Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Well, the way we view the current language in the bill is that there is a loophole there whereby they can even use Federal funds to provide for abortion under this segregation language, and that is what we are concerned about. We want to close that loophole and make sure that the Federal funds are not used for abortion. Like I say, there are millions of people who are pro-choice who agree with the Hyde language. All we are doing is putting the Hyde language into this bill in a way that we think will work better.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague for bringing it forward. The segregation language is very problematic language. That is what we are trying to resolve. We basically have all agreed with the Hyde amendment, which is from 1977, and this would, in effect, incorporate the language in the bill.

Mr. HATCH. Sure.

Mr. HATCH. Let me respond to the distinguished Senator, although I am not going to ask him a formal question. If that is true, then why have the Capps language in there? Why don't we just take the Hyde language, which is what we are trying to do. It isn't true. We know in this bill there will be subsidization to help people pay for health insurance. In fact, the subsidization can go to people up to $88,000 a year, and that could be indirectly used for abortion. It is a loophole that Hyde closes. If the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania believes the Capps language does what Hyde meant to begin with and what it has been since 1977, what is wrong with putting the Hyde language in here and solving the problem once and for all? We see it as a loophole through which they can actually get help from the Federal Government directly and indirectly to pay for abortion. Now, let's think about it. There are no mandates in this language that we have for elective abortion coverage. Plans and providers are free from any government mandate for abortion. There is no Federal funding of elective abortion or plans that include elective abortion except in the cases where the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest. The amendment allows individuals to purchase a supplemental policy from a plan that covers elective abortion as long as it is purchased with private dollars. The amendment prohibits the public plan from covering elective abortions. It prevents the Federal Government from mandating abortion coverage by private health plans or providers within such plans. And insurance plans are not prevented from selling truly private abortion coverage, even through the exchange. This amendment doesn't prohibit that. The bottom line: The effect on abortion funding and mandates is exactly the same as that of the House bill changed by the Stupak amendment. Now, look, if the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania believes the Capps language is the same as Hyde, he is wrong. And if he believes it does what Hyde would do, he is wrong there. Why not just put the Hyde language in once and for all, which has been there since 1977? That is what the Stupak language is. The Hyde amendment specifically removes abortion from government programs, but the Reid bill specifically allows abortion to be offered in two huge new government programs. The Reid bill tries to explain this contradiction by calling for the segregation of Federal dollars when Federal subsidies are used to purchase health plans. This ``segregation'' of funds actually violates the Hyde amendment which prevents funding of abortion not only by Federal funds but also by State matching funds within the same plan. Simply put, today, Federal and State Medicaid dollars are not segregated. So that is the difference. If the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania believes the current language in the Reid bill meets the qualities of the Hyde language, then why not just put the Hyde language in once and for all since it has been in law since 1977? It is important to note that today there is no segregation of Federal funds in any Federal health care program. For example, the Medicaid Program receives both Federal and State dollars. There is no segregation of either the Federal Medicaid dollars or the State Medicaid dollars. With that, I know I have some colleagues who have asked for some time to speak, so I will yield the floor. Mr. VITTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am very appreciative of the Senator from Texas, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, and, of course, the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota who are here on the floor and participating. I believe we have until 12:27, so I am going to relinquish the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I am glad the Senator made that even more clear. Last night, a number of Democrats completely distorted this issue. If they think the Capps language equals the Hyde language, why not put it in? They want to be able to fund abortion any way they possibly can, to fund it in a variety of ways, with Federal dollars, if we don't put the Hyde language in. That is what this is about.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to.

Mr. HATCH. That is what it will do here too. All this yelling and screaming when they say it equals the Hyde language--it doesn't. That is the problem. If they want to solve the problem, why not use the Hyde language that has been accepted by every Congress since 1977? The Senator is right that there were 300,000 abortions a year between 1973 and 1977 because we didn't have the Hyde language. We got tired of the taxpayers paying for them. Why should they pay for it? Why should taxpayers who are pro-life--for religious reasons or otherwise--have to pay for abortions, elective abortions by those who are not? They should not have to. To be honest, the language in the current bill is ambiguous and it would allow that. Anybody who is arguing this is the same as the Hyde language hasn't read the Capps language. We want to change it to go along with Hyde. It doesn't affect the right to abortion, except that we are not going to have taxpayers paying for it.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be added as a cosponsor to the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I had a longer statement I was going to deliver this afternoon, but after listening to my colleagues speak about the Nelson-Casey-Hatch amendment, I want to take my time to refute some of the arguments they are making about our amendment. It does not even sound as though they are talking about the same amendment I filed with Senators Nelson and Casey. Our amendment does nothing to roll back women's rights. When my colleagues on the other side say that, they are simply mischaracterizing our amendment. Our amendment ensures that the Hyde language, a provision that has been in the HHS appropriations legislation for the last 33 years, will apply to the new health care programs created through this bill. We are applying current law to these programs. That is it. The current Hyde language ensures that no Federal Government funds are used to pay for elective abortion or health plans that provide elective abortion. Today States may only offer Medicaid abortion coverage if the coverage is paid for using entirely separate State funds, not State Medicaid matching funds. They cannot do that under current law. This is a longstanding policy based on a principle that the Federal Government does not want to encourage abortion. For example, Guttmacher studies show that when abortion is not covered in Medicaid, roughly 25 percent of women in the covered population who would have otherwise had an abortion choose to carry to term. I wanted to explain why the Reid-Capps language in the Reid bill is not the Hyde language. First, the Hyde amendment prohibits funding for abortions through Medicaid and other programs funded through the HHS appropriations bill. However, the public option is not subject to further appropriation and therefore is not subject to Hyde. Directly opposite of the Hyde amendment, the Reid-Capps language explicitly authorizes the newly created public option to pay for elective abortions. The public option will operate under the authority of the Secretary of HHS and draw funds from the Federal Treasury account. Regardless of how these funds are collected, these funds from the Treasury are Federal funds. Funding of abortion through this program will represent a clear departure from longstanding policy by authorizing the Federal Government to pay for elective abortion for the first time in decades. The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment would prohibit funding for abortion under H.R. 3590 except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. As is the case with the CHIP program and Department of Defense health care, the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment would be permanent law rather than an appropriations rider, subject to annual debate and approval. Any funding ban subject to annual approval will be in jeopardy in the future. Even if there are the votes to maintain the Hyde language, procedural tactics and veto threats could be employed and make it impossible to retain an annual ban. Secondly, the Hyde amendment prohibits funding for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This requirement ensures that the Federal Government does not encourage abortion by providing access to it. When the government subsidizes a plan, it is helping to make all of the covered services available. Federal premium subsidies authorized and appropriated in H.R. 3590 are not subject to annual appropriations and they are, therefore, not subject to the Hyde language. Directly opposite of the Hyde language, the Reid-Capps explicitly allows federal subsidies to pay for plans that cover abortion by applying an accounting scheme. Under the accounting scheme, the government is permitted to subsidize abortion coverage provided that funds used to reimburse for abortions are labeled ``private'' funds. This is an end run around the Hyde restriction on funding for plans that cover abortion. Furthermore, under the accounting scheme, premium holders will be forced to pay at least $12 per year as an abortion surcharge to be used to pay for abortions. The Nelson-Casey-Hatch amendment would ensure that no funds under H.R. 3590 will subsidize plans that cover abortion. However, it does nothing to prohibit individuals from purchasing separate abortion coverage or from purchasing plans that cover abortion without a Federal subsidy. Another issue I want to raise is the impact the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment would have on coverage of elective abortions by private health plans. I heard some of my colleagues say that our amendment would prohibit women from purchasing health plans with abortion coverage, even if they spend their own money. I understand there is a Politifact story with the headline ``Lowey Says Stupak Amendment Restricts Abortion Coverage, Even for Those Who Pay for Their Own Plan.'' That is simply not true. Our amendment would not prohibit the ability of women to obtain elective abortions as long as they use their own money to purchase these policies and not the money of the taxpayers of America, directly or indirectly. Again, our opponents will argue that it does, but if they take the time to read our amendment, they will note on page 3, line 6, that it ensures there is an option to purchase separate supplemental coverage or a plan with coverage for elective abortions. In fact, let me read it to my colleagues so we are all clear on what the language actually says. I am going to read it because I am tired of hearing some of the misrepresentations made on the floor by, I am sure, well-meaning people who are very poorly informed on this amendment. It is easy for me to see why they are poorly informed when I look at this itty-bitty bill. My gosh, no matter how bright you are, who could know everything in this itty-bitty bill that will break the desk, if I drop it on it. I am sorry. I scared the distinguished Senator from Iowa with this itty-bitty bill. I should have dropped it a little bit softly. I apologize. Let me tell you what it actually says. (2) Option to purchase separate supplemental coverage or plan.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-- (A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and (B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using-- (i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds. Under the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, women are allowed to purchase separate elective abortion coverage with their own money. I wish they would not, but we allow it. Anybody who says otherwise is misrepresenting what this amendment does. I am sure they are not intentionally misrepresenting but nevertheless misrepresenting. So have fair warning. It is also true that our amendment allows women to purchase a health plan that includes coverage of elective abortions in addition to the supplemental abortion policy as long as they pay for it with their own money. So when those who oppose our amendment say a woman would never want to purchase abortion coverage as a separate rider, they are truly misunderstanding that our language also permits women to purchase an identical exchange plan that includes coverage of elective abortions, in addition to other health benefits. To be clear, under our amendment, a woman may purchase with her own funds either a supplemental policy that covers elective abortions or an entire health plan that includes the coverage of elective abortions. Today, Federal funds may not pay for elective abortions or plans that cover elective abortions. This is the fundamental component of the Hyde language. And to be clear, the Nelson-Hatch-Casey language does not prevent people purchasing their own private plans that include elective abortion coverage with private dollars. In addition, our amendment explicitly states that these types of policies may be offered. In other words, our amendment does not restrict these policies from being offered. The only caveat is that they may not be purchased with Federal subsidies. We want to make that clear, and the Reid-Capps language does not. Let me read that section of the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment for my colleagues. It may be found on page 4, line 3, of the Nelson-Hatch- Casey amendment. (3) Option To Offer Supplemental Coverage Or Plan.-- Now get this: Nothing in this subsection shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-- (A) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; (B) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and (C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection. Our amendment has the support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee, the Family Research Council, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Concerned Women for America, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Americans United for Life Action. Polls across the country indicate a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars paying for elective abortions. According to a CNN/ Opinion Research Corporation survey, 6 in 10 Americans favor a ban on the use of Federal funds for abortion. Anybody who understands that figure knows there are pro-choice people who also favor a ban on the use of Federal funds for abortion. It also indicates that the public may also favor legislation that would prevent many women from getting their health insurance plan to cover the cost of an abortion, even if no Federal funds are involved. This poll indicates that 61 percent of the public opposes the use of public money for abortions for women who cannot afford the procedure, with 37 percent in favor of allowing the use of Federal funds. So my question to my fellow Senators is the following: When is this Congress going to start listening to the American people, people on both sides of this issue, who do not feel that taxpayers ought to be saddled with paying for abortion through their tax dollars, or in any other way, for that matter? I urge my colleagues to support the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. Do the right thing and support our amendment, which truly protects the sanctity of life and provides conscience protections to health care providers who do not want to perform abortions. That is an important aspect of this issue, and I have waited until the last minute to say something about that issue. Why should people of conscience be forced to participate in any aspect of elective abortions? They should not. People who have deep feelings of conscience should not be forced--that includes nurses, doctors, health care providers, hospitals--they should not be forced to do this, just because of the radicalness of some people who exist in our society today, and some think the radicalness of some in this body and in the other body. It is radical to expect the American taxpayers to pay for elective abortions, especially when such a high percentage--up to 68 percent, according to some polls, and I think even higher--do not want to have Federal dollars used for this purpose. I appreciate my colleagues. I appreciate what my colleagues stand for. But this is very important stuff. I ask unanimous consent that a number of constituent letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the passing of Paula Hawkins, a former colleague of mine in the U.S. Senate and a very dear and close personal friend whose service to the Nation and her home State of Florida will endure for generations in the heads and hearts of her posterity, friends and legions of admirers. In the ranks of those who greatly admire and will dearly miss Paula, I stand front and center today to salute this extraordinary woman for her accomplishments, outstanding public service, wonderful family and exemplary life. As I do so, I am humbled by the magnitude of the task. It is not easy to find the right words to do justice to such a unique and choice individual. That said, I guess the first thing that comes to mind about Paula Hawkins is that, true to her Utah Mormon heritage, she was a pioneer--a real trailblazer who opened doors and windows of opportunity for others to follow. Long before there was a Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dianne Feinstein, Olympia Snowe or Maria Cantwell in the U.S. Senate, there was Paula Hawkins. In 1980, she became the first woman elected to that august body for a full term without the benefit of family connections, and she was the first woman from Florida to serve as a Senator. And to the surprise of no one who knew her, she was no shrinking violet in Washington once she arrived. The media may have dismissively billed her as that ``housewife from Maitland,'' but she quickly showed everyone that this was one tough homemaker who was acclimated to the political kitchen and could weather the heat that goes with it. I mean to tell you she was tough. Anyone who knows Paula also knows that she was always impeccably dressed. Indeed, her appearance was so picture-perfect that she probably made many a Hollywood starlet feel shabby by comparison. To say she was dressed to the nines is like saying Jack Nicklaus was a fair golfer or that Shakespeare sort of had a way with words. But Paula was more than a pretty face. Sure, she had perfectly coiffed hair and wore designer clothes and jewelry, but she had a razor-sharp mind to go with her smart appearance, and she quickly showed she was nobody's pushover. She could stand toe to toe and verbally slug it out with some of the most powerful and even most obnoxious Senators. In other words, she gave more than she got--and her opponents, more often than not, got more than they bargained for. She was a great debater, a human dynamo who brought unrivaled energy and unbridled enthusiasm to the Senate. She was extremely intelligent and tremendously interested in politics--and she was very good at it. A quick look at her successful Senate campaign in 1980 attests to just how good she was. By today's big-bucks standards, Paula's campaign was strictly bargain-basement. Fox News pundit Dick Morris, her pollster at the time, recalls the campaign being too cash-strapped to afford a teleprompter. Aides made do by writing scripts on paper towels and unrolling them as Paula spoke. In the end, her powers of persuasion and command of the facts carried the day with voters. After stirring voters' hearts in Florida, Paula stirred things up in the Nation's Capital. Change was in the wind when she blew into wintry Washington in January 1981. For starters, she became the first Senator to bring her husband to Washington, which resulted in the Senate wives' club being renamed the Senate spouses' club. She helped spearhead legislation to help widows and women divorcees get back into the job market. She supported efforts to improve pensions for women and make them more equal to that of men. She further fought to get daycare for the children of Senate employees. Even the all-male Senate gym was no sweat for Paula, who forced her fellow Senators to wear swimming suits so that she could swim there as well. To me, Paula was a ray of Florida sunshine that brightened my days during the years we served together in the Senate. She was a true blue conservative who was warm, witty and cracked wise. We shared many a joke and a laugh along with our commonly held moral, ethical and religious beliefs. And we became political allies and fast friends. In fact, Paula became and always remained one of my closest friends. Both on and off Capitol Hill, she always could be counted on through good times and bad. I quickly learned that her word was her bond. Whenever I needed help, she was always there. And I certainly hope the reverse was true--that I was there whenever she needed help. Women, minorities, as well as the elderly with disabilities also learned they could count on Paula. She was a tireless advocate in their behalf--and they loved her for it. She also showed great political courage in 1984, when she disclosed during a hearing that she had been molested as a child. I am sure that horrific childhood experience, in part, informed her efforts to champion children's causes. While her legislative accomplishments are too numerous to mention here, I would like to make mention of one in particular. Paula spearheaded the Missing Children's Act of 1982, the bill that instituted the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Thanks to that landmark legislation, the names of thousands of missing children are now part of the FBI's national crime database. To secure the bill's passage, Paula personally lobbied President Reagan. As great a communicator as he was, the ``Great Communicator'' knew he had met his match in Paula and lent his support. Of course the President knew that Paula could always be relied on to help deliver a legislative win for ``the Gipper'' in the Senate--which she did many times. As a staunch conservative, she found common cause with the President and other conservatives, including myself, on numerous issues. She was, for example, an ardent anti-communist who supported the President's hard line against Soviet expansionism. She also despised overly big government--and, there is certainly a lot to despise in Washington, especially these days. Paula was an unwavering friend for those who shared her values and commitment, but she was an implacable foe of political corruption and to those who peddled illegal drugs on our streets and in our schools. She fought for legislation to cut foreign aid to nations that refused to reduce their export of harmful drugs. She further assisted in creating the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and helped initiate the South Florida Drug Task Force. I would be remiss if I didn't say something about Paula's stamina. She could endure as well as endear--often when she was in great pain. In 1982, she was knocked unconscious when a TV studio partition fell on her during an interview in Florida. Those of us who worked closely with her know that the years that followed were often filled with crippling pain. Between votes on the Senate floor, she would often go to a room lent to her by Senator Strom Thurmond in the Capitol and lie in traction in a hospital bed. Despite the immense pain stemming from her debilitating injury, Paula soldiered on during her 1986 bid for re-election. On campaign trips across Florida Paula would sometimes lay in the back seat moaning between appearances, according to Congressman John Mica, her aide at the time. While she lost that race to Bob Graham, it is amazing that she did so well and a testament to her courage and determination. Paula's service did not end with her Senate term. Her contributions to her State, community, family and church over the past 23 years have been truly significant. She also didn't lose her sense of humor. When a Florida State senator told Paula several years ago that she was trying to do a good job, Paula smiled, grasped her hand firmly and said simply: ``Try harder, dear.'' As great a public servant she was, Paula was just as remarkable in her private life--as a wife, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She had a fierce love for each member of her immediate and extended family. And her husband Gene is no less remarkable. He is one of the kindest, most friendly, decent and honorable men I have ever known--and his love for Paula has always been uplifting to behold. In every aspect of their lives, they have been an exemplary couple. They have been just as exemplary as parents. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gene and Paula took to heart the Mormon teaching that families are forever. They were determined to ensure that every family member worked hard toward achieving the goal of being able to be together in the hereafter. They have a great family and are well on their way toward achieving that lofty goal. In the Old Testament book of Proverbs, we read: Who can find a virtuous woman, for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil . . . She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy . . . Strength and honor are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in the time to come . . . She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her . . . Favour is deceitful and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates (Proverbs 31:10-31). Today, I am honored to have the privilege of adding my voice to the chorus of praise for my dear friend, Paula Hawkins. I feel deeply that a loving Father in heaven and Jesus Christ have already embraced Paula and taken her into their care and treatment as one of truly great women who graced this Earth. I truly loved Paula Hawkins. We were best friends. Like Gene and the Hawkins' three children--Genean, Kevin and Kelly--11 grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren, my wife Elaine and I look forward to a joyous reunion one day with Paula on the other side of the veil. In the meantime, it is my hope that all of us here in this chamber will reflect on her service and follow her advice to that State Senator: Try Harder!

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I would be delighted to. To be clear, so-called overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans do not go to the plans. As a matter of fact, they go to the seniors in the form of extra benefits. That is a pretty important point a lot of people miss. Seventy-five percent of the additional payments to Medicare Advantage plans are used to provide seniors with extra benefits, including chronic care management--you would think you would want to do that--hearing aids, eyeglasses. The other 25 percent of any extra payments are returned to the Federal Government. I cannot imagine why anybody would not want to do that.

Mr. HATCH. The Senator from Texas pointed out the Medicare trust fund is going broke. Yet what do we have on the other side? They take almost $500 billion out of Medicare. Trust me, I am deeply concerned about the solvency of the Medicare trust fund.

Mr. HATCH. We are listening to only one of the two doctors in the Senate who knows, who has been on the ground, has met with the people, who understands what this means to senior citizens. One-quarter of them are on Medicare Advantage. In the end, I believe we not only actually help seniors be more healthy but save a lot of money in the end. Trust me, I am deeply concerned about the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. We have been sounding that alarm for years. That is why it is so shocking we are debating a $2.5 trillion health reform bill that does almost nothing to make sure Medicare is sound and, in fact, does a lot of things to make it unsound, or almost nothing to make sure Medicare is around for future generations. Instead, we are just creating another Federal entitlement program that we cannot afford while Medicare has $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Mr. HATCH. That is right. Go ahead.

Mr. HATCH. We are taking $\1/2\ trillion out of a program that is going to be insolvent before the end of this decade and we are giving it to another program that is already insolvent.

Mr. HATCH. That will be insolvent. It is almost insane what they are doing. And they wonder why the American people are having such a difficult time, why we have 10 percent unemployed, why the underemployment is 17 percent in this country. Those are people who are trying to get part-time jobs because they can't get full-time jobs. So 17 percent is the real number. This whole program is about helping low-income people and minorities, when you stop and think about it. That is what Medicare Advantage does. As the distinguished Senator from Arizona has said, they can't afford these supplemental policies on which AARP will make a lot of money if they can kill this program. There are a lot of gaps in traditional Medicare benefits, including high cost sharing and no out-of-pocket limits. That is why 89 percent of seniors have some form of supplemental coverage on top of Medicare. For many low-income Americans and minorities, Medicare Advantage is the only way they can afford the supplemental coverage. I compliment all of my colleagues here on the floor--the distinguished Senator from Arizona; the distinguished Senator from Idaho; the distinguished Senator from Texas; our only doctor on the floor right now and one of only two in the Senate, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming; and, of course, our leader in the Senate, both on the Budget Committee, Senator Gregg and, of course, Senator Alexander. You guys have really summed this up.

Mr. HATCH. A lot of seniors are going to be badly hurt by these cuts, no question, and the poor.

Mr. HATCH. And a lot of them are minorities, by the way. This is amazing to me, how we go through all kinds of demagoguing about low- income people and minorities, and yet they are going to take one of the most important benefits away from them. That benefit is mentioned in the Medicare handbook for 2010, yet they act as if it is not part of Medicare. I can't believe some of the arguments that have come from the other side.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HATCH. The Senator has pointed out he does not believe they can afford all these programs. The Senator is not suggesting this is a game, is he?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are talking right now about a program that was well thought out, that was meant to help the poor and minorities. It was a bipartisan effort by Democrats and Republicans, and has worked amazingly well and is available to all recipients of Medicare. Medicare Advantage came about in a bipartisan way to solve real problems. We were not getting health care to rural America. We were not getting health care, in many respects, to some of the poorer, some of the minority folks in our country. I want to read a special letter here. Let me read this letter. I know it may have been read before, but I am going to read it again. It is dated September 30, 2003. ``Dear Medicare Conferees.'' I happened to be a member of that conference. I was one of those in there who led the fight for Medicare Advantage. We are writing to ask you, as a member of the Medicare conference committee, to ensure the final Medicare bill includes a meaningful increase in Medicare+Choice-- That is the predecessor to Medicaid Advantage-- funding in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. While the Senate bill makes a modest step toward this goal, we hope the stronger provisions in the House bill will be preserved in conference. For nearly 5 million Medicare beneficiaries across America, Medicare+Choice [the predecessor] is an essential program that provides high quality, comprehensive, affordable health coverage. These seniors and disabled Americans have voluntarily chosen to receive their health coverage through Medicare HMOs and other private plans because of their excellent value. To preserve this important option for seniors across the country, bipartisan legislation was introduced in the Senate as S. 590, the ``Medicare+Choice Equity and Access Act.'' That became Medicare Advantage. Co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Santorum, S. 590 sought to increase reimbursement rates and add new reimbursement options for Medicare+Choice programs. It goes on to make a compelling case for what came from that conference as Medicare Advantage, and that was utterly pleasing to everybody who signed this letter. By the way, let me just mention the Democrats who signed this letter, who wanted Medicare Advantage: John Kerry, Arlen Specter, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman, Patty Murray, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ron Wyden, Mark Dayton, Mary Landrieu, Maria Cantwell, and Christopher Dodd. Fourteen Democrats signed this letter, along with a number of bipartisan Republicans, who believed we really needed to include Medicare Advantage. Now, to take advantage, our colleagues on the other side want to do away with Medicare Advantage, except in 3 States that are, for the most part, Democratic States, leaving all the other 46 States high and dry. Let me just say that this letter is in response--it was a letter given to the Medicare modernization conference committee. This conference committee gave them everything they wanted for Medicare Advantage. This legislative grant of power gave the signatories the Medicare Advantage Program, which now 11 million senior citizens enjoy today. Now those on the left want to do away with this important program that benefits seniors and minorities in an amazing set of ways. I am against that effort. I hope our colleagues on the other side will realize what they are doing. It just is not right. Vision care and dental care and so many other approaches that really work for this program will be taken away from these people. They are going to have to spend $175 to $200 a month to get what they got for an average of about $54 a month. These are people who need our help. Let me change the subject for a minute because I understand my colleague from Oregon was discussing Medicare Advantage and talking about some Medicare Advantage companies living ``high off the hog'' and inferring that is a rationale for $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts. I have two responses to my colleague from Oregon. This is not about Medicare Advantage insurance companies, this is about preserving the choice of coverage for seniors.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for another 2 minutes.