[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.

                          ____________________