women in the security measures we put in place on a daily basis at the white house, the vice presidential residence, and the thousands of venues located throughout the world which are visited by those we protect. the men and women of the u.s. secret service were 24 hours a day, seven days a week, every day of the year. their sacrifice and commitment to make us the agency that the american people can be proud of and depend on. as a career special agent, i am confident in our men and women and in our ability to successfully execute our missions. chairman thompson, ranking member king, and members of the committee, i am willing to answer questions at this time. however, any questions regarding our security procedures will need to be discussed in a closed

setting. additionally, i would like to respectfully advise this committee that due to the fact that this is an ongoing investigation i am unable to answer any questions regarding the potential criminal aspect of this incident here or in a closed setting. thank you. >> thank you very much director sullivan for your testimony. i'll remind each member that he or she will have five minutes to question mr. sullivan. i recognize myself for the beginning portion. erector sullivan, let me be clear that all of us there is no question about it. our oversight responsibility though when situations like this occur we have to do our job. ..

at the white house any point? at the state dinner. >> at this event we had a three vehicle checkpoints and we had two pedestrian checkpoints. >> okay, and each checkpoint to those individuals have lists of the guests that would be in

attendance? >> yes, they did chairman. >> the two individuals in question, the salahis, were any of them on the list? >> favor not. >> and is your testimony before us today that they should not have been allowed entrance to this event because they were not on the list? >> that is, correct. >> for the record if an individual is not on a list what is the procedure? >> the procedure would be they should not be allowed entry. at that point, for this particular event the protocol would be that that officer should contact their immediate supervisor, the supervisor would get together with an individual from the white house staff, they would be determined if, in fact, that individual was cleared to come in and additionally we would call over to our control

center to see if these names had been provided for clearance. >> did any of this occur on the evening in question? >> it did not. >> have you identified all of the personnel who would have been responsible for this not occurring? >> server right now that is ongoing. we have identified three individuals right now. we continue to investigate. we've done this since this occurred, we have done numerous interviews and we continue to do and go back and read too few people but right now we have three individuals who we have identified, but i am not sure if that will change or not the right now we are -- one thing we are sure of, the checkpoints for this did occur. >> so if they were not on the list have you determined how

individual and not on the list could gain entrance to this event? >> i have sir. >> is that something you are comfortable in sharing to the setting or you'd like to do in another setting? >> i can share that. we established protocols, they were not followed. what we find is that if the protocols are followed we won't run into this type of situation. clearly this protocol was not followed. a mistake was made in the an error in judgment and that allowed these two individuals who should not have been allowed entry into the white house. >> can you tell us whether or not any other individuals may have gained entry to the white house in a similar manner? >> that was a concern on my part as well and i can tell you that our investigation indicates that no other individuals were allowed entry that evening that should not have been allowed to come in. >> and one question because of these individuals were not on the list, they did not get

invented or anything like that. the you think this not occurring provided any risk to those individuals who attended the state dinner? >> like everyone imus surely disappointed that these people were able to enter the white house however i would say that these people went through every layer of security that every other individual went through going into that building and again i'd be more than happy to talk about what those levels of security are in a closed briefing, but i would say from a risk perspective i feel confident based on what i have heard and seen and been briefed on that they've not provided a risk to the president. >> so you are comfortable in making that statement?

>> i am comfortable in making that statement sir. >> thank you. i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. director, my understanding is the salahis when they went to the first checkpoint and their name was not on the list. >> i'm sorry -- mr. chairman. >> understanding is when the salahis came to the first checkpoint to their name was not on the list and they told the secret service agents that they should be on the list and had been invited and they taught themselves through, is that a fair analysis? >> is part of the investigation and what i will tell you is these two individuals to show up at the list representing themselves to be on the west. our officer looked at the guest list and i did not seen their names there. and allowed them to proceed to the next checkpoint to have their names checked up their. >> my understanding is and i've seen this personally certainly

at times people who should be on the list are not and when they say they are on the list and they are not somebody from the social secretaries office and the secret service agent hands the guests over to the social secretary and gets back to processing those who are next in line, is that the way it's been done in the past? >> for every event that we have a the white house we have a planning meeting with the white house staff and we did have a planning meeting for this particular visit. during that meeting we all agree about what are predetermine responsibility will be for that particular event and this meeting we agreed that at that particular checkpoint we would take control of the list. >> if i could ask you, at any other evidence of the white house, certainly a state dinner or there was no one from the social secretaries office there with the secret service? >> i've asked our people to look at that and we have seen other

evidence for that's occurred. it does not happen often but we have seen other evidence, mr. king, or that does occur. >> you know if it's happened at any previous day dinner? >> i do not know that i can get back too. >> say if and this is hypothetical if one they come to the security checkpoint and they say we are on the list and the secret service agent says there are now, with the agents have referred them to the social secretary's office and continue to process those in line? >> i believe what they would have done is worked issue together. i don't think that the officer would have totally just dismiss it to that particular person. i would think -- >> why won't they dismiss it? with the way to see with the social secretaries office could find then come back to the secret service agent rather than the secret service agent stop processing everyone ahead of them and just deal with this individual or these individuals?

>> i think that's one of the things we talked about an hour after action review of this as we talked with the white house staff. i believe we both recognize that there is a need to have somebody there from the white house and that's why as we saw yesterday new guidelines were put out where for all of these events in the future without exception there will be somebody there from the white house staff. >> and what those guidelines be similar to almost everything done before? >> other than last week? >> again mr. king, many of the events we have done over the past nine or 10 months there have been people from the white house staff at this checkpoint. for this particular event prior two this week agreed that we would control that and there would be somebody from the white house staff. >> my time is running, who initiated that? do you ask the social secretaries office not to be there or did they ask not to be there? >> i know that's the result of

our meeting was. >> is an unusual for all these events, i have been to 40 and my colleagues have been to a similar amount whether christmas parties are barbecues and occasional steak dinner, we always see somebody whether it's the social secretaries office, the president's staff, legislative affairs, there's somebody there with the secret service and it's interesting that for this one event the most important of the year or have a prime minister from a country which was attacked by terrorists last year that at this event which also was a larger crowd than expected, the social secretary's office just laughed and the secret service was there by itself. thank you for accepting responsibility, but the one thing we can find out is to initiate this and what the real procedure will be in the future and why it was done this way last tuesday. we can do it unless we have summoned from the white house having the guts to come down here and testify of the then hiding. >> the only other thing i would say is during that mean it was

agreed upon there would be people from the white house staff available in a growing capacity and i take responsibility for the back that we did have that available to us and that is what is should have been -- people should have been stopped and we should have called for someone to help to expedite. >> this wouldn't have happened, they never would have gone in if someone from the social secretaries office was standing where they have foisted in the past the salahis wouldn't have gone in. >> it would have helped. >> thank you very much. just for the record again, no one would have been allowed in that event it had not been invented, and my right? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> whether they talk to the social secretary or whomever? >> mr. chairman, if you yelled for a moment -- there were left off the list. >> that's the purpose of having

a social secretary. >> i defer to your questions. >> all i was going to say is there have been occasions where people have shown up that have not been invented or we will have a conversation with the white house staff and those people have been allowed to enter. that's very rare but on occasion people have, and if both the white house staff and us agree and this is in every not just in this administration and others were if we feel there is a need for those individuals to be let through that having been vetted and we in the staff are in agreement those people will be allowed in but again that's to answer your question, not what happened here. >> the gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you mr. sullivan. first let me say that i think the secret service does a great

job and it saddens me to see that there was such a lapse this time at the white house. in the past and others in close communication between the social secretary for the white house, all legislation affairs for example if we're going to have the congress people, for the christmas party and every single time that i have entered the white house there has always been somebody from the president's --, the white house there at the very first point before you ever even get to to the checkpoint with a check your purses etc.. every time, even if it's just been a meeting with the president over a particular policy, there's always been somebody out there so my question i have for you is coming in this pre planning meeting did you all decide if

that no one would be specifically assigned from the social secretaries office or legislative affairs or what have you at the first checkpoint? was that a decision made because i heard you say they were going to be roving people but was there a definite decision that nobody would be setting next to the secret service as people first made entry or attempts to come into the advent? >> my understanding congresswoman is a there was an agreement at the initial checkpoint we would have that list on our own and that if any discrepancy did come up that we would then call for an end -- to that person was to call for their supervisor and they, in fact, could contact with somebody from the staff who was down around the main interest point at the east wing and there would be able to come out and help with the issue. >> so your feeling is that

you're first secret service agents who was standing there with the list and realized that the couple in question was not on there that, in fact, their purpose was meant to call over somebody from the white house and confer us to what to do with that person? >> correct. every day we have people show up to various gates at the white house who just show up, they want to come in and every day our people will make a appropriate phone calls, a prepared contact to see if maybe we have missed something on our list and a, in fact, these people are expected to arrive. and i look at this no different for me. this began and ended at that check point, it was a simple protocol, simple procedure that we had in place that if somebody came up who wasn't on the list made contact with somebody who could come and help you expedite that individual in or determine

if, in fact, they should be turned away. >> that's why it surprises me because every time i've been to the white house and had a guest to has been a speech to a head of time with social security number and everything else we need to supply and showing idps, there's still time to when we are set aside and said we don't have your guest on the list, let's talk about this but it's always come out in conjunction with some a from the white house. so why in this particular instance because i have never seen this instance before it is been under three presidents had been going to the white house, democrats and republicans, i have never seen a secret service agent in particular with such an important process with so many important people waiting in line to get through -- wide to you -- why we do all agree that no person from the white house

would be standing there, first of all, to greet guests which is one of the most important things that the social secretary should be doing at that point but at the same time if there were problems to immediately be able to take care of them and start some scena of line to figure out is this person here? whitehead of time? i've never seen this happen. why would you all agree. >> i would and knowledge that is very rare. i haven't seen that happen myself all that often and i do believe that that the statement or the memorandum that was put out by the white house yesterday i believe they recognize that as well and that they stated in that memorandum that we're there to work as partners to make sure that we get everybody in who should get in and prevent people who shouldn't come in and i do believe that because of this particular issue last week i think there's a recognition by

all of us that that is the way things should be done and i think going forward -- i know going for that that is the way things are going to we done. >> thank you for taking responsibility, but i think there's a lot of responsibility that should be spread at on this. thank you mr. sullivan and mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from mr. -- indiana. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. sullivan, you have used check point repeatedly. were there points -- two or one that had a list? >> there were two of. >> it wasn't a point, it was checkpoints that bailed? >> yes, sir. >> and the list you are referring to was in the list provided to you by the social secretary or is this a list that has been in social security numbers vetted, there's been background checks on individuals, might have turned up questionable things in this couple's background and who they were associated with. was in the list eight social

secretary list of who he invited or was it vetted list? >> i believe i have this right and if i don't we will correct it, but what happens before this event the white house staff will give us a list of all the people that have been invited and we will then take that list and also provide us with name and date of birth and social security number. we then run all of those -- to do their appropriate record checks for those individuals. anything does come up that would lead us to believe somebody shouldn't be let into the white house we would get back to the staff on that. once all of that the betting is done we get back to the white house staff of bad and they will give us back a complete list of who is going to be attending that event. >> so for the social secretary office or anyone from the white house or an influential individual to walk up and say this individual should be allowed in, you said you think that has been done in the past without bedding or they would

have to say this individual has been at vetted before? >> i was a that would be very rare occasion. i would save perhaps it was a member from the hill or if it was some other individual who was a family friend this would have to be somebody known to them, we would talk through its and we would allow them into the white house again that would be when all of us are comfortable and we know who you're dealing with. >> the salahis have been flashing all over the national media, e-mail's that suggest that there could have been the potential of a mistake of showing that they had exchanges asked to be on the list and supposed to be called back and then they claimed that they were gone and haven't heard it. did they show those e-mail's, that the whole country knows exist now? >> that gets into the elements of a criminal investigation and again i cannot based upon

information in conversation with the u.s. attorney's office of a preferred not to talk about that. >> one of my concerns because this feels like as they say déàa vu all over again one hours first elected to congress and we came in and i elected in '94, the government oversight committee, we started a whole round of investigations in '95 and '96 about white house clearances and the question was dick morris and the thomases were not on the clearance list if there were coming into the white house regularly and that led to a whole question of having parents lists with dead people on it, with people who shouldn't have been on the list, who was holding those lists and that led to questions of the coding and that's how we found it allenby, lincoln bedroom. we have been through this before with the secret service and asked this to be clarified and fixed and the question was looking at a casual visit of some individuals and a slip up

on the list, it led to a fundamental question about how and when these lists are changed because you said, well, they went through all the checks and there was no danger to the president or the prime minister of india. if there is no danger, why did you do background checks? >> that's a fundamental question because casual visitors to the white house christmas tree are subjected to background checks and you just said here that it didn't matter really that you did do the background checks because they had been vetted as only points in the was no danger. was there a danger of not to the president and if there isn't because you have all those different points tuesday they don't have a gun in these things, why do you read every visitor to see the white house christmas tree? >> doing background checks are one level of our security and just because we do a background check on somebody that comes back and have no record it to me that doesn't mean there's no

danger. >> but my question is you said there was no danger to the president because they went through all these things to show that they basically didn't pose a threat. is that correct? was there a threat or not to the president? >> we have countermeasures in place and incompetent in telling you there was no threat to the president. last week we took him to a basketball game with 5,000 people. and he was surrounded by those 5,000 people. >> at understand that but why you then run a background check on every individual that's coming in and they aren't even going to see the president, i get their picture taken with the president and vice president, not see all these other people there in a one in one type thing. why you run left of a background check on individuals there then you went on a casual visitor because you said sometimes it's waived and there was no danger, the presumption is your during a background check because of potential danger. >> when i have like to have

stopped those people at that check point, i would have. do i think they should have been named jack? i do. but does that mean that there was a danger to the president because it to people came in who weren't named jack platts i don't believe it does. i believe our levels of security. wiki pages in close proximity to those people we protect. our agents -- if we thought that doing a name check was going to secure his safety then we wouldn't have any more security in the white house and tell-all of our people they could stand out. we don't believe that and we know with all due respect to the 400 people that came to the white house last week we continue to look at all those people even though they've got to name checks no matter who the people work and their agents when people walk up to a vote of shoots we're looking at those people as they approach, looking at their body language, looking at their gestures, looking at any type of furtive action. we don't rely on just any one level of security here.

we look at multiple levels of security and i'd be happy to talk about that in a closed setting. but we do take background. >> the gentleman's time is respired. the gentle lady from california. >> 90 mr. chairman. mr. sullivan, i applaud you for taking full responsibility for this. it is not an easy thing to do but you have an flanged and you write back as you said quote in our line of work we can't afford even one mistake. as you can see everyone on this committee on a bipartisan basis in use this as a security issue. hopefully none of us cares whether us weekly is covering it. we care whether the life of our president, high-level officials from our country and from india and others were protected at last week's event and we care very much going for and whether there are lessons learned. i think that ought to be clear and that's what i care about. i focused in a terms of congress on security issues.

that is my passion, that's what i do, i chair the intelligence of committee of this and on numerous occasions i have been briefed by you on threats to the president and what the secret service is doing about them and i've been two your headquarters to see first hand what you're doing and i want to thank you and the people who work for you for your service and again i want to thank you for taking responsibility for this incident. my questions are about what will we do going forward? what will we do differently? all of us remember the so-called purple a tunnel of doom at the inauguration. that was i thought it demonstration up for crowd control by your agency and other agencies at a large outdoor event, that's not the same as this event but it causes me to ask some questions. i think that entering the white house should not be like shopping and a big box retailer

the day after thanksgiving. i'm sure you agree. going forward tens of thousands of people are going to be at the white house in december looking at the christmas decorations and attending in number of receptions. we are all going monday night with guests and we have submitted the social security numbers and the date of birth of the guests and we know they are being vetted and they should be some my question is should we have a better business model year for large crowds and small crowds? i attended recently the bruce springsteen concert in washington a. it was quite wonderful. just want you all to know. [laughter] some of you may have gone but it was also a very smooth security experience. tickets were received well in a dance, they were printed on high-tech tamperproof paper with parka's quickly scanned for authenticity, there were no lines, no confusion. and there was no security problem. i'm not suggesting that

christmas at the white house is a bruce springsteen concert but i'm suggesting that there may be a more modern techniques for screening people and who are trying to enter the white house building. and let me finally suggested that as this committee knows when you're security always works better. miss sanchez and i have collaborated for years on board security and that's what we have put in place and so in that regard i very much applaud her comments about the social secretaries office. the social secretary participation in screening people and sick to layered security and i sure hope those lessons have been learned so my question is do we have the right security model here? other things you can improve immediately with respect to screen people who come to the white house next month and are there things this committee either legislatively or informally should be working on a two make your job more effective? >> thank you.

i agree with you. one of the things we do is we are continually looking at our methods and procedures, that's not just because of this event. you do that continually. we are looking at how technology can help us out, x-ray machines and other types of technology. we have a technology working group which is not just our organization but it is other federal organizations, the academia, working with all those people up there and a partnership to come up with the best methodology to expedite people through and to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be non intrusive and make sure it's very efficient. i would say that in this particular case again, i don't think any level of technology, i don't think any level of funding is the reason for why this happened. pure and simple, this is a human error. we could've had the best technology. we could have had all the

funding that we would ever want. but there's still would not have prevented this from happening. if people don't follow the established guidelines, something like this is going to happen. as i said before we put 1.2 million people to the white house this past. all those people were put through without incident because we did follow procedure. so i do agree we need to continually look at technology and whenever methodologies are out there to ensure that we get people in as safely as we can. i do think that that didn't matter in this particular situation. ..

i believe there is a dollars and of that. >> so you said there was a decision made before hand that that would not be the case here. it was that your recommendation? >> that was a recommendation that we made together. >> so what was your recommendation? >> it was a joint recommendation. >> why would to make that recommendation? >> we looked to the issue last week, we talked about this and when i say my recommendation we have our people get together with the white house staff, they looked at the events surrounding last week. >> i don't need to know the process, i want to know why that's the question. why would you or members of your staff decided that it would make

sense not to have somebody from the white house at both of those -- however many points there were -- with your personnel? >> wide we make the decision -- i'm sorry. >> why would you make your recommendation? why did you make it? you said it was a shared recommendation. why did somebody from the secret service decide that made sense? >> i believe in looking at what happened last week, again we have done this not only this administration by previous administrations where we have taken responsibility for that list. this is the first time we had a breakdown based on our people excepting that responsibility. so it has been done in the past. >> had been done when you had a steak dinner? >> as i mentioned, i don't know that i'd be more than happy to get back. >> you don't know if this been done when you had a head of state of the nation that's been the subject of a recent terrorist attack? >> i do not know that. >> for the record, if your folks

made the recommendation, if you made that recommendation is inconceivable to me why you would do that. all you need to do is have somebody from the white house standing there. that's too much to ask. that's what they're supposed to do. >> are you saying that we made the recommendation two weeks ago during the planning? >> guess that's the question i just asked. >> i apologize. as i said, they have a planning meeting prior two that event. >> i understand, i'm asking whether your folks made the recommendation that that ought not to be -- ought not to have someone from the white house there? >> i don't know who made the recommendation, but in the planning there was an agreement made we would take the list in the other individuals available from the white house staff would respond to that checkpoint to help with any discrepancies. >> i'm just trying to ask and i did that come from your side of the house?

>> i don't know that. >> will your investigation revealed? >> it will. >> you talked about earlier security. i'm absolutely with security by one of the lawyers was not there, correct? >> i would say that the protocol was not adhered to a. >> i would say one of the lawyers was not there. >> we leave this report event now as the senate has return from recess with a continued debate on health care bill. live coverage on c-span2. an amendment to protect the social security surplus and the class program savings in this act. and when i do, i will then ask for its immediate consideration. but at the moment, that is still being worked out from a parliamentary standpoint. so my words will come in advance of that. i want to describe for my colleagues the amendment. it is a sense of the senate

resolution that demonstrates the senate's commitment to meaningful deficit reduction in this legislation while also protecting both the social security surpluses generated by the legislation and the savings generated from a significant element of the bill, the long-term voluntary insurance program created by the community living assistance services and supports act, what we call the class act. the amendment expresses the sense of the senate that surpluses generated by this bill for the social security trust fund be reserved for social security. and that the savings for the long-term insurance program created by the class act be reserved for the class program. the c.b.o. has estimated that this bill will save $130 billion

over the first ten years and roughly $650 billion over the next ten years. this amendment stands for the proposition that these impressive savings will be protected vis-a-vis the class act and the social security trust fund. i want to speak in particular today about the class act. this act creates a voluntary insurance program for seniors and individuals with disabilities. this program will enable them to afford long-term care even after they've exhausted coverage offered by medicare or their private insurer. let me make clear that this is not a mandatory program.

it does not increase taxes on anyone. it is a completely voluntary program that offers an additional insurance option for the disabled. without such insurance, disabled people often cannot afford the massive costs of long-term care. under current law, they are often forced to sell their homes or otherwise what is called spend down their assets until they meet a poverty threshold before they can begin receiving the help that they need. certain colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the class plan would lead to a financially unstable entitlement program and would rapidly increase the federal deficit. that's simply not accurate.

the class plan is fully self-sustaining and actuarially sound, funded by the premiums paid by those individuals who voluntarily opt into this insurance plan. there are no taxpayer dollars involved. after an individual pays premiums for five years, they become eligible to receive a cash benefit of no less than $50 per day to assist with the various costs associated with the onset of a disability or long-term health condition. these benefits co could be usedo pay for transportation to work, for instance, or the construction of a wheelchair ramp, or the hiring of a personal aide, the sorts of things, madam president, that so often make the difference between somebody remaining an

independent and productive member of society and requiring the support of assisted living or nursing home care. i think we can all agree that it is in everyone's best interests to try to provide this kind of assistance to people when an unexpected disability begins to affect their lives to allow them the support that they need to continue as best they can in their homes, in their apartments, with their families, at their jobs and remain, as i said, both independent and productive. the congressional budget office has concluded that this plan is fiscally solid. in fact, it projected that the program would be solvent for at least 75 years. there was a helpful amendment offered in the "help" committee when we considered and debated

and passed that piece of legislation. the amendment was offered by the distinguished senator from new hampshire, your colleague, and senator gregg, the ranking member on the budget committee, and it passed unanimously and it assures and requires that the program be actuarially sound for 75 years. and c.b.o. has projected that, in fact, it would be solvent for at least 5 years. -- 75 years. c.b.o. further estimated that the program would reduce the deficit by $72 billion over ten years, saving $1.6 billion for medicaid during the first four years of the program. so it has substantial fiscal upside. i'm surprised that our colleagues on the other side are

criticizing this element of the bill, and it seems to run contrary to the findings that have been made by the nonpartisan congressional budget office. it is certainly a stark contrast to theirl tolerance for their on medicare part-d program, the pharmaceutical program that the other side touted so proudly, which is difference than the class act in many respects. it was vastly expensive. it was completely unpaid for. it was a massive handout to the pharmaceutical industry containing within it to me the appalling, appalling proposition that the government was forbidden by law, forbidden by a previous congress to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry over the price of drugs and had to take it or leave it, whatever

the pharmaceutical industry charged. it is, frankly, irresponsible to put the government into that situation. it is fiscally irresponsible. it is irresponsible from a management point of view. it is irresponsible in more ways that i can name, and yet they happily went that way. that passed a fiscal irresponsibility when it suited the pharmaceutical industry. and, of course, in order to do so, they had to leave a hole in the part-d pharmaceutical plan for seniors to fall into. what the presiding officer knows well and what my colleagues know well as the dreaded doughnut hole that has caused so many unsuspecting seniors so much surprise, chagrin, fear, anxie anxiety, and misery. and now, having been the architects of that program, they criticize the class act even though. c.b. has found it to be --

though the c.b. has found it to be fiscally sound. it seems as though there's an enormous double standard between programs designed for, say, the pharmaceutical industry or perhaps the insurance industry from the standards that they would apply to programs that benefit people who suffer from the onset of a disability. regular americans, regular families. this is something that happens to people across this country all the time. and that's the most important effect of the class act. as good as it is on deficits, as much as the c.b.o. has confirmed that it is to our fiscal advantage to proceed with the class act, the most important effect is not on deficits, it's on people. it's on families. this insurance program will allow disabled people, young and old, to live more financially secure and productive lives. free from the fear that medical

expenses will impoverish or bankrupt them. able to make those investments in their own adaptation to their disability so they can maintain the lifestyle and the job and the home that they're accustomed to and comfortable with. studies show that less than a quarter of private long-term care policies provide a lifetime of benefits. so the class act fills an important void that has been left by the public sector for people who seek this protection and this insurance on a paid-for basis. the class plan is a win-win for reducing costs in our health care system and protecting americans who require long-term care. our current system just plain fails to protect those who aren't healthy or wealthy enough for private market coverage. it fails to create an opportunity for individuals to

plan and save for their future lifetime care needs. and it fails to provide a sustainable safety net for individuals who require a long term services and supports to keep the familiar aspects of their life around them, their job, their family, their home, their apartment. so i will shortly ask that my colleagues support the amendment when it is called up. it will put the senate on record as pro it can'ting social security. it will put senate on record as protecting the class act savings scored by c.b.o. and it will put the senate on record as supporting the deficit reduction in the bill. i look forward to when we have parliamentary agreement on calling it up and i yield the floor. mr. gregg: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: madam president, i appreciate the senator from rhode island's proposal here,

but i think it needs to be put in its proper context. this is a sense of the senate. it has no legal implications at all. the class act, as it's been proposed in the underlying bill, was described by the senator from rhode island, but not fully described. because the way the class act works is it's an insurance program theoretically where people in their 30's and 40's and 50's can buy insurance to cover their retirement years when they have to go into some sort of long-term care facility to maybe be institutionized. so people are paying into this program for decades. maybe four decades, maybe their 30's right into their 70's or their 20's into their 60's. and then the cost of this program does not actually start to occur and be incurred until

these folks move into a long-term care facility or managed-care facility situation for their retirement years where they need skilled nursing assistance of some sort. and so there's a huge amount of premium that comes in under this program early which goes against virtually no expenses because this is a brand-new program. it's a startup program. created by the federal government. the federal government insurance program, much like social security and medicare are supposed to be. and the practical effect of that is that money will come in for years to the federal coffers. -- in the first 10 years of this bill it's estimated that $50 billion will come in. as we move out in the second 10 years, the total over those two periods of 10 years, 20 years

is $212 billion will come into the federal coffers. and then more money will come in in the third 10 years. probably somewhere in the vicinity of $400 billion to $500 billion, potentially, in the third to 10 years. none of this will be spent on the purposes of this insurance. because almost everybody who's paying in for these premiums is going to be too young to go into one of these institutionized care facilities during these first three decades. so what happens here is that the federal government gets this large windfall of money from these people who are paying their premiums in and spends it. spends it on something else, education, roads, highway -- you know, arts, whatever the decision is to spend the money on. i mean, it gets spent. because that's the way the federal government works. it doesn't have any place to put this money and keep it safe for

those folks. it just comes in and it gets spent. and then when these people do retire, when they do go into a situation where they need assisted living of some sort, then the federal government gets the bill. not us. not those of us who are here. we'll be long retired by then. everybody in this chamber, except maybe senator bennet from colorado, who is rather young and vibrant, but the rest of us will probably be not -- not around to take advantage of this. our children or grandchildren will end up with that bill. and that bill will be staggering. staggering. i mean, you're talking hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of out-year costs as a result of this type of program. much like social security. much like social security, which has basically got nothing in the

coffers today even though trillions of dollars have been paid in about which has got a lot of obligations. the same thing with medicare. that is an insurance program that has a lot of money in the coffers. not there. no. in fact, it goes into negative cash flow in 2012, 2013. no, there is no money when these folks retire and need it. it will have been spent. and this amendment, well intentioned as a statement, has absolutely no statement on those events. that money will be spent under this amendment. if after this amendment is scored, after this amendment is passed -- i presume it will be passed, it's a nonevent amendment, having no purpose at all other than to make a political statement, c.b.o. will still score this bill as spending that money. absolutely score this bill as spending that money.

the $50 billion this year. the $212 billion for the next 20 years. the $500 billion after that. that's my guess, by the way. the second -- the third 10-year period i guessed is $500 billion. and then when we get out there 30, 40 years from now, and these people expect to get their insurance paid, then our children get the -- get the bill for that insurance. it becomes a tax on them. a direct tax on their earnings. it will affect their lifestyle, their earning capacity, their ability to buy a home, their ability to send a child to college, their ability to buy a car because this money will be spent under this bill. you know, one of my colleagues on the other side o is this clas act proposalcheme. and that's not too far off. not too far off. because it's basically, we're taking the money from these folks who buy into this insurance program today, we're

spending it on something that we want to spend it on as a congress today, whether it's something worthwhile like a road or education or national defense, but we're spending it and we're leaving the people who paid that premium out to lunch unless 30, 40 years from now when they go into that situation where they need that insurance, the country is strong enough and our kids are making enough money to pay for the cost of that program. and that's a real gamble for them, and that's called a ponzi scheme, which is exactly what this is. since this bill -- since this senate -- although a good political document, because it allows members to wander around their homes and districts to say, i voted to -- for the class -- i voted that it -- in this budget in this bill. that was the sense of senate. in actualality it has no effect at all. the c.b.o. will still score all the money that comes in under this insurance program as going to be spent somewhere else.

it will still score this bill as taking credit for that insurance. -- insurance under this program. it is bernie madoff accounting, one more time, under this bill. you would think after a while people would get embarrassed about it. i mean, really. it would become embarrassing after a while. when you match up 10 years of tax increases, 10 years of medicare cuts to five years of programmatic spending and claim that you've got a program that's fully paid for and it's only an 40 billion program. when you know the program, the entire bill fully phased in it it's $2.5 trillion in costs. $2.5 trillion in costs. that it isn't $500 billion in medicare cuts when it is phased in. it is $1 trillion in medicare cuts. that it isn't $500 billion in

fee increases on small businesses -- most of this will fall on small businesses, it is over $1 trillion of increases. you would think after a while people would be embarrassed about those type -- the manipulation of numbers in that way. that doesn't seem to occur. an, yet, we get it -- and, yet, we get this proposal that says, ok, let's do it again. let's claim we're doing something we're not doing. let's claim that we're protecting the dollars that come in under this new class act proposal, presuming this insurance program goes into place, lts claim we're protecting them somehow so that the people who pay their hard-earned dollars an buy into the class act really think they're getting something for it when, in fact, that's not going to happen at all. not going to happen at all. that money's going to be spent the day it comes in. it's already spent. we're already borrowing so much and paying so much in this

government right now, that we already have an obligation of debt that we'll spend this money. so, you know, mine, i guess everybody can walk away feeling good about this amendment, but substantively it has no impact at all. absolutely not. a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. gregg: i would be happy to yield to the senator from south dakota for a question. mr. thune: my understanding is that the class act to make the deficit situation with the enactment of this bill look better -- they've argued that they're going to reduce the deficit because of this bill because of the revenues that come in early from the class act. and i think the senator from new hampshire accurately described this. you get the short-term injection, injection of revenues an another long-term liability, which is why the chairman of the budget committee described it as a ponzi scheme of the highest order, something which bernie madoff would be proud. i guess my question for the senator from new hampshire would be, how does this impact

deficits in the long run and the debt in the long run? there was a lot of discussion here -- around here, more rhetoric than action, doing something to reduce the deficit an deal with this deficit that continues to pile up and accumulate and at some point be handed off to future generations much so this ponzi scheme, as has been describe the by the senator from north dakota, on the other side in the form of class act, does seem in the short term at least to understayed the fiscal impact of the cost of this health bill, which as the senator from new hampshire described as $2.5 trillion. could the senator sort of elaborate as to what happens in the outyears. you talk about the what happens when the bills become diewvment you get the revenue in the short term and sometime in the short term that revenue gets spent and you're stuck with all of these liabilities. how will it affect this deficit and debt in the future when our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for it?

mr. gregg: the senator from south dakota asked a pointed and appropriate question. the answer to that question is pretty startling. point here that i think most people don't understand is that this money gets spent as it comes in. in other words, let's say over the next 30 years young people pay into this new alleged insurance program, accurately described as a ponzi scream. all of that money that comes in will be spent on other activities of the government and, therefore, the other activities of the government will be allowed to grow fairly dramatically because there will be a lot of money here. you're talking potentially $1 trillion over the next 30 years. well, those expenditures which will have occurred as a result of this money coming in, which will have nothing to do at all with the cost of paying for health care, which these people who buy into this class act think they're getting, in other words, long-term care insurance,

has nothing to do with that. it will be on, as i said, education, roads, national defense, whatever we spend it on around here. those expenditures will be built into the baseline forever. and they will presume there will be revenue to pay for them. what happens when that generation is bought into the class act starts to need the money that it's alleged it's going to get? what happens is two things. the younger generation is going to have to pay taxes to cover that cost. because the money won't thereby. there will be no known the kiddie. there will be zero money in the alleged kiddie to pay for this insurance program and, secondly, ironically, the government will have been grown by all the money that came in and was spent on new programs. so you're basically going to double down on the cost here. and our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay twice not only to pay off

the long-term care, which has allegedly been promised to these people under these insurance programs, but also to pay off for all of the new spending that will occur as a result of spending the premiums which is supposed to be saved for these new programs on -- on the new programs. so they are going to get hit twice. the implications are staggering. we already know that we have a a $34 trillion unfunded liability in medicare. we know when you combine medicare, medicaid, and social security, we have a $55 trillion unfunded liability. if you calculate in the costs of the class act on top of that, you're adding potentially trillions more of unfunded liability which will all have to be paid by our children and grandchildren. that's the -- at the essence of this bill, there are a number of problems, but the problem that i find most inappropriate in the

way that we're doing this is that we are creating a government which our kids cannot afford under any circumstance. we are absolutely guaranteeing that our children are going to have a lower standard of living than we had because of the burden that we're going to put on them as a result of these expansive new programs which we know can't be afforded in the out years. we already know we can't afford the government we have in the out years. we already know the public debt is headed toward 80% of g.d.p. by 2016. so the senator from south dakota has touched a core issue. what is the real cost of this? well, it's extraordinary, extraordinary. and as i said, it hits our -- it hits the next generation twice. first they will have to pay the taxes to pay for the program that was put on the books which is allegedly there, plus they will have to pay to support all the programs which the money that came in was supposed to be preserved for which will go on to new -- mr. thune: i would say to my

colleague from new hampshire, the classic definition of a uponcy scheme which as i said is how it has been described, not just by the chairman of the budget committee from north dakota but also by others who have looked at this. at editorial pages and newspapers across this country have looked at this class act and said it doesn't add up and it doesn't add up. i think a upon ponzi scheme is a good description. the senator from new hampshire has outlined the impact this would have on future generations, on deficits on debt and spending and the growth of government, and that's why it is such a bad idea to include this. and the resolution that has been proposed, the sense of the senate resolution is simply that. as you know, it has no legal binding of fact on spending. it simply is a sort of political statement that makes everybody feel better, but in the end it's going to be our kids who pay. mr. gregg: i think the senator from south dakota has touched on a critical point here which is the sense of the senate basically confirms the fundamental flaw of the class act. i mean, the fact that you would need -- you would think that the

sense of the senate is necessary pretty much proves that everybody around here understands that there is a big game going on with the class act. the problem is, of course, the sense of the senate has no effective law and therefore the problem the class act creates in the area of spending the revenues that come in for the purposes of something other than what the class act alleges people are buying when they pay for that insurance will still exist, and the c.b.o. will still score the class act as benefiting the budget situation when it really shouldn't be scored that way at all. so as i've said, this is a nice resolution from "politico"'s standpoint but substantively it has no effect on correcting the problems which the class act generates in the area of fiscal policy. i understand, mr. president, there is a unanimous consent that somebody wishes to offer. i was asked if i would listen to it. mr. durbin: does the senator yield? mr. gregg: i would ask the senator -- the assistant leader if he wishes to offer -- is he

offering unanimous consent? then i will yield the floor for the purposes of unanimous consent. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be one offered by senator whitehouse of rhode island which is at the desk, that the other matter in order during today's session be a hatch motion to commit regarding medicare advantage, that no other amendments or motions to commit be in order during today's session, and that the time in sequence following this unanimous consent request -- i don't want to disadvantage the senator from new hampshire, but if it is our turn on this side of the aisle, i would ask that senator whitehouse first be recognized for the purpose of calling up his amendment, then the senator is chairman -- that i be recognized next for no more than 15 minutes, and at that point it's my understanding senator hatch has asked for the floor for one hour on his amendment.

if there are any other requests, i would be glad to add them to the unanimous consent request at this point. mr. gregg: reserving the right to object, my only concern is that would take us past 7:00, so you may want to adjust the time. mr. durbin: i will finish this as soon as i have gone through my preliminary work here, and i will ask that the time until 8:00 p.m. this evening will be equally divided and controlled between senators whitehouse and hatch or their designees and that it be in order during this time for members to engage in colloquies as long as those members entering into the colloquy remain on the floor. mr. gregg: is it my understanding then the order of recognition will be senator whitehouse, the assistant leader, and then senator hatch? mr. durbin: yes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i now call up amendment number 2870, an amendment to protect the social security surplus and class program

savings in this act and ask for the amendment's immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse, proposes an amendment number 2870 to amendment number 2786. at the appropriate place -- mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. whitehouse: i yield to the distinguished majority leader. mr. durbin: i have listened to the profound and eloquent statements of my friend and colleague from new hampshire, senator judd gregg. he has frequently invoked the name of the ponzi family, and although i'm not personally familiar with them, i believe they have had some skeletons in their closet by virtue of the references that have been made, but i will tell him that what he said about the class act is just inaccurate. i know that the senator, i see

he is leaving the floor and i hope he doesn't miss out on this conversation. mr. gregg: i was just wondering if the senator would yelled for a question. mr. gregg: is the upon did i family from -- is the ponzi family from chicago? mr. durbin: no, they are not. i think they are from new england. patriot fans.