Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to take a moment to pay tribute to a very special West Virginian, Coach James G. Lilly of Oak Hill, who recently passed away after coaching the Oak Hill Red Devils for 27 years. Coach Lilly was a dedicated high school basketball coach and a true humanitarian. He retired in 1989 ranking third on the State's all-time high school winning list, with a career record of 591-291. Coach Lilly led the Oak Hill Red Devils to two class AAA State championships in 1984 and 1989, and his Red Devils were runners-up in the 1969 and 1986 tournaments. However, there was much more to this three-time coach of the year than just winning basketball games. Jim Lilly tirelessly worked to fulfill many of his players' human needs. He gave generously of himself, looking out for his players in the southern coalfields of West Virginia. Coach Lilly became a father figure to hundreds of young teens throughout his 38-year career. ``He knew that certain kids needed certain things, a little extra food or maybe an extra dollar . . . he looked out for you and he was very giving . . . my dad died when I was 9 and he was the most pivotal older male in my life,'' said Sam Calloway, a former player and now coach. He was a man of dignity, a man of class, a man of compassion, and he will be deeply missed by the community and coaching profession. Lilly's dignity was not only displayed through his life, but through his players' lives. In six State tournament appearances, the Oak Hill Red Devils won five sportsmanship trophies in the eighties. ``Sportsmanship was a direct reflection of the coach,'' said Calloway, ``and when we were on the floor, we represented him.'' His contemporaries had an even greater respect for his coaching genius. He was devoted to the game and devoted to the kids he worked with. Coach Lilly demanded a standard of excellence that is unsurpassed in West Virginia's coaching ranks. Coach James G. Lilly reminded all of us about the importance of sportsmanship. He was dedicated to the game, but more importantly, he was dedicated to the young athletes. His death is certainly a loss to West Virginia. He will long be remembered.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment would better coordinate DOD's and VA's response to Persian Gulf war illnesses and would provide a plan to better protect the health of our troops during future deployments. At the outset, it is important to note that DOD and VA have made a lot of progress on the important issues surrounding the illnesses suffered by veterans of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war. They have coordinated their efforts in areas of evaluation, research, and outreach in ways that will benefit gulf war veterans as well as veterans of future deployments. But I think we all agree that there is still much to be done. This amendment builds on the coordination and progress that has been made so far. Therefore, I encourage all of my colleagues to join in support of this important measure. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have witnessed firsthand the human costs of the gulf war. It is my belief, and that of many others, that the casualties of this war continued long after the battles were over. This is true of many wars, but the chronic health problems of many of the men and women who served in the gulf war have been particularly devastating as they have had to continue to fight to be heard and to get the care and benefits they have earned. Their battles should have been over by now, but their struggles are still ongoing. This amendment would go a long way to help address some of their concerns, and it puts some measures in place so that hopefully, we will not repeat our mistakes with the next deployment. This amendment is important because it would require a joint plan from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for providing appropriate health care for veterans of the gulf war, including those serving in Reserve units. It would require that this care be appropriate to the specific health problems or illnesses of gulf war veterans and that the quality and effectiveness of their health care be carefully monitored. This amendment also attempts to address some of the lessons we have learned form the gulf war. It calls for DOD to improve medical tracking of service members deployed overseas in contingency or combat operations through the use of pre- and post-deployment medical examinations and through improved recordkeeping of immunization and health records. It calls for a plan to improve collection and maintenance of troop location information so we can better reconstruct risks and exposure data when unanticipated exposures such as Khamisiyah occur. It also would provide that service members receive timely notice of use of unapproved or investigational drugs, and it would require adequate record keeping of the administration of such drugs. This amendment would authorize $4.5 million for the funding of clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment protocols for gulf war veterans who present with ill-defined or undiagnosed conditions. It would call for a review of the previous Federal research efforts examining gulf war illnesses, as well as recommendations for the direction of future research efforts. In my rule as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have witnessed the struggles of America's gulf war veterans. I have heard their testimony in our hearings and I have met with them in hospitals and in their homes. I have received testimony from representatives from DOD and VA and I have heard their concerns and explanations. The course of events stemming from the gulf war, the resulting health problems, and our Federal response have contributed to a lack of public trust on this issue. This amendment is a step toward making things right and restoring our veterans' trust. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill that would restore funding for bioassay testing of atomic veterans. I urge all of my colleagues to join in support of this important measure. In my role as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have heard firsthand of the difficulties experienced by veterans exposed to ionizing radiation during their military service when they have tried to get their radiation-related diseases service connected by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The main reason for this difficulty is the sometimes impossible task of accurately reconstructing radiation dosage. The law currently distinguishes between two groups of veterans: those who warrant presumptive service connection for their radiation-related conditions because of their participation in an atmospheric nuclear test, the occupation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or their internment as a prisoner of war in Japan during World War II, which resulted in possible exposure to ionizing radiation--and those who may have been exposed to ionizing radiation in service under other circumstances, such as service on a nuclear submarine. Those veterans who do not receive presumptive service connection and suffer from radiogenic diseases must prove their exposure to radiation by having the VA and DOD attempt to reconstruct their radiation dose through military records. VA looks to the DOD to perform these dose reconstructions. This amendment is so important because the White House Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Activities has acknowledged that there are inadequate records to determine the precise amount of radiation to which a veteran was exposed, and what the long-term risks associated with that exposure are. As of September 1996, VA had only granted service connection to 1,977 out of 18,896 veterans who had filed claims based on participation in all radiation-risk activities. VA estimates that it has granted fewer than 50 claims of veterans who did not receive presumptive service connection. This amendment would authorize $300,000 for the completion of the third and final phase of Brookhaven National Laboratory's testing of radiation-exposed veterans. Brookhaven's fission tracking analysis could provide a more accurate measure of an individual's internal radiation dosages. I have contacted VA in support of the Brookhaven project in the past. VA's response indicated that it is the Department of Defense, not the VA, who has the responsibilty to provide dose estimates for veterans exposed to ionizing radiation. That is why we must restore funding to the Brookhaven project in the DOD authorization bill. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have seen the struggles of America's atomic veterans and their survivors. I have heard testimony of the veterans who bravely served in our military, and who are now sick and dying and cannot get the compensation they have earned by their service to our country. These veterans were placed in harm's way, sworn to secrecy, and abandoned by their government for many years. It is critical that we search for a better way to assess their exposure to radiation. It is vital that we restore funding to a program that can renew hope to atomic veterans and their families. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have an especially strong interest in preventing unnecessary injuries and illness among the men and women who serve in our Nation's military forces. The risks that these brave men and women face in combat are reduced through superior equipment and excellent training, but some risks remain unavoidable. As we continue to learn from the lessons of the gulf war, 6 years after the battle, the complete risks of military service are still not known. Thus, it is simple common sense to ensure that we do all we can to prevent those risks outside of combat that are foreseeable. One such foreseeable and preventable risk is eye injury on military firing ranges. I thus propose an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, the military eye injury assessment amendment. This amendment would address a military public health and prevention issue that was brought to my attention by a retired Air Force optometrist, Dr. John Meinhold. Dr. Meinhold was concerned about the rate of eye injuries that occurred in the Armed Services, particularly at military firing ranges. Unlike other public and private firing ranges throughout the country, military firing ranges do not require the mandatory use of safety eyewear to prevent eye injuries. Most, if not all, eye injuries at firing ranges could be completely prevented with a very inexpensive and low technology intervention, safety eyewear. The requirement for protective eyewear at public and private firing ranges is a liability issue, rather than one controlled by State or Federal regulations. However, there is no threat of liability for the armed services because of the so-called Feres doctrine, which is based on a Supreme Court decision that ruled that service members generally cannot sue the Government for injuries occurred during service. These unnecessary eye injuries potentially affect military readiness, and in cases of severe injury, a soldier's military career may be suddenly ended. The lifetime costs of a single catastrophic eye injury has been estimated to be $1 million per eye by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but the human costs are immeasurable. A study by the Army found that eye injury data are not always tracked at the local level, and minor eye injuries may not always be reported to safety offices. It is estimated that while 90 percent of all eye injuries are preventable, the incidence of wartime eye injuries has increased steadily over the last 20 years. Given these statistics and the human costs of such injuries, I wrote the Department of Defense earlier this year to ask about this important safety issue. After a series of letters and inquiries, the official response I received was that no further action was needed to prevent eye injuries since DOD officials had determined that the risk was too low to warrant spending funds on prevention. In reviewing the Department of Defense's very own statistics and studies, and in talking with their health professionals, I cannot come to the same conclusion. Any preventable injury that puts our service men and women at risk is sufficient for our concern, especially when it is one which is as easily prevented as this one. Even one service member who suffers from a permanent eye injury at a firing range is one too many when that injury could have been avoided. I am proposing that we simply assess whether our military firing ranges should be brought up to the same safety standard that all other firing ranges in our country must meet. My amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to provide funding for a 6-month study of eye safety at military firing ranges. This study would evaluate the current medical surveillance of eye injuries at small arms firing ranges across the service branches, and examine current safety reporting practices and other analyses as necessary to establish military eye injury rates and trends. It would also develop a uniform protocol for reporting eye injuries across the service branches. The results would be reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee upon completion of the study. I am proud to offer this amendment to protect the safety of the members of our armed services, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their support and their fine staff for helping to perfect this amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I understand the issue raised by the Senators from Pennsylvania. I will be pleased to look at the issue in conference.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the veterans' community is about to lose one of its best and strongest champions--Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown. After 4 years as the Secretary, Jesse Brown is retiring from Government service. He will be deeply missed by millions of veterans and their families, and everyone else who has had the good fortune of working with him. Secretary Brown is one of the staunchest advocates the veterans' community has ever known. A veteran himself, injured during the Vietnam war, he articulated passionately and eloquently the needs of veterans, and the obligation of our Government to take care of those who served, often at great personal sacrifice. His oratory could move an audience to tears, and there was never any question but that his concern was genuine and sincere. He truly was a ``veterans' veteran,'' as he was often called, and he fought to the last to further and protect veterans' best interests. Jesse Brown undertook an ambitious agenda as Secretary. Under his watch, the Veterans Health Administration was reorganized into 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks [VISNs], the VA health care system began the transition from inpatient to outpatient care, the Veterans Benefits Administration moved to reduce its tremendous backlog of cases, and benefits were extended to Persian Gulf war veterans suffering from undiagnosed illnesses and Vietnam veterans' children born with spina bifida. Most significantly, he was tremendously successful in protecting his department from some of the deep budget cuts suffered by most other Federal agencies. Secretary Brown's departure is a great loss. I wish him every success in the years ahead--and I have every confidence that he will succeed in whatever he undertakes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes off the bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have talked with Senator Moynihan and with Chairman Roth about what I am now going to say. That is, I am going to vote for the Daschle alternative. It is a more difficult decision if you have been on the Finance Committee, because of what the others who have spoken of which has been referred to as the oath that we took, to support the bill. I view my oath as being upheld, and I say so for the following reasons. This is a moral issue with me as well as a political philosophy issue. The piece of paper that we bound ourselves to, I will stick by. I was not satisfied, for example, with the earned income tax credit/ child tax credit relationship that came back. I read it to be a certain thing. It did not turn out to be that way. On the other hand, for those eight pieces on that piece of paper--Finance Committee members will know what I am talking about--I did say that I would uphold those on the floor. And I will continue to uphold those. If, for example, a Democrat offers an amendment which would bring the EITC, child care credit, or child tax credit--bring it more in my direction, the way I would like it to be, then I will oppose that even though it is in the best interests of the country, and, I think, the right policy in our country. I will do that because that is what I consider I took my oath of loyalty to. It was not an oath of loyalty in some military sense. It was simply a matter of the way a very complex and difficult, bipartisan committee like the Finance Committee works. If you are bound together and you bind yourself together through the act of raising your hand, et cetera, that has an implication; it expects a response and that response will be forthcoming from me if individual amendments are offered which are related to the deal. On the other hand, we have Democrats and we have Republicans in this body and I do think that the Democratic alternative being offered by Leader Daschle--and I greatly respect him and the work he has done on this, in a very trying period in his personal life--is a better alternative. Because I think it is a better alternative, it becomes-- although I think that most people would understand it is probably not going to prevail--I think it becomes very important to say this is a better alternative. If we were doing it, if the Democrats had control of this body, this would be more likely the way we would do it. That is the kind of statement I wish to make in making my vote. I care very much about what happens to the people of West Virginia. The economy of West Virginia is more fragile, the individual incomes in West Virginia are more fragile, especially as they are particularly young or particularly old, and I have a strong responsibility to that, as I do to my own sense of honor and my own word, within my work in the U.S. Senate and the particular nature of the Finance Committee. So I gladly say I am going to be supporting the Daschle amendment because it is the better approach to solving our country's problems. Just as I was very glad, back in 1993 when Chairman Moynihan turned to me and said I want you to cut $59 billion out of Medicare in order to ensure its solvency--I did not say slow the rate of increase, I said cut--and I went ahead and did it. And I helped put our economy in a position where we have been able to do things like provide a tax credit to hard working American families, and a number of other things which have been talked about on the floor. But I want to make the reasons for my vote clear. It is something important and delicate because of my respect not only for my Ranking Member Moynihan and Chairman Roth, who has been eminently fair and bipartisan in the way he has conducted the Finance Committee, and his fine staff, all of them have been very fair. I want to make it clear I think the Democratic approach is a better one and I will be voting for it for that reason. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank both my ranking leader and the chairman of the committee. I say to my good friend, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, that having witnessed this process, Senator Hatch fought like a tiger, would not yield in very close quarters, in order to get the additional $8 billion added on for children's health insurance, along with Senator Chafee, myself, and others. I think that ought to be very clear. As Senator Chafee said when Senator Chafee and this Senator's bill failed, we managed to raise the standards of the bill to pass to such a degree to being very effective. As for not covering all children, that will be a matter of debate because of the uninsured already eligible and how to get to them. I urge support of the committee amendment. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, improvements in health care provide America with a sense of security. Knowing there are advancements in the medical field every day gives people hope that someday we will find cures for cancer, AIDS, leukemia, and other serious diseases. Although these advancements are notable, we cannot forget the small town doctors who are doing their part to help our fellow citizens stay healthy and fight medical problems. That is why I take this opportunity to express admiration and appreciation for an outstanding West Virginia physician. Dr. Daniel B. Doyle has recently received the 1997 National Rural Health Association's Practitioner of the Year Award. For 20 years, Dr. Doyle has served the health care needs of southern, rural West Virginia. Since 1977, he has directed the New River Family Health Center in Scarbro, WV. As its director, Dr. Doyle developed all the clinical systems, recruited staff, and helped guide the center's institutional policy, budget, and strategic planning. As a result of his tremendous efforts, the center now serves a county of over 50,000 people. Today Dr. Doyle is a full-time family physician for the New River Family Health Center. Along with serving as the Director of Medical Education for the New River Health Association, he is also the director of the Fayette, Raleigh, and Nicholas rural health initiative consortium. As a small part of his endeavors with the New River Health Association, Dr. Doyle also works with the Hidden Valley Health Care Center, a 60-bed nursing home. One of Dr. Doyle's colleagues, Jacquelynn A. Copenhaver, coordinator of the Rivers and Bridges Rural Health Education Partnerships Consortium, said, ``Doyle is involved in his community through his willingness to serve his patients whenever the need arises. He does not hesitate to make home visits, and by making those home visits, he meets the needs of the families of his patients as well as the needs of the patients themselves.'' I am extremely proud that one of this country's finest doctors is dedicated to serving the people of West Virginia. Knowing that the health of West Virginians is in such capable hands, I have added confidence that the future health of our State and Nation will get better and better.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I urge my colleagues to vote no, against the motion to waive the Budget Act, so that we protect patients in these sorts of very special Medicare Choice programs who, unless we give them the protection, unless we vote no, doctors are going to be able to charge whatever they want. Everybody else under Medicare is under something called balanced billing. Balanced billing means you can only charge 15 percent more than what Medicare pays for it. This was agreed to in 1989 when we did a massive Medicare reform. We should not be able to take a sort of special fee for service part of the new Medicare Choice and suddenly say that the doctor can charge them anything they want. They have no protection from balanced billing rules which protects all other people who are under Medicare. And it is the law of the land. It is a very important principle, a very important point. And since we have done this in 1989, since we have put a cap on the balanced billing, which the other side would have us let go, seniors have saved $2 billion since 1989.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I think the majority leader is exactly right, and I congratulate him, as well as Senator Roth and his excellent staff, as well as Senators Chafee, Jeffords and many others who worked on it. As the majority leader has indicated, it has been a very laborious, long process in which things sort of just gradually, tectonically moved together, but very, very slowly. The point is that we can say now children are going to have good benefits, and that doesn't mean that they have to pick a particular plan. There is not a mandate in this that they have to pick this plan or that plan, but they will be able to get the kinds of benefits that we have as Senators, as Federal workers. I think, frankly, we have an obligation to make sure our children have plans. Preventive care, hospital care, doctor care, prescription, vision and hearing is in this. That is very important for early years, preventive care. So I think, frankly, it has been extremely complicated, it has taken a long time, but I think it is a good compromise, a good agreement, and I congratulate those who brought it together.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with regard to the point of order under the Byrd rule which was raised on the balanced billing.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I point out that this amendment would help seniors making, on an annual basis, between $9,500 a year and $11,900 a year. It would simply take the principles of the Medicaid Program and carry them forward, and simply say those folks deserve to get help in the Medicare payment because they are so desperately poor. This is well established in Medicaid. We are now applying it to a new area and saying, rather than 120 percent of poverty, we are saying 120 percent of poverty to 150 percent of poverty. It is very sensible. It helps people. This program is going to sunset in 5 years, but their costs are not going to sunset in 5 years. We think it is an amendment which both sides are willing to vote for.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It is on its way.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, in lieu, then, of a point of order I would like to make a point of order against the balanced billing portion of the FFS section of the bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am making a point of order against the bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act, I make a point of order that section 5001, creating section 1852(a)(5)(B), section 5001 creating section 1852(k)(2), and section 5001 creating section 1854(e)(3) of the pending bill are extraneous under section 313(b)(1)(A).

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, one thing that occurs to me listening to this debate is that some very, very important principles followed by amendments are being put before the Senate in a context that the American people do not fully understand nor have they any reason to because it has not really been discussed with them. In speaking quite honestly, this sort of grew up within the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, and it became a kind of a fluent subject within the Finance Committee. It got a credence--had people for it, had people against it--it got its own momentum, and the Finance Committee was acting apart from the rest of the Senate, and apart from the rest of America. I am not by definition innately opposed to means testing but I am oppose to doing things before they receive what I call a larger consideration, which I think falls into the commission on Medicare which is what I introduced as a bill 2 years ago. It seems to me when you are dealing with something in a State, for example, like West Virginia, where the average senior citizen income is $10,700 a year, you really do not make decisions like this--or like a number of other issues that have been before us --without a larger discussion with the American people, a larger context being placed before the American people. We have traditionally done that with major pieces of legislation. This discussion has come out of a kind of sanctuary of privileged discussion. I am not saying it is not without merit at some point, but I do not think it is at this point, because of the absence of the larger discussion of the American people. When you are dealing with people that have $10,700 a year to live on, every deductible, every single decision about a means test, all of it counts, and it really does in human terms. I am not being evasive. I am simply reflecting what a whole lot of people in this country are very afraid of. So my plea would be that we would not let up on this but that we would continue this, but in the larger context of the commission on the future of Medicare, which I think is the only place to really do that. That reflects not just my feeling about this amendment but other amendments that I have voted on during the course of the day in a way which I might not vote on after a commission had discussed it and a national discussion had been held. That has not taken place to this point. It is kind of a privileged conversation, and it is not one I am entirely comfortable with on behalf of the people I represent.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Could I just point out one thing? I want to compliment the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and his staff because they were, in fact, as I understand it seriously considering accepting a version of our amendment. It was not ultimately accepted apparently because some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to have hearing and vision services included in the benefits package. I deeply regret that. This really is a good amendment, does deserve support, and reflects thinking on both sides.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator up front, the Senator is asking for kind of an exactitude in an area where exactitude is really very difficult, which is the whole area of the uninsured--how much it would cost? Where are they? How long will they be on Medicaid or insurance? When will they go off? Does the State know about it? Will the State, under a block grant money program, take children already on Medicaid and substitute that money, thus freeing the other money? I can't worry about that. I have faith in the chairman of the Finance Committee. I think this was a bipartisan decision to do something about a problem that has been with us throughout our history, which is no longer deemed acceptable. The Senator is entirely correct when he says there are no simple answers. I want to assure the Senator--because I sat through, obviously, all the Finance Committee meetings, both public and private--there was never an attempt to sort of grab at money for the purpose of saying let's put that toward health insurance for children. It was a sense that we have a real problem here and we want to try to address it as responsibly and carefully as possible. That was followed by a bipartisan discussion and agreement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the Senator will further yield, I simply say that I really don't think this was a money chase where, in trying to find a solution, they had to go find the problem. The problem was there. One of the most outstanding problems, which is vexatious, is there are 3 million children out there right now who are eligible for Medicaid, but their families do not know; they do not know that they are in fact eligible for Medicaid. So part of the problem was, how do you find, through various public and State agencies, those 3 million children across the country who are already eligible?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I don't pretend to speak for the chairman of the Finance Committee, but I think it would be helpful to the Senator's concern by expressing this. There are 10 million uninsured children in this country, and that was deemed to be unacceptable. The first approach was to try and insure 5 million children. That is what the $16 billion was for, to try to get the first 5 million uninsured children covered. This came from the Senator's side of the aisle in the Finance Committee. We thought that maybe we could go beyond that and approach beyond 5 million. But to be quite honest, I think as we have gone our way through this process, we have come to understand that we can't judge exactly what the States are going to do and we can't be entirely sure. So the CBO is now beginning to give us figures that suggest we won't be able to reach the 5 million children mark, perhaps even with both the $16 billion and the $8 billion program. But then again, we are not sure. But we know we have to try because having uninsured children is not acceptable in America. It is not a question of throwing money at a problem or suddenly a discovery of a new source of money. There was simply the desire that we ought to get health insurance to the 10 million children who do not have it. We worked within the Finance Committee to try to accomplish that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?