[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H192-H199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1173, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
RETIREMENT ACT OF 2011
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 522 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 522
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1173) to repeal the CLASS program. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a
period not to exceed three hours. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those received for printing in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII in a daily issue dated January 31, 2012, or
earlier and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate. Each amendment so received may be offered only by the
Member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be
considered as read if printed. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 522 provides a modified open rule for
consideration of H.R. 1173. This rule allows for any amendment prefiled
in the Congressional Record which complies with the rules of the House
to be made in order. That's pretty simple.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 1173, the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act
of 2011, which was introduced on March 17, 2011, by the gentleman, my
dear friend from Louisiana, Congressman Charles Boustany, and was
reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 33-17 on
November 29, 2011.
{time} 1720
Additionally, the bill was reported by the Committee on Ways and
Means on January 18, 2012, by a vote of 23-13.
This legislation has been through regular order. Members from both
sides of the aisle on several committees have had opportunities to
submit perfecting ideas, and those amendments have been considered.
With the modified open process brought forward by the Rules Committee,
every preprinted amendment will be given full and fair consideration by
this body.
Mr. Speaker, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
Act, also known as the CLASS Act, was a budgetary gimmick introduced by
congressional Democrats in the ObamaCare bill to fit a 10-year budget
score, not to provide reliable insurance coverage. This is why we are
here today. Built on an unstable foundation, this long-term health
insurance system was broken from its inception, and yet was used to
sell ObamaCare to those who did not fully comprehend its future
implications.
Let's review the facts of this case. The CLASS Act establishes a
long-term health coverage program that would be operated by the Federal
Government. The program is a guaranteed issue, meaning no one can be
turned away. The program provides subsidized premiums to those under
the age of 22 and to those below the poverty line. Finally, it can use
no government funding. If that isn't a recipe for failure, I'm not sure
how else you would design the program. Giving reduced premiums to some
and mandatory coverage to all necessarily drives up the monthly
premium. The Department of Health and Human Services indicated that the
plans, as designed, would cost $235 and $391 a month and could rise to
as much as $3,000 a month for those in the program. Anyone who is
healthy and above the poverty line would most certainly turn to the
private sector, leaving the program woefully underfunded. These are the
facts. The program is not viable and is not sustainable.
In reference to the program, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Secretary Sebelius, finally agreed on October 14, saying, ``I
do not see a viable path forward at this time.'' It makes you wonder
what other sections of ObamaCare might not be fiscally sound, given a
closer review as well. Oh, by the way, this Republican Congress is
doing that right now, in committee, under regular order. Apparently,
however, we had to pass the bill to find out about the CLASS Act and
what was in it and how it might work.
[[Page H193]]
Mr. Speaker, we are not solving the problem by creating programs that
are unsustainable. We continue to double down, taxing Medicare and
Medicaid relentlessly to where they cannot pay for themselves.
President Obama and congressional Democrats actually cut $500 billion
in Medicare in order to fund the CLASS Act and flawed programs like it
in the ObamaCare package. The majority of Republicans in this House are
committed to protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for
future generations, not passing empty promises--those that cannot
sustain themselves and those that would be headed for failure from
their inceptions. I believe we are abandoning the core mission of
entitlement programs, which was meant to bring necessary coverage to
those who cannot provide for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I, like many Americans, can speak on a personal basis
about what a disappointment this is, not just the ObamaCare bill, but
the provisions laid out in it. You see, I'm not unlike many Americans.
I have a disabled son at home. I have an 18-year-old Down syndrome
young man. I, and Alex, perhaps at some point, will count on the
government's being able to uphold its real responsibility. I believe
government should have a mission statement, and that government should
have a role in the lives of Americans, but it should be one which is
very narrow and well understood.
I understand and believe that we should have a government that does
help people who need help, and that we do have a government that can
give assistance. However, I believe that able-bodied people should not
be included in these programs. I believe that the people who should be
a part of this government assistance should be those who have an
intellectual or physical disability, those who are seniors--our
parents. Because of their ages and their service to this great country,
they have earned this and should be given that help. Lastly, those who
are poor--those, in other words, who are at or below the poverty line--
should be a part of this as well.
I believe that what this bill has done--and the philosophy of the
Democratic Party, including that of this President--will diminish the
real role that government should be playing, because, in fact, it has
gone so far out of its intended purpose, or of its ability to sustain
what it should be doing, that it will be a sham system and unable to
help those it should have been intended to help in the first place. I
have seen this many times. I have seen it in professional sports where,
as an analogy, people will buy a season ticket and get a parking pass
with it. There are sometimes 10,000 or 15,000 people who buy season
tickets for 4,000 parking places. In other words, there may be 10,000
people who have the right to come to those parking places, but there is
only room for a few.
Mr. Speaker, I believe our government and the leaders of this
government, including Secretary Sebelius, recognize the limitations and
the failures of this piece of legislation. This one piece alone is what
we, as Republicans today, are trying to highlight, and Dr. Boustany is
right in bringing it to us.
We should not be creating a system that would be outside the scope of
what the government should actually be doing, which is to help those
who cannot help themselves or who deserve that opportunity to have
help. In other words, by creating a larger-than-life scenario which
cannot be sustained, they've, in fact, put the underpinnings of
something that could be good at risk--selling too many parking places
for the ones that need to exist. The parking places that need to exist
need to be on a one-on-one basis now for the people who need them the
most. That is what the government should be doing and doing well, not
going outside of its mandate and not promising something that is
unsustainable and that they cannot deliver on.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit and suggest that some Democrats will rise
today to defend this bill, the CLASS Act, but the facts of the case are
now known and well understood so that even the President and his
administration are walking away from this part of the bill. The program
is fatally flawed, and a full repeal is the only realistic way we
should approach this.
Now is the time to be serious with the American people. Now is the
time when we need to say that this should not have been a part of what
this health care bill is about. It will surely not deliver on what was
sold or do what it was intended to do; and before we engage in that, we
ought to be realistic and honest about what this is doing.
Now is the time to be serious with the American people about
expectations from the Federal Government as related to this program.
House Republicans are committed to providing affordable, patient-driven
solutions to the problems facing our health care system; and we
recognize, in going through the bill, that this stands out as a prime
example of what is broken about the legislation that is law today.
So we are here forthrightly, through regular order, to talk in a
polite and sensible way about how we should handle what we now know and
what we should have known then but failed to do. Not reading the bill
is just another example of the flawed process that we were going
through.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this modified open rule,
which allows for the consideration of all preprinted amendments that
comply with the rules of the House, and to vote for the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1730
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions)
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this rule. One is, as was pointed out, this is not truly an open
rule--there is a preprinting requirement. But there is also a cap, a
time limit of 3 hours on the total debate for this bill. So if Members
have an idea about an amendment they want to offer and it bumps up
against the 3-hour time limit, they're out of luck.
I would remind my colleagues that this is an important issue. This is
about long-term care, health care, mostly for our senior citizens. This
is an important subject. We should be talking about this. We should be
deliberating on this, and it deserves the necessary time to do this
issue justice.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because we can't get this
leadership to bring up not only legitimate health care bills to help
improve the quality of health care for our citizens, but we can't get
them to bring up jobs bills. We can't seem to get this leadership to
bring up anything of any consequence or any significance to the
American people or anything that will improve the quality of life for
the citizens of this country.
Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to
portray this as a very simple debate. They want everyone to think that
this is a bill that just ends, as they put it, a problematic or a
failed program, a bill that says we're going to run our government more
effectively and more efficiently, a bill that says that we're going to
get health care right for the American people.
But, Mr. Speaker, nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from
the truth. And let me be clear: This bill is just one more example of
how the Republican majority in this House stands with Big Insurance
instead of the American people. It's another example of how Republicans
want to rig the health care system so insurance companies can continue
to discriminate based on preexisting conditions and can continue to
reap big profits at the expense of our families.
Democrats stand for improving access to the best health care system
in the world. We want Americans to be able to take care of themselves
and to plan for long-term care should they need it.
The debate in the Rules Committee last week was a telling example of
how my friends on the other side of the aisle view this critical health
care issue. During that debate, one of our colleagues, Republican
colleagues on our Rules Committee, compared long-term care planning to
owning a swimming pool, a luxury, saying that since the government
shouldn't build a swimming pool for everyone in the country, that we
shouldn't be providing long-term care advice or help
[[Page H194]]
with long-term care planning for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is where the discourse on health care has landed.
We talk about how to lower costs and to increase access to health care,
and my Republican friends talk about swimming pools. They are in over
their heads, which is why their poll numbers are sinking to the bottom.
This bill may appear to be fairly simple, but it will have a
devastating impact on Americans as they plan for the future.
H.R. 1173, the so-called Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement
Security Act, would repeal the CLASS Act and defund the National
Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. The CLASS Act is a
national voluntary insurance program for purchasing long-term or
disabled care for things like nursing home fees. Let me repeat that:
It's a voluntary program. There's no mandate, no requirement, no
obligation for anyone to participate.
This bill also converts mandatory funding for the National
Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information into discretionary
funding. While they say that this saves $9 million, the truth is
Americans will lose access to critical information that can help them
decide what kind of long-term care coverage they may or may not want,
they may or may not need, as they grow older.
We need to figure out how to best address the cost and availability
of long-term care in the United States, and the reality is that voting
for this bill is the same as putting your fingers in your ears or
covering your eyes. Surely you may not want to be able to hear or see
what is bothering you, but it doesn't mean that these problems go away.
So why are we doing this today? Why are we repealing this without any
replacement, without any thought given to how we might help the
American people?
Well, if you listen to the Republican rhetoric, you'd think that some
unnamed and unseen person is going to send you off to a dark room in an
isolated nursing home, and you have no choice where to spend your
golden years. That is, of course, if you listen to their ridiculous
rhetoric.
It's true that the Obama administration has suspended enactment of
the CLASS Act. They have done so after carefully assessing how they
could implement a long-term, financially stable CLASS program.
Unfortunately, they did not see a way forward at this particular point,
but that doesn't mean we should just give up, throw up our hands and
walk away.
While the CLASS Act is a sound premise, it clearly needs more work if
it's going to be a viable program. The problem with H.R. 1173 is that
it repeals the CLASS Act. We need to fix the CLASS Act, not destroy it.
We need to engage on how to solve this problem, not to walk away from
it, not to turn it into yet another piece of campaign rhetoric.
But that's not how the Republicans operate in this House. Their goal,
it appears, is to tear down the health care system and to prevent
people from getting adequate health care. How else can you explain
their actions to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to end Medicare?
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans began the 112th Congress with an effort
to ``repeal and replace'' the Affordable Care Act. Well, the House
voted to repeal the new health care law, but we still haven't seen
their replacement. They voted for repeal without replacement.
I should also point out to my colleague from Texas, it wasn't brought
up under regular order; the repeal was brought up under a closed rule--
but that's not unique in this House either.
The Republicans in control of the House of Representatives have found
the time for bills on abortion and guns, bills to defund Planned
Parenthood and National Public Radio and bills reaffirming our national
motto, as if our national motto needs reaffirming. But when it comes to
improving the quality of health care for the American people, my
friends on the other side of the aisle are strangely silent.
As we near the second anniversary of the enactment of the Affordable
Care Act, it's important to look at the success of this law and explain
why repeal, as they have advocated, would cause real harm to the
American people. We know for a fact that the Affordable Care Act is
lowering costs and expanding coverage for millions of Americans.
The truth is crystal clear: 2.5 million young adults gained health
insurance, 2.5 million young Americans gained health insurance. More
than 40,000 Americans with preexisting medical conditions gained
affordable health care coverage. Three hundred fifty new community
health centers were built, and nearly 19,000 new jobs were created last
year alone. Americans are benefiting from greater protections from
unreasonable private insurance premium hikes.
More than 2 million senior citizens saved more than $1.2 billion on
prescription drugs in 2011. Again, let me repeat that: More than 2
million senior citizens saved more than $1.2 billion on prescription
drugs in 2011.
They want to repeal the bill, the affordable health insurance bill,
which closes the doughnut hole, and all of a sudden senior citizens
will see a tax hike the next time they look at their prescription
costs.
Seniors in Medicare Advantage plans saw their monthly premiums
decrease 14 percent from 2010 to 2011. Millions of women, seniors, and
people with disabilities accessed preventative services.
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of
Justice stopped $3 billion in fraudulent claims in 2011.
We also know that the quality of care is improving because of the
Affordable Care Act. I'm talking about an expanded workforce, including
primary care workers, better coordinated care for Medicare patients,
and improvements in preventable hospital care and readmission
conditions, just to name a few. In fact, the entire debate within the
health care community is changing on how we can better keep our
citizens well.
Finally, we know that the health care industry is hiring more workers
because of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, 514,900 new health care
jobs have been created since the Affordable Care Act was enacted almost
2 years ago. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is working,
and benefits will continue to grow as we move towards full
implementation by 2016.
But by opposing the Affordable Care Act by pursuing repeal of the
bill, Republicans have made it clear that they're against protections
for people with preexisting conditions, that they are against expanding
coverage for 2.5 million young adults who can't get health care on
their own, that they are against new community health centers, that
they are against the new jobs created by the Affordable Care Act.
{time} 1740
And with this bill today, they are announcing that they are against
planning for long-term care. This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.
Americans need to think about long-term care. They need planning
options for the future.
Currently 10 million Americans need long-term care, and 5 million
more will need long-term care over the next decade. Yet only 8 percent
of Americans currently buy private long-term care insurance. Instead of
forcing people to migrate towards Medicaid, the only other long-term
care option available, we should be providing Americans with the tools
they need to plan for the future. That's what the intention of the
CLASS Act and the purpose of the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term
Care Information is all about.
I know my friends will say: Trust us; we're going to come up with
something down the road. Wouldn't it have been refreshing, in the
spirit of bipartisanship, if we had come up with something before they
chose to just outright repeal this provision? Maybe this would have
been an opportunity for people to come together. But, no, we're told
we're repealing it. You know, that fits in with our campaign rhetoric
for 2012: We're going to repeal it; and the American people, just trust
us. Take two tax breaks; call me in the morning. That's all you need to
worry about.
The American people expect Congress to work each and every day to
make this country better. Like Social Security and Medicare before it,
the Affordable Care Act is an example of responsible legislating that
is improving people's lives. It's not perfect. We need to build on it.
We're going to need to make corrections. But there's not a piece of
legislation that we have ever passed in any Congress that hasn't needed
to be corrected and adjusted
[[Page H195]]
and tweaked as time has gone on. But it is an important step in the
right direction. And notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side of
the aisle, it has made a real difference in the lives of many millions
of Americans who otherwise wouldn't have access to health care.
We must not and we will not let the Republicans drag us down with
them on this issue. Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I find very interesting my friend's arguments. First of all, the
health care bill hasn't even kicked in, so millions of people have not
gotten the advantages of this bill yet.
Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. If I'm not mistaken, the allowance to let families keep
their kids on their health insurance until they are 26 years old has
kicked in.
Mr. SESSIONS. And that was a bipartisan agreement.
Mr. McGOVERN. No, no. Under your repeal bill, that would go away.
That was part of the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the many
things that has kicked in.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, at the time the bill
was passed, we agreed to a number of things that we did think were good
ideas. That was a good idea.
The $500 billion of cuts in Medicare that Republicans talked about,
we did not set that up for this election. They did that 2 years ago.
That's one of the reasons why the American people, 50-plus percent of
the American people, another reason why they do not like this bill.
But to suggest that all of the advantages that are occurring as a
result of this bill would be a misnomer. As a matter of fact, it's
causing almost 80 percent of small business owners not to make
decisions about hiring people for the future; and it's causing intense
financial problems, not only upon small businesses but upon other
businesses who don't hire people. It's causing a substantial problem on
the amount of money that we are spending by this government right now.
Oh, by the way, that legislation also said in certain pieces of it
that it's not for review by judicial or congressional oversight, that
whatever these panels do is a decision that they would make. It's very
restrictive. It's a government-run system, and it's causing enormous
financial distress to this country.
I appreciate the gentleman trying to take all of the high attributes
for it. It's a system that Republicans will vote to repeal, and we will
replace that with a system that is market-based and that works.
Lastly, I will say that the gentleman talked about how cost effective
it is. Insurance rates are raising 30 percent this year alone for
people in the private sector, and that's nonsustainable.
Mr. Speaker, today, however, we are talking about a larger issue, and
that is a piece part of that bill, the CLASS Act. I'm very pleased
today to have a gentleman who is a great member of our conference, a
physician by trade. It's just of enormous consequence that we have a
person who understands why this piece of the bill in particular, today,
must be repealed.
I'm delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany), the original sponsor of the bill.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding
some time to me on this important debate.
As a physician, I know firsthand about the needs out there with
regard to long-term care. I've treated hundreds of patients who've
needed it. This is a very important problem. It's an acute problem, and
it's something that this Congress has to take seriously.
Also, I have a personal stake in this. I lost my father 3 years ago.
He did not have a long-term care policy, and we had to deal with it.
And we dealt with it. We were fortunate; as a family, we came together
and we were able to take care of his needs. Many families can't. That's
why this Congress has to get serious about dealing with this problem.
Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle had the last two
Congresses to try to deal with this, and they proposed the health care
bill. Yet there was no debate on any other alternatives. This was a one
size fits all. This particular program wasn't even vetted in the House
committees, and yet it was added into the bill as a budget gimmick.
That's not serious legislation and that's not doing justice to the
American people who are faced with these problems every single day.
Washington should have learned from this mistake. And there are three
lessons, three basic lessons that we can learn from this CLASS program
that was added into ObamaCare, this CLASS program, a failed program, an
unsustainable program by the administration's own admission:
First, the first lesson, don't ignore reality. Democrat leaders
ignored actuarial experts' warnings when they used the CLASS program as
a budget gimmick in ObamaCare. President Obama can't create a self-
funded, sustainable program that prohibits underwriting unless he
intends to force healthy Americans to participate. Most enrollees will
be high risk, causing premiums to skyrocket, making CLASS less
appealing to healthy Americans. So the first lesson: Don't ignore
reality.
The second lesson is simple: Don't break the law. The administration
planned to break the law by excluding Americans made eligible by the
statute. And when Congressional Research Service attorneys warned of
lawsuits, I sent letters to Secretary Sebelius as the Oversight
Subcommittee chairman on Ways and Means for her legal authority to make
this change. Subsequently, she, and I think rightfully, suspended the
program. But this does not correct bad law, a bad statute written into
law. And unless we repeal CLASS, the Department of Health and Human
Services will be in violation of the law when it misses an important
deadline for implementation in October of 2012 and again in 2014. The
administration, I think rightfully, doesn't want to break the law, but
we need to go further and repeal this; otherwise, they are in violation
of the law. And this is not my opinion, this is the opinion of CRS
lawyers.
So the first lesson, don't ignore reality; second, don't break the
law; and, third, let's not compound our Nation's long-term fiscal
problems.
A prominent Democrat and former Congressional Budget Office Director,
Alice Rivlin, wrote: ``Since the CLASS program is a new, unfunded
entitlement, it should be repealed because it will increase the deficit
over the long term.'' Pretty clear statement from a Democrat and former
Congressional Budget Office Director.
The President's own deficit commission agrees with this assessment,
and our grandchildren simply cannot afford a new budget-busting
entitlement when we already have entitlements that we're struggling
with.
We need to solve problems. We need to get our budget under control.
We need to solve this problem of long-term care, and there are ways to
do it. There are many ways to do it. I'm working on legislation. I've
got it in draft form. I'm sharing it with fellow colleagues, Democrats
and Republicans, on the House Ways and Means Committee.
I believe firmly that we have to do the right thing here, and I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule. Let's
repeal the CLASS program and support H.R. 1173, and this will give us
the impetus to move forward on sensible legislation that will actually
solve this problem and not add to the deficit.
I believe, beyond CLASS repeal, we should make it easier for disabled
Americans to save for their future needs.
{time} 1750
We can expand access to affordable, private, long-term care coverage;
and we can better educate Americans on the need for retirement
planning. There are ways to do this. There are a lot of good ideas on
both sides of the aisle. I have already had conversations with
Democrats on our committee. Let's solve the problem. Let's not add to
the deficit. Let's not put the administration--by its own admission and
by the analysis of CRS attorneys--let's not put them in a position of
actually breaking the law. That's not a good example to set for the
American public.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H196]]
First of all, I just want to point out to my colleagues, in case they
may have forgotten, that the CLASS Act was actually debated in the
Energy and Commerce Committee. And do you want to know what the vote
was? It passed by voice vote. There were a lot of other provisions in
this health care bill that did not pass by voice vote where my
Republican friends insisted on an up-or-down vote; but on this one, it
passed by a voice vote. I want to point that out just so there's no
misunderstanding.
The other thing I also think is important so there's no
misunderstanding is that somehow nothing in the Affordable Care Act has
kicked in. A lot has kicked in already. Blood pressure screenings for
adults aged 18 and older, every 2 years for those with normal readings
and annually for those with elevated results; cervical cancer
screenings; child services, including screenings for autism;
cholesterol screenings; colorectal cancer screenings; diabetes
screenings; diet counseling; evaluation for depression; immunizations;
mammograms, all aimed at encouraging people to get preventative care so
that they can avoid some of the debilitating results from not being
checked. Those are all being covered under the Affordable Care Act.
My colleagues, over a year ago--over a year ago--it's now January
31--well over a year ago, you brought up on this floor under a closed
rule a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And you said, oh, we've
got some ideas on how to fix the health care challenges in this
country. It's been a year. Nothing. What have we been doing here? Well,
we had a very rigorous debate on National Public Radio, something I'm
sure everybody is concerned about all across this country.
We had a bill brought to the floor on reaffirming the national motto
of this country, ``In God We Trust.'' There it is, ``In God We Trust,''
in gold letters right above where the Speaker sits. It's on the dollar
bill. I didn't know it needed reaffirming, but we had to come to the
floor and have this debate and vote on reaffirming our national motto.
We had votes on every hot-button issue that you can imagine; but when
it comes to things like health care, improving the quality of life for
people, we can't find the time. My friends say they have all these
great ideas. It's been over a year since you voted to repeal the
Affordable Care Act. Do you want to repeal all these new services that
are covered, all these tests to help people stay well, and in staying
well, controlling health care costs?
My grandmother used to say an ounce of prevention keeps the doctor
away. She was right. There's wisdom in encouraging people to seek out
preventative-care services. If we can provide those services without a
cost to encourage more people to take advantage of them, then more
people will stay well, and we will control health care costs in this
country.
We're having a discussion as a result of the Affordable Care Act
about results-oriented health care, how do we keep our populations
better. Not just how we could have the best doctors to do heart
surgeries, brain surgeries and all these very complex surgical
procedures which we want to make sure we still have the very best in
the world, but maybe there are people who can avoid getting to that
point.
Already, because of the passage of this bill, more and more people
are taking advantage of these screenings. That's a good thing. And my
colleagues, every one of them on the other side of the aisle, voted to
repeal outright all these things. All these things would have gone
away. Senior citizens would be paying more for prescription drugs today
if their repeal bill made it through this process. So there are some
good things that are happening.
I know it's tough to ever concede that this President has done
anything good; but under this, the Democratic Congress, with no help
from the Republicans on the other side of the aisle in this House, and
the President of the United States, actually, I think, took a step in
the right direction. As time goes on, more and more people are
appreciating what is covered in that legislation.
So I point that out because my friends on the other side have a
tendency to say ``no'' to everything. It's very easy to say ``no.'' You
don't have to take responsibility for anything. You said ``no'' over a
year ago when you voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and you've
said ``yes'' to nothing since. Today, you're asking us to join you in
saying ``no'' again to the issue of making sure the people have the
ability to take care of their loved ones and themselves in the case
where they need long-term care. You're saying, say ``no'' to that. And
replace it with what? Oh, trust us, we'll get back to you. Don't worry
about it. We know what we're doing here. Well, again, it's very easy to
say ``no.'' It's more difficult to say ``yes,'' and you've said ``yes''
on nothing when it comes to positive improvements in our health system.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and let me thank my colleague from Texas.
This is a very important debate. It brings about a lot of emotion for
two reasons for me. In that same year on our debate on Affordable Care
Act, I lost my mother, and she was in need of long-term care. As I
speak, there are two elderly, senior-citizen relatives who likewise are
in the midst of long-term care. They are of a different era. They did
not have the opportunity to plan as much because of their economics and
because of their station in life for their later life. But as I've
watched the intensity of the care, I realize that we cannot make health
care a political football.
I remember distinctly that very emotional time in March of 2010, and
my recollection serves me not one friend on the other side of the
aisle, not one Republican in this House, voted to help save the lives
of Americans and provide them with a safety net of health care.
My good friend from Massachusetts has already given a litany of
provisions that are already saving lives, from the 26-year-old being on
insurance to not being kicked out of the hospital and many others. But
let us focus on long-term care, a very personal part of one's life; 21
million people in 2008 had a condition that caused them to need help
with their health and personal care. Many of them may be young people
who've had serious, catastrophic illnesses and/or accidents. Medicare
does not cover long-term services and supports--about 70 percent of
people over 65.
But the real point that I want to make is if you want to talk about
money, let me tell you how many of the family caregivers or how much
their kind of help is equated. Some $450 billion comes out of the
family's either personal care or resources. This is not a throwaway.
This is not throwing money away.
We recognize that the administration has thoughtfully said it needs
to look at this long-term care in order to do it right. So I agree with
the gentleman from Massachusetts that this should not be a throwaway;
this should be a fix-up. One of the amendments that I had suggested was
the idea of letting the Secretary come forward with best practices. For
no one can intrude into the most personal time of your life when you
are desperately in need, when you are catastrophically ill, or when you
have aged to the point that there are people who you need to do the
most personal things in life, in essence, to clean you up because of
personal hygiene.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
{time} 1800
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Long-term care is needed by a projected 15 million people. As I
indicated, chronic conditions, trauma, or illness brings you to this,
but the real idea is personal hygiene, getting dressed, using the
bathroom. Do you want to put in the sunset of life or in time of great
desperation the idea that no one is thinking about how we can best do
long-term care? This repeal turns a light out, closes a door, abandons
those family caregivers who are already giving $450 billion of their
time, their heart, the devastation--Medicaid giving $101 million, but
personal is $14 billion.
[[Page H197]]
Mr. Speaker, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us
not, if you will, pass this bill that denies that America has a heart
in the most difficult times of Americans. Who would raise their hand
and say, I want someone to help me in my personal hygiene, I need
someone to help me get to the bathroom, or something even more? This is
what we're talking about. This is not the way to do it, Mr. Speaker. I
demand that we vote against the CLASS Act repeal.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res 522, ``Rule Providing
Consideration on the Bill H.R. 1173, `The Fiscal Responsibility and
Retirement Security Act of 2011'.'' This bill would repeal title VIII
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports (CLASS)
Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for
purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title
VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the
National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information (clearing house).
H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the
National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information.
The CLASS Act was designed to provide an affordable long-term care
option for the 10 million Americans in need of long-term care now and
the projected 15 million Americans that will need long-term care by
2020.
Individuals need long-term care when a chronic condition, trauma, or
illness limits their ability to carry out basic self-care tasks, called
activities of daily living (ADLs), (such as bathing, dressing or
eating), or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (such as
household chores, meal preparation, or managing money).
Long-term care often involves the most intimate aspects of people's
lives--what and when they eat, personal hygiene, getting dressed, using
the bathroom. Other less severe long-term care needs may involve
household tasks such as preparing meals or using the telephone.
Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled
elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without
assistance may double today's level.
CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is
self-sustaining, at no cost to tax payers.
As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964
become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly
double as a share of the economy by 2035.
Baby boomers are already turning 65. As of January 1, 2011, baby
boomers have begun to celebrate their 65th birthdays. From that day on
10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the
next 20 years.
It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers
will increase the demand for long-term care.
Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that
private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are
too high for many American families, including many in my Houston
district, to afford.
In 2000, spending from public and private sources associated on long-
term care amounted to an estimated $137 billion (for persons of all
ages). By 2005, this number rose to $206.6 billion.
Individuals 85 years and older are one of the fastest growing
segments of the population. In 2005, there are an estimated 5 million
people 85+ in the United States; this figure is expected to increase to
19.4 million by 2050. This means that there could be an increase from
1.6 million to 6.2 million people age 85 or over with severe or
moderate memory impairment in 2050.
An estimated 10 million Americans needed long-term care in 2000. Most
but not all persons in need of long-term care are elderly.
Approximately 63% are persons aged 65 and older (6.3 million); the
remaining 37% are 64 years of age and younger (3.7 million).
The lifetime probability of becoming disabled in at least two
activities of daily living or of being cognitively impaired is 68% for
people age 65 and older.
By 2050, the number of individuals using paid long-term care services
in any setting (e.g., at home, residential care such as assisted
living, or skilled nursing facilities) will likely double from the 10
million using services in 2000, to 26 million people. This estimate is
influenced by growth in the population of older people in need of care.
Of the older population with long-term care needs in the community,
about 30% (1.5 million persons) have substantial long-term care needs--
three or more activities of daily living limitations. Of these, about
25% are 85 and older and 70% report they are in fair to poor health.
40% of the older population with long-term care needs are poor or near
poor (with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level).
Between 1984 and 1994, the number of older persons receiving long-
term care remained about the same at 5.5 million people, while the
prevalence of long-term care use declined from 19.7% to 16.7% of the
65+ population. In comparison, 2.1%, or over 3.3 million, of the
population aged 18-64 received long-term care in the community in 1994.
While there was a decline in the proportion (i.e., prevalence) of the
older population receiving long-term care, the level of disability and
cognitive impairment among those who received assistance with daily
tasks rose sharply. The proportion receiving help with three to six
ADLs increased from 35.4% to 42.9% between 1984 and 1994. The
proportion of cognitive impairment among the 65+ population rose from
34% to 40%.
INFORMAL CARE GIVERS AND FAMILY
Informal Care Givers and Family are the unsung heroes for those who
need longer term care. These care givers are unpaid individuals such as
family members, partners, friends and neighbors who provide care. Just
imagine for a moment an average family in the United States.
Imagine if the average working couple now has to balance raising
children and caring for the needs of their aging parents or disabled
adult relative without any additional support. Imagine how caretaking
if left unaddressed will impact our workforce.
This is exactly what millions of families face every day. Over three-
quarters (78%) of adults living in the community and in need of long-
term care depend on family and friends (i.e., informal caregivers) as
their only source of help; 14% receive a combination of informal and
formal care (i.e., paid help); only 8% used formal care or paid help
only.
Although estimates may vary the following numbers of family and
informal care givers is still alarming and the numbers will only grow:
52 million informal and family caregivers provide care to someone
aged 20+ who is ill or disabled.
44.4 million caregivers (or one out of every five households ) are
involved in care giving to persons aged 18 or over.
34 million caregivers provide care for someone aged 50+.
27.3 million family caregivers provide personal assistance to adults
(aged 15+) with a disability or chronic illness.
5.8 to 7 million people (family, friends and neighbors) provide care
to a person (65+) who needs assistance with everyday activities.
8.9 million informal caregivers provide care to someone aged 50+ with
dementia.
By the year 2007, the number of care giving households in the U.S.
for persons aged 50+ could reach 39 million.
Even among the most severely disabled older persons living in the
community, about two-thirds rely solely on family members and other
informal help, often resulting in great strain for the family
caregivers.
Home and Community-Based Care
The majority of people, almost 79%, who need long-term care, live at
home or in community settings. Less than 21 percent of individuals who
need this type of care live in institutions. More than 13.2 million
adults (over half younger than 65) living in a community received an
average of 31.4 hours of personal assistance per week in 1995. Only 16%
of the total hours were paid care (about $32 billion), leaving 84% of
hours to be provided (unpaid labor) by informal caregivers.
The trend towards community-based services instead of nursing home
placement was formalized with the Olmstead Decision (July, 1999)--a
court case in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals
to receive care in the community as opposed to an institution whenever
possible.
Most assisted living facilities (ALFs) discharge residents whose
cognitive impairments become moderate or severe or who need help with
moving from a wheelchair to a bed. This limits the ability of these
populations to find appropriate services outside of nursing homes or
other institutions.
Older individuals living in nursing homes require and receive greater
levels of care and assistance. The issue before us today, is how we
intend to treat our aging and disabled at a time when they are in need
of assistance that will have a direct impact on their quality of life.
Traditionally, most long-term care is provided informally by family
members and friends. Some people with disabilities receive assistance
at home from paid helpers, including skilled nurses and home care
aides.
Nursing homes are increasingly viewed as a last resort for people who
are too disabled to live in the community, due to a number of factors,
cost being one.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must leave the framework that exists
in place and work with seniors, families, industry, HHS and others to
find a way to make the CLASS Act or an alternative long-term care
program work.
[[Page H198]]
November 14, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joe Pitts,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, House Energy and Commerce
Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Henry Waxman,
Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank Pallone,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health, House Energy and
Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Pitts,
and Ranking Member Pallone: The undersigned organizations
write to oppose legislation, H.R. 1173, to repeal the
Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS)
program and respectfully urge members to reject such
legislation.
In 2008, 21 million people had a condition that caused them
to need help with their health and personal care. Medicare
does not cover long-term services and supports (LTSS), yet
about 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some type
of LTSS at some point during their lifetime. As our
population ages, the need for these services will only grow.
In addition, about 40 percent of the individuals who need
LTSS are under age 65 and LTSS can enable individuals to work
and be productive citizens.
Regardless of when individuals may need these services,
there is a lack of financing options to help them plan and
pay for the services they need to help them live
independently in their homes and communities where they want
to be. Family caregivers are on the frontlines. They provided
care valued at $450 billion in 2009--more than the total
spending on Medicaid that year. Private long-term care
insurance helps some people pay for the cost of services, but
it is not affordable for most, and some people are not even
able to qualify for it. Too often, the cost of services wipes
out personal and retirement savings and assets that are often
already insufficient--as a result, formerly middle class
individuals are forced to rely on Medicaid to pay for the
costs of LTSS. There are few options for individuals to help
them pay for the services they need that could help them
delay or prevent their need to rely on Medicaid, the largest
payer of LTSS.
That's why we support the CLASS program--to give millions
of working Americans a new option to take personal
responsibility and help plan and pay for these essential
services. CLASS could also take some financial pressure off
Medicaid at the state and federal levels--paid for by
voluntary premiums, not taxpayer funds. For us, this is about
the financially devastating impact that the need for LTSS has
on families across this country every day and the essential,
compelling and urgent need to address this issue. Every
American family faces the reality that an accident or illness
requiring long-term care could devastate them financially.
This issue affects the constituents of every U.S.
Representative. CLASS is an effort to be part of the
solution. The CLASS actuarial report established that CLASS
can still
* * * * *
Health & Disability Advocates; Inter-National Association
of Business, Industry and Rehabilitation; LeadingAge;
Lutheran Services in America; Mental Health America; The
National Alliance for Caregiving; National Alliance on Mental
Illness (NAMI); National Association of Area Agencies on
Aging (n4a); National Association of County Behavioral Health
and Developmental Disability Directors (NACBHDD); National
Association of the Deaf; National Association for Home Care &
Hospice; National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services
Programs (NANASP); National Association of Professional
Geriatric Care Managers; National Association of Social
Workers; National Association of State Head Injury
Administrators; The National Center for Learning
Disabilities.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare; The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term
Care (formerly NCCNHR); National Council on Aging; National
Council on Independent Living; National Disability Rights
Network; National Down Syndrome Congress; National Multiple
Sclerosis Society; NISH; Paralyzed Veterans of America;
Physician-Parent Caregivers; SEIU; Self-Reliance, Inc.;
Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE); United Cerebral
Palsy; United Spinal Association; Volunteers of America.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, the beautiful part of this body and really the historical
context of the United States Congress is that people can come down and
advocate for things that they see, things that they want. We go
through, have hearings, we pass bills. We're not here today to say
what's good or bad or right or wrong in terms of how we help people.
We're here saying the government cannot make this program work.
To make the program work means that it has to have the underpinnings
of an understanding, not just how it will work and who will pay for it,
but really, what are the services that are going to be provided? The
gentlewoman from Texas was very genuine in talking about the needs of
people. I deeply believe in those needs also. But it also goes back to,
this administration is the one that is walking away from the
legislation, and it does us no good to try and act like, it's okay,
we'll just ignore that.
The Congressional Budget Office today released its viewpoint for the
coming year, and once again this administration, President Obama, will
have a $1 trillion deficit on his hands. The prior record before
President Obama had been $459 billion. We are going to be a trillion
dollars--again--in the hole. At some point someone needs to recognize
we cannot sustain all these great and wonderful ideas because if you
cannot pay for something, you have set an expectation of performance
that will not ever come true. That is cruel. That is cruel, and that is
exactly what this ObamaCare bill and this CLASS Act is all about. It is
about substantially telling the American people that something will be
there when it never will be there because it's not put together where
it's sustainable. The President's own people are saying it's not
sustainable. And we as Members of Congress are trying to work with the
administration on how it might work, and they're saying it can't and
won't.
So the reality base of this is that the Republican Party does
recognize the need. I recognize the need personally. I think Charles
Boustany, Dr. Boustany, who is the sponsor of the bill, recognizes a
need. But the way that it is defined and was defined in the Energy and
Commerce Committee was, it's a concept and an idea; let's voice vote
this or agree that we'll get something back later. The bill was not
voice voted. The agreement that they would come back later and look at
it was.
In fact, Republicans are not guilty as charged. We are people who
primarily go back home every weekend. I've never spent a weekend in
Washington, D.C., in the 16 years I've been a Member of Congress. I go
back out of Washington and try and go home to listen to people about
the concerns that they have. It doesn't take much of a person who goes
back every weekend to recognize there are great needs in this country.
But to try and put together a program that cannot sustain itself, that
offers a false hope and cannot be met, is cruel.
So today, Republicans, without calling anything bad, we're simply
saying it cannot be sustained. It cannot be sustained by the
government. The government cannot figure out a way to make it work. The
managers of the business cannot figure out a way.
So, we've heard today we should hold hearings. We should. We should
take up this issue. Dr. Boustany talked about the need to do that, and
we're going to. But the way the law looks right now, it's
unsustainable, and we should tell the truth about that. And that is
what Republicans are on the floor of the House doing today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I think it's important to make it clear that there was
a voice vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. There were 2 days of
debate on this CLASS Act, 2 days of debate. And the language in the
amendment apparently was even changed before there was a voice vote. So
to somehow diminish that there was some sort of a real vote or not--
there was a real vote; 2 days of debate and a real vote.
Secondly, just so there's no misunderstanding, my friends keep
talking about the debt and the deficit we face. First of all, as a
Democrat, I want to say that I don't need a lecture from my friends on
the other side of the aisle about deficits and the debt. We saw how
this country went from surplus to deficit with the passage of the Bush
tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy that weren't paid for. Every economist
will affirm that they brought us into debt. Two, the prescription drug
bill--that was much more expensive than my friends on the other side of
the aisle told us it was going to be, and then they didn't pay for it
on top of it. And then add to that two wars that aren't paid for. We
are fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we didn't pay for
them. We didn't look for offsets in the budget. They didn't even go to
[[Page H199]]
the American people and say, we're at war, we have to have a war tax,
or we have to find a way to pay for the war. No. Soldiers go fight, you
know, their families suffer, and we do nothing. So you want to know why
we're in debt? That's why we're in debt.
And just for the record, this CLASS Act that we're talking about is
not this taxpayer-subsidized, endless government funding type of a
program here. I mean, it has to be self-financed by the premiums that
people pay who volunteer to get into it. It says in the law that this
cannot be funded by the dollars of taxpayers. What this is is a
framework, a framework to get us to focus on the issue that we need to
address, which is long-term health care in this country.
Now, I'm from Massachusetts, and I may be a little sensitive on this
issue because one of my heroes, the late Senator Ted Kennedy,
championed this issue. He understood that there was a need out there,
and he saw, as we all have seen, what families go through when loved
ones can't afford or families can't afford to pay for the long-term
care of loved ones. So it took us decades to get here, to get to this
point where we have a framework. Yes, it is true: This is not perfect.
It needs more work. But we have a framework here. And it's not a
framework which calls for endless subsidies by the taxpayers. It says
we've got to come up with a program that can self-sustain itself, that
is financed by those who want to be enrolled in it. Why would you throw
this away? Why would you throw this away?
My friend on the other side of the aisle talks about false promises.
Please, give me a break. False promises? You got up over a year ago and
said we're repealing this health care reform bill, the Affordable Care
Act, and we're going to replace it with something. It's been over a
year. Nothing, nothing, not a single thing. You know, it's not like we
haven't had time to do it or to talk about these issues or debate these
issues. I mean, this has become a place where trivial issues get
debated passionately and important ones not at all. National Public
Radio funding, we had to debate that on the floor. Reaffirming our
national motto ``In God We Trust,'' we had time for that. Issues on
abortion and every hot button issue you can think of, including we had
a debate on making it easier for unsafe people to bring concealed
weapons from State to State to State.
{time} 1810
Now, I don't know about Texas or about other countries, but I've got
to tell you, people talk to me about a lot of problems and about a lot
of things that keep them up at night. Some of the things that you've
brought to this House floor never even enter their minds, because what
keeps them up at night are things like this:
What happens if I get sick, will I be able to take care of myself?
What happens if my spouse gets sick, seriously ill, will I be able to
care for her? Will I be able to care for him? What if it's my child?
What if it's my mother, or what if it's my father? Will I be able to
take care of them over a long period of time? Those are real-life
issues that real people worry about each and every day.
So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, first of
all, vote down this rule, because I think it is insulting to bring a
rule to the floor on the issue of long-term care and say we're going to
cap debate at 3 hours. I think this is too important. This is more
important than reaffirming our national motto, number one.
Number two, I would urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle,
understand that what this represents is a framework and understand how
long it has taken us to get to this point. And I've got to tell you, if
we throw this framework away, I doubt very much that at any time in the
near future this Congress is going to do anything meaningful on the
issue of long-term health care.
So let's get serious about dealing with the real challenges that the
American people are faced with. Let's not say that this is going to add
to the deficit. It's not going to add to the deficit. In the law, it
says it has to be self-sustaining; if not, it doesn't work. It says
that we are not going to be subsidizing this program. That's what it
says.
If you want to get serious about the deficit, you know what? Then
make sure Warren Buffett pays the same tax rate as his secretary. If
you want to get serious about the deficit, that's what you can do to
help us deal with the issue of the deficit. But going after this with
all these smokescreens I think is unfortunate.
So I would urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the rule and vote
``no'' on the underlying resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think what we've done today is fair and honorable. We've talked
about a problem. We've talked about a potential answer. First of all,
an answer is that, since we do not have a workable program without
bringing it back to the Congress, we ought to work with the
administration. I think we've been responsible. But we have heard
feedback from the administration, in a hearing, that said, we can't
make that program work; we cannot make that program work.
So I think that what we are doing today is the fiscally responsible
thing, to end the program, to end a program that is not going to work
and was not designed to work, and then start back over, if we choose
to, and put it into a workable mode. But only to have a false hope out
there of something that cannot be sustained and something that the
managers of the government cannot make work is a bad idea.
We've got another trillion-dollar deficit that is facing this
country, another $1 trillion. We know who that is. That's Pin the Tail
on the Donkey, Mr. Speaker. They are the ones responsible. They are the
ones that are happy with that, and they are the ones that try to
justify that.
Today we are coming together to find the solution to a long-term care
issue in this country by talking about it, doing something that cannot
be sustained, and then admitting, as Mr. Boustany did, that we need to
do something better. And we should not throw the idea away. Today we
are going to vote on something that will do no further harm.
I applaud my colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Boustany, for
introducing the bill. I appreciate him coming before us. I respect and
appreciate my committee, the Rules Committee, and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) for bringing this debate here in such an open
and transparent process. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________