he is familiar with doug elmendorf and the congressional budget office and the letter to the majority leader harry reid in relation to the deficit impact of the class act? mr. gregg: i appreciate the assistant leader asking me that question. regrettably, i'm not immediately familiar with it. i've probably seen it although i apologize for not being immediately familiar with it, and therefore i presume the assistant leader is going to remind me or at least reacquaint me with its terms. i would note that the term ponzi act did not come from me. it came from the chairman of the budget committee. mr. durbin: i would just say it's unfortunate that the senator from new hampshire has not seen this letter because if he had had an opportunity -- and it's impossible to read everything here. had he had an opportunity to read that letter, i don't think he would have made the speeches he just made on the floor about the class act because the congressional budget office tells us that in the first ten years, the class act will reduce

the federal budget deficit by by $72.5 billion. in the second ten years by a substantial amount although somewhat less than than $72.5 billion. and in the third ten years, 30 years out, it's anticipated that it will add to the deficit but in the words of the letter from the congressional budget office by a very small amount over that next decade. mr. gregg: just allow me to comment on that one point. mr. durbin: i would be more than happy to allow that comment. mr. gregg: i fully agree with that analysis. the first 30 years of the class act will generate revenues that will add to the federal treasury and -- and that was the purpose of my discussion. that's the point i made. the first 30 years of this proposal is that younger people will be paying in and very few people will be taking out because they will not have yet qualified for the insurance because they won't be old enough to go into assisted living.

mr. durbin: reclaiming the floor, i would just say if i understand what the senator has said, he is concerned that in the year 2040 that this program may not work as effectively as we had hoped it would work. i trust in the wisdom of future members of the senate and the house if that's necessary to modify the program, but it's certainly worthwhile for us to at least reflect on what this program is. it is a voluntary, self-funded insurance program for long-term care for american citizens. it was one of the visions of senator kennedy as part of health care reform. understanding that we're living longer and many times need help in our late years in life, and it can be expensive and deplete a family's savings. senator kennedy said let's try to put together a voluntary program where you can pay in and have, in fact, long-term care insurance available to you if you need it. the fact that this program is virtually solvent for 30

straight years is an indication of the wisdom of that idea and the way it is planned. and i might add one other thing -- we just finished a motion to commit on the floor here relative to medicare, and many of us argued that the bill before us, the bill that represents health care reform in this debate protects medicare and the basic guarantees, the basic benefits of medicare. those on the other side of the aisle protested and said no, it doesn't. well, then senator michael bennet of colorado offered an amendment which said point blank and clearly nothing in this bill will in any way diminish guaranteed medicare benefits, any surplus generated here will be to give a longer life to the existing medicare program. the bennet of colorado amendment passed 100-0. so not only does the bill originally protect medicare, the bennet amendment repeated that and all of the republicans voted for it, and yet they continued

to come to the floor and say we don't believe what we just voted for. we believe this bill is going to hurt medicare. now, the same thing is true with the class act because senator whitehouse who was on the floor momentarily came forward and said i'll put it in writing. we're going to put it in writing that the surplus in the class act program cannot be used for other purposes. it has to be saved and used for the purposes stated here, for long-term care insurance. i think the whitehouse amendment is likely to get another 100 votes. so every time we address a concern from the republican side of the aisle and say the bill addresses that concern or a separate amendment addresses that concern, they protest it's not enough, we need more. i think they protest too much. and i would also say that i am troubled today as i have been for several weeks by the position taken from the republican side of the aisle about health care reform.

now, for about 13 or 14 days, this bill in its entirety has been available to the american people. you can find it by googling senate democrats and it will direct you to our website, and you can click on this bill. 3590, h.r. 3590, and read it page after page, all 2,074 pages of it. that's the way it should be. there was a lot of angst and worry last august at town meetings, well, are you going to get this bill sneaked by us, are we going to get a chance to read it? everybody has a chance to read it. but then i would recommend to those who are searching the internet to read health care reform bills. if you want to find the republican health care reform bill, look for senate republicans and go to their website and you will be able to click on health care reform bill and you will find the democratic health care reform bill because,

unfortunately, there is no republican health care reform bill. they haven't offered one. they have had a year to prepare it. they have had plenty of ideas they have expressed on the floor. they have been critical of our efforts. they have offered literally hundreds of amendments in committee, and yet they can't come up with a bill. it leads you to conclude that this isn't an easy task, it's not easy at all. it's certainly not easy to produce a bill like this one, democratic bill, which generates over the first ten years years $130 billion federal surplus in our treasury. this is the -- this bill adds more in terms of surplus and deficit reduction than any bill in the history of the senate. and in the second ten years, the congressional budget office says another $650 billion in savings on our deficit. so for those who argue that if we pass this bill, we're going deeper in debt, they have ignored the congressional budget office, that referee that takes a look at all the bills and

tells us that over the span of 20 years, we're going to reduce our deficit by some $700 billion or $800 billion just by virtue of this bill. republicans have been unable to produce a bill that reduces the deficit when it comes to health care by a penny. they come -- they come here and criticize what we've done, but they can't propose dues a bill. all the great legislative minds on their side of the aisle. we've been waiting patiently for them to produce a health care reform bill. they can't, or they don't want to. maybe they like the current health care system. maybe they think this is the way america should be. well, many of us don't believe that, and a lot of americans don't either. there are good parts of our system we want to protect, but there are many parts that need to change. we need to make health care and health insurance more affordable for families and individuals and businesses. this bill does. we just had another report from the congressional budget office that said yes, the cost of premiums will be coming down for

many americans as a result of this bill. we also understand that some 50 million americans don't have health insurance at all. this bill will reach the highest level of protection for health insurance in the history of the united states. 94% of people in this country will have the peace of mind and security of health insurance. dramatic increase. republicans have been unable to come up with any proposal that moves us toward more coverage for people who don't have health insurance. and this bill also has many provisions to finally give consumers across america a chance to fight back when the insurance companies say no and they do all the time. people who need critical surgical procedures and medicines, people who need the care their doctor recommend end up fighting with a clerk at an insurance company. this bill, the democratic health care reform bill, gives these families a fighting chance against these health insurance

companies. i've yet to see the first bill coming from the republican side of the aisle that would give, in the course of this debate that would give our families a chance against these health insurance companies. and i want to also say that when i finish speaking and we finish on this side of the aisle that the senator from utah will come and speak, and i understand it's on the medicare advantage program that he wants to speak to. the previous motion to commit by senator mccain of arizona said send this bill back and make sure you take out any reference to savings in the medicare advantage program. that was defeated. the vote was 42-58. there were two democrats who joined the republicans. they needed 60 votes. it didn't make it. i take it the senator from utah may offer another motion to commit relative to the medicare advantage. i expect it to have the same fate, but he has his chance to argue his point of view, and he may be persuasive to more

members on this side of the aisle. unfortunately, although we are good, close friends and i really bask in his wisdom on a daily basis, he is not going to change my mind on this issue because the medicare advantage program is a program that needs to be changed. let me tell but this program. we started years ago with the health insurance industry telling us government cannot do a good job when it comes to insurance. let us show you how private health insurance companies can sell a medicare policy more cheaply than the government, and we invited them to do it. and over the course of the years some of them did. they showed some savings, and they demonstrated to us they could provide medicare at a cost lower than the government. but then things changed, and the health insurance companies kept coming back and saying, well, we actually need more money now to

provide the same benefits in medicare that the government provides, and at last count the medicare advantage program cost 14% more to provide the same medicare benefits as the government program. so these leaders in the private sector who are going to teach us a lesson about how to sell insurance ended up failing their own lesson plan. and now this medicare advantage program has turned out to be a flat-out subsidy to the health insurance industry. $170 billion over ten years. in other words, the medicare program is paying more for medicare than what it has to pay so it can subsidize health insurance companies which are turning multimillion-dollar profits and giving bonuses to their c.e.o.'s. now, some on the other side of the aisle think that we need to preserve this, we need to preserve this subsidy, make sure we protect the profits of the

health insurance companies and we need to protect medicare advantage. as senator dodd said so frequently on the floor medicare advantage is neither medicare nor an advantage. what i believe and most agree with is it's time for this party to end. these private health insurance companies didn't keep their word and didn't keep their promise. and because of that we're in a situation and predicament where we are asking other people covered by medicare to subsidize the profits of these private health insurance companies. what does it cost every medicare recipient in america to provide this subsidy and profits to these private health insurance companies under medicare advantage? $90 a year on average. so those who are defending the medicare advantage program as we currently know it and don't support the reforms of this bill are also supporting a $90 annual tax on medicare recipients. my fiscally conservative republican friends here who run against taxes every chance they

have should reflect on the fact that they are protecting a tax on medicare recipients. that, to me, is indefensible. i'd be happy to yield to the senator from rhode island first. mr. whitehouse: i just wanted to ask the distinguished assistant majority leader to yield for a question, and the question through the chair, since the distinguished assistant majority leader was here at the time, and i am newer to this body and was not here at the time: when the medicare advantage program was originally proposed, i wonder if the distinguished assistant majority leader would remind us of what the promises and assertion wr-s that were made by the -- assertions were that were made by the private insurance industry at the time as they sought this foot hold to get their hands on this medicare population. mr. durbin: it was very basic, i say to the senator from rhode island through the chair.

they just said now, listen, when it comes to insurance, the government never gets it right. the bureaucrats who work for the government, those federal employees, don't get it right. we do this for a hraoeufplgt we can show -- living. we can show you how to provide medicare benefits and save money. would you step aside. private health insurance companies are going to demonstrate to you how much money we can save. initially there were some savings, i will say that in fairness. but over the years they got greedy, and their greediness led to most recent times, toeupbg -- to i think 2003 with the medicare prescription drug program when they came in and these private companies said we need subsidies to keep running these wonderful programs. now they tell us they're charging 14% more than basic medicare. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois used 15 minutes. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes. mr. brown: would the senator yield? thank you.

i thank senator durbin and senator whitehouse's question and his recollection. back ten years ago when it passed the insurance companies said we will save taxpayers 5%. as soon as they did that, as soon as president bush was elected in 2000, i remember they started lobbying congress for more insurance subsidies, it sort of peaked in 2003 with the prescription drug bill giveaway where drug companies and insurance companies got huge government subsidies. they formed a doughnut hole because seniors ended up paying a lot more so the drugs and insurance companies could get subsidies. that's when the tax was increased, that $90 tax, as i recall. am i right about that? originally it was actually a good thing for taxpayers. but then during the bush years, the insurance company lobby was able to increase that tax on the other 80% or 85% of medicare beneficiaries, the people that

were in what was called fee-for-service, that would go to the hospital, go to the doctor, not do it through aetna. is that what happened? mr. durbin: what we have here is in order to pay for the subsidy, this subsidy, private health insurance companies that are selling medicare advantage, they had to take the money out of the medicare system, which meant less money for everybody else. it translated into $90 a year more for every medicare recipient to pay for the subsidy for the private health insurance companies that are protected by medicare advantage. mr. brown: these subsidies, if the senator from illinois would yield to the chair, so these subsidies went directly to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies, they had to live under the medicare laws, of course, but these insurance companies began to insure generally healthier people so they could make more money; right? in those days -- i mean, it's still going on where the insurance companies, you look at senator whitehouse has talked

about this often, as has senator harkin, he's standing here too, that the insurance companies business model has been to hire a lot of bureaucrats. they say they're more efficient in medicare but they aren't. their administrative cost is 15%, medicare is under 5%. they hire all these bureaucrats to keep people from buying policies if they're sick, preexisting condition, then they hire a second group of bureaucrats on the other end to make sure those people who submit bills, submit their bills for their health care, their claims, that 30% of them are initially denied. so they hire bureaucrats on both ends to restrict care. and a lot of administrative costs -- medicare, i don't think, prohibits people through preexisting condition. they don't do anything with that? mr. durbin: i say the senator from ohio, the difference is obvious. under medicare anyone who shows up age 65 is eligible for coverage, no questions asked other than your age and whether you've contributed over the course of your lifetime.

these health insurance companies cherry pick the healthiest people they can and try to deny coverage where they can as well. that's how they make their profits. they're so good at it that they are one of the most profitable sectors in the american economy. virtually everybody knows someone they work with or someone in their family who's had a bad experience with a health insurance company. that is the reality of what we face in america. mr. whitehouse: if i could ask the assistant majority leader to yield for a question. it would appear then that not only is there this subsidy that goes to the private insurance industry funded by a tax on all other medicare recipients, but that those private insurance companies are actually doing their level best to try to pick out a disproportionately healthy medicare-eligible population. so what we end up doing is not only paying more for the medicare advantage but also for a healthier population. and so it's really a double subsidy. mr. durbin: make it triple whammy, because the third impact, of course, is that the

healthier people are not part of medicare. those left in medicare are sicker and more expensive. so the government-run program ends up being more expensive because those private health insurance companies cherry pick out the healthiest people that they can find. there are those who want to defend medicare advantage, who really think it's great that we would pay $170 billion in subsidies to these companies over a ten-year period of time. this bill moves us away from that and says if these private health insurance companies can't really basically compete and match what government medicare offers, then it's time for them to get out of business and get out of the way. i don't see why in the world we are arguing about a subsidy for private health insurance companies when they already make so much money. so i would at this point, aoeufpl going to yield the floor. i -- i'm going to yield the floor. i know that senator hatch has asked for an hour to speak on his motion, i believe it's a motion to commit. at this point i yield. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i thank my friend

and colleague who has been making these extraordinary arguments on the floor. i'll spend a little bit of time chatting about that in a minute. i ask unanimous consent that my health policy fellow janet phoenix have floor privileges during consideration of this debate on h.r. 3590. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: and i send a motion to commit with instructions to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. mr. hatch: mr. president, i've been very interested in some of the comments of my friend, and he is my friend. the presiding officer: if the senator will suspend, the clerk needs to report the motion. the clerk: the senator from utah, mr. hatch, moves to commit h.r. 3590 to the committee on finance. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i always enjoy my colleague from illinois.

no matter what comes up, he can talk about it. i got a big kick out of him saying there are thr* aren't any republican bills. there are six of them. the problem is we only have 40 shroets. we know it. -- 40 votes. we know it. then again we must be because we're only 40. that must prove how stupid most of us are. the fact of the matter is think about -- the more i thought about it, i thought where are the p