[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5922-S5926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, there were some
comments made about where we are on the Kassebaum-Kennedy health reform
bill. I wanted to just take a few moments of the Senate's time to
review a little bit of the bidding on where we have been, where we are,
and what the hope is in terms of the future.
Mr. President, as we know, this legislation was developed by Senator
Kassebaum, myself, and other members of our Labor and Human Resources
Committee in the wake of the 1994 debate on comprehensive health care.
It was really reflective of the expressions that were made by
Republicans and Democrats alike, both the now majority leader, Senator
Dole, and others on the Democratic side, who said, ``Let us try to find
common ground together, areas where we agree. Let us try, if we cannot
do a comprehensive program, to at least shape a proposal that can make
a difference to millions of Americans--particularly those with
preexisting conditions--recognizing the importance of portability,
moving from one job to another, being able to carry the insurance if,
for some reason, an individual loses their job, or the company closes
down.''
Over the period of really the last months, and even over recent
years, that proposal has been working its way through the Labor and
Human Resources Committee. It had virtually unanimous support of
Republicans and Democrats alike, and it has worked its way through the
Senate with 100 votes. Unanimity, Mr. President, 100 votes--a unanimous
vote here in the Senate and in our committee. I find that to be an
extraordinarily rare occasion, when you take something that can provide
such a meaningful difference and provide relief for families and for
working families, a measure that can make a very important difference,
particularly to those with preexisting conditions.
The efforts of Senator Kassebaum and myself have been to try to keep
the legislation clean--that is, to try to resist various amendments, in
spite of the fact that we might have agreed with some of those
provisions at other times. That was certainly true in my case with
regard to the excellent proposals that were added to the measure by
Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone on mental health. I feel very
strongly that it is about time that we treat mental health in the way
that we consider other serious illnesses, and not make the
consideration of mental health a stepchild in our health care policy
areas.
Nonetheless, we had worked out a process where we were going to try
to move ahead with the areas that we could agree on, so that we can
move through this legislative process with that in mind. We accepted
some matters that were overwhelmingly supported by Members of the
Senate where there was no serious objection.
We accepted the mental health provisions. But it has always been the
position of the Senator from Kansas and myself that we were going to be
committed to a proposal that would provide just the measures which
initially came out of the committee unless we were going to be able to
convince our Members in the conference that we needed to make at least
some progress in the areas of mental health.
Senator Domenici, Senator Wellstone, I must say Tipper Gore, who has
been enormously interested in the areas of mental health, have all
weighed in in terms of making the case once again of the importance of
extending some protections to the area of mental health. That is an
issue which I know is still under consideration by at least those that
are meeting. I can point out for the Members of the Senate, that those
meetings have not included the Members of this side of the aisle, but
we have tried to work in a constructive way in at least getting some of
these ideas forward for the consideration of those who are in the room.
I want to just mention parenthetically that there were some comments
[[Page S5923]]
made earlier today on the issue of appointing conferees. It has always
been our position that we should have conferees that reflect at least
the will of the Senate, but the various proposals that have been made
here in terms of the conferees were not even close to the ratio of
Republican to Democrat. We were not going to agree to a stacked deck
and a position that would not reflect the will of the Senate.
It always interests me how worked up some of our Members can become
when they are talking with this righteous sense of indignation about
the fact that there is some objection to the appointment of the
conferees, particularly in the way and the numbers in which they were
suggested. There has never been any reluctance to naming conferees that
were going to be reflective and represent the committees that had the
prime jurisdiction. That is the way it has been done here. The
particular proportion that was suggested was completely out of order,
which is why we are in that stalemate.
Most importantly, we are prepared to see the measure that passed 100
to nothing here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, or the measure that
passed unanimously out of our committee, to pass out of the conference,
to pass the House of Representatives, to pass the Senate and be signed
by the President of the United States in the matter of the next day or
two. That is what we are able to do as legislators. That would make a
difference to the 25 million Americans each year who would be helped by
this bill--who would find that they are able to be assured of
continuing attention to their particular health needs as long as they
were going to pay their participation in premiums.
We have the opportunity to move on that legislation. It is still out
there. We are caught in a situation evidently that unless we are
prepared to accept other measures which have been controversial and
divisive and recognized as such, or where at least very important
questions have been raised about those matters, that we cannot make
progress unless we are prepared to bend on those matters. It is still
my hope that even at this very sensitive time in the discussions where
leaders in the House and leaders in the Senate are attempting to try to
make at least one additional effort to try to find the common ground,
that we can still resolve this and be able to respond to the millions
of our fellow citizens that have these preexisting conditions and want
to be able to carry their health care measures with them.
But I want to take just a few moments of the Senate's time this
afternoon--I see other colleagues. Could I ask for 5 more minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate it.
Mr. President, I still hope that we will be able to achieve this
measure.
I have gone into, in some detail, the principal concerns of the
issues on medical savings account. But there are a few items that have
been mentioned with regard to medical savings accounts that were not
mentioned here in the course of this afternoon.
Let us understand that if insurance companies want to sell medical
savings accounts, they can do that today. They do not need to have
additional legislation. For those that say let us have the free choice,
individuals can be out and purchase those measures at the present time.
A number of States have begun to set up their own medical savings
accounts. So the idea that we are denying some kind of free choice is
virtually inaccurate and a distortion and a gross misrepresentation
about where the medical savings account issue is.
Individual companies--and there are the companies, for example, like
the Golden Rule Insurance Co., that are out selling medical savings
accounts today. Of course, it is true that Golden Rule Insurance Co.
has been drummed out of the State of Vermont because of the way that
they have exploited consumers. And it is true that Golden Rule
Insurance Co., the principal company that would benefit from medical
savings insurance companies, refuses to share market information with
even the American Academy of Actuaries so that we could get a real
reflection as to what has been the experience of that company. When
asked by the American Academy to share their data, Golden Rule said,
absolutely no, we will not do that, even though they have experienced
extraordinary profits in this area.
Nonetheless, Mr. President, one of the factors that was not raised
this afternoon was the fact that we are talking about the cost to the
American taxpayers by those that are proposing medical savings
accounts. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that if there were just
to be 1 million Americans out of the pool of about 130 million
Americans who purchase health insurance, if we have to have 1 million
of those, the cost to the taxpayers and to the deficit would be $3
billion for 1 million people. That is not what I am saying. That is
what the Joint Tax Committee is saying.
We are talking about when you are going from 1 million to 10 million
to 20 million, or as the Rand Corp. considered, 70 million, you do not
need much of a slide rule to understand what this is going to do to the
Federal deficit, let alone health care policy.
So it is so interesting to me to hear out there many of our Members
saying, ``All we want is freedom. All we want is freedom.'' Sure it is
all they want is freedom to put their hands into the till of the
Federal Government and take out billions of dollars to subsidize what
will be primarily a benefit for the richest individuals in this
country; the richest individuals in this country. And we pointed that
out over the course of the debate and the discussion. I heard one of my
colleagues talk about the fact that there were some Democrats that
wanted this at another time. At another time, we were talking in the
context of a comprehensive health care reform where we were going to
have effective cost controls, an entirely different situation than we
have today.
So those who are out on the floor with their big charts saying what
is wrong with these words that were stated a few years ago, I daresay
that is when we were talking about a comprehensive program with
effective kinds of cost containment, which is not what we are dealing
with today. Anyone should understand it. I question whether it would
have been really justified even at that time. But, nonetheless, there
were those that believed it ought to be given a try, and that was an
issue within that context that I think was legitimate. But that is not
what we are talking about.
Make no mistake about it. We are talking about underwriting the
health care insurance for the wealthiest individuals at the expense of
the average taxpayer. The Joint Tax Committee has pointed out, well, if
you spend $3 billion, how much of that would go to average working
families? How much would they benefit from that? One percent of that $3
billion would benefit average working families. Who gets the rest of
the 99 percent? The ones that get the rest of the 99 percent are going
to be in the highest income brackets. That is just one issue that ought
to be debated and discussed.
There is a body of opinion in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives that support this concept. Certainly we ought to have
an opportunity to review it. We ought to examine it. We ought to have
at least an opportunity to see whether the greatest fears about what it
would mean in terms of cost and what it would mean in terms of skewing
the whole insurance system and what it would mean in terms of
preventive care are true--we ought to at least have an opportunity to
test that.
The President of the United States has indicated that he would sign a
bill, if there was a proposal that would really test this idea, in an
area that provided a real test about medical theory and about the costs
of this program over a reasonable period of time, which seems to me to
be a reasonable position. Why we have to deal with this at this time is
beyond me. But nonetheless, it is a matter which is at least before the
House of Representatives.
Mr. President, I will include in my full comments the various
opinions that have been made about the American actuaries, what they
believe will be the impact in terms of the cost of health insurance,
the analysis which has been made about who would use this, who would
benefit and who would suffer under this program, what the impact would
be on children who are so often the ones who are left out and left
[[Page S5924]]
behind, and the fact that medical savings accounts will effectively
discourage all preventive care in terms of needy children in our
society and what the Congressional Research Service said was going to
be the health implications. These are important matters. I believe that
the Senate, before it is going to jump into this program, ought to have
very complete answers to it.
So I hope if we are going to have an opportunity--and certainly we
should at some time--to get to the issue of medical savings account,
the American people ought to understand that we have the opportunity in
the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States to do
something meaningful for millions and millions and millions of American
families today. We have a proposal that will make a difference to those
families--more than 25 million of those families. It passed unanimously
in the House and the Senate of the United States, with broad bipartisan
support. Our urging is that we take that very important, modest but
very, very important proposal and that we move it down to the
President's desk and we get on with it. If there are other measures
that ought to be debated, let us debate them but not on this bill.
Mr. President, if we follow that recommendation of the Senator from
Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] and those of us who are members of the
committee, we can do something truly worthy to be remembered in the
area of health care reform.
Mr. President, medical savings accounts do not belong in the
Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform bill. They have already been
rejected by the Senate. A bill containing them cannot be enacted into
law and signed by the President. They are an untried idea with the
potential to destroy the access to affordable, comprehensive coverage
that tens of millions of Americans now enjoy.
Millions of Americans need insurance reform, so that they can be
secure in the knowledge that their health care, coverage cannot be
taken away because they become sick, because they change jobs, or
because they lose their job. Their hopes should not be held hostage to
this extremist, special interest proposal. But because the Republican
leadership in the House and Senate is pursuing a rule or ruin approach
to this legislation, their hopes may be dashed once again.
Medical savings accounts sound good in theory. Why not encourage
businesses and individuals to buy less costly high-deductible health
insurance policies and put the premium savings into a tax-free account
that can be used to pay some routine medical costs? But in this case,
what sounds like good medicine in theory is quack medicine in practice.
Medical savings accounts are an idea whose time should never come.
Under conservative estimates by the Joint Tax Committee they are a $3
billion tax break for the wealthy and healthy. As the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities said, ``MSAs create new tax shelter
opportunities. Use of an MSA would be highly advantageous to
substantial numbers of higher income taxpayers. Low and moderate-income
taxpayers would receive little or no tax benefits from using MSAs
because they either do not pay income taxes or pay taxes at much lower
rates.'' The American Academy of Actuaries concluded that medical
savings accounts are ``Taxing money from the unhealthy and giving it to
the healthy.'' The Joint Tax Committee estimated that only 1 percent of
the tax benefits would go to people with incomes of less than $30,000.
If more people enroll in these accounts than Joint Tax has estimated,
as many analysts believe will happen, the cost could rise to the tens
of billions. How ironic that those who are loudest in their clamor to
reduce the deficit are willing to waste these vast sums on this
destructive special interest boondoggle. If we have billions to spare,
they should be spent on reducing the cost of coverage for hard-working
American families or on deficit reduction--not on a perverse income
transfer from the poor and sick to the healthy and rich.
Medical savings accounts raise premiums for the vast majority of
Americans--especially those who are sick and need coverage the most--by
siphoning the healthiest people out of the insurance pool. As premiums
rise, more and more working families will be forced to drop coverage.
In the words of the Congressional Budget Office, medical savings
accounts ``could threaten the existence of standard health insurance.''
Mary Nell Lenhardt, Senior Vice-President of Blue Cross and Blue Shield
concluded, that MSAs destroy ``the whole principle of insurance.'' A
new report by the Urban Institute concludes that, even under
conservative assumption, premiums for comprehensive coverage could rise
by 40 percent. If a higher proportion of people shift to MSAs, the cost
of comprehensive coverage could rise by more than 300 percent.
Moderate income people who choose medical savings accounts could be
exposed to financial disaster if someone in the family becomes
seriously ill. As the American Academy of Actuaries said, ``individuals
and families who experience significant medical expenses soon after the
establishment of MSA programs will face high out-of-pocket costs. These
high out-of-pocket costs will not be randomly distributed. They will be
concentrated among older workers and their families and among those
with disabilities and chronic illness.'' The last thing that the
American people need--especially those who need health care the most--
is another massive increase in the cost of medical care.
Because they encourage high deductible plans, medical savings
accounts discourage preventive care. According to the Congressional
Research Service, high deductible plans that come with MSAs have meant
that poor children are 40 percent less likely to get the care they need
as compared to fully-insured children. This is the wrong direction for
health policy.
Medical savings accounts are a giveaway to the insurance companies
who have the worst record of profiting from the abuses of the current
system. But the American people should not have to pay such a high
price to reward them--even in return for $1.5 million in campaign
contributions over the last 5 years. It is no accident that a company
like Golden Rule Insurance favors medical savings accounts. This is a
company that is ranked near the bottom by consumer reports because of
its inadequate coverage, frequent rate increases, and readiness to
cancel policies. When Golden Rule withdrew from Vermont because they
were unwilling to compete on the level playing field created by
insurance reform, Blue Cross and Blue Shield took over their policies.
They found that one in four policies included an exemption. Whole body
parts, like arms, backs, breasts, and even skin were written out of
coverage. Newborns were excluded unless they were born healthy.
The Republican medical savings account plan includes absolutely no
guarantees that companies profiting from selling these policies will be
prevented from abuses like this in the individual market. Moreover,
although MSA's are billed as providing catastrophic protection, there
is no requirement that they have reasonable life-time limits or not
impose excessive co-payments when the deductible level is reached.
It is shocking that the very company that has provided the financial
engine behind this right-wing proposal has refused to share any data
about its plans with the American Academy of Actuaries or other
impartial analysts. Golden Rule knows that medical savings accounts
can't stand the light of day--and that's why they are tying to ram them
through on a bill that the American people want.
Some Republicans are anxious to include MSA's in the insurance reform
bill because MSA's are part of their long-run plan to dismantle
Medicare and turn it over to private insurance companies. This is a
foot in the door for that item on the right-wing agenda--and this, too,
has no place in an insurance reform program.
No respectable health policy analyst supports medical savings
accounts. Newspapers from the Washington Post to the New York Times to
the Los Angeles Times to the Boston Globe have condemned them. The
President has said that they could doom the bill's prospects for
becoming law. They don't belong in this bill--and I urge my colleagues
to reject them.
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to say a word about the charge
that I
[[Page S5925]]
am blocking the appointment of conferees. The fact is that the list of
proposed conferees the Republican leadership has offered is
unprecedented in its unfairness. In the last three Congresses, there
has been no conference that has been so stacked. The only reason for
this unacceptable proposal is to try to ram medical savings accounts--a
proposal the Senate has already rejected and which will kill the bill--
into insurance reform.
Republicans leaders know that Americans want the reforms promised in
this bill and have little interest in medical savings accounts. That is
why Representative Kasich said, on March 24, ``We will not let medical
savings accounts destroy the ability to give people portability and
eliminate pre-existing conditions.'' On March 29, Speaker Gingrich said
he would not let medical savings accounts stand in the way of a
Presidential signature. But the American people should know that there
is a vast gap between the words and the reality. In spite of repeated
offers from the Democrats to sit down and discuss the issues in the
bill, in spite of three separate Democratic proposals for a sensible
compromise on medical savings accounts, Republican leaders have been
unwilling to negotiate and unwilling to back off their insistence on
this poison pill.
Whether the issue is tax fairness, preservation of comprehensive
health insurance for the vast majority of Americans, or the special
interests versus the general interests, medical savings accounts are
bad medicine for our health care system. They are a poison pill that
would kill health insurance reform. The Senate has already spoken. It
is time to send a clean bill to President Clinton without further
delay. The American people are waiting.
problems with medical savings accounts
1. lavish tax breaks for the rich
The $1.7 billion revenue loss will go almost exclusively to
the highest income and healthiest Americans.
Joint Tax Committee Analysis concludes that less than 1% of
those who will purchase MSAs under this amendment will make
less than $30,000 a year. Virtually no one will purchase
these plans who makes less than $20,000 a year.
The well-to-do will be able to use MSA as a second IRA,
except that this IRA will have no income limits and will
accrue disproportionately to the extremely wealthy. People
choosing this option with large assets can use their own
money to pay their medical bills and protect their tax
deferred MSA savings.
Health care analysts are virtually unanimous in their
opposition to MSAs.
The American Academy of Actuaries says that MSAs are,
``Taking money from the unhealthy and giving it to the
healthy.''
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says, ``MSAs
create new tax shelter opportunities. Use of an MSA would be
highly advantageous to substantial members of high income
taxpayers.''
2. hand-out to golden rule insurance company
To select MSAs, an individual is required to select a
catastrophic insurance plan, and Golden Rule is one of the
largest marketers of catastrophic plans in the country. MSAs
would simply allow Golden Rule to greatly enlarge their
market.
The company has given $1.6 million in political
contributions to Republicans over the last 5 years.
They are near the bottom of insurance company rankings done
by consumer groups, such as Consumers' Union, because they
provide inadequate coverage, frequent rating increases, very
aggressive underwriting, and readiness to contest claims and
cancel policies.
3. unravels health insurance and increases premiums for working
americans
Because healthy and wealthy individuals are most likely to
purchase MSAs, those who remain behind in the traditional
insurance plans will likely face higher premiums because the
insurance pool has been weakened.
The premium increases could be high enough to force lower
income working people to drop their coverage.
Insurance pool for ordinary Americans without MSAs will
suffer both from healthy people pulling out to obtain MSAs
and also from individuals with MSAs who become sick going
back into the traditional insurance pools.
4. part of the republican plan to ``wither away'' medicare
This Golden Rule plan is the tool that Republicans want to
use to have Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' It is advocated
by Speaker Gingrich--who coined this phrase and by Leader
Dole, who proudly talks about his vote against the original
enactment of the Medicare program.
Clearly, Medicare MSAs have an even greater potential to
undermine the financial stability of the Medicare program to
both beneficiaries and the taxpayers who support it by
exposing the program to an option that rewards cherry-picking
healthy beneficiaries--not competition over cost and quality.
Medicare MSAs were included in the Republican reconciliation
bill vetoed by President Clinton in December, 1995.
Today's amendment is just the first step back toward the
Republicans and Golden Rule's ultimate goal of putting in
MSAs into the Medicare program. They were rejected doing
Medicare MSAs when the President vetoed their excessive
Medicare cuts; now--through today's amendment--they are
setting the stage for pushing Medicare MSAs as the next
logical step.
5. discourages preventive care
MSAs may discourage cost-saving preventive care, such as
annual check-ups, immunizations and other wellness efforts.
The high deductible coverage associated with MSAs may lead to
delayed care and under-utilization of routine and preventive
health care services.
MSAs divert participation from managed care. Capitated
plans and other managed care arrangements hold the promise of
coordinated, quality-tested care and cost efficiency not
provided through MSAs.
MSAs will not promote cost containment in the long-run. By
allowing people to have MSAs when they are healthy but switch
to more traditional coverage when they become ill, the MSAs
simply become a vehicle for sheltering income, not a means of
promoting more cost-conscious consumers.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, yesterday the trustees of the Medicare and Social
Security trust funds released their long-awaited annual report, and
that report confirms our worst fears that the Medicare Hospital
Insurance trust fund--which pays for the hospital bills of our Nation's
elderly--will be bankrupt in nearly 4 years, in the year 2001. This is
a year earlier than the trustees predicted in their last report.
The report, which by law, Mr. President, was due April 1 but only
received yesterday, 10 weeks late, indicates that the Medicare trust
fund ran a deficit of $2.6 billion in 1995 and that the deficit will
nearly quadruple to $9.2 billion this year. By the year 2001, the fund
will have a deficit of $56 billion, and, having exhausted all accrued
interest, it will be bankrupt.
That is what we are looking at. The Trustees report provides a
striking reminder that this crisis which the Medicare system faces did
not disappear with the President's veto of the Balanced Budget Act of
1995--the one honest attempt to make structural reforms to the Medicare
Program. To the contrary, this report shows us that Medicare is going
broke at even a faster rate than previously predicted.
What are we doing about it? Last year, Congress passed a 7-year
balanced budget plan--the first in a generation--that included Medicare
reforms that would have extended the life of the hospital insurance
trust fund for a decade and also addressed long-term structural reforms
to help preserve the program for the critical time when the baby
boomers begin to retire. This proposal was vetoed by the President.
The plan passed by Congress allowed Medicare to grow at a rate of
over 6 percent a year--not cut, Mr. President, but grow at a rate of
over 6 percent a year--with the spending per beneficiary growing from
$5,300 to $7,000 by the year 2002.
It has been characterized by some on the other side that these are
draconian cuts. Is a 6-percent increase a draconian cut? Is an increase
in payments for beneficiaries from $5,300 to $7,000 by the year 2002 a
cut? It certainly is not, Mr. President.
The Medicare reforms passed by Congress last year made changes to the
system that reflect the way health is practiced in the 1990's, offering
for the first time real health care choice to seniors. What is wrong
with choice? We proposed insurance options that would allow doctors and
hospitals to integrate and provide affordable coordinated care to
seniors. We proposed medical savings accounts as an option--an option,
not a mandate--for Medicare beneficiaries giving individuals the
ability to manage their own health care dollars, choose any doctor they
want, and shop around for the best quality care at the best price.
Congress acted. The President chose to abdicate. We responded to the
urgency to save the program. The President chose to veto our proposals,
thus ensuring that the crisis in Medicare is simply going to continue.
Understanding the political risks involved in engaging in a debate over
Medicare, I
[[Page S5926]]
think we acted responsibly. I think we negotiated in good faith. I
would hate to think that this was all just an exercise in futility.
Yet, we have seen more of the same from this administration this
year. The President's budget includes Medicare gimmicks, not Medicare
reforms. As we all know, the Medicare problem is not just a crisis of
the much talked about pending insolvency of the Medicare Hospital
Insurance--HI--trust fund, it is a fiscal crisis affecting all areas of
the Medicare program, with Federal spending increasing by 12 percent in
1995 and projected to grow 8.6 and 10 percent from now until the year
2005.
The administration attempts to be deceptive by proposing to move
spending obligations for home health care from part A, where outlays
are limited by incoming receipts from the Medicaid HI tax, to part B,
where 72 percent of the funds come from general revenues and where,
theoretically, there are no limits on growth in spending or solvency
problems. I think it is deceiving to make this accounting move and mask
it as reforms that ``save'' the Medicare Program.
This gimmick does add life to the part A trust fund ensuring solvency
to the year 2005 as opposed to 2001, but it is simply that, Mr.
President. It is a gimmick. It does nothing to address the true problem
of the Medicare system which is basically the absence of market
influences and a lack of alternatives to the current one-size-fits-all
program. Seniors need and deserve the same choices in health care plans
available to the rest of us. Why should they not have it?
Mr. President, we are going to attempt again to put forth real
Medicare reforms this year. It is my hope the President will stop
proposing gimmicks, stop scaring the seniors, and start dealing
honestly with true Medicare reforms that everybody can understand. At
the end of the day, we are not all that far apart. I believe we share
the same goals of saving the Medicare Program for future generations.
So let us get on with it in real, honest reforms.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________