elderly disabled employees when they reach retirement. my amendment offers a reasonable alternative by replacing the feca provisions in this bill will the republican-led bien bipartisan feca reform -- bipartisan feca reform bill that passed the house by voice vote last year. the house chose not to make benefit changes without the additional information it sought from g.a.o., and we should follow their lead. this amendment supported by more than 20 organizations would make commonsense reforms that will improve program efficiency and integrity without reducing benefits for disabled seniors, and i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve my time.

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, this amendment would strike the federal workers compensation title in the bill and replace it with very minor provisions that provide no significant cost savings. the bill -- it would strike -- the amendment would strike the reforms that bring parody between workers comp benefits and retirement benefits for federal workers. it makes it much more comparable to the state's workers comp plan. the federal plan is more generous than any state plan. the amendment does nothing to combat the rampant fraud nor constraint costs which have increased by a billion dollars.

mr. president, in the current workers comp program, we have 2,000 postal employees who are over age 70. we have six federal workers who are age 100 or older. these individuals are not coming back to work. we're trying to focus this program as it should be on returning injured workers to work. it is very similar to the proposals that the obama administration has made. it grandfathers in everyone for three years as well as those aged 65 and older. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i want to join the senator from maine in opposing this amendment. this workers compensation program has really gone out of control. senator collins has worked hard on this with others. her reform proposal for the postal service struck the obama

administration as so sensible that they asked our committee to extend it to all of the federal government employees. so i urge opposition respectfully to the akaka amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: yes, mr. president. in cutting workers compensation benefits governmentwide is not fair and it is not necessary to save the postal service. we should follow the house's example and enact bipartisan reforms contained in my amendment and wait until g.a.o. finishes its analysis before making decisions on these benefit levels. i strongly urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment. mr. president, i ask that -- for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators in the chamber wishing to vote? senators wishing to change their vote? then on this vote the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. bennet: i call up my amendment numbered 2047 and ask consent it be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report amendment.

the clerk: the senator from colorado, mr. bennet, proposes amendment numbered 2047 as modified. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. i rise on behalf of amendment 2047 which i have cosponsored with senator blunt. i deeply appreciate his leadership here. this bipartisan amendment would allow for a nonpaid advocate to represent communities facing a closure or consolidation. advocates would represent their communities' interest and work with the postal service to identify alternative measures to retain -- the same service standards. the advocates would have access to documents, data and reports related to a proposed closure. advocates would have authority to appeal a final decision on closure to the postal regulatory commission if there is concern the closure would hurt service standards. finally, the amendment would also allow the strategic commission already contained

within this bill to develop interagency agreements so post offices could provide additional government services such as the you are wans of -- issue wans of social security curtis and hunting and fishing lines similar to passports. in 2011, to take one year, the postal service accepted 5.6 million passport applications that generated $182 million in revenue. this amendment has hast the potential to cut government cost and keep post offices open by supplementing revenue streams in a way that is particularly helpful to our rural communities. i hope the senate can adopt this amendment. i yield to my colleague, senator blunt and thank him for all of his work. mr. blunt: i've been pleased to work with senator bennet on this amendment. it does ensure that communities aren't notified that a facility was closed without having any opportunity to have input in that. it provides for advocacy and gives the post office system some flexibility they don't have

now to provide postal service in new and innovative ways and i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: i want to also as a cosponsor of this very important piece of legislation, i want to commend senator bennet and blunt for working together in a truly bipartisan way to make sure we get another good addition to this bill. and i agree that the communities affected by postal closings should have that strong advocacy to protect them against arbitrary and capricious closing. this bill asking the strategic advisory commission established in our bill to look into how other agencies and the postal service might enter into interagency agreements to better utilize the service and improve efficiencies as refused by the senator from colorado and i want to say they're both fine improvements and the prime

sponsors of this amendment support this amendment. thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: by like to call up amendment 2083. this amendment is a balanced -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from tennessee, mr. corker, proposes amendment numbered 2083. the presiding officer: there will be two minutes of debate, equally divided. the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: thank you. this amendment is a balanced approach that strives to give the united states post office maximum flexibility in multiple areas as they work towards financial stability. here's the best part, mr. president, according to the

congressional budget office this amendment will result in savings of $21 billion over ten years. i don't think we've seen amendments that do this, that saves $21 billion. in conclusion plptsz it's clear the post office needs to make drastic changes and i applaud those portions of 1789 that allow the post office greater flexibility. but too many provisions in 1789 would put more restrictions on the post office, not fewer, and limit the organization's ability to adapt to changing times. i urge support of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i rise to oppose this amendment. it deals with some issues that the committee and the bipartisan

bill have dealt with i think in a fair and balanced way, and kind of breaks through that proposal that we've made. it would permit the postal service to move to a five-day delivery service immediately, would increase rates without a cap and it removes some protections that are in the bill at this time. i think it would -- this amendment if adopted would lead to the kind of curtailments in postal operations that would actually not help the postal service but diminish revenues and put it more dramatically into deficit. so with respect to my friend, the senator from tennessee, who sponsored it, i would oppose this amendment. the presiding officer: is there further debate? the question is on the amendment. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: my,

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 29, the nays are 70. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senator will suspend. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i move for reconsideration of the last vote and ask that the motion be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: thank the chair. mr. president, the next

amendment on the list is senator mikulski's amendment. senator mikulski has decided not to introduce that amendment. i thank her for that and, therefore, we will go next to senator akaka's amendment, number 2049. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: mr. president, i call up an amendment 2049. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from hawaii, mr. akaka, proposes an amendment numbered 2049. mr. akaka: mr. president, i ask consent that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment number 2049 offered by the snoer from hawaii, mr mr. akaka. mr. akaka: mr. president, current law provides post masters and postal supervisors with the opportunity to consult over pay and benefits. this is not collective

bargaining and does not result in a contract. unfortunately, the postal service has tried to modify, reduce, or eliminate supervisors' benefits outside of the normal consultation process, arguing that congress intended this consultation for the creation but not elimination of benefit programs. this amendment simply clarifies existing law that the consultation requirement applies to any changes to pay or benefits. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time?

mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i rise to support the amendment of my friend from hawaii. the postal service is going to need the support of all of its employees and managers to turn around its current decline. post masters and postal supervisors are a real important human asset for the postal service and we should do what we can to foster productive and constructive collaboration between the postal service and the senior employees. the akaka amendment just clarifies and strengthens existing requirements for consultation, not collective bargaining, for the scheduling of changes and terminations of pay and benefit programs. i urge my colleagues to support it. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, could i have order in the chamber, please. the presiding officer: the senator is correct.

please take your conversations from the well. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, let me just reinforce, this is not giving collective bargaining rights to post masters or to postal supervisors. i support senator akaka's amendment. all it is trying to do is to strengthen a provision that is in current law that asks for the postmaster general to consult with the post masters and the other supervisory organizations when there are changes made in work schedules or benefits. they should have the right to have their views heard, but it does not give them a veto, it does not authorize collective bargaining or contract negotiations in any way. and i want to emphasize that

because there's been misinformationings about what this amendment in fact entails. so, i support this amendment and i urge its adoption. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: i ask for a voice vote. a senator: mr. president, i object. i would like a roll call vote. mr. demint: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or on change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 42. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i believe the next in order is amendment number 2025 by the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i call up amendment 20256789. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 2025. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the reading. mr. president, it is a federal crime for anyone but the u.s. post office to use a mailbox.

the united states is the only country in the world that grants a mailbox monopoly. you can purchase your mailbox, you can install it, you can fix it but you don't truly own it because you don't control what goes in your mailbox. if someone vandalizes your mailbox, you're responsible for it, you repair it, but you can't decide what goes in it. if you put something in the mailbox without permission of the u.s. post office -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate willdom order. mr. paul: -- it can be -- the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: if you put something in a mailbox, if your child puts a birthday invitation in a mailbox, it can be a $5,000 fine. if an organization puts something in the mailbox other than the post office, it's a $10,000 fine. my amendment would grant individual owners of their mailboxes the right to make decisions about their mailbox. passing this amendment would restore individual mailbox choice.

so i'm for mailbox choice and i hope the body is. it seems to me a fundamentally american concept to control access to your own mailbox. i urge passage of this amendment. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: for the -- i'd like to inform the senate that we have -- this will be the last vote tonight. i've spoken to senator mcconnell. we're going to -- i know there are a lot of important things that committees have to do tomorrow so we're going to start voting on finishing the postal bill tomorrow at 2:00. we appreciate everyone's cooperation today. we'll need some more tomorrow. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second. the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, could i have order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. ms. collins: thank you,

mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there are at least three problems with this. first, there's a practical problem. how is it -- a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: there are at least three problems with the amendment offered by the senator from kentucky. the first is a practical problem how is the postal service going to deal with a situation where one house there's a monopoly on the use of the post office box, the next house there is not a monopoly? how's that going to work? second, mail often contains highly sensitive pieces such as medical records, bills, personal correspondence. continuation of the mailbox monopoly is necessary to preserve the safety, the security, and the privacy of

mail. and the third argument is, if you repeal the mailbox monopoly, you will leave rural america behind. there will be plenty of competition in large cities, but who will be left to serve rural america? only the postal service and that will further drive up its costs because it will be losing customers. so i strongly urge opposition to this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 35, the nays are 64.

under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i move to reconsider and ask the motion to be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent we proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask concept the senate proceed to s. res. 432. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 432 designating april 12, 2012 as dia de los ninos. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be grouped, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no

intervening action or debate and any statements placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent we freed to s. res. 433. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 433, designating april, 2012 as national child abuse prevention month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the desk as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that s. 3443 and 2344,

introduced earlier today as having been read twice, placed on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14. the presiding officer: without objection, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today the senate adjourn until wednesday, april 25 at 9:30 a.m. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings approved to date, morning business be deemed expired and the time for the leaders reserved for use later in the day, the senate retsunami to consideration of s. 11925, the violence againstle women reauthorization act and following the remarks of the leaders the time until 2:00 p.m., the republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority will control the final 30 minutes. the republicans control the time from 11:30 until 12:30 and the majority from 12:30 until 1:30 p.m. at 2:00 p.m. the senate will resume consideration of the

postal reform bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: k p.m. tomorrow there will be -- 2:00 p.m. tomorrow there will be seven or eight sloats. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

was going with his mom to replace where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot and shooting public executions in the camp were held every few weeks and they were a way of punishing people who violated camp rules and are terrorizing

the 20 to 40,000 people who lived in the camp to obey the rules from then on. this year's studentcam competition asks students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's second prize winners selected article 5. ♪

>> four ♪ ♪ ploch ♪ ♪ think about the progress we've made in the last two centuries. one, we were a country for aristocrats but now we are a true begin for democracy with a broad more inclusive conceptualization. the prevailing quality when drafting the constitution has truly come to light.

more than the change that has enabled us to become a great nation i believe was the progress intrinsically american fallujah to read the last 20 years we have seen we continue upholding the constitution. the power of the constitution is the ability to live in the inclusion of the process in article 5. >> if there hadn't been an article 5 there wouldn't be a constitution because many of the leading citizens the foremost among them thomas jefferson would not have supported the constitution without article 5. >> walls and institutions must go hand in hand the progress of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries

are made and new truth is disclosed, manners and opinions with a change of circumstances. institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times and let us provide in the constitution per the provisions of the stated purpose of. but this should be nature itself indicates there should be opportunities for doing this every 19 or 20 years and that should be provided in the constitution. 19 or 20 years for the new generation. >> it wasn't written a of words of the constitution but rather in the humility embedded in article 5. they knew no document they could write would solve the problems. after experiencing the failure of the confederation they knew that no system could be perfect but the real genius was despite

the intellect with in that room, they acknowledged and built in the system for change that would enable the evolution of the country. >> the amendment process is a very arduous complicated constitutional process. >> we'll now have 27 amendments. we only have 25 amendments to consider the fact none of them came with the constitution they were the condition for ratification by a number of states and we really only made significant changes 15 times. >> the united states constitution provides a message the first levels the two-thirds vote in both houses of congress before being ratified and three-quarters of the states. >> there's another alternative and that is to have a constitutional convention, the states can if two-thirds of the murf 34 is called for a

constitutional convention each state would represent a similar to what was first written. >> the congress shall make no law and the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise their of for a bridging the speech or the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for the redress. through the amendment process the bill of rights ensures personal freedom and liberty. when it is necessary each generation has amended the constitution. for the guarantee of free speech or the abolition of slavery or giving women the right to vote. all those things required a constitutional amendment. >> of the amendment process facilitates the perfecting of the union. it acknowledges.

we are not likely to have gotten everything right, and as these issues come forward there is a way the citizens can redress. first of his foremost the amendments that extended the franchise. they have broadened our ideas, our conception in democracy and another representative democracy really does include the vast majority compared to the rest of american history. if we don't live in a nirvana we live 10 degrees south of that. >> over the decades the united states has seen a progression of ladies resulting in the passing of new amendments. however, the living nature of the constitution and the influence of judicial precedents are still actively debated. >> the living constitution is an idea that is controversial. it's the idea that the constitution as it was drafted in 1787 and has been amended a few times that constitution has

devolved. >> well beyond what our constitution had originally intended and that is the correct way to change the federal deride if you want to see it kugels the are not in the constitution is to amend the constitution. ischemic the founders understood this and they knew that as time went on, we would discover pieces of the constitution that probably should have been written but which were not because they didn't think of it. >> the process has only just begun. as we move in, article 5 will continue to allow it to move towards the milestones that can be reached. not only do we uphold the constitution but the internally living constitution and one that won't always told the american values of freedom and equality of change. with a firm foundation set by

the framers and the progress of the constitution moves on propelling the country on merten to the next. mix a discussion of the 2012 medicare trustees' report which was released yesterday by the treasury department. from washington journal, it's 45 minutes. >> host: we want to welcome to the table the health care correspondent with national journal. the trustees' report was put yesterday by the treasury department on social security and medicare. we want to focus specifically on the medicare part of it. what did is he. what's the headline? >> guest: there's not very much news. they said the same thing they said last year which is that the hospital trust fund, which is sort of the medicare trust fund that we think about is going to stop being able to pay entirely in 2024, and in the of the part

of medicare that pays for doctors' visits and for prescription drugs is also rising so the overall messages that this program is getting very expensive and it's to be harder to pay for in the future. >> and why? >> lots of reasons. it's when to get expensive in the future is maybe because of retiring, the huge demographic pressure on the program, fewer people hang in to take account of all the people that are entering the program. the other problem and you know this is the problem in health care generally is that health care prices just rise faster than inflation and as we are spending more and more per person and a number of people is growing it becomes a bigger burden on the overall budget. these are the baby boomers? >> guest: these are the baby boomers, that's right. >> host: it is the prediction year-over-year? >> guest: it's going to keep rising until 2014 and in 2030

the number is going to double from what we have now said the program is going to get a lot bigger than it's been house took trustees said congress should act. what should the congress do about it? >> guest: they were not very specific on what they want congress to do but they pointed out that this is an unsustainable path, and they also pointed out that even with the projections that these given that they're unrealistic policy expectations that kind of beaten to those numbers and actually it could be a lot worse than it is. it's better for congress to act sooner so that everyone can sort of adjust to the free devotee and you can have good policies and providers can adjust and beneficiaries can adjust instead of waiting for a crisis moment and trying to do something really dramatic at once. >> host: he is one report. they offered proposed changes in the absence of the changes being made by congress to address middelkerke's alterman rowan trustees said lawmakers would be to increase the 2.9% payroll tax by 47%. or cut the program's

expenditures by 26%. >> guest: that's right. so, you know, have quote primarily through the payroll tax, the medicare payroll tax answer to mr. ridgely, you know, they're have been many predictions over the years that the trust fund is going to run out of money and would have in his directly is congress has raised the tax to make up for that and it never has gone in before. >> host: you said there are presumptions and the trustees' report. what are some of those based on the current law? >> guest: a couple things. the big one is that the health care reform law that was passed in 2010 did a lot of things to can't constrain the growth of medicare and ending the cost curve and one of the things it is lower the rate at which to get pay raises each year on the assumption the productivity is going to improve and what the report says is the productivity gains are unprecedented in health care who knows if they are going to be will it to achieve them and also on the doctor's side a couple things one is the sustainable growth rate that we talked about every

year in the program to make the doctors more efficient. >> host: >> guest: it's what we do every year to fix with the formula. what would do is cut their proctor's pay raise every year and congress doesn't want to do that severe put into a patch and the assumption in the medicare trustees' report, they assume that next year the doctors are going to get a 30% pay cut and continue to get kutz out of that every year. that probably won't happen. there is also in the law there is a board that is supposed to be appointed but try to constrain the cost growth in that target and then there is pushback in congress against that and this possibility that congress will try to roll that back. if they do, then you can see the rate of increase the investor also. >> host: we are talking about the future of medicare. john first, go ahead. >> don't hang up. the reason the social security

has gone broke as they've got almost a million illegal aliens -- are you on the phone? >> guest: >> host: we are listening. >> caller: the devotee of million illegal aliens in the social security and medicare and they say they are not because they selected their way iain. it's always improved. >> host: where is the evidence of that? >> caller: you have on your show maybe a year ago and i've heard it through the congress, and all of these lawyers are advertising on tv come on down, and we will get one disability social security. it's all over the tv. judge judy to recall you have to do was watch her and see these people come on there and they are not disabled. >> host: we are going to be talking about the issue of the immigration law coming up in a roundtable discussion at 8:30 but first who is eligible for medicare? >> guest: medicare is eligible to u.s. citizens over the age of

65, so it's sort of a program that's age based once you're 65 you can sign up for medicare. everyone gets into the hospital program that's covered by the hospital trust fund and then the other part that deals with doctors is the prescription drugs you can sign up for a premium and get into that part, too. >> host: democratic column in mississippi, you are on her next. >> caller: i feel like we are just being -- politicians to solve our budget shouldn't be that big a problem. i have a three-pronged idea that i think could solve a lot of our problems. we could put it into the medicaid and social security. first of all, the wealthiest of americans should pay their fair share. second, evin -- you shouldn't get more money back on your income tax than you pay, and

third to bring the petitioners pianist tax-deductible. they don't pay taxes. they should pay their 10% to the federal government for medicare and social security. it should be targeted for that, and that would go a long way and ensuring that our citizens have healthcare and the poorest of the american social security is secure. so i'm challenging at least one religious leader to come out and say that they should do that. they should pay taxes at least 10%. >> host: we got the point. yesterday during the briefing by the treasury department and kathleen sebelius about the trustees' report, secretary sebelius talked about medicare and its current situation. here's what she had to say. >> today's trustees report contends that medicare is a much

stronger position than a was a few years ago thanks to the affordable care act. without the health care law, the hospital insurance trust fund would be exhausted in 2016 just four years from now. but as a result of the law, we've added another eight years to its life put medicare on much more solid ground. it does this through a range of reforms from cracking down on fraud to helping the providers prevent costly medical errors, to reducing excess payments to medicare a vantage plans. as the report shows today the first wave of reforms will save medicare more than $200 billion by 2016. >> host: what number is she pointing to to show that it's stronger than was four years ago because of the health care law? >> guest: the health care law assets budget over the year.

it says the independent payment advisory board as printer have to do things to influence what providers are paid to keep the programs radovan the budget no more than 1% greater than gdp growth per person in the program and so because of that and because of some of the other adjustments to the hospital gaps and some reductions to the medicare advantage plans it comes to about $500 billion in savings so it's true that the health care reform law does save medicare money over the long term. i think though that she makes an argument that this policy is going to lead to long-term sustainability and that is more of a stretch. the reports still say only enough money to last until 2024. >> host: in the "the washington times" they see medicare bonuses are bogus. republicans see the federal investigators say the administration is wasting billions of extra bonuses for health plans and should cancel them right away but only

republicans complain that president obama is trying to postpone his health care law and the popular medicare cuts until after the election. >> guest: you have a choice in finding a private plan instead. one of the raise the cost savings was achieved in bill wally the the extra not directed to the programs to reduce current be a big cut in the projections people were going to leave the programs as a result of what the government did is created the payment pilot program where they basically put more money back and what they said is that the idea was to have incentives for those produced to research and quality targets so they would get a bonus payment, but with the report said basically is that this is just a way of shifting money around and getting them back with the had lost there wasn't a demonstration permit wasn't sort of.

>> host: we're talking up the future of medicare. >> caller: good morning. i would probably defined on the internet it's that 48 million people that have enrolled last year how many people left because they died [inaudible] >> host: we will ask the guest do we know that number? is that something that the track? >> guest: they do track. the number of people entering the program its many more people than are leaving the program. >> host: cincinnati ohio. >> caller: my main question is it seems like all of this is a bit of fear mongering and you tell people every year or every six months or whatever the news

cycle as we are going to end medicare, we are going to end medicare but i don't see that feasible or possible. these people have to be taken care of. i am hoping that in 20 years from now when ims retirement age that medicare will still be for me. when you start talking about in the medicare, talk about how we are going to fund it and actually what lives are affected. you keep talking about these numbers and the budget and the billions of dollars and people don't -- i tried to follow c-span and the news and listen to things but can you really explain what this means for individuals lives and if we don't have that? i feel like it's all about scaring people into or bullying people in to whatever it is you want us to think but not really about what we need to do to fund this. can we get to that point?

>> guest: first don't give the trustees to heart of a time. they come out with a report every year and get a check on the financial programs we don't think they are necessarily trying to scare anyone but i think those are good questions and that's part of the reason why we have the system where there's a report to congress every year because congress is really the body that has the ability to decide how their brinton make medicare work better in the future and the have to make these decisions and some of that could be as you said increasing the taxes and some could be cut to benefits were asking people who receive medicare to pay a larger share of it and on and on. republicans have proposed changing the format of the system so that more people going to the private plans and the hope is that those plans will do a better job of controlling the cost growth. >> host: who served on this committee? >> guest: it's a number of cabinet officials. the secretary of health and human services and the treasury, the secretary of labor and the secretary of the social

security. and then there are a couple of independent economists the door on the board, too. >> host: you keep hearing about these reports coming and they date back to 1970. asra klein's column was written yesterday notes the trustees' report from the 1970's said the year of insolvency would be 1972 and just goes through every year's report and the years of insolvency, 1991, excuse me, 1997, the year of the trustees' report, the year of insolvency, 2001. which is already past that. so what keeps happening and why is the projection keep going up? >> guest: the main thing that keeps happening is the congress does raise the tax to pay for the fund and the payroll tax it pays for medicare. but i think something that is worth noting is that yes there has been a lot crime in the past maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the numbers but i will say that the kind of demographics

pressure on medicare that we are experiencing now is different than what we've seen in the past. a number of people entering the program is a big increase >> host: if you look at this chart, entitlements growing as a share of gdp. the green line represents both medicare and social security combined. the red is medicare and the percentage of gdp by 25 goes to almost 15% of tv. democratic collar in camden missouri, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. excuse me, i've got a cold. when is the congress going to start questioning these hospitals and doctors about their charges and fees? two months ago i am on blood thinners and i had a heart attack and open-heart surgery and i'm on all kinds of blood thinners. two weeks ago i was miles from home and got a bloody nose from

sneezing stopped at the emergency room and i was there for an hour, five minutes with the nurse's aide, five minutes with a nurse and five minutes for a doctor. two weeks later i got a hospital bill for $1,400 to get a piece of cotton stuck in my nose, $200,000 for open-heart surgery, $29,000 for one might stay in the hospital. somebody has to hold hearings and question why the hospitals are charging as much and medicare is paying for all. >> host: we will take that, the cost of medicare and how much do they pay. >> guest: it's a huge question there is this debate and what the reasons are and what we can do to control them and it's true

medicare pays less than others in the system so if you have a private insurance plan, that private insurance plan pays higher rates than all the things you described and what medicare pays and medicare has been able to hold down the cost growth and in some ways just by the price fixing. but a lot of what the affordable care acts took account of is are there ways to change the system and encourage better care, more efficient care but change the way the doctors are paid so they have incentives to do things differently and keep people out of the hospital and the jury is out on whether those work but there is hope i think that some of the payment pilots that are now being experimented with right now might come up with ideas that will lower the overall cost. >> host: we're talking about the future of medicare in the trustees' report that came out yesterday let me give you numbers from the walls region and journal. this is the number paying taxes per social security beneficiaries. in 2000 was 3.4 for each beneficiary.

the estimates for 2012 is 2.8 workers paying for each beneficiary. what do you make of those? >> guest: this is demographics and i do think that it is the mean and driver of why we're seeing difficulty in the funds is how to deal with fact we have a lot of people aging into the programs and not as many in the work force that are able to support them. >> host: jury, chicago, good morning, jerry. >> caller: she partially answered my question to i retired in april at age 65 and my job was filled within 30 days. all of these hundreds of thousands of people that have retired or are going to retire why are the jobs not being filled so there's a continuation of the payroll tax that supports medicare? it seems that these jobs are going up in the air, and instead of a lot of people are not qualified to take the positions, but there's so many kids coming

out of college now that are qualified that i don't understand why our unemployment rate is as high as it is. people are retiring. people believed to replace them with people that are younger and can sustain these jobs as well as social security. can you give me an answer? >> guest: that is a complicated question because it gets at what is going on the larger economy and why we're having this session and what is difficulty replacing the job growth we used to have. >> host: the issue and cost of health care into law came up last week when we had charles here who served up the medicare and social security. he's one of the trustees. he's a gop trustee and came out with his own members of the cost of the overall health care law to the budget and was on the show. here's what he had to say and we will come back and talk about it. >> i will say it's the fact that the new commitments under the

legislation substantially exceed the cost savings under the the decision. there's a lot of parts of the law and many of them cost a lot of money. there's a very substantial expansion of medicaid that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. there's the tradition of the health exchanges and the subsidies also constant goods of billions of dollars but there's also an extension and expansion of the spending authority of the medicare program. it would be able to send out full payments for many years so that as a new spending commitment certainly an expanded commitment to cost money. you have all those things together, compare them to the cost savings and the new cost exceeds the cost savings by over $340 billion even in a best case scenario. >> host: explain what you heard there. >> guest: what he's talking about are the things the health care changes that are not a part of medicare and it's true many of them are expensive. the programs have the tax credits to help people that have lower incomes pay for insurance.

it is a system -- the health care law in the affordable care act. it also makes an expansion of medicaid and damages the state and federal program that takes care of the poor and disabled people so a lot more people are going to be taken care of using that pergamon and not a big commitment on the federal funds. they've been achieved in the law would as he points out there used to pay for some of the of the programs. >> host: clifford, a republican. jacksonville's florida. go ahead. >> caller: yes, my question is about the numbers. i know that you showed that was 509 billion for 2010 and then part of that was to say that there were savings of the 530 billion luckey said it made it sound like was going to stay. that is only a one year savings if you look at and i was wondering about the number of

people. did the useful employment to figure of how many people in the work force or did the is the current workforce numbers? >> do you know, i don't know the answer to that. >> host: the first question in there about the numbers that the stability gave medicare passed and medicare future might now. one thing that is important to know is when they say that in 2024 the trust fund will be in trouble they don't mean that there's going to be $0 to pay for medicare. what means is the amount of money coming in will be less than the amount that's giving out. what the report says is that the health care law basically by is the trust fund and another eight years of being able to fully pay out. >> host: here is an e-mail, the rising cost problem in medicare is the privatization of hospitals. what happened to the public community hospitals in northern california and everywhere, privatisation of the profit-taking in the system that's what caused the problem some of the population that

suffer from this change. >> guest: there's been big changes with hospitals are organized and there's been a lot of consolidation hospitals saw with a large group of been the growth of some of these private for-profit hospitals with the smaller phenomenons. i think overall the kind of growth has more to do with people that have private insurance are paying and people that have medicare and the taxpayers are paying for because as the said medicare does have the ability to have places and hostile to accept that. >> host: medicare coverage -- it covers the full cost of the hospitalization. doctors' visits, medicare pays about 80% of a beneficiary pays 20%. the medigap is covering the cost not paid by medicare. can you explain that more? >> guest: medicare doesn't pay for everything. it's good insurance but it doesn't pay for everything. there are limits on how much it will pay so a lot of seniors do is go out and buy a private plan that covers the gap. that's why they call it medigap

and it allows them to not have a lot of financial exposure if they get sick. >> host: joyce says in this e-mail medicare has been underfunded by the baby boomer generation. now, starting their collection of benefits should in the primary responsibility be borne by users opinions? it was their lack of oversight in the government lack of oversight which has caused this problem the underfunded benefits that expect to receive. ryan, a democrat in massachusetts. go ahead. >> caller: a country i don't know if it was taiwan's or indonesia looking just article for system for the country and they looked all around the world to try to find the best one and they found one where the government -- the doctor gets $25 to see the patient and they

work 12 hours a day and the year paying 7% gdp and we are paying 17% gdp for our health care. >> guest: it is true if you look around the country of the western modern countries, the united states stays on average about twice as much per person for the health care system and we don't have the best, we all drank very well when it comes to infant mortality, life expectancy, some of these major measures you'd think would be good for the good health care system. our system is expensive compared to other countries but if you look at however is run their health care system they have programs i think would be sort of politically difficult to achieve in this country and the of government-run single payer health care systems. >> host: do others have a medicare type of system? >> guest: they do but it's for everyone. the government is that a year for everyone's health care.

>> host: there is another country that just has a program for the elderly? >> guest: i don't believe so. >> host: mark, independent, beller ohio, good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? >> host: doing well. what is your question or comment? >> caller: its kind of a question to the audience 55-years-old. i've been disabled since i was 45 and i worked at a job i'm the veteran and applied for social security and can't get it. but they talk about how social security is going bankrupt and how it falls out from under us but at our government lets these people that are 18-years-old up to 35 or 40-years-old has never had a job in their life, and they are getting their ssi. they've never paid taxes, and

yet it can go to a doctor and say that they can't work, they are bipolar and medicare disability, yet we have people in the country that are 55, 56-years-old that are disabled and can't get anything yet all of our money is going to pay these people that have never really worked and have never paid into the system but it just these numbers grow on a daily basis. >> guest: it is set to provide benefits to people older disabled for various reasons and that is the way that it's been established and so is true that if you have a disability, you can qualify for social security even if you haven't worked. that is often the reason. >> host: the report also dealing with social security. what do they have to say about that program yesterday? >> host: >> guest: social security in trouble. compared to last year they said

social security has three years left. the fund is going to run off in 2033. >> host: what is the reason why? one of them i believe is that they've added another year to out on a prediction. >> host: >> guest: some of this is demographic because of the economy people are paying less into the funds. we have a payroll tax and so that has meant that some people are not paying the social security fund. >> host: mark, independent scholar. >> caller: >> host: you are on the air. good morning to you. it must not be marked. let's see is this shown, republican, rockefeller island? >> caller: it is. i think whenever the government gets involved in anything, not is there going to be we stand fraud on its current be what percentage of waste and fraud is going? and it's in the student loans, it's in medicare, it's in

whatever they do. so my question is why can't we think more of privatization? i know that is a naughty word, but it works. just take for example social security which is sort of related. you know, if you want to give up medicare but you have a better plan for your employment retirement you have to give up social security. i don't think the seniors know that. the obamacare has taken half a trillion dollars out of medicare. it's going to be destroyed. is she correct? half a trillion or half a million or something out of medicare, the health care law? so 500 million or 500 billion. there we go.

is she correct on that? >> guest: she is and that is what happens on the trustee is to say we get eight more years in the trust fund as a result because it didn't meet those cuts. >> host: the caller brought up fraga. was that in the report? >> guest: there is fraud in the program to read something the obama administration has taken on aggressively and covered $4.1 billion into the fund last year in the prosecution and that is and how much they found, it's how much they were able to get back. fraud is a problem that they are trying to address a little bit better. to the point on the privatisation, that's something that is jury much on the table and the republicans have two years in a row passed the budget that were called for the privatization of the medicare program and certainly many republicans yesterday were saying it is evidence we need to consider that approach. >> host: that is the reaction. what were they saying? >> guest: it mirrored what

we've heard from kathleen sebelius. this is proof of the health care reform law is working and its holding medicare have more of a stable future. when it rules in june on the health care law, could that impact medicare? >> guest: it could. it depends what they do. there's a lot of choices. they could overrule just one part or the whole thing. if the overrule whole thing it could be problematic because there are a lot of changes that are part of that and no one is really sure what would it mean, we have to stop paying people, are we going to have to cancel the programs we started? that is a very big unknown. i think overturning the whole wall isn't the most likely outcome but it's certainly a possibility >> host: crystal, collar and city. >> caller: she said something that hit on something that i wanted to talk about and that is

one of the provisions of the health care reform deal that they were going to attack fraud that would take more than the other caller was talking about in terms of people that were just getting ready for a different day of the first is a massive part out of the state of texas prosecuted for $350 million in fraud and he was a supporter of the two-party and donated it of his proceeds to the tea party movement. a lot of the people that were against the health care reform act acted as the beneficiaries who had just joined the people who were against obama, so it

wished that they would be more forthright in the information and not hold back. republicans are not winning the argument because they're telling the truth. they are winning the argument because democrats are not direct and they are so slow in coming out with the information. nooney. >> host: in dependent in philadelphia. >> caller: my name is carol. good morning. my question to do is i recently approved for rehab in the hospital here in philadelphia for a head injury and in a consultation with my case management person at the hospital, i was told elizabeth care was dictated by medicare even though we are private pay with blue cross and blue shield, we can't get services we use to be able to get just a few years ago for things like replacements and hip replacement and rehabilitation because medicaid and medicare no longer pay for

it. >> guest: you know the changes have been to the program? the medicaid program varies by state. every state has its own ad in a string rules and there also has been a move in a lot of the states to move to the privatization of medicaid and towards the managed-care model and a tax of the managed care models may start covering things the work covered by medicare in the past. i don't think there's been big changes in terms of what medicare covers. >> host: the differences between the two programs, medicare and medicaid. >> guest: that's for older people, everyone gets it, that's paid for by the federal government to get medicaid is a program for the poor and disabled, and it's administered sort of half and half by the federal government and the individual states. and there's a lot of flexibility on who qualifies for it and what kind of benefits they get to read part of the 2010 health care is standardized and some degree that they have to cover everyone who is below 133% of the federal poverty limit and there is a basic service that everyone is going to have to get

that right now it is a hodgepodge and every state has something different. >> host: debra in virginia. >> caller: good morning. i almost worked 30 years and have to have an emergency operation on my back where my desk was cutting into my spine. what i am seeing is that there are almost three times the amount of people that don't even get a chance to use their medicare and social security because the bye before their time compared to the number of people that you claim are growing older and older. i mean, what happens to all that money? what happens to all the money that immigrants that have to use false social security numbers, which taxes are taken out of those checks they would never get the chance to use that and to talk about the people that choose to get married one of

them has to give up what happens to all that money? >> host: dewey no? >> guest: that money goes back into the system and basically says even though some people by early in don't consume as much resources there still isn't going to be enough to take a stumble long term. >> host: reed, democratic scholar. >> caller: yes, i will make a brief comment and thank you for taking my call. i figured that this desire for the mass privatization and elimination of government is frightening that plagues the republican party and that's fascism. the growing fascism in the republican party are not conservative and they won't be happy until the privatize everything and got a's creation and the frighten me because this

is what they wanted to do had the one the war. fame dog they didn't, but these republicans are ruthless and it's just neoconservatism and fascism. >> host: independent in new jersey. is that right? >> caller: yes, of vineland new jersey. >> host: okay, go ahead. >> caller: i tell you, i think the shortfalls in the social security or because the politicians have used the money for other purposes, and i think that to solve it they ought to tax political donations and put it back and social security. >> host: more margo is a reporter but to calls about congress and what they have or have not done what do you think happens with some of report that came out yesterday on capitol

hill? >> guest: probably not free much. i think we will hear from both sides and they will continue to say what we heard yesterday. republicans especially in the house and also governor mitt romney that looks to be the nominee for the president the both are in favor for the privatisation plans for medicare so i think they will use the data as evidence we need to make a major change in medicare and this is the way to go. democrats will continue to say there's still problems with medicare but it's better than i was before and the health care reform is the way to do it without taking away the benefits the seniors like. >> host: in the gop house any plans to bring that specific legislation to deal with medicare or dealing with the president's affordable care act and then in the senate where it's led by democrats what are the plans of their? >> guest: the house has already passed a bill the was the budget that would have included this transformation of the medicare program. that isn't going anywhere in the senate and there's been some accounts to try to tear back smaller parts of the affordable

care act, and one of them is the independent payment advisory board that is supposed to hold down the increases in the future and one of the things the trustees said is that it's a possibility that would be overruled and they did a separate projection of what was going to happen if it was and as you might imagine it is projected to get more expensive without that. >> host: republican in oklahoma. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: you're on the air. >> caller: my question is what happened to the millions of dollars in ious or money the was bordered by our government and taken away from the social security funds and medicare funds. >> guest: that's a really good question. we talked about the trust funds like they are real bank accounts and the money's been stocked with all these years and we are paying out of it. it's not true. they're kind of just like an accounting tool so we can't tell much money has been paid in and

how much we are paying out and we know there are some reserve will pay for the shortfall the next few years and the truth is all the money is in the budget and then the there have to raise more or borrow to make up the difference in the future and in the universe we are in now, money is coming from other places to pay for social security and medicare. >> host: said the money goes to the general treasury? >> guest: it goes into the special trust fund but as a practical matter the money gets shifted around as long as there is a kind of separate accounting for what medicare is entitled to and social security is entitled to. >> host: bye calling it a trust funded is legally on the books and finding that the money has to be paid out. >> guest: exactly. >> host: democratic call in new york >> caller: medicare is great but the only problem i see that it's not you, it's the doctor's. for example my brother-in-law had cancer. they knew he was going to die

and every time he went for mediation only for a half-hour the charged him $3,000 a visit. if that isn't a ripoff and scam it seems like the doctors really takes advantage of this when they know that you've got to the get away with charging anything they want and that is what we need to do is concentrate on the doctors and make sure they are not ripped off in the systems and here's the thing about 2024 it seems that everything is 2024. all the money in afghanistan all the troops are going over there, if we stop we would have plenty of money for medicare. >> host: so doctors and their role. >> guest: its technology at the health care system that has a lot of problems and unnecessary spending and not just what we are talking about before what kind of poor care. people aren't getting primary care said it second have to be hospitalized or were given drugs interact and cause a reaction and no one notices until it's

too late so there's a lot of things we can do to make the system this expensive and mature people getting a proprietary and we are not spending unnecessary. it's worth saving medicare does have prices to pay for things and most private insurers to negotiate with hospitals and go to places. >> host: one must on call. mike come and dependent in texas. good morning. >> caller: that morning. i just want to say that 48.7 million the joined in 2011, that's 12.5% of the population, so i don't think that's a correct number. i think that would probably be the total number of persons. >> guest: you're right. >> caller: said that's misleading. member to come to a great governor of florida was found a billion $800 for overcharging

medicare and his defense was i did it because of a thing else was. so if he were fined and he probably got a lot more than a billion eight but there's a great many other health companies that did the same thing that we should go after. under criminal law, not civil. >> host: anything to respond to? >> guest: there has been an increase in the investigation and prosecution of people who are scanning the medicare system. it's still a big problem and the system is set up to pay the bill first and then to do not later that there is an acknowledgment both on the republicans and democrats and i think both of them are trying to make it better and reduce the slot. >> host: martha with the national journal, thanks for talking to the viewers of the trustee's report. >> guest: finance for having me.

point the only world he had ever known. he's also the only one to ever escaped from the camp. >> his first memory after each of around four was gone with his mom to a place not near where he grew up in the camp and watch

somebody get shot and assuring public executions in the camp were held every few weeks and they were a way of punishing people who violated the camp rules and are terrorizing the 20 to 40,000 people who lived in the camp to obey the rules from then on. ..