Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of all Senators, at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 18, the constitutional amendment regarding campaign funding. Following the weekly policy meetings, there will be 30 minutes of additional debate on that resolution, with a vote occurring at 2:45 p.m. on the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 18. Following disposition of Senate Joint Resolution 18, the Senate will resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 22, the independent counsel resolution. Hopefully, a unanimous consent agreement will be reached to allow the Senate to debate two independent counsel resolutions, and all Members will be notified accordingly when the votes are scheduled on those resolutions. Therefore, Senators can expect recall votes throughout Tuesday's session of the Senate as we continue to make progress on Senate Joint Resolution 22.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing and their families, as well as other victims of crime, to introduce the Victims Rights Clarification Act of 1997. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the rights of victims of crime to attend and observe the trials of the accused and testify at the sentencing hearing. I want to express my sincere thanks to Senators Hatch, Leahy, Inhofe, Grassley, and Kennedy for their hard work in crafting this bipartisan legislation. During my tenure in the Senate, I have worked to ensure victims of crime have equal standing under the law with those who have violated the public trust. Progress has been made. The Victims' Bill of Rights, approved by Congress in 1990, guarantees that victims of crime may be present at public court proceedings, providing that a victim's attendance does not materially affect his or her testimony. In 1996, as part of the antiterrorism Bill, I included a provision based on my Crime Victim Restitution Act, which entitles victims of crime to receive full financial compensation directly from the criminal in the form of mandatory restitution. Too often, however, the rights of victims are sacrificed or forgotten. The Victims Rights Clarification Act of 1997 clarifies the intent of Congress with respect to the rights of victims to be present at trial and be heard during the sentencing phase of the proceedings. This piece of legislation further demonstrates the bipartisan will of Congress to protect the rights of victims, as well as the accused. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing and their families, as well as other victims of crime, to introduce the Victims Rights Clarification Act of 1997. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the rights of victims of crime to attend and observe the trials of the accused and testify at the sentencing hearing. I want to express my sincere thanks to Senators Hatch, Leahy, Inhofe, Grassley, and Kennedy for their hard work in crafting this bipartisan legislation. During my tenure in the Senate, I have worked to ensure victims of crime have equal standing under the law with those who have violated the public trust. Progress has been made. The Victims' Bill of Rights, approved by Congress in 1990, guarantees that victims of crime may be present at public court proceedings, providing that a victim's attendance does not materially affect his or her testimony. In 1996, as part of the antiterrorism Bill, I included a provision based on my Crime Victim Restitution Act, which entitles victims of crime to receive full financial compensation directly from the criminal in the form of mandatory restitution. Too often, however, the rights of victims are sacrificed or forgotten. The Victims Rights Clarification Act of 1997 clarifies the intent of Congress with respect to the rights of victims to be present at trial and be heard during the sentencing phase of the proceedings. This piece of legislation further demonstrates the bipartisan will of Congress to protect the rights of victims, as well as the accused. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 5 o'clock.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague. Let me just make a couple of comments, Mr. President. One, we do have a group that is currently working on campaign finance reform. And to those who are saying that this effort of having the Rules Committee have jurisdiction over campaign reform is a stall--I think it is quite the opposite. I think having the Rules Committee retain its historical, legitimate jurisdiction over campaign reform is the right thing to do. I also think it is the best thing to do if you want to have real campaign reform, if you want to get something passed. Now, we can work simultaneously. I believe the Governmental Affairs Committee is going to be swamped. It has numerous allegations to review. Allegations have been made almost on a daily basis for weeks and weeks now. The list is very long. If you tack on to that, an additional general oversight on campaign reform, I think that bogs down the process for, one, getting the original investigation resolved and, two, it bogs down campaign reform. Now, I think by separating the two oversight responsibilities by having hearings on campaign reform in the Rules Committee, it will allow the Rules Committee to consider those issues and to go ahead and work on legislation. We may have to do the legislation in a couple of pieces. Some people are very adamant on passing campaign reform legislation this year and they think we can only do it in one piece. I would urge my colleagues--and I see my friend from Wisconsin here--who are really interested in campaign reform to think of possibly what we can do. What can we put together now that has bipartisan support that we can pass? I can think of several things. Full and immediate disclosure for soft money, for independent expenditures and for all hard money. There is a lot of money under the table right now. We do not have any idea, for example, how much total money that organized labor put into the campaigns. We do not have any idea how much different groups have put in. We could require immediate disclosure, and I bet we could get an overwhelming vote, even a unanimous vote, for immediate disclosure. I think we can do some other things. There are a lot of other good ideas but I do not know that I should throw all of them out because I am starting to negotiate on these with my Democrat colleagues who want to make some real reform. Maybe we could come up with a consensus package now that includes reform on individual and special interest money. Some people advocate confining money to being raised in their State or district. I am for looking into that. Let us negotiate and see if we cannot put together a package by having oversight in the Rules Committee to include issues of independent expenditures and soft money. Let us see if we can come up with an agreement on that. Maybe the hearings will evolve to where we can come to a consensus on these issues. Also, maybe at the conclusion of the Governmental Affairs Committee, we may find other statutes that need to be changed. Most of the things that we are looking at investigating right now concern statutes that are fairly clear. In some cases, they have been ambiguous. I noticed the statute in section 607, where it says it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit in a Government building. And the Vice President said he is exempt from the law. I find that to be a stretch. I do not see an exemption there for the Vice President. But if he is correct, maybe we need to change the law. And so maybe these hearings will evolve and we will learn a little bit more about what should be included in our laws. I am happy to do that. But I do not think the Rules Committee has to wait on the Governmental Affairs Committee to act. I am willing to act earlier. I am very, very serious about trying to work to see if we cannot come up with bipartisan consensus legislation. Once we have passed that, to see if we can come up with those elements that we can agree upon such as making sure, for example, that all contributions for political campaigns are voluntary. To me that is a fundamental right. We should have that in a package. So let us put together a package, pass it and then if we determine because of the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings or the Rules Committee hearings that we need to do further work, we can address it and pass that possibly later. So again, I compliment my friend from Virginia for his resolution. I am hopeful that we will be able to pass it soon. I am hopeful--I see my colleague from Ohio--that we will be able to work together in the Governmental Affairs Committee in a bipartisan fashion to get the facts out and to conclude. I will tell my colleague I was one that said let us try to wrap this up this year. I do not want this thing going on forever. So we will work towards that end. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague from Virginia, and echo some of the comments that he has made. I happen to have the distinction, as a couple of us do, to serve on both committees. I serve on the Rules Committee, and I serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I think the resolution that the Senator from Virginia brought to the floor--and I compliment him for it--says that we should abide by the jurisdiction of the committees. The Rules Committee has jurisdiction over campaign finance reform. It has had that jurisdiction for years. One of the reasons I became involved in the Rules Committee, one of the reasons I participated in the committee, and one of the reasons I requested time for participating, was because I am interested in campaign finance reform legislation, not just oversight on illegal activities. That is what the Governmental Affairs Committee investigates. That committee will be investigating a lot of things that have been discussed on the floor today and tomorrow and probably will be investigating these matters for some time this year, and rightfully so. I believe I even heard the President of the United States say that we should investigate some of the alleged laundering of foreign money to the Democratic National Committee. We should investigate whether foreign nationals have tried to influence American elections. I do think, however, that the Rules Committee can work on campaign reform and simultaneously have hearings on legal activities dealing with soft money and with independent expenditures. I do not think that it is appropriate that those hearings should be mixed up with the hearings on illegal activity. Think about it. We are talking about having people testify under oath and perhaps, by subpoena. I know from some of the subpoenas submitted by the minority that appear to focus on money spent by these groups-- groups such as the Christian Coalition, Right to Life, the Sierra Club, the unions, and so on. A lot of organizations raise money and use that money to ``educate their voters.'' Maybe they do a lot more. Maybe they want to educate every voter in America. Organized labor put in millions of dollars in this last election. I am on the Rules Committee and I hope that we have hearings. I would say to the chairman of the Rules Committee, have hearings on soft money. What influence did it have on independent expenditures? I think it is perfectly proper for the Rules Committee to investigate campaign finance reform. We put in an extra $450,000 in this resolution for the Rules Committee to investigate ``legal but improper'' activities. If somebody deems a legal act to be improper, well that is the eyes of the beholder. But the Rules Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, the committee that will be charged with writing campaign finance reform, should be the committee that is going to be trying to figure out how you handle soft money. For those who have not really looked into campaign finance reform before, I will tell you: There is not an easy answer on soft money. Some people just say ban it. Well, if you just automatically say ban it, you probably have not thought about it very much. You probably have not thought, ``Wait a minute. Are we going to tell an organization they can't communicate their views to members on legislation pending or on a Member's vote on whether they are for their side or against this side?'' I do not think we want to do that. I think that can become an infringement on the people's rights of free speech. I think it may very well be declared unconstitutional. I really do not have any interest in us passing legislation just to have it to be declared unconstitutional by the courts. So my point is that issues concerning independent expenditures and soft money are not easily dealt with. I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I would be happy to work with others that have ideas. I think there is a real imbalance in today's electoral system. Under today's laws, individuals are limited donations of $1,000. But you have unlimited expenditures on soft money. So an individual can only put in $1,000. But you might have a wealthy person put in $10 million to try to educate the populace on a particular issue. Another example, as the Senator from Virginia found out, you might run against a very wealthy candidate that might put in $12 million or $15 million and just swamp the airwaves. Yet, a Senator or another individual, if they don't have a lot of resources, would be limited to $1,000 per election, and $2,000 for a primary and general election. There are some real imbalances here and I would like to see us work to correct those. I think that is properly done in the Rules Committee, not the Governmental Affairs Committee. The Governmental Affairs Committee is not going to be marking up the legislation on this issue. When you are dealing with the oversight on independent expenditures, on soft money, on legal campaign activity and the investigations, the Rules Committee should lead. The investigations under the Governmental Affairs Committee is where we have the subpoena power. That is where we are talking about trying to uncover what has happened. We have constitutional responsibilities within this committee to exercise oversight and find out if the laws have been broken. That is one of our responsibilities on Government Affairs and we need to do it. I don't think it would be fair to be calling on people who have allegedly broken the law, having them sworn in, giving depositions under oath, making statements before the Governmental Affairs Committee, and then the next week be calling in groups under the same circumstances that were acting legally under the current system. I think they would be unfairly tainted with the same broad brush of illegal activity. I do not think that is right. I think it would be a mistake. So I compliment my colleague from Virginia. I think he has designed a good resolution, a resolution that we can pass. It is a resolution that protects the jurisdictions of each committee. We actually have three committees involved. We have the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has very broad jurisdiction. My colleague from Michigan asked if they can not investigate everything else. The Governmental Affairs Committee basically has the authority under its legislative authority to investigate almost anything related to Government. And so some people say, why even bother trying to delineate what they can investigate? They can investigate anything. However, I think what we have come up with a solution to let the Governmental Affairs Committee investigate the illegalities of the last election, whether it be congressional or presidential. Let the Rules Committee conduct hearings on campaign finance reform and soft money and include hearings on improper activities, if there truly were improper activities. Maybe we can come to a consensus on how to handle soft money or independent expenditures. And if we find Members who have violated the rules or the laws, have those be referred to the Ethics Committee. Some people say that the Ethics Committee is a chamber that no one hears from. I have been in the Senate now 17 years, and I can think of at least 5 Senators who are not here primarily as a result of the Ethics Committee. They do made a difference and they changed people's careers. They caused people to retire. They caused people not to run for reelection or they caused expulsion from the Senate. So the Ethics Committee does exercise its responsibility. I compliment my colleague from Virginia. I think the delineation and protection is important. Frankly, if I was chairman of the Rules Committee, I would guarantee you I would be down here fighting for my committee's jurisdiction. We do it all the time. The Rules Committee does have jurisdiction over campaign finance reform and it should fight to protect that. It should have any hearings on independent expenditures. And my colleagues, if they want to get into it, I am all for it. Have the hearings. But to me it is in the right scenario. It is not putting people under oath and subpoenaing documents and making them submit to the same procedures as when illegal activities before a committee are under consideration.

Mr. NICKLES. I think the Senator is correct. We may well have the debate on this this week, just to answer my colleague. We may well have the debate on whether or not we will have a constitutional amendment to limit the first amendment as it pertains to speech in campaigns. Some people advocate that. I do not happen to be one. But again that is a fair debate and one that we will probably have in the Chamber.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce that following morning business today, the Senate will begin consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 5, the waiver resolution for the Barshefsky nomination, at 1 p.m. Under a previous order, there will be 3 hours of debate on the Hollings amendment and 1 hour of debate following the resolution itself. Following disposition of the amendment and the resolution, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky, to be U.S. Trade Representative. Therefore, Senators can expect several rollcall votes throughout Wednesday's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the guest Chaplain, Dr. Charles Richmond from Edmond, OK, for a beautiful prayer. I also thank him for his service to our country as national chaplain of the American Legion, but also for his lifetime of dedication and service to God and country in his capacity as a leader. He has given his time to the American Legion, first serving as chaplain of the Oklahoma American Legion Boys State for the past 5 years and, more recently, becoming the national chaplain of the American Legion in September 1996. Dr. Richmond is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. He has touched the lives of the members of many churches throughout Oklahoma and across our country. Although now retired, he continues to be active in many church and religious activities. Dr. Richmond has been an educator. He has also served as a public schoolteacher, a coach, a counselor, and a principal. In addition, he served as dean of men and later dean of student affairs at the University of Central Oklahoma for over a quarter of a century. Dr. Richmond began his lifelong dedication to God and our country as a young man. In 1942, he entered World War II, the youngest person ever to enter the Chaplain Service. Only 30 days after entering the Army, he was sent overseas to Asia, where he devoted 2\1/2\ years to serving United States troops during the China, Burma, and India campaign. In 1950, he was reactivated with the Oklahoma National Guard and served in Korea and Japan. While in Japan, he led the building of a Christian church which spawned 22 churches and missions over the next 10 years. Dr. Richmond later served 20 years as division chaplain of the Oklahoma National Guard. Dr. Richmond has served the community of Edmond as president of the Edmond, OK, club of Rotary International. In March 1996, he was chosen to serve as the Oklahoma State Senate chaplain. Today, I am honored to recognize Dr. Charles Richmond, a great American and Oklahoman, as guest Chaplain in the U.S. Senate. Dr. Richmond, again, I thank you for an outstanding prayer, words of encouragement--one that I hope all of us will certainly pay attention to.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of other colleagues, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand there is a resolution at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the morning business time allotted to Senator Graham of Florida be allocated to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. You just placed the President's budget for this year on top. Am I correct in saying that last year the deficit was $107 billion, forecasted for 1997 to be $116 billion, and then in 1998, under the President's budget--this is by the Congressional Budget Office----

Mr. NICKLES. It goes to $145 billion, and then in 1999 to $142 billion, and the year 2000 to $135 billion? Isn't that the report that we just had from the Congressional Budget Office? We have 4 years of deficit increases under the President's proposal?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. NICKLES. Isn't it correct that under the President's budget, actually the deficit next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be $24 or $25 billion more than if we did not pass a budget? In other words, his budget actually increases the deficit for the next 4 years in relationship to present law?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Hatch, for his outstanding leadership on this very important constitutional amendment to balance the budget, as well as Senator Craig and others who have worked very hard to put us in a position to be able to pass this amendment. Mr. President, I have been here now for 17 years. I cannot think of a more important vote that I have ever cast than the vote we will be casting today. If we cast a vote in favor of passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we will change the way we do business in Washington, DC. When we are sworn into office, we stand right here on the floor of the Senate, most of us with a hand on the Bible, saying we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It will change the way we do business. It will mean we are going to start being responsible; we are going to quit spending more than we take in. It will not be easy. It will be a challenge, but we can do it. Almost all States do it. It does not mean it is easy, but they do it. And we should do it as well. I will read something from Thomas Jefferson. I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of administration of our Government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. Thomas Jefferson was right. He also said: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. He was exactly right. Mr. President, there is an article where countless Presidents, almost every President when they made a State of the Union Address, said they were going to lead us toward a balanced budget, including Bill Clinton, including Ronald Reagan, including George Bush, including almost all Presidents. But, unfortunately, we have not done it. And I say we. It is not just the administration. It is Congress. I think we need the constitutional constraint to get us there. In the last election, President Clinton and Bob Dole said, hey, we need a balanced budget. Some people said, well, that means that it is a done deal. That is not really the case. I heard my colleague and friend, Senator Leahy, say, well, the last 4 years we have brought the deficit down. The deficit has come down. What he did not say is the deficit last year was $107 billion. What he did not say is the next 4 years it goes up. According to CBO, the deficit goes up from $107 billion to, in 1997, $116 billion, and under President Clinton's budget to $142 billion in 1999, and $135 billion in the year 2000.

Mr. NICKLES. No; I have only a couple minutes. I will be quick. The point is, even under the President's budget, the deficit goes up. We have made some progress--and I think we can argue on who should take credit for that--but we are not making progress when the deficit is going up and it is higher in the year 2000 than it is in the year 1996. That is not balancing the budget. That is like somebody saying they are going to go on a diet, but first they want to gain 10 pounds for each of the next 3 years and, oh, yes, in the last year we are going to lose 40 pounds. That is what we have before us under the President's document. I think we need a constitutional amendment to make the President and to make Congress be responsible, to make the tough decisions. I am pleased that we are going to have 55 Republicans vote for this. I am disappointed that we do not have 12 Democrats to vote for it to make it happen. I wish we did. I think we are going to come up with 11. One of my jobs is to count votes. A couple of people basically are going to vote different than what they said they were going to do. That disappoints me. But regardless, we still have to roll up our sleeves, and I think we still have to balance the budget. I do not know there is the collective will to do it unless we have the constitutional restraint to make us do it. When an administration campaigns on a balanced budget and says, ``Oh, yes, we brought the deficit down every year,'' and then have the deficit go up in the next 4 years, I find a lot of shell games going on in budgeteering. That bothers me. I hope we will be responsible. I hope we will work together as Democrats and Republicans, not have a Republican budget, not have a Democratic budget, but work together to actually balance the budget and provide some tax relief. We can do it. But it is a lot easier said than done. I think we need a constitutional amendment to make us do it, to tell us to do it. One of the reasons I think we continually have a deficit is you are a lot more popular spending money for people than taking it away from people. Mr. President, I believe this is one of the most important issues we will have confronting us this Congress, maybe in our lifetimes. If we really do want to have Government act responsibly and quit saddling our children with additional debt --right now, per capita, that debt is over $19,000 per child, per person, per American. I do not think it is responsible for us to continue to add more debt on future generations. So I urge my colleagues to support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget later this afternoon. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Baucus, and Senator Breaux in the introduction today of the Software Export Equity Act, a bill to provide that software exports receive the same tax treatment as other products made in the United States. Our bill will help ensure that the U.S. software industry, the current world leader, maintains their competitive edge. The Software Export Equity Act simply clarifies that software produced in the United States for export fully qualifies for foreign sales corporation [FSC] export incentives the same as most other U.S. products. The bill proposes no special or unique benefit for the software industry, just equal and fair treatment under existing law. The FSC statute and its predecessor, the domestic international sales corporation statute, were enacted by Congress to help U.S. companies compete abroad. The FSC statute provides a tax exemption of up to 5 percent of a company's income attributable to export sales of U.S.-made products. Only those products manufactured or produced in the United States for export to a foreign market qualify for FSC benefits to ensure domestic economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, the fledgling software industry was not specifically considered by Congress when the FSC statute was enacted, and subsequent Treasury Department rules disqualified them for FSC benefits. Indeed, Treasury's narrow interpretation allows nearly identical products, exported in an identical manner, such as movies and compact disc recordings, to fully qualify for FSC benefits, but not software. Repeated attempts to convince the Treasury Department to modify their rules have failed, Mr. President, leaving only the alternative of amending the law. Fortunately, this issue has broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate and was recently included in President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 budget request. Employing over 2 million people and exporting more than $26 billion in software each year, the U.S. software industry is an important and growing part of our economy. They lead the world in the development of innovative products and cutting-edge technology. In today's competitive global economy, incentives to encourage firms to develop products here for export abroad are vitally important. The enactment of this legislation will assure that we provide these incentives to all U.S. products equally. I encourage all my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Baucus, and Senator Breaux in the introduction today of the Software Export Equity Act, a bill to provide that software exports receive the same tax treatment as other products made in the United States. Our bill will help ensure that the U.S. software industry, the current world leader, maintains their competitive edge. The Software Export Equity Act simply clarifies that software produced in the United States for export fully qualifies for foreign sales corporation [FSC] export incentives the same as most other U.S. products. The bill proposes no special or unique benefit for the software industry, just equal and fair treatment under existing law. The FSC statute and its predecessor, the domestic international sales corporation statute, were enacted by Congress to help U.S. companies compete abroad. The FSC statute provides a tax exemption of up to 5 percent of a company's income attributable to export sales of U.S.-made products. Only those products manufactured or produced in the United States for export to a foreign market qualify for FSC benefits to ensure domestic economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, the fledgling software industry was not specifically considered by Congress when the FSC statute was enacted, and subsequent Treasury Department rules disqualified them for FSC benefits. Indeed, Treasury's narrow interpretation allows nearly identical products, exported in an identical manner, such as movies and compact disc recordings, to fully qualify for FSC benefits, but not software. Repeated attempts to convince the Treasury Department to modify their rules have failed, Mr. President, leaving only the alternative of amending the law. Fortunately, this issue has broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate and was recently included in President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 budget request. Employing over 2 million people and exporting more than $26 billion in software each year, the U.S. software industry is an important and growing part of our economy. They lead the world in the development of innovative products and cutting-edge technology. In today's competitive global economy, incentives to encourage firms to develop products here for export abroad are vitally important. The enactment of this legislation will assure that we provide these incentives to all U.S. products equally. I encourage all my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.