession and not because of their job performance. using unemployment insurance funding for any other purpose than unemployment benefits for struggling families simply makes no sense.

third, unemployment benefits stimulates the economy. c.b.o. identified increasing aid to unemployed as one of the policies that would have the largest effect on output in employment and therefore trigger economic growth. that's because individuals who receive unemployment benefits don't put it in their savings account, they spend that money on things like putting food on the table for their families. if we divert money from the unemployment program this economic stimulus effort will be lost and our economic recovery will be even slower than it is now. . i think it is important to remind ourselves that the unemployment benefits are given to eligible individuals who have previously had a job but have lost it for reasons out of their control. during the great recession, millions of americans were given pink slips.

even now, our economy has started to show small signs of recovery. but there are certain areas in maine, labor market areas, where unemployment is more than 20%. these families aren't going on vacations or buying luxury cars, they're spending all their money in their savings accounts, emptying their 401k's and simply doing without. they need unemployment benefits to help them stay afloat and to help them find a job. my most simply instructs conferees to take out of this harmful provision so that we can ensure the unemployment funding is spent on unemployment benefits. in this environment of reining in government spending and making sure taxpayers' dollars are used effectively, i think it makes sense to make sure that the unemployment benefits cannot be spent on some other program that won't help families or the economy like the unemployment

insurance. so i urge my colleagues to support this motion to ensure that the unemployment benefits continue to go to americans who lost their jobs and are trying to get back on their feet. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield two minutes to one of the freshmen who has taken a leadership role on the committee, who understands that it's not an unemployment check americans are seeking but a paycheck. mr. berg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berg: i rise in strong opposition to the democrats' motion to instruct. with sections 2123 of house bill 30, we give states the unemployment -- the ability to

test and expedite re-employment on individuals receiving unemployment benefits. we are empowering the states who know their workers best, to be creative, to be innovative and to do more if war eric -- workers to get them back to work. in my home state of north dakota, where the unemployment rate is the lowest in the nation, we have tremendous re-employment programs that are operated through job service. the participants in these re-employment programs have even said, i would make this program a permanent feature so that all people who are unemployed have a chance to utilize it. and others who said you will learn something you never thought about before, no one goes away without something. instead of continuing the same washington business as usual, inflexible approach to unemployment insurance, it's critical we make common sense reforms now. to me, it's obvious.

states know their workers best. let's empower them. it's time for washington to learn from the states, give them the flexibility they need. with that, i urge my colleagues to oppose the democrat motion to instruct and support the underlying bill. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you. i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i rise this evening in support of congressmanmy should's motion to instruct conferees. every single one of us in this chamber woke up this morning and came to work. we're lucky to have jobs. jobs that are a source of dignity and self-fulfillment. but mr. speaker, 13 million americans woke up this morning with no job to go to. no salary to help support their

families. these 13 million americans are jobless, not because there's something wrong with them but because something is wrong with the u.s. economy and with the policies designed to keep 1% of the population comfortable at the expense of the remaining 99%. the recession happened to the american people. they didn't bring it on themselves. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle see it differently. instead of willingly extending jobless americans the hand-up they're entitled to, the majority insists on punishing jobless americans for their predicament. they want to manipulate the unemployment insurance forum that everyone pays into, that everyone deserves to access when they fall on hard times.

they want to give states the permission to use unemployment insurance funds for something other than unemployment insurance. how convenient. i'd like to propose that we use war spending for something other than war spening. states already have plenty of flexibility in designing their unemployment insurance systems. so this republican proposal just appears to be an atell to divert money away from unemployment torque erect more barriers to accessing these benefits. at the very moment they're needed the most. here's an idea. instead of undermining jobless benefits, why doesn't the republican majority put their energies into a real strategy to create jobs for these unemployed workers. this morning in the education and work force committee, we heard from a republican governor who spoke positively about the

imperative of job creation and the importance of federal investments in infrastructure work force and career training. i hope my friends in the majority will listen to this fellow republican. i hope they will stop playing games with unemployment insurance. i hope that they will remove this provision that allows states to take the unemployment insurance money away from unemployed peoples and instead pass a big, bold, jobs plan. that will remove workers from the unemployment ranks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio who is a small business owner himself, who has helped create 1,500 new jobs in the united states, the gentleman from ohio, mr. renacci.

mr. renacci: i rise against this motion to instruct conferees. in these uncertain economic times we must allow states the ability to pursue innovative pro-work strategies and grant them the ability to build effective employment programs. every day, i hear from businesses in my district, in ohio, that are ready to hire but cannot find the right person. most of those currently collecting unemployment insurance want to return to work. as soon as possible. we must implement measures and expedite reemployment without adding to the deficit. a concept for granting states the flexibility to redirect a portion of unemployment benefits

to an employer was included in the original bill. in exchange, the employer would hire a qualified unemployed worker at a higher rate than that individual would have received on unemployment. this common sense legislation is a win for the unemployed, for employers, and for taxpayers. i urge you to support the underlying bill and oppose any effort to limit this initiative. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from maine. this is a simple notion, we want to ensure that unemployment funds are used for those who are unemployed. we want to make sure that unemployment funds, as promised, are given to those who are

unemployed. it shouldn't be a partisan issue. there are unemployed republicans, there are unemployed democrats, there are unemployed independents. our motion says to them, we're not turning away from you. but evidently, it sooms to be a partisan issue. now let me repeat in clear english, what this means when they talk about waivers. in clear english, it means, this bill, the house republican bill, would allow states to divert unemployment funds for other purposes. now, states already have ample flexibility. they say they need flexibility. but flexibility is a euphemism for denying benefits. it's an invitation to deny ben fit -- benefits. states are right now required to spend unemployment insurance funds solely on unemployment benefits. they must pay the benefits when they're due, they may not

condition eligibility on issues beyond the fact of unemployment, and cause a person's unemployment. this legislation, unless we accomplish what the gentleman from maine is trying to accomplish here, would circumvent these basic protections. now, of course, it's fine for states to innovate, to pursue innovative ideas to help people get jobs. but for heaven's sake, don't experiment with the livelihood of people who have lost their jobs. it's called unpliment insurance, no it's not taking money from hardworking americans. i couldn't believe my ears when i heard that here on the floor. insurance is for those people who never expected they would be unemployed. i'll show you thousands of people in new jersey, i'm sure my friend here cowl show you thousands in maine. they never thought they'd be unemployed for a week or a month or six months or 99 weeks.

there are more people who have been unemployed for 99 weeks in the past year than at any time since the great depression. taking money away from hardworking americans. couldn't believe it. never thought i would hear this on the floor. unemployment insurance is not welfare. it's to -- it is provided to people who have worked hard. they've paid into an insurance fund, in effect. and they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own. they have to actively seek work to be eligible. but unemployment insurance also helps the public at large, the economy at large. it's not just helping those families and it certainly does help those families, those spouses, those children, but as my friend from maine pointed out, the unemployment insurance money isn't stashed under a

mattress. the family spends that money. and it helps the economy at large. even with the min us kuhl improvements in the economy recently, long-term unemployment remains up around record levels. there are millions of fewer jobs in the economy today than before the recession started. jeffrey from plains bro, new jersey, wrote me, i was wondering if the extension for unemployment benefits would be extended? my wife has been unemployed for close to two years and despit trying to get a job, we see her 99-week job to get -- her 99-week unemployment benefits fast approaching. may i ask for additional time? mr. michaud: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. rush: let me know if there's light at the end of the tunnel. thanks. i think he would be outraged if someone here on the floor was associating his wife with drug abusers who shonn get the unemployment insurance benefits that she deserves. robert from somerset wrote to me to say, i'm an unemployed vietnam vet who received my last unemployment check last week. if you have any suggestions i'd appreciate it. why is it so hard for you and other members of congress to help us by voting for the extension of unemployment benefits? banks don't have to beg as we do. i don't recall any bank risking their life for our country. if they're interested in experimentation for how to do things better, why don't they experiment with maybe denying the banks and investment banks some of the benefits they've gotten. i think this person would be outraged for somebody to tell outraged for somebody to tell him