[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2930-2934]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Senate health care 
bill and to talk a little bit about some of the issues related to that 
bill, in terms of financing and scoring and, to be very candid, about 
some of the accounting gimmicks that try to hold this bill together. I 
will be joined by Senator Wicker and Senator Barrasso in this colloquy. 
Let me get started.
  If you start to study the bill, and for many of us who have served in 
other capacities--myself as Governor and as a mayor--the first thing 
you want to do is ask yourself: Does it work? Is the financing of this 
bill such that it makes sense? Is it an honest portrayal of the income 
you expect and the expenses you expect? Certainly, that is where I 
start and, I suggest, many of my colleagues start.
  The one thing about this health care bill that struck me immediately 
and struck others is, first of all, there are 10 years of tax 
increases. They total over $\1/2\ trillion--a massive amount of tax 
increases.
  The second thing you see is, there are 10 years of Medicare cuts, 
again about $\1/2\ trillion total. You do those things and some other 
things and it pays for 6 years of spending because even though some of 
the issues relative to this health care bill kick in initially, the 
vast majority of it does not kick in for 3 or 4 years.
  When you put that all back together, you begin to realize what you 
have is a health care bill that costs about $2.5 trillion over a 10-
year score.
  Then you start working through a whole bunch of other issues. You 
have a Senate bill that takes $52 billion in higher Social Security 
taxes and revenues and counts them as offsets. That would be money 
normally reserved for the Social Security trust fund. You look at the 
CLASS Act. One Member of this body--a Member who is very respected for 
what he has done relative to budgeting--called this a Ponzi scheme.
  The CLASS Act was initially opposed by our friends on the other side 
or by leading Democrats. But it is back alive. It is included in the 
Senate bill. It is another Federal entitlement that is going to create 
an insolvency problem very quickly. It takes money from premiums that 
are supposed to go for benefits and uses them as offsets and pay-fors.
  CMS experts have looked at this, and they reached a conclusion that 
is reliable. They said the CLASS Act faces ``a significant risk of 
failure,'' and then said, and may lead to ``an insurance death 
spiral.''
  Our friends on the other side claim the bill will simultaneously 
extend the solvency of Medicare and then magically decrease the 
deficit. But the reality of that, again, comes from CMS actuaries who 
say: Well, wait a second here, that is double-counting. You can't use 
the same dollar twice. You can't count it twice. CMS concludes that the 
Medicare cuts in the legislation cannot be simultaneously used to 
finance other Federal outlays, such as coverage expansions under this 
bill or to extend the trust fund.
  So when you cut all the way through this and see what is happening 
here, it doesn't hold together. This is a financial plan that is built 
upon sand, and you can almost guarantee it is going to collapse.
  So let me, if I might, ask my colleague, Senator Wicker, what he 
thinks of all of this. Can he offer some thoughts as to where this bill 
is headed and the financial mechanisms of this bill?
  Mr. WICKER. I appreciate my colleague from Nebraska getting into the 
weeds because it is important that we know the details of the numbers 
here. I think there is also a sort of big-picture aspect to this. There 
are a lot of Americans out there who may not have read the details the 
Senator from Nebraska just outlined, but they instinctively know you 
can't do all this to one-sixth of our economy and save money for the 
Federal Government at the same time. They instinctively know this is 
going to turn out, as big entitlement programs always do, to be more 
expensive than has been estimated and it is going to cost the American 
taxpayer and future generations in terms of the national debt.
  I would like to pivot and talk about what this is going to do to 
State governments because that is an additional aspect over and above 
the gigantic numbers the Senator from Nebraska mentioned.
  Really, almost half of the additional coverage in this Senate bill, 
which the House is being asked to adopt lock, stock, and barrel without 
even changing so much as a semicolon, half of the coverage is going to 
be under Medicaid. We all know Medicaid requires a huge Federal 
investment, but Medicaid also always requires a State match. Under the 
provisions of this bill, if it is enacted, States will be told that the 
magnificent Federal Government has increased coverage, and now, Mr. 
State Legislator, Mr. State Governor, you figure out a way to pay your 
part of it.
  I know this much: In my State of Mississippi, our legislators and our 
Governor have had to stay up late 2 years in a row figuring out a way 
to pay for the Medicaid match they are already being asked to pay, much 
less this new mandate of additional persons who would be covered under 
this Senate language. There is no way the State of Mississippi can 
stand this new Medicaid coverage without an increase in our taxes at 
the State level. I don't think we can cut teachers enough, although 
teachers might have to be cut to pay this Federal mandate. I don't 
think we can cut local law enforcement enough, although that might have 
to be cut too. It is just a huge, unfunded burden on the States. Quite 
frankly, even if all of the promises that are being made on the Senate 
side come true--that we will clean this up in reconciliation, which I 
frankly doubt can possibly happen--the States are going to be faced 
with this huge unfunded mandate.
  You don't have to take our word for it on this side of the aisle. 
Democratic Governor after Democratic Governor has had press 
conferences, they have sent letters, they have sent messages, they have 
made themselves available to the press. Governor Bredesen of the

[[Page 2931]]

State of Tennessee said this bill is the ``mother of all unfunded 
mandates'' and has urged, even at this late date, that we not go down 
this road.
  So I appreciate my friend from Nebraska pointing out what this is 
going to do to the Federal budget, and I would simply commend the 
bipartisan State officials who have been talking to anyone within the 
sound of their voices saying that State governments cannot afford this 
mandate at the State level, and it will inevitably result in an 
increase in taxes at the State level--something we certainly don't need 
at this time of economic hardship.
  Perhaps Senator Brownback has some thoughts he would like to add, and 
I know others may be joining us, too, Mr. President.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to join in this 
colloquy because it is incredibly important and I believe the American 
public believes it is incredibly important because, if for no other 
reason, they are looking at it and saying: We don't want this bill. We 
don't think this bill is the right way to go. We don't think this 
procedure is the right way. So they oppose it on process and they 
oppose it on product. And you don't have to believe me. Listen to these 
poll numbers: 68 percent say the President and the congressional 
Democrats should keep trying to work with Republicans to craft 
legislation.
  By the way, that big, all-day-long meeting at Blair House to talk 
about this, where we put forward a series of ideas, virtually all of 
them were rejected--a bipartisan incremental compromise, which is much 
more the way the American public wants to go.
  A Rasmussen poll says that 57 percent of the voters say the health 
care reform plans we are discussing in Congress will hurt the U.S. 
economy. Only 25 percent think it will actually help. And 66 percent 
believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and 
congressional Democrats is likely to increase the Federal deficit. Do 
you know the reason they think that? Because it will. This is going to 
increase the Federal deficit.
  On top of all that, there is a big intangible here. If this bill 
passes, the rest of the world is watching to see if the United States 
passes this big increase--an entitlement program--when we are running 
$1.5 trillion in deficit and have a $12 trillion debt that is 90 
percent of the size of our total economy. They are watching and they 
are saying: If the United States does this now, they are not serious 
about getting their budget under control. They are going to start 
pulling dollars out of the U.S. economy and putting them in other 
places. It will make it harder for us to raise capital, it will 
increase interest rates, and it is going to hurt the U.S. economy. And 
that is a near-term thing that is going to happen because people are 
watching this.
  I might note the ``Saturday Night Live'' routine where China's 
President, Hu Jintao, is lecturing President Obama about how he is 
going to get the budget under control by passing a big new entitlement 
program. I don't usually cite ``Saturday Night Live,'' but in this case 
it lands a little too close to home. And people are saying: Yes, this 
doesn't make any sense to me either. This is going to hurt.
  The front page of the Wall Street Journal has an article about what 
Ireland is having to do to get its budget under control, Greece is a 
mess, and our deficit and debt is skyrocketing.
  If we pass this, this is going to hurt us in the near term as far as 
the cost of raising the capital we need in this economy. It will hurt 
States that are really struggling as well. It is a bad idea at a bad 
time.
  I am glad my colleagues let me join them, and I note that the doctor 
is in--the Senator from Wyoming--to help us dissect this bill as well.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, Mr. President, that is exactly what I am hearing 
at home from Wyoming's voters and from my patients. I was in Wyoming 
this past weekend. I have had the privilege of practicing medicine 
there for 25 years, taking care of families in Wyoming. When I talk to 
people, their concerns are the national concerns the Senator from 
Kansas has just mentioned--the debt and what our Nation is facing long 
term. But they are also very focused on their own personal care. If you 
have a town meeting or just talk to people at the coffee shop, the 
people of America believe that if this bill passes, the quality of 
their own personal health care will go down; that their opportunity to 
go to the doctor they have enjoyed a relationship with for years, where 
they know them and they know their family, may be gone.
  We are also seeing that health care providers all across the 
country--even the Mayo Clinic--are saying this bill is a huge lost 
opportunity. It was supposed to be designed to help get the cost of 
care down, and it is not doing that. It is going to raise the cost of 
care. It was designed to improve the quality of care, but it is going 
to cost people the quality of their own health care. That is why 
Americans don't like this bill. They do not like anything about it.
  The Mayo Clinic was used early on by the President in this debate as 
the model for how we should have health care in this country. The Mayo 
Clinic has said ``no thank you'' to patients on Medicare in Arizona, 
``no thank you'' to patients on Medicaid. Yet the President plans to 
push this program through. He says he is going to provide coverage for 
more Americans, and he is going to do it by putting 15 million more 
people on Medicaid--a program that many doctors won't see because the 
reimbursement is so low. If all a provider saw were Medicare patients, 
they couldn't afford to keep their doors open--not at the hospital or 
the clinic. And we are hearing that from hospitals and doctors across 
the country. That is why the Mayo Clinic said: No thank you, Mr. 
President. We can't take those patients, whether it is Medicare or 
Medicaid.
  This bill will cut Medicare--the program our seniors depend upon--by 
$500 billion for patients who depend on Medicare. It cuts Medicare 
Advantage, and that program is an advantage, and the reason people 
signed up for it is because it provides preventive care and coordinated 
care. But it is not just that; there will be $135 billion in cuts to 
hospitals in all our States and communities, $42 billion to home health 
agencies. These are the folks who help provide a lifeline for people 
who are at home, and it saves money by keeping them out of the 
hospital. There are cuts to nursing homes, to hospice providers--
providing services to people in the final days of their lives. That is 
why the American people are offended that this bill is being crammed 
through.
  I see we have the former Governor of Nebraska here on the floor, who 
has experienced these issues with Medicaid, with Medicare, and with 
nursing homes. So I would ask my friend and colleague whether this the 
same thing he is hearing at home in Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. This is exactly what I am hearing at home in Nebraska, 
Mr. President.
  As a former Governor, as the Senator from Wyoming points out, you 
deal with these programs every day. You are trying to figure out how to 
fashion a State budget that deals with Medicaid. I said a few weeks ago 
that I don't know whom the folks who wrote this bill were talking to 
because if you look at the expansion of health care to people in this 
bill, really what they are doing is expanding Medicaid by about 15 to 
18 million individuals.
  The Senator from Wyoming hit the nail on the head. You already have 
serious access problems with Medicaid. What do I mean by that? As the 
doctor, Senator Barrasso, said, doctors cannot practice on the Medicaid 
reimbursement. They would literally go broke. Our little hospitals in 
all of our States, our critical access hospitals, would say: We cannot 
keep our doors open on Medicaid reimbursement. They can't do it on 
Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement. So what is the solution? Well, the 
solution certainly isn't adding 15 to 18 million more people who will 
walk into a hospital or a doctor's office and who will hear: Sorry, we 
don't take Medicaid patients because we can't afford to do that.
  The other thing I want to mention, if I might--and then I am going to 
ask

[[Page 2932]]

Senator Wicker to comment on some of these questions also--because this 
is a very important point, is that all of a sudden we are starting to 
hear a lot of discussion from the White House on down about how we have 
to get a handle on cost. And I think they have communicated that well 
because, quite honestly, the American people get it. They understand 
that if you don't have an impact on cost, you are not going to get 
anywhere with health care reform.
  My colleagues will remember that we sent a letter to the CMS 
Actuary--this is an actuary employed by the Federal Government--and we 
said: Take a look at this bill and tell us what you think in these 
respects, and one of the respects was health care costs. Let me quote 
from that report:

       Overall health expenditures under this bill would increase 
     by an estimated total of $222 billion.

  Compared to what? Compared to doing nothing. If we did nothing, we 
would have a better impact on health care costs than this bill is going 
to have.
  After spending $2.5 trillion, after cutting $\1/2\ trillion out of 
Medicare, after raising taxes over $\1/2\ trillion, the CMS Actuary 
says to us: After you have done all those things, the overall health 
expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of 
$222 billion versus doing nothing.
  I ask Senator Wicker, is that the kind of health care reform he is 
hearing the people back home want?
  Mr. WICKER. The people back home want health care reform, but they 
certainly want the kind that is going to lower health care costs and 
lower health care premiums. The Senator mentioned CMS. It may be that 
some people within the sound of our voices do not realize this is a 
part of the administration. This is not some outside business group 
that has an ax to grind. The actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services are called on to tell us the numbers as they see 
them. They had no choice but to answer the question accurately and the 
question is not one that lends itself to getting public support for 
this plan. I think that is why the poll numbers Senator Brownback 
mentioned are there. There is only about 25 percent of the American 
public that believes at this point we should pass this huge Senate bill 
lock, stock, and barrel and send it to the President for his signature.
  Senator Barrasso mentioned the $\1/2\ trillion cut in Medicare. We 
spent a little time in December debating whether actually there was a 
cut in Medicare. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
suggested this--the programs that were cut should not be considered 
part of the Medicare Program.
  Obviously, there is one Democratic Senator who thought so much of 
these cuts in Medicare that he got an exemption for his State. That is 
what the minority leader has been calling the ``Gator aid.'' Florida, 
under the Senate bill--the bill the House is being asked to pass in its 
entirety without changes--the Senate bill says we are not going to cut 
Medicare Advantage for the State of Florida.
  Why the people of the State of Florida are more deserving of Medicare 
Advantage and Medicare benefits than the people of Wyoming or 
Mississippi or Kansas or Nebraska, I do not know. But somehow the 
majority, 60 Members of this Senate, in their wisdom, believed Medicare 
was a good program and Medicare Advantage was a very good program for 
the people of Florida.
  By the same token, I guess the Democratic Senator from Nebraska has 
now repudiated what was known as the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' which was 
basically saying Nebraska would not have to pay for their share of this 
huge Medicaid mandate; all the other States would. Somehow that State 
was singled out. Apparently, the people of Nebraska rose in horror at 
being singled out for some sort of favor the other people in America 
were not getting, so that is being proposed to be changed.
  I ask Senator Johanns, if the House votes on this next week, they 
will not have a chance, will they, to take that out? The only choice 
the House is going to have is to vote for the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' 
the ``Gator aid,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' these special deals for 
labor unions, and all that will be sent to the President to be signed 
into law and will be part of the statute.
  That is the way I understand the Democratic procedure. I ask Senator 
Johanns, am I correct?
  Mr. JOHANNS. I believe the Senator is correct. Let me offer a 
thought, if I might. I think others--maybe I will turn to Senator 
Brownback next. If this were a great bill, if this were the kind of 
legislation you wanted to take home and go out there and champion and 
maybe, if you are up for election, campaign on, then you would not have 
to go through all these gyrations and gimmicks and somersaults and 
cartwheels to try to get this darn thing passed. But that is exactly 
what is happening.
  I cannot wait to get up in the morning and run down and turn on the 
computer and see what the latest is, because they are, over there at 
the House, but they finally figured out that the only way to get this 
terrible policy enacted is to pass the Senate bill with all its warts 
and moles and ugliness and special deals and whatever. They have to 
pass it without pulling a dotted ``i'' out or a crossed ``t.'' They may 
be able to say back home: Folks, I didn't support that. What I wanted 
was the reconciliation package that would fix all these things. All I 
can say is reconciliation was never designed for this. This is not what 
reconciliation was designed for. Reconciliation was designed to bring 
down the budget deficit. What is happening over in the Senate are more 
somersaults, more gyrations, more cartwheels to figure out how to 
shoehorn this terrible piece of policy into a rule for which it was 
never designed.
  Now you are going to end up this day, I guess, where we all show up 
and literally you have rulings on what you can do with reconciliation 
and what you cannot do. So no House Member can go home and say I voted 
for this awful piece of legislation, but we are going to be saved by 
reconciliation. Do you know what. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. The 
reason why that question cannot be answered today is because 
reconciliation was never designed to take control of one-sixth of the 
economy; it was never designed to do what folks are trying to do.
  Let me wrap up with this, and then I would like to hear Senator 
Brownback's thoughts. Enough of the somersaults, enough of the 
cartwheels, enough of trying to figure out how many angels fit on a pin 
and what size razorblade is going to divide the hair. This is 
craziness. This is terrible policy. Please stop now. The country is 
begging us to stop and start over with a thoughtful process.
  If there were a great bill, we would not be going through this. There 
would be bipartisan support such as there has been on many tough issues 
through the decades of our history. But, you see, this is not a good 
bill. This is a terrible bill. The bottom line is, they are going to 
try to fix it with a process that was never designed for this purpose.
  I would like to hear the thoughts of Senator Brownback.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. We were on the floor in December, the longest 
continuous session in the history of the Senate, 25 continuous days, 
and we were talking about this and my colleague from Nebraska and I 
were joined by our colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who has been 
around a long time and part of a lot of health care reform legislation. 
His point is, if you follow the normal order and work it through a 
committee and bipartisan process, almost every health care bill he has 
been a part of--and there have been a number of substantial ones--gets 
75 votes in this body. People want to support health care reform on a 
good bill. They will support it. It will be bipartisan. We are all for 
health care. But now you have a bill that is going to be completely 
partisan, on one side, not supported by the American public, and then 
you are having to jimmy rig a process to try to figure out how we set 
this up to do it.
  Even Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is a 
Democrat, says:

       Reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health 
     care reform. It won't

[[Page 2933]]

     work. It won't work because it was never designed for that 
     kind of significant legislation.

  My experience is, if you try to do something that is not designed to 
do this, you are going to get a flawed product and flawed process that 
people are going to be mad about. It will hurt this body. I think it 
will be very harmful to this country to do this and it should not be 
done.
  After all the time we spent in December, 25 continuous days in 
session, I think the American people spoke when they had a 
Massachusetts election and elected Scott Brown. It was clearly about 
health care reform.
  I know my colleague from Wyoming has been all over speaking about 
this on television, getting a lot of feedback from people. He probably 
is getting the same sort of feedback that I have, about don't do this. 
It wasn't designed to be done, this sort of health care reform, in a 
reconciliation process.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I heard that just this morning. We had a number of 
county commissioners from Wyoming here in Washington. They were at a 
speech yesterday given by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and she 
told these county commissioners, this group from all around the 
country, we need to first pass the bill so then later the American 
people will know what is in it. She said this to them and they laughed. 
They laughed at the Speaker of the House at this meeting yesterday 
because these are county commissioners. They know they are not going to 
vote on something the people in the community don't know about. The 
people in the community come, they want to know what is going to be 
discussed and then voted on.
  The people of America do not know what is in this bill. They know 
this bill is going to raise taxes by $500 billion. They know this bill 
is going to cut Medicare for our seniors who depend upon Medicare by 
another $500 billion. They know they are going to be paying for this 
thing for 10 years, but there are only 6 years of services. It is 
amazing how much the people of America know about the gimmicks of this 
bill that, in fact, those who are pushing the bill wish they didn't 
know.
  That is why three out of four Americans say stop. A quarter of them 
say stop, a quarter of them say stop and start over, and only a quarter 
of them support what is happening here.
  Mr. WICKER. If I can interject, I think that was a very telling 
remark from the Speaker of the House yesterday, and if someone didn't 
catch that, she said we need to pass the bill so we can then find out 
what is in it. The comments are out there on the Internet for the 
American people to see. I would like to quote Senator Lamar Alexander 
about this entire process. He said:

       What the President is doing is asking House Democrats to 
     hold hands, jump off a cliff, and hope Harry Reid catches 
     them.

  I don't know that Harry Reid will be able to catch them. I will say 
this. If there are budget points of order that need to be waived in 
this scheme the majority leader has about cleaning up this statute in 
conference, I am not going to be a part of 60 votes to waive that point 
of order. It will all be on Mr. Reid and his teammates over there to 
get this done because I will not be a part of waiving points of order, 
helping them get to a supermajority to clean up something, even if it 
needs to be done.
  This process needs to be stopped, and I would say the next 10 to 14 
days are going to tell the tale. The American people do not want this 
bill, and it is up to the House of Representatives and to us, saying 
what we can on the Senate side, to see if we are going to listen to the 
people and stop this bill, go back to the drawing board and try 
something that works.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I join my colleague from Mississippi. I would note 
that is the case, and why is it the Speaker is saying we have to pass 
the bill to see what is in it? They are going to hold it back until 
they break enough arms to get a majority vote and then pop it out and 
then there will be an hour's debate on one-sixth of the economy being 
changed. We saw that same procedure when Majority Leader Reid was 
crafting this bill behind closed doors and nobody knew what was in the 
bill and then popped it out when you have the deal, when you made 
enough deals, broken enough arms, then we can pass this. That is no way 
to have a process like this. That is no way to effect this big a piece 
of the economy that touches every American's life in the process.
  I urge the Speaker not to do something like this. Listen to the 
American public and follow normal order. They could send this back to 
committee, to the Finance and the HELP Committees, work a bipartisan 
agreement on this, say we have to hit this number or that, let's do an 
incremental approach and come out with a bill that would have 75 votes. 
That is doable.
  We put forward a whole bunch of ideas at the Blair House. Here are 
different things we would support. Put out a long day of discussion. 
That is the normal order that produces good legislation that will stand 
the test of time. This will not stand the test of time, and it is going 
to bankrupt the country.
  Mr. JOHANNS. If my colleagues will permit, let me offer a few closing 
thoughts. I so appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor with them. 
It was not that long ago that our President of the United States 
actually was a Member of this body. He was a Member of the Senate. It 
just seems, from time to time, we are asked to comment on the 60-vote 
rule. He was asked to comment on that. Here is what he said. ``Removing 
the 60-vote threshold would change the character of the Senate 
forever.''
  He went on to say having majoritarian absolute power on either side 
was ``not what the Founders intended.''
  The thing about reconciliation is this: It limits debate, it is a 
very abbreviated process, and it just comes in and says you are only 
going to get 20 hours of debate. Very limited. The second thing is it 
only takes a majority vote.
  From time to time this issue pops up. But you do not have to study 
the history of this great Nation very long to understand what our 
Founders were doing. The House is a majority body. Now, States such as 
Kansas and Nebraska do not fare very well in that. We do not have a lot 
of Members. We are never going to have as many Members as California, 
New York, or New Jersey. So literally on every vote you could find 
yourself losing.
  Our Founders understood that. They came up with an idea for a very 
unique body, a body that would be an equalizer. Every State got two. 
Every State got two Members. But the important thing about this body 
was this: that as issues were passed on the House side by majority 
vote, over on this side it was anticipated that something more would be 
required to cause the Members to come together and try to work through 
the Nation's difficult problems.
  Initially there was no way to stop debate. Then about 1915 it was 
decided that a two-thirds vote would stop debate. Then, in the mid-
1970s that was changed to 60 votes. That 60 votes is an important 
limitation on the power of the Federal Government to impose its will 
upon the people.
  I will wrap up my comments today by saying this: The will of the 
people here is very clear. They do not want this bill. They see this as 
a massive government takeover of their lives. They have spoken very 
clearly and eloquently in our townhall meetings, in elections that have 
occurred, and they have said: We want you to go back and work through 
your differences and come up with a bipartisan approach.
  Yet if reconciliation is used, you will not only change the character 
of this body, you will change how our government operates. If you can 
pass this bill through a reconciliation process, you can do anything, 
and you end up with literally a system that is vastly different than 
was ever intended and a system, in my judgment, that is not good for 
the future of our great Nation.
  With that, let me wrap up and say again to my colleagues, I 
appreciate the opportunity to be on the Senate floor with you today.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris.) The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 2934]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________