[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14208-14215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  GREATER ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PHARMACEUTICALS ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, understanding the gravity of the 
moment, I do not want to leave a very important piece of legislation. 
Before I say a word, I would like to add Senator Zell Miller as a 
cosponsor to the amendment and I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as I look at the situation, we have a 
whole lot of meetings going on around this Capitol--conference 
committees on trade, conference committees on prescription drugs. We 
have a generic drug bill. That is the underlying bill here with a 
prescription drug amendment attached to it. We have a Federal matching 
Medicaid amendment which I am offering. There is so much going on on 
health but there is so little that is going on on health, and it 
perturbs me.
  Senator Durbin, when he was talking, pointed out the importance of 
Medicaid to hospitals, nursing homes, and others. It makes it extremely 
important for me to note that in the State I represent, 80 percent of 
our hospitals are losing money. They are mostly rural hospitals, and 
most of them depend upon Medicaid and Medicare in combination, usually 
at 85, 80, sometimes 75 percent of their total reimbursement of 
everything that they do. That is the nature of the State I represent. 
So many others are like that. It is the nature of part of the State 
that the Presiding Officer represents.
  So the question of are we doing Medicaid and reimbursing States so 
they can keep their health facilities open and Medicaid available to 
their people is a profoundly important matter. But we treat it as if it 
were not.
  We are trying our best to come to an agreement on prescription drugs. 
There is no particular compromise in sight at the moment. We had two 
votes yesterday. Both failed. The American people ask us: What are you 
doing about health care for our people? My people ask, What are you 
doing about health care for our people? What am I to answer? What am I 
to tell them?
  I can refer, if I want, to the catastrophic health bill experience of 
a number of us, where we had a terrific bill that the House turned down 
three times, the Senate refused to turn down three times. But the point 
was that we finally had to yield, and there was no catastrophic health 
care bill.
  Then we had something called the Pepper Commission where we came up 
with a very good solution for both long term and acute care, and it 
went nowhere. It was declared dead on arrival, and those who so 
declared it were correct. Nothing happened.
  Then we had the very large health care experience of the early 1990s 
when everything got very politicized. The result was twofold: One, that 
we passed nothing on that health care bill; and, two, everybody 
retreated inside their shells. Nobody seemed to want to take up health 
care, and health care became something that somehow, either politically 
or for whatever reason--because it was complex--people did not want to 
undertake.
  Senator Jack Danforth and I, and now Senator Frist and I, started 
something called the alliance for health reform. The whole idea was to 
get those who did not serve on the Finance Committee more acquainted 
with the intricacies and difficulties of what is a very difficult 
problem; that is, all the acronyms and complexities associated with 
health care. Now there are a lot more people who know a lot more about 
health care, and we are still not getting anything done.
  Now we are talking about the Federal matching adjustment for Medicaid 
to our most vulnerable people, to people to whom, we go to our 
Jefferson and Jackson Day Dinners, when we appeal and bring out emotion 
and speak emotionally, and then when we come up here, we do nothing to 
help them.
  I put this amendment on the floor with endless cosponsors. I am 
looking at Susan Collins, a good Republican from Maine, and there she 
stands, perhaps ready to speak, and she and seven other Republicans are 
cosponsors of this amendment. Senator Zell Miller just became a 
cosponsor. So we have, I don't know, 35, 40 sponsors.
  I come to two conclusions. No 1, I think this amendment is going to 
pass and that there may be those who are not coming to this floor to 
speak against it because they do not want to because they know their 
Governors feel so passionately about it. Whether they be Republican, 
Democratic, or Independent, Governors are absolutely passionate about 
passing this amendment. But they cannot do it. We have to do it for 
them.
  We are not doing universal health care. We haven't done anything on 
prescription drugs yet. We have not done a generic drug bill yet. We 
have not done anything about importation. We passed a bill--the White 
House said they do not want to implement it--about bringing drugs in 
from Canada, produced here, at a lower cost.
  So we are talking, debating, having compromises, having caucuses, and 
we are not accomplishing anything. Here is an amendment in which we can 
do something real for the people in our States who need it. They are 
not just children, but that is a very basic part of it. It is also 
reimbursement for hospital facilities. It is reimbursement for skilled 
nursing facilities, for nursing homes. And they need it more than ever 
because Medicaid is the one program in government, other than the 
Veterans Administration, which does have prescription drugs. It does 
have prescription drugs.
  As the Presiding Officer has said so many times so eloquently as the 
leader of this fight, the cost of prescription drugs has been going up 
in a terrifying manner in these last several years. Who bears the brunt 
of that? Medicaid. Medicaid bears the brunt of it. And here we are 
trying to do something which the States cannot do for themselves, which 
we can do for them, which they are unanimously--Republicans, Democrats 
and Independent--on record unanimously wanting.
  I stand here on the floor accompanied only by a distinguished Senator 
from Maine and the distinguished Presiding Officer. I find this 
perplexing and troubling. Are we risk averse? Have we become risk 
averse? That is a health care term. Maybe it ought to be a Senate term. 
Have we become afraid of doing things which require tough votes?
  As the Senator from Illinois said, this is a very easy process. 
People put legislation forward, it goes through committees or doesn't 
go through committees, it comes to the floor, doesn't come to the 
floor, but if it comes to the floor, then you have a chance to vote on 
it. If people want to filibuster it, then you can file a cloture 
motion, you wait 2 days, and you get a vote on it. People have to 
eventually vote up or down, or else, as the Senator from Illinois said, 
they should not be in this profession.
  I conclude with a sense of awe and tremendous anger, I would say to 
the Presiding Officer. I started out my career in public life--which I 
never intended to enter and which my parents were not fond of as a 
career. They were not pleased as I entered it as a career.
  I went to a little coal mining community in the State of West 
Virginia which was nothing but people who had no health insurance, who 
wanted to work but had no job, who wanted to go to school but had no 
bus. They had one 1-room school through the sixth grade, 1 through 6, 
lined up row by row, just in a row.

[[Page 14209]]

  They fed me; they took care of me; we worked together; we developed 
community programs. They had something called the dollar-an-hour 
program in West Virginia. You went out and you worked and you cleaned 
up the roads--men for the most part, at that point--and you got $1 an 
hour. Glory be, you got 8 hours a day. Any health insurance? Of course 
not. Nobody had health insurance. No one had health insurance.
  That seared my soul then, and it sears me today, and it sears me as I 
talk now, as we sit here and avoid a chance to vote on something with 
which we can immediately help our States and our people. Are we only to 
legislate on Afghanistan or broad national concepts or are we here to 
help people? Is there something wrong, in fact, about actually doing 
something which would help people?
  Some people say it would because it would cost money. Then why was it 
they put this in the emergency supplemental? They put the Medicaid 
match formula in the emergency supplemental because it was considered 
that important to the country. And now here we are, 9 months later, 10 
months later--whatever it is--and we have done absolutely nothing. This 
Senator is tired of it. This Senator is very pleased to note that, with 
eight Republican cosponsors and a whole lot of people waiting to vote 
for this, there is a cloture motion being filled out, and we are going 
to vote on this, and we are going to show the people of our States that 
we care about our children and our families, our prescription drug 
programs, and that we are not risk averse. We are quite capable, yes, 
of helping people when it comes to health care. We have not shown that 
very much in recent years. We are going to show it this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I share the concern of the Senator from 
West Virginia that we should not delay action on this important matter.
  Support for our proposal is growing with each hour. I am excited 
about that. This proposal offers real relief to our State governments 
that are struggling with budget shortfalls. But, most importantly, it 
offers the promise that low-income families who depend on Medicaid will 
not face a cutoff of some of their important benefits.
  The Senator from West Virginia raises a very good point. There are 
health care providers in my State, as well as his, rural hospitals in 
particular, that are struggling to make ends meet. The threat of 
Medicaid cuts imposed by States trying to balance their budgets during 
this very difficult fiscal time poses a threat to their ability to 
continue to provide quality care.
  That is why we have the support of so many health care provider 
groups.
  I am going to read from some of letters that we have received that 
endorse our proposal. In some cases, the letters speak to earlier 
legislation that I introduced along with my friend and colleague, 
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. But, as I said earlier, we have pooled 
our efforts because we want to get relief to the States as fast as 
possible.
  Let me tell you what our visiting nurses say about the importance of 
providing this relief.
  This is a letter that I will read from the Visiting Nurse 
Associations of America. It is signed by the president, Carolyn Markey.
  She writes:

       On behalf of the Visiting Nurse Associations of America 
     (VNAA), I would like to express our strong support for you 
     and Senator Ben Nelson's proposed legislation that would 
     provide temporary fiscal relief to states for Medicaid-
     covered health care services. VNAA is the national membership 
     association for non-profit, community-based Visiting Nurse 
     Agencies (VNAs), which collectively care for approximately 
     50% of all Medicaid home health patients each year.
       VNAA is concerned that approximately one-half of the states 
     across the nation have had to cut their FY 2002 Medicaid 
     budgets in order to avoid a budget crisis. We fear that the 
     majority of states will implement additional cost-containment 
     measures, including reducing benefits, increasing beneficiary 
     cost-sharing and further reducing Medicaid reimbursement to 
     health care providers.
       On average, Medicaid already reimburses providers 
     significantly less than the cost of care.

  That is an important point. There are already reimbursement levels 
that aren't covering the cost of providing this essential care.
  The letter goes on to say:

       VNAA's 2001 data shows that, collectively, VNAs are 
     incurring an average $565 loss per Medicaid patient, with an 
     annual loss of $148,500. VNAs' mission is to provide care to 
     all eligible persons regardless of their condition or ability 
     to pay. Because of this mission, VNAs will attempt to 
     continue to admit all eligible Medicaid beneficiaries, but 
     subsidizing Medicaid will force VNAs to cut other social 
     service programs that are funded through charity 
     contributions, such as Meals on Wheels and preventive health 
     clinics.
       Your legislation is sorely needed at this time. It would 
     help states maintain eligibility and program levels in order 
     for low-income families, children, seniors and persons with 
     disabilities to continue to receive the health care they 
     need. It will also prevent the exodus of some providers from 
     Medicaid participation, and prevent other providers from 
     having to cut vital community-based social services.

  Those are the stakes. The stakes are high.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of the letter from 
Carolyn Markey, the president of the Visiting Nurse Associations of 
America, printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Visiting Nurse Associations


                                                   of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 29, 2002.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Visiting Nurse 
     Associations of America (VNAA), I would like to express our 
     strong support for your and Senator Ben Nelson's proposed 
     legislation that would provide temporary fiscal relief to 
     states for Medicaid-covered health care services. VNAA is the 
     national membership association for non-profit, community-
     based Visiting Nurse Agencies (VNAs), which collectively care 
     for approximately 50% of all Medicaid home health patients 
     each year.
       VNAA is concerned that approximately one-half of the states 
     across the nation have had to cut their FY 2002 Medicaid 
     budgets in order to avoid a budget crisis. We fear that the 
     majority of states will implement additional cost-containment 
     measures, including reducing benefits, increasing beneficiary 
     cost-sharing and further reducing Medicaid reimbursement to 
     health care providers.
       On average, Medicaid already reimburses providers 
     significantly less than the cost of care. VNAA's 2001 data 
     shows that, collectively, VNAs are incurring an average $565 
     loss per Medicaid patient, with an annual loss of $148,500. 
     VNAs' mission is to provide care to all eligible persons 
     regardless of their condition or ability to pay. Because of 
     this mission, VNAs will attempt to continue to admit all 
     eligible Medicaid beneficiaries, but subsidizing Medicaid 
     will force VNAs to cut other social service programs that are 
     funded through charity contributions, such as Meals on Wheels 
     and preventive health clinics.
       Your legislation is sorely needed at this time. It would 
     help states maintain eligibility and program levels in order 
     for low-income families, children, seniors and persons with 
     disabilities to continue to receive the health care they 
     need. It will also prevent the exodus of some providers from 
     Medicaid participation, and prevent other providers from 
     having to cut vital community-based social services.
       Thank you for all you do for the nation's most vulnerable 
     populations.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Carolyn Markey,
                                                President and CEO.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I see the Senator from New York is in 
the Chamber. If he would like to speak on this issue at this point, I 
would be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maine, and I 
thank her for her leadership on this bill.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his sponsorship of this 
important legislation. He has done a great job on every aspect of this 
proposal. I want to once again clarify for the record the help he has 
been not only on this issue, not only on adding prescription drugs to 
Medicare, but on generic drugs as well. We all owe the Senator from 
West Virginia a debt of gratitude for the great work he has done on the 
generic drug issue.
  This is an extremely important amendment that I am proud to support. 
My State, as so many of the

[[Page 14210]]

States, is in fiscal trouble. We have found great difficulty in doing 
what we have to do. Our State tends to be a generous State in terms of 
health care benefits. Programs enacted throughout the years make our 
Medicaid benefit generous. We have gone beyond Medicaid. We tried to 
help a little bit on prescription drugs with the Epic Program, as I 
know 17 other States have done a little bit here and there. We tried to 
help in a whole variety of ways.
  During times of prosperity, we do quite well. But, obviously, the 
attacks of September 11, which cost us dearly in terms of life, and 
then secondarily in terms of dollars, as well as the downturn in the 
financial markets, which probably hit our State harder than any other, 
have caused real problems. If there was ever a time that this amendment 
was appropriate for New York, it is now.
  I think the amendment is appropriate to all of our States. Not only 
are they all under fiscal strains--my State may be under greater strain 
than others--but we all know that Medicaid spending is probably the 
fastest growing part of most State budgets. It is certainly mine.
  I would add one other point about New York. Our localities will get 
help, if this aid passes, because we are one of the few States where we 
ask the localities to pay half of the non-Federal share of Medicaid. In 
other words, we are 50-25-25. A city such as New York that is 
straining--our budget deficit is about $4 billion in the next fiscal 
year, it is estimated, and some estimates go as high as $5 billion--
would also get a real shot in the arm. Our communities upstate are 
hurting because of the poor economy--Buffalo, Albany, Rochester, 
Binghamton, and Utica are all hurting and need the help as well.
  Certainly, the amendment is needed from a fiscal point of view. 
Certainly, it helps the Medicaid Program meet the promise that was made 
early on in terms of its help. It is appropriate that it be added to 
this bill.
  If you ask the States the No. 1 cause of their fiscal problems, most 
of them would say it is Medicaid. Then, if you ask the head of Medicaid 
in each State what the No. 1 reason is for costs going up, that person 
would say prescription drugs. In fact, Medicaid drug costs nationally 
have increased 18 percent every year for the past 3 years. That is 
something that cannot keep going on.
  Our States are now faced with terrible choices--either go more deeply 
into debt or cut benefits to the most vulnerable. That is something we 
really do not want to do.
  I support the amendment. It would be a tremendous shot in the arm for 
New York. It would be a tremendous shot in the arm to all State 
governments. And it is the right thing to do.
  The cost is large. I believe it is something like $8 billion. But the 
benefits are larger still.
  Every time any part of America has a child who doesn't get the 
appropriate coverage, it sets him back or her back--it sometimes sets 
the family back in ways from which they never recover. The fact that 
our country has decided to say health care for everyone is important--
and not say because you have no money you should get no health care--is 
one aspect that makes us a great country. The fact that today we are 
saying that during this time of crisis, the Federal Government will 
step up to the plate and fulfill its role is really important.
  Let me go over the numbers for New York.
  In fiscal year 2002, if the Rockefeller-Collins-Nelson amendment were 
adopted, we would receive, in terms of our Medicaid help, $244 million. 
This is the temporary FMAP increase. In 2003, we would receive $553.8 
million. That means, for the total of the 18 months--the second half of 
2002 and all of 2003--it would be $797.8 million.
  In terms of temporary grants, we would get an additional--these are 
available through 2004--an additional $461 million.
  That is $1.2 billion. That is real help. That is not just a nice 
little bauble around the edges. And it could not come at a more 
appropriate, needed time in my State.
  So I say to my colleagues, you all have your problems in your States. 
We have our problems in New York. Let's unite. This amendment is a 
bipartisan amendment. Let's unite and adopt it.
  Let's make sure that our poor people get the medical help they need. 
And let us say to the States that during these extremely difficult 
times--as I say, made doubly difficult in New York because we were the 
epicenter of the 9/11 attacks--we are not going to punish you because 
of your generosity in helping the poor attain some modicum of health 
care.
  So I am proud to support the amendment. Again, I compliment my 
colleague from West Virginia, who has been such a leader on this issue, 
as on so many others. I thank my colleague from Maine as well.
  I look forward to quickly adopting this amendment as part of our base 
bill which, as you know, I am proud is the bill that Senator McCain and 
I introduced in terms of generic drugs.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the National Partnership for Women and 
Families has issued a statement today endorsing the amendment I have 
offered with Senators Rockefeller, Ben Nelson, and Gordon Smith. It 
includes some very important information that helps us better 
understand why this debate is so important.
  The National Partnership cites the National Governors Association's 
May report that over 40 States are facing budget shortfalls totaling 
$40 to $50 billion overall.
  Since Medicaid makes up, on average, 20 percent of State spending, it 
is often the first place that States look to make cuts. So our 
amendment would provide $9 billion in total fiscal relief that would 
help sustain critical State Medicaid Programs and bolster the States' 
ability to keep providing vital social services to those most in need.
  Let's look at whom this benefits.
  Medicaid provides health insurance to approximately 40 million low-
income Americans, including 21 million children and young adults, 11 
million elderly and disabled individuals, and 8.6 million adults in 
families, most of whom are single mothers. That is the population that 
is hurt when Medicaid budgets are slashed. That is the most vulnerable 
of populations. They need our help.
  The States need our help in order to maintain vital health care 
services for those 40 million low-income Americans. Without this 
critical safety net, millions of women and their families would be left 
with no health insurance at all.
  So that is why we must act. And we must act before more time elapses 
and more States are forced to cut their Medicaid budgets. Time is of 
the essence.
  I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this absolutely 
critical bipartisan proposal.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, the proposal that is before 
the body today, to enhance the partnership between the Federal 
Government and the States with regard to Medicaid and with regard to 
welfare reform and social services that are so critical to the most 
vulnerable in our society, is a very important piece of legislation.
  It merits our total support, not because it is just about money but 
because it is about doing the right thing to continue the gains and not 
see a spiral downwards back to welfare for

[[Page 14211]]

those who have been able to make it to the workforce. It is for those 
who are teetering on the brink who would, if their eligibility for 
Medicaid were taken away, be unable to support themselves and/or their 
families. It is for the seniors who need, so much today, the kind of 
support the Medicaid Program provides when they are in nursing homes.
  So it is about people. That is what it is truly about. It is about 
doing the right thing. It is continuing the relationship and the 
partnership that has been developed between our Governors, our State 
legislatures, and our Federal Government. It is an important 
partnership that must be maintained.
  It is also important that we recognize it is a temporary fix. It is 
not a permanent solution. No one is expecting that kind of a permanent 
solution today, given the temporary, and hopefully only temporary, 
nature of the downturn in the economy. But it is essential we do 
something soon because of the plight of the States and the experience 
they have in terms of not being able to meet all of their obligations 
as they move forward on these programs.
  The truth of the matter is, we can work together with the States as 
we have in the past. Many of our colleagues here, as you know, are 
former Governors. You may be able to take us out of the Governor's 
office, but you cannot take the experiences we have gained in that 
position away from us simply because we have changed our titles or we 
have new responsibilities.
  It is important, also, that we recognize that the States, in making 
these tough decisions, will have to make them on the basis of how they 
balance their budgets because all but a handful have to balance their 
budgets and can't have deficit spending. So they either balance their 
budgets with major cuts or with tax hikes or with a combination.
  In any event, most of the States have made the cuts they believe they 
can make, up until this point, without affecting Medicaid. But as their 
budgets continue to flow with red ink, now they are looking at these 
social programs for the necessary cuts. They have cut education. They 
have cut many of the other essential programs. Now they are faced with 
cutting this program.
  So if we wait until they have made the cuts, there will be the 
casualties of those who are not able to have the benefits--the elderly, 
the young people, those who in our society today are reliant on the 
availability of these programs.
  We have asked people to work their way out of welfare, to join the 
workforce. We have created at the State level, with welfare reform at 
the Federal level, the opportunity for people to transition out of the 
levels of poverty and welfare, with the opportunity to join the 
workforce. We have done it with transitional benefits that are 
comprised of child care, some Medicaid continuing coverage, so these 
individuals and their families have the capacity to leave the welfare 
rolls to join the workforce.
  If we pull back on these and other programs like it, they will 
teeter, and it is very likely that they will fall back into the welfare 
situation. While already experiencing higher unemployment levels than 
we have experienced over the last 10 years, we see that the growing 
population of Medicaid is putting more pressure on Medicaid 
expenditures at the State level.
  I remember looking at the growth of Medicaid and the opportunities 
that were there to try to reform it and to make it so it worked not to 
create incentives for unemployment but opportunities for employment and 
incentives for joining the workforce. But when you see it today and you 
see the growth in this program, you recognize that something must be 
done in order to stem that growing tide.
  The truth is, we can and we should do this. There will be some who 
will say we don't have an obligation, a further obligation to the 
States. But it is not about just from one government to another; it is 
about to the people of the United States who have the need for these 
very important benefits. Those are the people we need to be supporting. 
In supporting them, we work through the States in our partnership.
  That is the opportunity we have. I hope if there are some who have a 
different, opposing point of view, they will come down to the floor and 
explain why they don't think we ought to support this Federal Medicaid 
assistance program on a temporary basis to permit the States to 
continue to support the kinds of programs that are important to the 
most vulnerable of our population. I hope they will come to the Chamber 
so we have the opportunity for a full debate and so, if there are 
opposing views, we will be able to respond to them rather than speak to 
an empty Chamber. That is not what this should be about. If there is to 
be spirited debate, I hope we will have that begin in the near future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I would like to direct a question through 
the Chair to my friend from West Virginia, the author of the amendment. 
I was here about an hour and a half ago. I ask the Senator from West 
Virginia if anyone has spoken against the merits of his amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from Nevada, I am not sure, but 
I believe Senators have been here discussing it favorably for 2 to 2\1/
2\ hours. Not a single Senator has come to the floor opposing this 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friends, whoever opposes this amendment, I 
don't know where they are. We were told by one of the sponsors of the 
amendment, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, that he 
didn't oppose it, but he, on information and belief, understood that 
the senior Senator from Texas opposed the amendment. I would hope that 
my friend from Texas, if that, in fact, is the case, would come here 
and defend his position. I will say that if that isn't the case, that I 
will ask for the yeas and nays and move forward on the amendment. It is 
just simply not fair.
  We have an order in effect that as soon as this amendment is 
completed, we would move to something that Senator Gregg or someone he 
designates would offer. And then following that we have a Democratic 
amendment in order. We should move through those. I hope that if there 
are people other than the distinguished Senator from Texas who oppose 
this amendment or the Senator from Texas, that they would come to the 
floor and explain themselves.
  I will say that I am getting the feeling that this is one of those 
kinds of stealth oppositions we get around here a lot of times. People 
know this is a good amendment, supported by the Governors of the 
States, supported by people in the States who are desperate for 
dollars. States are suffering. I think there are people who would like 
to come and oppose this, but they really don't quite know why. So they 
just stay away hoping it will go away.
  It is not going to go away. If I come back here again and there is no 
one within a reasonable period of time who has voiced any opposition to 
the amendment or there is no one on the floor speaking against it, I 
will ask for the yeas and nays and move on to something else.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, the National Governors 
Association has written a letter, dated July 24--very current--to the 
minority and majority leaders of the Senate strongly urging support for 
the Rockefeller-Collins-Nelson-Smith compromise.
  I ask unanimous consent to print it in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                National Governors


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2002.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Lott: The nation's 
     Governors strongly support the Rockefeller-Collins-Nelson-
     Smith

[[Page 14212]]

     compromise state fiscal relief legislation. We urge its 
     consideration as an amendment to S. 812 on the Senate floor 
     and its swift passage into law.
       The legislation to temporarily increase the federal share 
     of the Medicaid program as well as provide a temporary block 
     grant to states will assist during the current fiscal crisis 
     so that states will not be forced to make deep cuts in 
     health, social services, and even education programs. It will 
     thus ensure that low-income vulnerable families are protected 
     from drastic cuts in these key programs.
       One of the major contributors to the rising state Medicaid 
     costs is prescription drug expenses. Immediate Federal 
     assistance with these costs would provide real fiscal relief 
     to the states. We urge timely Senate action on the 
     Rockefeller-Collins-Nelson-Smith amendment.
       We would very much appreciate your support and we look 
     forward to working with you to ensure that meaningful state 
     fiscal relief legislation is enacted.
           Sincerely,
     Paul E. Patton,
       Governor.
     Dirk Kempthorne,
       Governor.
                                  ____

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senator from West Virginia, in my 
view, has outlined a very important position with respect to a critical 
health issue for the States. I commend him for his outstanding work. It 
is going to make a difference in Oregon and across the country.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. WYDEN are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am a strong supporter of the 
Rockefeller amendment which will make a huge difference for our States 
at a time when the situation is truly dire with respect to health care. 
So I thank my colleague. When we get to a vote on the Rockefeller 
amendment--I know Senator Nelson of Nebraska has done excellent work on 
this as well--I hope the amendment will pass with a resounding 
majority.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wanted to speak on a couple of issues. 
First is the underlying effort here to pass major legislation in the 
area of assisting senior citizens, specifically, with the cost of their 
prescription drugs.
  I think we all understand very well that there has been a fundamental 
shift in the way medicine is practiced in our country, and it has been 
a positive shift. That shift is that we have gone from a society which 
had basically as its first line of defense for significant health 
concerns an invasive medical procedure using a scalpel, to a society 
which has as its first line of defense for major medical concerns the 
use of pharmaceuticals. This has been a revolution, a biotech 
revolution.
  As a result, it is not so much that pharmaceuticals have become more 
expensive--but not outrageously so, with respect to inflation and other 
costs--but they have become so much more aggressively utilized. As a 
result, senior citizens and all citizenry that have medical concerns 
are finding that they are more often than not going down to the 
pharmacy and purchasing a pill in order to address a physical ailment 
versus going into the hospital and receiving some sort of remedial 
medical care that might involve an operation or some sort of therapy 
within the physical confines of a hospital. So utilization has gone up 
dramatically in the area of pharmaceuticals. This is a change in the 
way we practice medicine as a country.
  The practical effect of that is that all Americans, but seniors 
especially because as a practical fact, as people begin to get older, 
they have more health needs in most instances.
  Seniors are finding themselves more and more put into the situation 
of having to purchase pharmaceutical goods, which are adding up, and 
because there is more significant utilization, they are expensive and 
sometimes unaffordable, especially to low-and middle-income seniors. So 
we as a Congress and the President are attempting to address this 
through passing some sort of a package that will give senior citizens 
the opportunity to take some of the pressure off of the cost of this 
new need to use prescription drugs.
  The goal, in my opinion, should be basically twofold: One, to assure 
that low- and moderate-income seniors--especially low-income seniors--
who find it virtually impossible to fit into their budgets, which are 
usually very constricted, the cost of pharmaceuticals, to allow those 
individuals to receive assistance as they have to purchase these 
medications; second, to address the situation where a senior who has 
reasonable income and reasonable wealth confronts a catastrophic 
situation where simply the cost of medication exceeds even their 
capacity to pay for it. Those should be our two primary goals as we put 
together this package of relief for senior citizens, in my opinion.
  Also, there are a lot of secondary goals. Secondary goals should be--
and it is fairly significant--that we do not undermine the ability of 
our society to bring new drugs to the market.
  As a society, we have basically become the creators of most of the 
major new pharmaceuticals that are created in this world, and that is 
because we have a vibrant research capability going on in this country 
and a vibrant commercialization of goods and products which are created 
within that research market. It is important that we not kill the goose 
that is laying the lifesaving drug, as I said earlier, and that we 
allow the entrepreneurs in our society, who are research scientists for 
the most part, to evolve a capability of continuing to bring to market 
drugs which save people's lives and benefit people and make their lives 
better, and that we not in the process of developing a package of drug 
benefits end up creating an atmosphere which works against the bringing 
to market of new pharmaceutical drugs. That should be a subsidiary 
effort as we move forward to address the question of a drug benefit for 
senior citizens.
  In that context, we are now working aggressively to try to pull 
together a package. We have had three major votes on different drug 
packages. We had the Democratic proposal which, regrettably, was, in my 
opinion, fundamentally flawed because it did not meet the conditions I 
have laid out.
  First, it was extraordinarily expensive, and I should have mentioned 
that as a fourth line of consideration, which is that as we put this 
benefit package in place for seniors, we should not have it created in 
such a way that it transfers a huge new cost on to working Americans, 
especially young Americans with young families, who are trying to make 
ends meet, who have other issues, such as education, housing, the day-
to-day costs of raising a family.
  We should not make the cost of this major new drug benefit so high 
that the tax burden to pay for it--which will fall on working Americans 
for the most part will significantly disadvantage working Americans in 
their ability to live a good life.
  This new drug benefit is not like the Medicare proposals under which 
we presently work. There is no premium in most instances. Some have 
premiums, most do not. There is also no earned benefit--in other words, 
over the years people paying into the Part A insurance fund and 
building up a fund. In this instance, seniors are going to simply 
receive this benefit without it having been paid for through building 
it up over the years, paying through Part A. It is essentially going to 
be a

[[Page 14213]]

tax. To pay for this drug benefit, there is going to be a tax levied on 
working Americans, especially young Americans, to assist senior 
citizens with the issue of how they pay for drugs.
  We have to be very careful in putting this package together that we 
do not end up putting such a huge burden on young working Americans 
that it makes it very difficult for them to raise their families.
  As I mentioned, there have been three votes on this issue in the 
Senate in the last few days. The first was on the Democratic plan. The 
Democratic plan failed in a number of areas.
  One, it was extraordinarily expensive. It would have passed $600 
billion--and that was the estimate. We all know estimates end up being 
low. For example, when Medicare was originally passed in the 1960s, it 
was estimated in 1990 to cost $9 billion. Medicare in 1990 cost about 
$70 billion. It was off by almost 1,000 percent. We know the $600 
billion pricetag attached to the Democratic package is a pricetag which 
is probably low. Even if it were accurate, it is a huge pricetag to 
pass on to working Americans, younger Americans, and far more than we 
should put on the backs of the working American who is trying to raise 
that young family. It is far too high a burden on those individuals.
  It is disproportionate in the way it deals with the intergenerational 
issues in benefiting dramatically, in terms of dollars spent, senior 
citizens at the expense of young Americans who are trying to raise a 
family. It exceeded the budget allocation by $300 billion, by 100 
percent. There was $300 billion budgeted. This was a $600 billion 
package, which is far too expensive.
  Also, it undermined the marketplace. It was a public program, which 
in and of itself is an undermining of the marketplace, but it was a 
public program which had an incredibly regressive element to it. It 
essentially said that you could only, for a certain ailment--let's take 
arthritis--purchase one type of drug for that ailment, one. There are 
probably 20 different drugs on the market to address arthritis. Why 
would you limit the ability of a senior to only purchase one and have 
it covered by insurance? It is a foolish idea from the standpoint that 
doctors may not want to prescribe that one drug, and it may not be 
medically a good idea, plus it is just not conducive to creating a 
marketplace which is going to bring more pharmaceuticals on to the 
market so seniors have more choices and that we drive down the prices 
of pharmaceuticals generally because we have competition.
  It is truly a regressive idea from the standpoint of health care and 
from the standpoint of how you develop a strong and vibrant market for 
producing pharmaceuticals. That bill, in my opinion, was fundamentally 
flawed. Plus, of course, it had the little gimmick in it--rather large 
actually--that it was not a permanent benefit. It lapsed after 5 years. 
It would not exist anymore. I do not know what was going to happen 
then. It would be gone and who knew what was going to happen.
  It was a black hole or a cliff proposal where everybody gets a 
benefit for 5 years and suddenly they look down and there is no more 
benefit and they have to step off the cliff into the abyss, not knowing 
what is going to happen. It was a poorly constructed idea and it failed 
because it did not get 60 votes.
  The second idea that came through was the tripartisan proposal. 
Again, it is a fairly expensive proposal, $370 billion, but 
significantly less than the Democratic proposal, but much more 
reasonable in the way it approached the issue. It opened the 
marketplace. It gave seniors options as to what pharmaceuticals they 
could use.
  Senator Snowe was talking about how many more pharmaceuticals it 
covered than the Democratic proposal, dramatically more. I am not sure 
of the numbers. In any event, the specific numbers were that it covered 
far more specific pharmaceutical products, and made those available to 
seniors, than the Democratic plan--dramatically more.
  In addition, it had language which significantly protected the low-
income senior. It gave them basically a 90-percent subsidy and had 
positive catastrophic language.
  That also failed to get 60 votes.
  The third vote we had was on the Hagel-Ensign proposal, which is an 
idea I am attracted to, although I also voted for the tripartisan plan. 
It says what I have been saying. You take low-income seniors and 
protect them. You give them the ability to buy the pharmaceutical, you 
give them support to do that and it does not wipe out their income. The 
plan was very progressive in this way.
  You say to seniors, who are in the general population, who are not 
low-income seniors: If you have a serious illness which throws you into 
a high-cost pharmaceutical situation, and you are spending a dramatic 
amount of your basic wealth, your income, your assets on 
pharmaceuticals, the Government will come in and pick it up. There was 
a catastrophic cap which the Government picked up.
  Again, this was built in, as I understood it, in a progressive way so 
higher income people had to spend more than middle- and moderate-income 
people had to spend. It was very progressive in a thoughtful way. This 
idea made a lot of sense and got a very good vote. In fact, it got as 
high a vote as any other proposal that came to the floor. I hope from 
this idea we can evolve a package that can work effectively.
  That is basically where we stand today. We have now had three major 
packages. None have passed because the sequence of events that are set 
up is that the Democratic leadership refused to take these bills 
through committee and created a situation where we could not pass them 
on the floor because they all required 60 votes.
  Had Hagel-Ensign, for example, come out to the floor after having 
gone through the committee, with the vote it got on this floor it would 
have passed the Senate, and we would now have in place a drug benefit. 
It would not have been subject to a budget point of order because it 
was under $300 billion--just barely, $294 billion. That was not allowed 
to happen because of the way this whole exercise was set up, which is 
unfortunate.
  Where do we go from here? It is my hope we will reach some sort of 
consensus on a catastrophic package, a package that takes care of low-
income seniors and makes sure they have adequate coverage, that takes 
care of people who have a huge impact on their assets through a 
catastrophic event, and allows seniors who have moderate income, if 
they wish, to purchase the insurance if they want to cover the 
difference through some sort of Medigap insurance. This, to me, is a 
logical way of resolving this issue.
  Independent of all that, however, we have had other amendments 
dealing with this bill. One of them is the amendment which we presently 
have before us which is a $9 billion bailout for the States--some 
States, not all States. States such as mine, which do not happen to 
meet the formula because we have been very frugal in the way we have 
managed our Medicaid accounts and, as a result, have kept our 
reimbursement at 50 percent, do not benefit a whole lot from this 
proposal. For States which have been less effective in their ability to 
deal with Medicaid, this bill basically is a $9 billion bailout. Is the 
$9 billion offset? No, it will simply be a vote by the Senate which 
says we are going to spend another $9 billion on Medicaid to assist the 
States.
  First off, this is the wrong place to bring forth this amendment. 
This bill started out as a generic drug bill. It has moved on to an 
all-inclusive drug bill debate, but it has always been a bill that has 
been debated in the context of Medicare and drug initiatives, and this 
is a Medicaid bailout, which is totally separate from the underlying 
issue of what we discussed in these other bills. This amendment should 
have gone through committee and should have been brought out here as a 
committee bill versus being brought out here separately.
  Secondly, it sets a very dangerous precedent in that it waters down 
the FMAP formula even on a temporary basis. The purpose and fairness of 
the formula will be eroded over time. Around here, temporary changes 
rarely

[[Page 14214]]

turn out to be temporary, although they claim it is temporary.
  This amendment sets a precedent, and if it is passed, any State that 
ever faces an FMAP decrease in the future will lobby Congress to 
override the formula. Instead of an automatic process based on a fair 
formula, future FMAP rates will become a political fight in Congress, 
which is exactly what this exercise is.
  It is basically an attempt to use the fact that a number of States 
believe they need more money and to pull enough people together from 
those States so there are enough to vote for this $9 billion bailout. 
It is called logroll. It is working very effectively on this amendment, 
I am afraid, which is too bad.
  This is totally fiscally irresponsible. Such a process as this 
disrupts the whole process and will not likely produce a program that 
benefits those who need it most but, rather, States that have been most 
ineffective in managing their Medicaid accounts.
  FMAP rates are not designed to change according to short-term 
economic developments. Although FMAPs are based on State per capita 
income levels and other economic indicators, they have not typically 
risen at all and with short-term economic trends. If State logic 
suggests raising FMAP now, then it would also apply to lowering them in 
times of economic boom.
  If we had followed such a course after 9 years of economic recovery, 
current FMAP rates would be much lower than they are today. Such 
cyclical movements are contrary to the intent of Medicaid statutes and 
in the long term would serve the interests neither of the States nor 
the Federal Government to pursue this action.
  States have other options to making Medicaid benefits more secure. 
States can take steps to make their benefits more efficient, enabling 
more persons to be covered with the same or lower costs using the 
health insurance flexibility and accountability initiatives unveiled in 
August 2001. The HIFAI demonstration is designed to help States reduce 
the number of uninsured through innovative and cost-effective 
approaches using Medicaid and CHIP funds. The initiative emphasizes 
private insurance options rather than public program expansions. To 
date, HHS has approved HIFAI demonstrations in Arizona and California, 
and it could approve more if more States are willing to be aggressive.
  The simple fact is what we have is an effort by a large number of 
States that have had problems with their Medicaid accounts for a 
variety of reasons to basically raid the Federal Treasury to the tune 
of $9 billion. I guess they are probably going to have enough votes to 
do that because they have structured this formula so that enough States 
are going to pick up money from it that is significant. But I have to 
ask the question, Why are we not offsetting this $9 billion? Why are we 
just coming out and saying let's take another $9 billion hit on the 
Federal Treasury, in which we do not happen to have any money right 
now, and add that to the deficit? It makes very little sense from the 
standpoint of fiscal policy.
  Fifty States have the power to energize this type of support for $9 
billion. I would think they would have the power to go find money to 
offset it somewhere, but unfortunately they are not doing that in this 
amendment. It is an unfortunate, in my opinion, effort to raid the 
Treasury, as a result of which we will not only get bad policy but we 
will get a significant increase in Federal debt.
  I yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MILLER). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Am I correct in understanding that the distinguished 
Senator raised a point of order?
  Mr. GREGG. No, I have not raised a point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He did not.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire raised a number of very important questions regarding 
this FMAP proposal to expand the support that the Federal Government is 
providing to the States as part of the partnership that has existed for 
many years.
  I think it would be very difficult to go back and tell our partners 
that we are unable to or we should not increase the amount of the 
Federal match because we did not follow the procedures that some people 
in the Senate believed we ought to follow. Inside baseball is not going 
to make those friends who are on the outside experiencing some major 
financial challenges very happy. They may not be very happy at all with 
that kind of an explanation.
  I think it is important to remember how the Medicaid Program 
developed, as well as some of the social benefits programs that are 
also included as part of this bill. If the Chair remembers--and I know 
he does as a former Governor from Georgia--this was a big part of his 
budget. He probably was surprised, as I was, on the day we took office 
and put our budgets together to find out what a big piece of the pie 
this Medicaid Program amounted to as part of the budget. If the Chair 
remembers what happened, as I am sure he does, as do all former 
Governors, and I believe all of our colleagues do, this came about 
because of a Federal mandate. The Federal Government said we are going 
to have a Federal Medicaid Program and the States are going to be 
parties to it and the Federal Government is going to decide how much 
the Federal Government contributes to it, and the Federal Government is 
always going to be able to raise or lower the amount of the Federal 
match on the basis of a formula that has been established. The States, 
as the junior partners, have to go along with whatever the Federal 
Government proposes.
  It was a mandate--not an unfunded mandate but an underfunded Federal 
mandate.
  The States generally made innovative challenges, but I know the 
distinguished former Governor of Georgia will recall when States came 
to the Federal Government and said, we would like to make some changes 
to the program, you had to get a waiver and come back to Washington and 
ask, will you please allow us to make these innovative changes that our 
distinguished colleague from the Northeast was talking about that have 
been made in some areas. Many proposed innovative changes were denied.
  It has been essentially a Federal program where the States have been 
the junior partner. In this situation, all we are saying is, instead of 
reducing the amount of the Federal match over the next 19 months, as it 
has been scheduled to be reduced in various States, we are going to 
hold that constant. In addition, we are going to add 1 percent to the 
State in the Federal match, so for 18 months we will help the States so 
they do not have to take away benefits from the most needy and most 
vulnerable in our society today.
  It is recognizing we have a partnership. This was part of the 
stimulus package worked on this last year. It just did not survive into 
the ultimate stimulus package that was passed earlier this year. Last 
year and this year, when the stimulus package was being discussed, 
there was little talk about offsets. Now, when it is convenient to talk 
of offsets, in getting in a direction the way this is heading, we talk 
of assets. There is not anyone in this body not in favor of offsets, 
unless the whole discussion of offsets is designed to set this off the 
tracks so we can get it passed.
  It seems to me what we have to do is recognize how the program began, 
how it works, and what assistance this plan we are proposing today--how 
it will help the States and why it is necessary to help the States deal 
with our citizens, citizens of the United States of America who happen 
to reside in the various States.
  It seems to me we do have a responsibility, that we can meet that 
responsibility, and, yes, I would love to have offsets, but I want to 
make sure the search for offsets is not what gets this off the track.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 14215]]


  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. WELLSTONE are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Rockefeller 
second-degree amendment.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the 
     Rockefeller and others amendment No. 4316.
         John D. Rockefeller IV, E. Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska, 
           John Edwards, Paul Wellstone, Harry Reid, John F. 
           Kerry, Blanche L. Lincoln, Richard J. Durbin, Jack 
           Reed, Edward M. Kennedy, Susan Collins, Daniel K. 
           Inouye, Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been advised that Senators Grassley 
and Gramm wish to come to the floor and speak on the Rockefeller 
amendment. I am also advised that one of the Senators is going to raise 
a point of order, which we will attempt to waive. But we need them here 
to do that. I am sure they will be here soon.
  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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding we now are on the 
Rockefeller amendment. Is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Under section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, I raise a point of 
order against the emergency designation of section (c) of the pending 
amendment, No. 4316.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to waive section 205 of the Budget 
Act. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
  Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to Senator Gramm. He and 
others wish to speak. This is a debatable motion. We will set some 
time. Senator Gramm has graciously acknowledged he doesn't want to 
speak too long since we already have a cloture motion filed. But we 
will shortly determine how much time will be needed and will debate 
this in the morning and vote sometime in the morning.
  Hopefully, while we are waiting on the unanimous consent agreement to 
get the legislative branch appropriations bill, which also kicks in the 
fact that prior to next Wednesday--or on next Wednesday I should say, 
we will start debating the DOD appropriations bill.
  So we have a lot to do in the next few days. This will move us down 
the road.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________