Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal dated September 11, 2002.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I anounce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, a year ago today our Nation was savagely attacked in maybe the most evil attack ever on American soil. Over 3,000 innocent people were killed. I call it an evil attack because how can it be more evil than to kill people who are totally innocent--men, women, and children? The attack on the World Trade Center was an attack on the United States, on our economic beliefs and foundations. The attack on the Pentagon was an attack on our national security and defense. Flight 93 was, we now find out, headed for the Capitol, an attack on our democracy. I thank God for the heroes, the passengers on the plane. A lot of heroes came out as a result of these savage attacks a year ago--men and women who were running into the buildings, not away from the buildings; into the buildings to save lives. It is amazing. If you look at the pictures we have seen in the last few days of the World Trade Center and Pentagon--it is amazing that there are only 3,000 that were lost. That number could have been significantly higher. If you look at the devastation in New York City alone, it would not have been hard to imagine 20,000 lost, not 3,000. It probably would have been 20,000 lives lost had it not been for the courageous acts of firemen and policemen and fellow workers putting their own safety at risk to save other lives, not to mention the passengers on flight 93 who kept that plane from running into our Capitol, from hitting our Capitol. I cannot imagine the loss that would have happened, not just the loss of life--of Senators and Congressmen, our staffs, our employees, our security officers--but also the effect it would have on democracy. I shudder to think what would have happened if they would have hit our Nation's Capitol. Today I joined with the President and many others in rededicating the Pentagon. It is great to see the Pentagon rebuilt, and my compliments go to the workers and others who rebuilt such a wonderful building in such a short period of time. But we also remember the loss of life in each of these instances. In the Pentagon, a former employee and personal friend of mine, Barbara Olson, was killed. She was a passenger on that airplane. My heart still aches for Ted Olson and their family. What a terrible loss that was, taking the life of a person who was so bright, had so much life, was so engaged in the political life of our country. To have that life taken is just a very sad tragedy. To think that is multiplied by 3,000 times all across the country, it is a very sad reminder of the enormous tragedy we have suffered. It reminds me of the Oklahoma City bombing we suffered on April 19, 1995. In Oklahoma City, we lost 168 lives. I knew some of those people as well. When you know somebody it makes it more personal. It is not just 3,000 lives. You realize it is individual families and some of those families were totally devastated and their futures enormously changed, if not destroyed because of this senseless, cowardly, evil attack that happened a year ago. Like Oklahoma City, we had a lot of heroes. The heroes, the firemen who raced into the building, the heroes on flight 93, the heroes who were saving lives in the Pentagon, the medical personnel and others who saved countless lives, in some cases they gave up their life in order to save lives. The Bible says: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. We had a lot of American citizens who laid down their lives to save other lives. What an enormous gift they have given. They did this to pay the ultimate price or make the ultimate sacrifice--to save the lives of other Americans. Thousands of people killed one year ago today. Why? Because they were Americans, because they happened to be citizens of the United States, because they stood for freedom, they happened to share freedom. Our country was attacked economically and militarily and politically. However, we survived that attack. The American economy is fine. Our American military stands strong. Our American democracy remains steadfast. My compliments to the men and women in the military who are protecting our freedom daily and who have done a fantastic job going after the culprits, those who are responsible for this attack, in Afghanistan and other places. My compliments to the administration, President Bush, Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld and others, who are going after the perpetrators of this crime--not just in Afghanistan, but in countries all across the world. My compliments to them for building up an international coalition of over 90 countries who are joining us in this attack, fighting the battle against terrorism throughout the world. There is a lot of work that has been done and a lot of work that yet needs to be done. This Congress needs to join with the administration, both legislatively but also in support in continuing this attack and this battle on terrorism. We are not finished. There are still a lot of trained terrorists who threaten our country. Unfortunately, maybe they have been brainwashed into thinking it is good to try to kill innocent people if they happen to be Americans, or maybe if they happen to be friends of Israel. There is a lot of hatred that has been fomented for a long time, and that is very regrettable, but it is important that we band together--people all across the world--to condemn and combat terrorism. I think the President has done an outstanding job, leading this country and leading the free world in that battle. I compliment him for it. We have a lot of work ahead, but I am absolutely confident that freedom will prevail. We are a great country because we are a free country. We have greater freedoms--political freedom, economic freedom, religious freedom--than any other country in the history of mankind. I am absolutely confident, though, in 10 years from now or 20 years from now, we will still be able to say that we live in the greatest and most free country in the history of mankind. However, these freedoms have been attacked. Frankly, these freedoms have been under attack for several years. Now we are responding and we are responding strongly. Yet we still have a lot to do. I am confident that the people who challenge us will not be successful. Freedom will prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Bob Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), would vote ``yea''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), would each vote ``yea''.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no''.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no''.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as we wrap up this summer session prior to the August break, I want to make a few comments. Several of my colleagues have discussed different issues. First, let me state that I am very pleased that this Congress was successful in passing trade promotion authority and the Andean Trade Preferences Act. Both of those are vitally important and long overdue. The Andean Trade Preferences Act should have been passed by the end of last year. Unfortunately, the majority said it had to be packaged with trade promotion authority and with trade adjustment assistance. I have no objection to passing trade adjustment assistance; I think we should. We have always done it. I happen to agree with it. Unfortunately, the majority--in this case the Democrats--said, in addition to trade adjustment assistance, we want to put in new entitlements and expand trade adjustment assistance not only for individuals who might directly lose their job to imports, they also said indirectly. That is an expansion. They also said we want to include agricultural workers. You might have every agricultural worker in America who says they lost a job, that it was due to imports because we are in an international market and prices go down. Now they want Federal assistance. Then we also made a mistake because there was a new benefit added that said, in addition to trade adjustment assistance, in other words, being trained to pick up a new job, now the Federal Government is going to pick up 65 percent of the health care cost, an advanceable, refundable tax credit. We don't do that for somebody employed. We don't do that for a lot of people. But we will do it for somebody who says, I was unemployed because of trade. And they will be eligible to receive that for 2 years. Then in conference, inexplicably, it was suddenly altered to qualify those now receiving benefits under the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, if they are between ages 55 and 65, to receive the tax credit. That little amendment which didn't pass the Senate is going to cost over $2 billion. So the entitlement portion of the trade adjustment assistance has more than doubled, and I am constantly amazed at the number of people who always say: Wait a minute. Spending is going up, we should not be spending here, but it is fine if we do it in entitlements. They insist we do it in entitlements. That is real money. And a lot of times entitlements are hard to roll back. I wanted to express my displeasure with the almost frivolous way we have greatly expanded the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and then held trade promotion authority hostage to get this kind of expansion. That being said, the good of trade promotion authority and the Andean Trade Preferences Act outweighed the negative of the expansion of the entitlement. So I voted for it. I am pleased we were able to pass it. It is a very significant accomplishment. Chairman Greenspan said we could do two things to advance the economy in this country, one of which was to show fiscal discipline--we have not done that--two, he said, to expand trade. By passing trade promotion authority, we have made it possible for this country to regain its leadership which we had lost. We lost it during the Clinton administration. Every previous President, going all the way back to Jerry Ford in 1974, had trade promotion authority. Bill Clinton had it in his first 2 years of office. He did not get it extended in 1996. He was running for office. It expired in 1994. He didn't ask for an extension until after his reelection in 1996. At that time he couldn't get it through the House. The House was controlled by the Democrats. It was controlled by the Democrats when he was in power the first 2 years. He didn't get it extended then, and he couldn't get it extended later. In the Senate we had the votes to extend it. He wasn't able to get it. Now this President, President Bush, is going to get it. I am glad. I think that will help expand trade and again regain our leadership role as it has been, as it should be, as really the promoter, the leader, the cheerleader, frankly, for international free trade. Ronald Reagan helped expand it in the early 1980s, and that has certainly been a benefit to our economy and the economy of the free world. A couple of other issues have been brought up. I want to touch on them. I heard some of my colleagues say we need to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, and maybe there will be an attempt to appoint conferees to conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I will probably be a conferee. I have been involved in that issue for several years now. I look forward to working with our colleagues on both the House and the Senate sides to pass a good Patients' Bill of Rights package. But I do find it kind of curious that we passed the bill over a year ago. Let me repeat that. We passed Patients' Bill of Rights over a year ago. The House passed it a year ago tomorrow, on August 2 of last year. We are just now appointing conferees. This was the most important item on the agenda for the Democrats who regained control of the Senate last summer--the first major legislative item we passed. However the House passed it a year ago. We could have appointed conferees a year ago. We are just now getting around to doing that. I find that kind of curious. I still want to pass a bill. I might be able to refresh my memory enough to see if we can't negotiate a positive package. Let me restate that I don't want to pass a package that will greatly increase health care costs for patients. Unfortunately, that is what passed the Senate 13 months ago--a bill that would increase health care costs, estimated by the CBO, by 4 or 5 percent. I think at one time they scored it at 4.7 percent. And this is an increase over and above the increases already coming in on health care inflation and insurance costs, and health care insurance costs are exploding. The California health care plan, CalPERS, may be one of the largest plans in America. I remember reading the headline that their health care insurance costs are going up 25 percent. Small business insurance costs are going up 15 to 20 percent. Nationally, almost everybody's is going up 12 to 14 percent. This is going to add another 4, 5 percent on top of it. I don't want to do that. I will work energetically to see that we don't pass a bill that would greatly increase health care costs. Also, I don't want to pass a bill that will increase the number of uninsured. If I remember the Senate bill accurately, the bill also had new causes of action where people could sue not only the big, bad HMO, but employers as well. Some of us wanted to protect employers. We know if you make them liable for health care costs, employers don't have to provide them, and a lot of employers won't provide health care costs. The net result will be more people joining the ranks of the uninsured. We should do no harm. We should not pass any bill that will increase costs dramatically or increase the number of uninsured. I am afraid that will happen if we pass the Senate bill. I am happy to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. If you are looking at what the major changes are--when I was chairman of the task force--and I was chairman of the conference committee for over a year, which dealt with this issue--we had internal appeals in the bill we passed in the Senate at one time; we had external appeals. So if somebody is denied coverage, they can get an immediate response and get it overturned if it was unfairly denied by a big, bad HMO bureaucrat. That decision can be final. We can make a penalty if somebody doesn't abide by the external appeal. We can make that binding, where it would be ridiculous, or expensive, for somebody not to comply with the appeal so they can get health care when they need it. Some people don't want to have that be the final solution. They think the real solution should be in court. Oh, yes, they want unlimited damages, or damages that, frankly, are so high it would scare a lot of employers away. I don't want to do that--pass a bill that will increase the number of uninsured, or the cost of health care beyond the reach of countless businesses and individuals across the country. I am happy to work with our colleagues. I don't know why it has taken us a year to appoint conferees. I find it almost ironic. I look forward to working with my friends on both sides of the aisle to do it. Mr. President, next I want to touch on the issue of prescription drugs. Some of our colleagues who were proposing an amendment yesterday came to the floor tonight and were implying that colleagues who opposed that proposal were not truthful. I was reading the remarks and thought, wait a minute, is he talking about me? I opposed the proposal. And I think I was right. I remember hearing a colleague saying that you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I use that, also. I thought, he is using that against me or my colleagues. That bothers me. I would do anything before I would mislead my colleagues. If I ever mislead colleagues, I will be more than happy to come and apologize, correct the record, you name it. I want to win badly, but I never want to win so badly that I would distort the truth--ever. I think that was implied. I hope it wasn't. If it was, I believe it is in violation of rule XIX of the Senate. That should not happen. Certainly, nobody should be misled. The issue at hand was on Medicaid costs. I am happy to talk about the facts of that. I did see a chart that was shown on the floor of the Senate. I saw a chart that showed that a lot of States would pay a lot more money in Medicaid costs. Where did that chart come from? Somebody said it is some anonymous chart, and I guess it didn't have any identification on it. It wasn't handed had out to every Senator. It was handed out to a lot. It was available in the Chamber. It came from the administration, from the Department of Health and Human Services, to try to get kind of an estimate on what the impact of the last Graham proposal offered because we are trying to figure it out. Senator Graham read a comment that was made. I thought it was made by me, but it turned out to be made by Senator Grassley. He implied that it was incorrect. I looked at that. I happen to know Chuck Grassley, and he would never misstate anything intentionally, and I don't think he misstated one word. I am bothered that somebody would quote somebody in the Record--when he is not here to defend himself--and imply that he didn't tell the truth in order to win the debate. That bothers me. I love the Senate and I hate to see this kind of almost accusation. Let's look at the facts. Senator Graham's amendment was introduced yesterday. We never saw a copy of it until it was introduced. It was held overnight. I think it was brought to the floor at 2, 3 o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesday. We voted on it Wednesday morning. Granted, overnight, the Department of Health and Human Services looked at it and gave us some estimates. I know in my State it would cost a lot. The Medicaid Director, Mike Fogerty, said Oklahoma would not be able to do it without cutting the program's financing. If there is any cost, the only way you can find the money is other places in the program. We did find some serious problems with the Graham amendment. It said we are not going to just expand Medicare, we are going to have a low- income benefit, and do it through Medicaid. Medicaid happens to be, factually, a Federal-State program. The Federal Government pays a portion and the State pays a portion. In some States it is 50/50. In some States, it is 70/30. The Graham amendment said we are going to provide a brand new drug benefit with very small copays from the beneficiary--$2 and $5--and we are going to provide this benefit for anybody who makes less than 200 percent of poverty. Well, State Medicaid drug benefits for most States--31 States, maybe 30--I counted them yesterday, and I think I counted 31, but it may be plus or minus. This had to be done very quickly. It may not be 100 percent accurate because it was done quickly. Every State has to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicaid up to 74 percent of poverty. They do that on the State match. So, again, for this drug benefit, whatever benefit the State has--in my State, you get three prescriptions per month and the State pays its share--in my case, 30 percent--and the Federal Government pays 70 percent. That is up to 74 percent of poverty. The Graham amendment says let's make that 120 percent of poverty. In other words, we greatly expanded the pool of eligible people because our State, right now, is only 74 percent. So we greatly expanded it to 120, and the State is still liable for its share. Well, that is a big new unfunded mandate for which the State has to pay. That will cost millions and millions of dollars because there is no limit on the number of drugs. The State will have to make its match, depending on what the State match is. Between 120 and 150 percent, a State still has to pay. There is an enhanced match. The State would get S-CHIP. S-CHIP usually has a reimbursement rate of 78 percent, I believe, on average. The State would still have to put in 22 percent. So you are expanding the eligible pool of people who are going to receive the benefit, and you are also expanding what the State has to pay. Those are facts. Those are in the Senator's bill. Between 150 percent and 200 percent of poverty, the Federal Government would pay 100 percent. The Federal Government pays that, so I guess that is not an unfunded mandate. It is just a cost to the Federal Government. Below 150 percent of poverty, between, frankly, 74 percent and 150 percent of poverty, there is a big new mandate on the Federal Government and on the State government. The State would have to pay its share, and that would cost----

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield in just a moment. That is a great big cost. That has to be accounted for somehow. Someone might say: There might be savings because we have catastrophic on the other end. Right now, maybe the State is paying that--that may be--but that may not get there. Mr. President, 80-some percent of the people do not have drug costs that exceed $2,000. Catastrophic did not kick in until $3,300. No doubt some people would benefit, but maybe the majority of the people would not. It looked to me as though it was a real loser for the States. I think OMB happens to agree. They estimate it would cost my State something like $62 million. I would not be a bit surprised if it cost more than that. Our State cannot afford that. We have a Medicaid Program that is already going bankrupt. My point being--and I mention this with my friend from Florida here. I have respect for my colleagues, but always I think it is important we not impugn the integrity of Senators.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. NICKLES. I have the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report that is before us today and the cloture motion. Let me just make a couple very quick comments. I do not agree with everything that is in this bill. And I do not agree with the way it was put together. We had three bills together. The Andean trade bill should have been passed a year ago. It expired in December. You have Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru that have been needing us to pass this bill. Those are all allies of ours, but they were held hostage by it being put in a package. But the only way we can help them is by passing this bill today. It is better late than never. We need to do it. I apologize to those four countries for us taking so long. We have been collecting duties against our allies when, for years-- for over 10 years--we have not done it. So we are long overdue. Senator McCain has brought this to our attention on the floor. They were held hostage because these three bills were put together. Also, trade adjustment assistance--which the Congress has always passed and the Senate has always passed, but not as part of trade promotion authority, or not as part of fast track--we need to do it, but it should not be in the same package. I disagree strongly, very strongly, with a couple of elements that are in the trade adjustment assistance package, particularly the expansion of health benefits or the health tax credits. It is 65 percent for people who now are between the ages of 55 and 65. Those now receiving Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation benefits are now going to get health benefits. It is almost like an incentive to dump your pension liabilities into the PBGC, which is going to have enormous financial problems in the future. Now that is an obligation for taxpayers. That being said, I think it would be a disastrous thing if this Senate did not pass trade promotion authority. And now all three bills are tied together. So while I do not like the trade adjustment assistance--and if it was separate, I would be voting against it--when taken together, the good of the trade promotion authority far outweighs the entire package. We have to pass it. I would shutter to think what would happen if we did not pass it. I will even guess what would happen. I remember Chairman Greenspan was asked: What can we do to help the economy? And he said: You need to show fiscal discipline. We have not in many cases. And you need to promote trade. Well, if we did not pass this, there would be a big economic shock wave that would not only resonate in Wall Street but all across the world: The United States defeats trade promotion authority. The United States, the world leader in trade, really defeated trade, defeated trade promotion--taking us out of our active leadership role which we have had since at least the 1970s, which we have had for decades, really since the conclusion of World War II. We would be saying: No, we don't want to be a leader in trade. I think that would be a disastrous result. So I think the stock market would have a precipitous decline. Our leadership role in free trade would suffer an enormous defeat. So I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion on TPA.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on June 19, the people of Oklahoma, and many others around the world lost a great servant and friend with the passing of Charles Kothe. He was 89. Charles Kothe, a long time Tulsa resident and nationally recognized attorney who specialized in labor law, was born October 12, 1912. Kothe received his B.A. degree from the University of Tulsa in 1934 and his J.D. degree, with honors, from the University of Oklahoma in 1938. In his Tulsa based law practice he served as labor relations counsel to companies in various industries throughout the country. During his six year tenure as Vice President of Industrial Relations at the National Manufacturers Association he authored two books on labor relations and conducted seminars on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He was personally commended for this activity by President Lyndon Johnson, and later served as an advisor to Secretaries of Labor Mitchell, Goldberg, and Wirtz. In 1990, he was appointed by the White House to serve as a member of the Federal Service Impasses Panel. In business, he was an Officer and Director of several corporations, including T.D. Williamson, Inc.; Coburn Optical Co.; and Macnick. Known as a compelling speaker, he appeared as the keynote speaker at conventions and conferences across the Nation. He was named Tulsa Citizen of the Year in 1946, was named as a Distinguished Alumnus of the University of Tulsa, and is listed in the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce Hall of Fame. He taught labor law at the University of Tulsa and was Dean of the Oklahoma School of Business Accountancy and Law. He also served as Director of Civil Rights and Human Resources in the Graduate School of Business at Oral Roberts University and was the founding Dean of the O.W. Coburn School of Law. For more than 25 years, he taught the Christian Fellowship Class at First Presbyterian Church and later actively served at Boston Avenue Methodist Church. He was very involved with the National Prayer Breakfast here in Washington. Beyond his credentials and recognitions, Charles Kothe displayed a profound commitment to a cause much greater than himself. This commitment is evident in the life of Janet, his wife of 65 years and in their 4 children and 7 grandchildren. It is evident in the lives of the students that he trained in the rigors of law, many of whom would have not had the opportunity to study but for his encouragement and support. It is evident in his numerous efforts to use the law as a tool for healing in the midst of conflict rather than solely as a means for retribution. You see, Charles Kothe believed that his purpose was rooted in the greatest commitment of Jesus: to love God with all his heart and soul, mind, and strength, and to love his neighbor as himself. This ability to love and share God's love with others was his greatest gift, his greatest accomplishment, and his greatest legacy. Many of his former students have spoken of his encouraging example, quick wit, unmatched humor, and how his influence is still felt in their lives today. Countless individuals were transformed by their relationship with Charles Kothe. Through these lives and because of Charles Kothe's influence on these lives, God will effect positive change in our world for generations to come. He will be greatly missed. Let me conclude by stating that Charles Kothe's tenacious energy, tremendous intellect, and inspiring enthusiasm has undoubtedly influenced countless numbers across our great land. This scholar, this patriot, this man of God, this friend committed himself to our Republic as a prudent, optimistic, and faithful son. May his spirit live on.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea''.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES

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