Charles Boustany

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, last week, I was furious to learn veterans in south Louisiana must wait even longer to receive an upgrade to promised veterans' clinical services in Lafayette and Lake Charles due to bureaucratic incompetence--or something worse. After years of hard work, effort, and patience, the VA is pressing the reset button on these projects. This is unacceptable. I refuse to stand by and allow Washington to give false assurances of hope to those who fought so bravely for our country. As the Lake Charles American Press stated: It took the United States and its Allies only 45 months to defeat the Axis powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II. It's obscene that 46 months after the VA announced it would open a clinic in Lake Charles, veterans are still waiting for ground to be broken. Making broken promises like these to our Nation's veterans is shameful. I will continue to lead the fight to protect our veterans against the broken promises of the VA in Washington. I look forward to bringing specific concerns to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki's attention regarding this absurd incompetence.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong, vigorous support of H.R. 4105, and I want to commend Chairman Camp for his leadership in bringing this appropriate bill to the floor today. As a supporter of free and fair trade, I believe that U.S. companies and workers deserve a level playing field in order to successfully compete around the world. This bill restores Commerce's ability to protect American jobs and companies from unfair, WTO-inconsistent practices, inconsistent trade practices perpetrated by nonmarket economies, mainly China and Vietnam. This is an important tool being used by several industries in my home State of Louisiana, the ability to use countervailing duties, companies that produce steel pipe, aluminum extrusion, woven sack industries, just to name a few. More importantly, many key industries such as shrimp processors want to make sure that this tool remains in place in case they need to use it in the future to deal with unfair trade practices. As our industries expand and compete for businesses around the world, it's irresponsible to not have these types of measures, enforcement measures, in place and to take this vital tool away from the Department of Commerce. This has been a practice that is WTO compliant. We have used it for years, and now because of a recent Federal court ruling, it has been taken away. The bill simply amends the 1930 Tariff Act to allow this WTO- compliant technique to be used to impose countervailing duties on nonmarket economies when they use unfair subsidies. It's fully consistent with our international trade obligations, it restores current practices, and it is the right thing to do for American businesses and workers. I strongly encourage our colleagues in this House to support this important bill. American Shrimp Processors Association, Biloxi, MS, March 5, 2012. Hon. Dave Camp, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Sander M. Levin, Ranking Member, Ways and Means Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: The American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA) strongly supports, H.R. 4105, the bill you introduced on February 29, ``to apply the countervailing duty provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries.'' We appreciate that you took the lead on this measure and are working hard to quickly pass this critical bipartisan legislation that allows the Commerce Department to continue to apply countervailing duty laws to non-market economies. We believe passage of this measure is critical to the continued ability of domestic industries like ASPA to fight unfair Chinese and Vietnamese trade practices. Additionally, we salute the strong support offered to this measure by our Gulf coast Ways and Means Committee Member Charles Boustany, Jr. This bipartisan and bicameral legislation aims to correct a problematic decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that found that U.S. law prohibits the Department of Commerce from applying countervailing duties to non-market economies like China and Vietnam. We understand that Congress must act by March 15th to ensure that the law is changed prior to final action in the courts. As a domestic industry that has struggled to survive amidst a barrage of subsidized imports from Asian non-market and market economies alike, ASPA has a strong interest in seeing U.S. countervailing duty law enforced. If the Congress were to do nothing, important trade orders already in place on subsidized imports from China and Vietnam would disappear. These orders have corrected Chinese and Vietnamese practices that have injured a broad range of domestic industries and threatened the jobs of tens of thousands of American workers. Additionally, and more importantly to ASPA members, the recent Court decision would prohibit the U.S. shrimp industry from ever using the U.S. trade laws designed to correct unfair government subsidies on shrimp exported from non- market economies like China and Vietnam, which have been flooding the U.S. market for years. While the U.S. shrimp industry has repeatedly demonstrated its resilience in the past, the failure to pass this important legislation leaves the domestic shrimp industry, and all U.S. industries, at a permanent disadvantage, as they will be unable to take any action to redress the harm that subsidized imports from non-market economies cause. All our major trading partners have trade laws that allow them to go after government subsidies from non-market economies. Why would the United States want to unilaterally disarm? Without this legislative fix, ASPA members' ability to go after egregious trade practices in China and Vietnam would be severely limited. ASPA urges you to maintain a level playing field for all domestic industries by passing this legislation this week. Sincerely, C. David Veal, Executive Director.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Dewey L. Coles as a winner of the National Infantry Association's most prestigious award, the Order of St. Maurice. Lieutenant Colonel Coles, at 21 years old, was one of the first soldiers to arrive on the ground in Korea during the summer of 1950. First serving as an artillery forward observer with the 24th Infantry Division and later as an aerial observer, Lieutenant Colonel Coles flew behind enemy lines to coordinate artillery attacks on Communist forces. For his tenure, Lieutenant Colonel Coles earned two Bronze Stars for valor as well as two Air Medals for his courageous service. The Order of St. Maurice is given to individuals who have demonstrated an exceptional degree of integrity, moral character, and professional competence during their service with the United States Army Infantry. I am so proud to announce this honor will be presented to Lieutenant Colonel Coles on February 9, 2012 by Brigadier General (Ret.) Robert J. LeBlanc in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana. It is due to the character and sacrifice of individuals like Lieutenant Colonel Coles that we are able to enjoy the blessings of freedom and prosperity here in the United States of America. I thank Lieutenant Colonel Coles for his brave service to our country and congratulate him on this much deserved award from the National Infantry Association.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of H.R. 3567, a bill to ensure taxpayer dollars in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program are used as intended, and that is to provide support for low- income families and children and to help them move from welfare to work. The TANF program was created in 1996, replacing the prior welfare program with one focused on work, providing short-term help, child care, and other work supports to get people back on their feet and earning a paycheck. In the years following, TANF was lauded as one of the most effective reforms in our social welfare system in American history. Employment rates of those on welfare surged, caseloads plummeted, child poverty rates fell, and taxpayers were confident they were actually helping poor families, knowing that they were providing them with a hand up and not a handout. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, an issue has arisen in TANF that is eroding public confidence in the program. This is the issue of TANF funds, money meant to help poor children and their families, being accessed and used in liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos. What started less than 2 years ago as research by one reporter in Los Angeles has grown into dozens of investigations across the country, with each new investigation adding to the story of how millions of dollars in TANF funds have been accessed in these locations. Let me just mention some of what has been uncovered: An Arizona investigation found welfare funds were accessed in liquor stores over 100 times in just 3 months; A California reporter uncovered that welfare recipients cashed out over $4.8 million in TANF funds in casinos over a 3-year period; A Colorado news organization found cash was being withdrawn in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, despite a State law on the books prohibiting such transactions; An investigative report in Georgia revealed $150,000 in TANF money was withdrawn in liquor stores, bars, and nightclubs; KING 5 News in Seattle found 13,000 TANF recipients who had collectively withdrawn approximately $2 million from casinos in 2010. Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable. This is unacceptable to the American people. When the L.A. Times revealed their shocking statistics on the millions in welfare that had been accessed in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs, the Governor of California took action to block these transactions immediately. Washington and New Mexico have prohibited access to welfare benefits in casinos. Texas prohibits the use of welfare benefit cards in liquor stores and casinos as well. The legislation before us today would ensure that taxpayer dollars in the TANF program are being used as intended, and that is to assist poor families with their basic needs and to support them in their efforts to become self-sufficient. Under this bill, States would be required to block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs and would be penalized if they do not implement such policies within 2 years of this bill becoming law. This bill will also help restore the public's trust in the integrity of the program while ensuring families across the country continue to receive the assistance they need to move from government dependence to independence. The bill we're considering today simply consists of one of the TANF provisions in H.R. 3659, the Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act that was unanimously passed in the House in December. A provision closing what has been called the ``strip club loophole'' was also included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that also passed the House in December and is now in conference with the Senate. With the exception of several technical changes suggested by the Department of Health and Human Services, it is also identical to bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate last year by Senator Hatch and cosponsored by Senator Baucus, the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, respectively. I thank them for their hard work on this bill as well. Passing this bill today will send three clear messages: First, the House is serious about this bipartisan, bicameral reform becoming law, ensuring welfare funds are spent on families and children as intended; Second, conferees on the yearlong payroll tax, UI and TANF extenders bill, should include this bipartisan provision in their conference agreement; Third, if those conference discussions break down, the Senate will be able to join us in quickly passing this important bipartisan reform and getting it to the President's desk. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Davis.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3567) to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to require States to implement policies to prevent assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program from being used in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, as amended.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources on the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman Geoff Davis from the great State of Kentucky, the author of the TANF reauthorization, who cares deeply about the integrity of this program.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to thank the gentlewoman for raising the concern about ensuring that TANF recipients have adequate access to their benefits in a variety of locations. That's a very important consideration. This bill requires States to block access to welfare benefits in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. However, we know some grocery stores, convenience stores, and local markets may sell groceries but also sell alcohol and that some States may have gambling machines there as well. Because of this, the bill allows States to make accommodations for such stores so that they would not have to block transactions in places that sell groceries but that also sell alcohol. If a grocery store happens to have a gaming machine or if it's located in the same building or complex as a casino, there are provisions made in this. So I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue, but I'm glad that we can ensure the integrity of this program. I would submit the most important thing we can do is to ensure the integrity of the program so that it is there for the children and families that need it. Yet we want to ensure that there is not an overt abuse of these funds in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores while allowing for reasonable exceptions. Also, I thank the gentlelady and the ranking member from Texas for raising the concern as to the issue of implementation cost, and I want to address that as well. Some States have expressed that we have a loophole that could potentially be too costly or too difficult to close. However, I want to point out that these difficulties have been overstated. Washington State said the same thing when it was told $2 million in TANF funds were being withdrawn in casinos in 1 year. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an article from KING 5 News in Seattle, Washington, that speaks directly to this issue. It talks about the surprising number of TANF withdrawals in casinos in the State, and it reports the State said the same things that we're hearing today in that it may be hard to close this loophole or that it would be too expensive to stop. This article goes on to read: ``It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the Iron Horse Casino, it took about 4 minutes on the phone. Kealy,'' the casino owner, ``says, in minutes and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked EBT cards . . . Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders from the State. They already reprogrammed their ATMs . . . He's a board member of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more alcohol than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash machines. Kealy says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits.'' So I appreciate the concerns about the cost, but I believe closing this loophole simply won't be as difficult as some are making it out to be. [From KING5.com, Sept. 23, 2010] More Businesses May Pull Plug on Welfare Cash Cards (By Chris Ingalls) Many casinos in the state have taken steps to cut off the flow of cash to welfare recipients. This follows a KING 5 Investigation that showed millions of tax dollars being dispensed through casino cash machines. Now we've learned thousands more ATMs could be blocked at other businesses where welfare dollars may not belong. Bars and taverns in Washington may follow the lead of casinos, which have already started reprogramming their ATMs so they won't dispense cash from EBT cards that are distributed to welfare recipients. State records show the two ATMs at the Iron Horse Casino in Auburn dispensed $780 in welfare in the month of July alone. ``Whew! It's unbelievable,'' said Iron Horse customer Louie Vaccaro. ``We have so many problems in this state. To hear something like that is mind boggling.'' ``I was surprised by that,'' says the casino's owner Chris Kealy. ``I did not know those cards could be used at these machines.'' Kealy saw our stories last week that showed more than $2 million in welfare cash withdrawn from ATMs in and around casinos in the last year. Initially the Department of Social and Health Services, DSHS, said putting a stop to those questionable withdrawals might be too difficult or costly. ``If we find that this is a small incidence that's happening, it might not justify the expense that it would try to prevent that activity,'' said Deputy DSHS secretary Troy Hutson in a story we aired last week. It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the Iron Horse Casino, it took about four minutes on the phone. Kealy says in minutes, and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked EBT cards--debit-type cards which DSHS uses to distribute cash benefits to 68,000 of the state's most needy residents. Organizations representing both tribal and non-tribal gambling establishments in Washington pledged their full support when DSHS's secretary made an announcement two days after KING 5 Investigation aired. ``I want to shut down every ATM in gambling establishments that has EBT access,'' said Susan N. Dreyfus. Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders from the state. They already re-programmed their ATMs. And Kealy isn't stopping with his own casino. He's a board member of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more alcohol than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash machines. Kealy says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits. ``The taxes you are paying are supposed to help fund basic needs, human services,'' Kealy says. ``We're all in this together. I'm supportive of that. But I'm not supportive of those dollars being used in facilities like this.'' Gambling is one of the few restrictions on the use of welfare cash. It is illegal. Welfare cheats can still get their money at other ATMs, but casinos hope to stack the deck against them and send the message that welfare dollars aren't welcome on gaming floors. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thought I made it clear, and I think Chairman Davis did also, earlier, that there are provisions to allow for exceptions as long as the facility serves food. We're talking about stores that purely sell liquor. So I think the gentlelady's concerns are addressed with the bill as written. Furthermore, I would just say that on this side of the aisle, we care very deeply about this program. There's broad agreement it's a valuable program. It's worked. If you care about children and you care about needy families in this country, then you should care about ensuring the integrity of the program and making sure that the dollars that taxpayers put forth for these needy families, these needy children, actually go to those families and not buying liquor and patronizing strip clubs and going to casinos. That's what this bill intends to address. That's what it does address. It creates the proper flexibilities for the concern that the gentlelady has and others on the other side of the aisle have about access. If food is sold, access will not be denied. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOUSTANY. If food products are sold at a store?

Mr. BOUSTANY. If any type of food product, including milk, is sold at a store, States can except those from the provisions in this bill.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BOUSTANY. The definition is staple foods, which include milk.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman has yielded back all of his time?

Mr. BOUSTANY. I am pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the subcommittee, a gentleman who has diligently worked in good faith with the ranking member to reauthorize a TANF program with integrity that ensures that children and needy families get the assistance that they need.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill closes a loophole that, if left uncorrected, would continue to allow millions in welfare funds to be distributed in liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs. Now that this issue has been highlighted by news organizations across the country, we must stop this abuse of taxpayer funds and ensure this money is used as it should be--to help poor children and families make ends meet. A number of States have already closed this loophole, but this bill will help restore the public's confidence in the program and ensure that States work together to end this abuse once and for all. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this measure, as they have done previously, so that we can ensure taxpayer dollars are used as they should be.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a physician, I know firsthand of this really dire need to solve the problem for many families across this country who are struggling with their long-term care needs. I am the oldest of 10 children, and my father was a physician. He died 3 years ago from a lengthy illness, and required a lot of care at home. He did not have long-term care, but we gladly bore that burden and were able to provide for him even though it was somewhat of a strain. This is a serious problem facing every single family in this country. Yet what we've seen now is a program that was created in ObamaCare, a program that is clearly unsustainable by the administration's own admission. After almost a year now of wrangling about this, they've finally come to the conclusion that we knew before the bill even passed: that this was unsustainable, that it was unworkable, that it was fatally flawed. As a physician, I know the worst thing you can do for someone is to create false hope, and that's what this has done. As long as this stays on the books, on the statute books, we're not going to get anything done on this. We're not going to solve it. Now, there are many good ideas on both sides of the aisle, and we've discussed some of them in the Ways and Means Committee. There are bills on both sides of the aisle on which I believe we could work together in a true bipartisan fashion to solve this problem--but the CLASS program is clearly not the answer. Washington should learn three lessons from this debacle, ObamaCare's failed government-run program: First, don't ignore reality. Democrats ignored the expert actuarial warnings when they used CLASS as a budget gimmick in ObamaCare. President Obama cannot create a self-funded sustainable program that prohibits underwriting unless he intends to force healthy Americans to participate. What does that mean? Madam Chair, that means an individual mandate, another individual mandate. Many constitutional scholars think that this is unconstitutional. We don't need another individual mandate. In fact, Senator Harkin said that the problem with CLASS is that it's voluntary. I think he basically put the cards on the table and showed that what they want to do to fix CLASS is to give us another individual mandate. Most enrollees in CLASS will be high-risk, causing premiums to skyrocket under the current program, making CLASS even less appealing to average American families. The premiums will be unsustainable, and it will require subsidies from the taxpayer. So, the first lesson: Don't ignore reality. The second lesson: Don't break the law. The administration planned to break the law by excluding Americans made eligible by the statute. When the Congressional Research Service attorneys warned of lawsuits, I sent letters to Secretary Sebelius for her legal authority to make this change. She then subsequently suspended the program, but this doesn't correct the bad law. Unless we repeal CLASS, the Department of Health and Human Services will break the law when it misses the deadline in October and again in 2014. That's not a very good example to set for the American people to have the administration breaking the law. So, first, don't ignore reality. Second, don't break the law. Third, don't compound our Nation's long-term fiscal problems. A Democrat under the Clinton administration, 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. In fact, the President's own deficit commission agrees that our grandchildren simply cannot afford a new budget-busting entitlement. We can do better than this, Madam Chair, and we can work together to solve this problem. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this CLASS repeal, to support H.R. 1173. Beyond this, we will have the impetus to actually do some real work to create a real program that works for the American people. We can make it easier for disabled Americans to save for future needs; we can expand access to affordable, private long-term care coverage; and we can better educate Americans on the need for retirement planning. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 31, 2012. Hon. Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Sebelius: We write this as a follow up to our unanswered November 2011 letter to President Obama regarding the failed CLASS program. In the letter, we asked whether the Administration has a legal obligation to implement the program. Last year, you announced you could not find ``a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.'' Legal experts at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) say you do ``not appear to have discretion to decide whether or not to designate a plan by October 1, 2012.'' If the deadline expires, they say you will be ``committing a facial violation'' of the 2010 health law. Finally, ``the CLASS Act does not preclude judicial review'' and ``a failure by the Secretary to designate a CLASS benefit plan by October 1, 2012 . . . would appear to be a final agency action from which `legal consequences will flow.' '' In light of the findings by the CRS, does the Obama Administration intend to openly violate the law as the 2012 and 2014 deadlines for CLASS expire? If not, when do you intend to resume implementation of CLASS? What justifications can the Administration provide to Congress and the American people in the event that the Secretary's failure to adhere to the law results in a costly court battle, effectively delaying meaningful long-term care reform in the process? Please expedite a written response to these questions. 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.'' Our grandchildren simply cannot afford a new budget-busting entitlement. We urge you to join us in support of CLASS repeal, and to support bipartisan efforts to expand access to affordable private long-term care coverage. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Charles W. Boustany, Jr., MD, Member of Congress. Phil Gingrey, MD, Member of Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. BOUSTANY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BOUSTANY

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. 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.