[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 164 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6904-S6910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             The CLASS Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Friday a week ago, the Secretary of 
HHS made a very important announcement regarding one specific provision 
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Secretary Sebelius 
announced the administration would no longer be implementing the 
Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act. The acronym CLASS 
applies to that part of the health care bill. She said:

       When it became clear that the most basic benefit plans 
     wouldn't work, we looked at other possibilities. Recognizing 
     the enormous need in this country for better long-term care 
     insurance options, we cast as wide a net as possible in 
     searching for a model that could succeed. But as a report our 
     department is releasing today shows, we have not identified a 
     way to make CLASS work at this time.

  This is not an ``I told you so'' speech, although it certainly could 
be. It isn't as though folks weren't raising significant concerns about 
the CLASS Act a long time before it ever passed. Two years ago, during 
the debate, Member after Member of the Senate came to the floor to 
argue the CLASS Act was destined to fail. Senator Thune led the fight 
to raise awareness about the fiscal disaster the CLASS Act has now 
turned out to be. The Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee 
called it a ``Ponzi scheme.'' The Democratic chairman of the Finance 
Committee stated on the floor that he was ``no friend of the CLASS 
Act.''
  When the Senate took a vote on the CLASS Act, 51 Senators, including 
12 Democrats, voted to strip it from the legislation. The majority 
didn't rule that day because an agreement required 60 votes to strip it 
out.
  I think special recognition should go to former Senator Judd Gregg of 
New Hampshire. As ranking member of the Budget Committee while in the 
Senate, and a senior member of the HELP Committee, he was deeply 
concerned about the ultimate cost of the CLASS Act on future 
generations. He led an amendment to require the CLASS Act be 
actuarially sound. He did so not because he wanted to improve the CLASS 
Act but because he wanted to make clear the CLASS Act could not work 
from a fiscal standpoint.
  His amendment showed that, once implemented, the CLASS Act would take 
in revenues in early years and then begin to lose revenues in the 
outyears, ultimately either failing or requiring a massive bailout with 
taxpayer money to salvage the program. In a strange twist of budget 
scoring rules, his amendment, once accepted, led the Congressional 
Budget Office to score the CLASS Act as producing savings on paper in 
the short term.
  The score made clear the CLASS Act was doomed to failure, but as only 
happens here in Washington, a score showing the obvious failure of the 
CLASS Act then became an asset, particularly an asset because the 
Democratic leadership wanted to show this bill was revenue neutral or 
even revenue positive. It was used by the Democratic leadership not for 
what it provided beneficiaries but what it did for the overall health 
care reform bill.

  With the CLASS Act and some imaginary savings in the bill, it made 
the overall bill look as if it actually saved money. Those savings, of 
course, were a gimmick. Everyone in Congress knew

[[Page S6909]]

it, but some chose to ignore it or, worse still, to celebrate it.
  The very first action on the floor for the Affordable Care Act was 
for the majority leader to ask unanimous consent to prevent amendments 
from spending the imaginary savings--and I emphasize imaginary 
savings--generated by the CLASS Act. It wasn't a motion to protect the 
CLASS Act itself but a cynical motion to protect its precious 
``savings'' and the political value it had. Only in Washington, with 
overwhelming evidence on the table making clear a program would fail, 
would defense of the doomed CLASS Act become a virtue.
  The Chief Actuary at CMS stated:

       There is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse 
     selection would make the CLASS program unsustainable.

  The risks were known then, yet Democrats in Congress plowed ahead 
anyway. Why, you may ask. Well, Megan McArdle noted in the Atlantic on 
Monday:

       The problems with CLASS were known from day one, but no one 
     listened, because it gave them good numbers to sell their 
     program politically.

  And it wasn't just political cover. The imaginary savings gave them 
protection against potential budget points of order. Would the Senate-
passed bill have been subject to a budget point of order without the 
imaginary CLASS Act savings in the bill? That is a very legitimate 
question.
  The announcement by the Secretary of HHS provides an overdue 
vindication for Senator Gregg. His amendment made the announcement 
inevitable. Health and Human Services could not make a viable case for 
implementing the CLASS Act because of Senator Gregg's amendment 
requiring the CLASS Act to be actuarially sustainable.
  Our next action is clear. Congress should repeal the CLASS Act. It 
was not in the House health care reform bill. A majority of the Senate 
voted to strip the CLASS Act from the Senate bill. It was passed under 
laughably false pretenses. The responsible action for Congress is to 
repeal it in the first relevant piece of legislation.
  I take a back seat to no one on issues associated with improving the 
lives of seniors and the disabled. As ranking member of the Aging 
Committee, I oversaw critical hearings into deep and persistent 
problems in our Nation's nursing homes. I was the principal author of 
the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill, which is currently 
providing our seniors and people with disabilities with affordable 
prescription medications.
  On the disability front, one of my proudest achievements is the 
enactment of legislation I sponsored, along with the late Senator Ted 
Kennedy--the Family Opportunity Act--which extends Medicaid coverage to 
disabled children. In large part through my efforts, the Money Follows 
the Person Rebalancing Act and the option for States to implement a 
home- and community-based services program were included in the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005.
  Along with Senator Kerry, I introduced the Empowered at Home Act 
which, among other things, revised the income eligibility level for 
home- and community-based services for elderly and disabled 
individuals.
  This is what I said about the CLASS Act on December 4, 2009:

       If I thought that the CLASS Act would add to this list of 
     improvements to the lives of seniors or the disabled, I would 
     be first in line as a proud cosponsor of the CLASS Act. But 
     the CLASS Act does not strengthen the safety net for seniors 
     and the disabled. The CLASS Act compounds the long-term 
     entitlement spending problems we already have by creating yet 
     another new unsustainable entitlement program. The CLASS Act 
     is just simply not viable in its current form.

  That is the end of the quote I made on December 4, 2009, when that 
provision of the health care reform bill was up.
  But this is not an ``I told you so'' speech. No, Mr. President, I am 
here because I am offended by the way this administration and 
proponents of health care reform have used the disability community 
throughout the debate over the CLASS Act.
  Congress and the administration knew the CLASS Act would fail when it 
was being considered. The administration now somehow manages to treat 
this as a shocking discovery, and the fact that they are doing that is 
beyond me. But the way the administration has tried to soften the blow 
for the disability community rubs me the wrong way, because in the 
Secretary's statement on the CLASS Act I referred to, the Secretary 
said this:

       In fact, one of the main reasons we decided not to go ahead 
     with CLASS at this point is that we know no one would be hurt 
     more if CLASS started and failed than the people who had paid 
     into it and were counting on it the most. We can't let that 
     happen.

  Of course, they could have opposed the inclusion of the legislation 
and told the disability community the exact same thing back in 2009. 
Apparently, the administration is trying to tell the disability 
community that even though HHS can't implement the statute, they don't 
want to repeal it. Nicholas Pappas, a White House spokesman, said:

       We do not support repeal. Repealing the CLASS Act isn't 
     necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working 
     together to address the long-term care challenges we face in 
     this country.

  After putting the political value of the savings ahead of the doomed 
policy, the administration finally admitted the CLASS Act was a 
failure. They apologized to the disability community. They said they 
don't support repeal of the CLASS Act.
  After years of dodging reality, it is time for the President and the 
majority party to treat the disability community respectfully and 
honestly. If the President believes the CLASS Act can and should be 
saved, he should put revisions on the table much as he threatened to in 
early 2010 but never managed to.
  Congress should weigh repeal of the CLASS Act against revisions that 
could be proposed to make it a legitimate program. We should do so with 
a full score--meaning from CBO--and in the context of our current 
fiscal climate with all our cards on the table, not the stealthy way it 
was handled in 2009. We should have a healthy and open debate.
  The insipid strategy of passing something into law with a wink and a 
nod toward making it all better in the future is unacceptable and 
disrespectful to the disability community purported to be served by the 
legislation.
  Our course is clear. For those of us who care about the disability 
policies, the days of ignoring reality must come to an end. We should 
repeal the CLASS Act and move on to other legislation that gets the job 
done in a fiscally responsible way.
  I yield the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Shall the Senate advise and consent to the 
nomination of Stephen A. Higginson, of Louisiana, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Fifth District of Louisiana?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Indiana 
(Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), 
and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)

[[Page S6910]]


     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ayotte
     Blunt
     Burr
     Coats
     DeMint
     Hutchison
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________