Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights. I love the title. It is a great title. I hope we can pass a positive and good Patients' Bill of Rights--one that really provides patient protections but doesn't increase costs and doesn't scare employers away. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the case with the bill we are considering today, S. 1052. I haven't quite figured it out. Last week, we were on the McCain- Edwards-Kennedy bill, S. 871. That was last Wednesday. I was reviewing it and trying to become more familiar with the sections and what that bill meant to employers, to people providing health care, to Federal employees, and so on. Now we are considering a different bill, S. 1052. It is important for us to know as Senators because we are going to be voting on the legislation. This is one of a few bills. Every once in a while we consider legislation that will have a significant impact on everybody's lives. We did that when we passed the tax cut package recently. That will change everybody's taxes. People are going to see tax refunds coming in the mail in the next couple of months. I think that is very positive. People are going to see their rates reduced effective July 1. I think that is positive. That is a positive impact bill. This is a bill that will have a significant impact on everybody who has health care. A lot of people have health insurance. Then some people have health care. There is a difference. A lot of people are uninsured. When we wrestle with the problem of health care, we need to address the number of people who are uninsured, and we need to reduce that number. By all means, we shouldn't pass any legislation that is going to increase the number of uninsured. Everybody realizes when we have 42,500,000 uninsured people, that is too many. I think Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, agree with that. We ought to be working to reduce the number of uninsured as much as we possibly can. We probably will never get it down to zero, but we ought to make some improvement. But for crying out loud, let's not pass legislation that will increase the number of uninsured. Unfortunately, I believe that is what would happen if we passed this so-called McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill. I believe if we pass this bill in its present form, we are going to increase the number of uninsured, probably in the millions. I wish that were not the case. I hope by the time we finish the debate and amendment procedure in this Senate Chamber that will not be the case. I very much hope President Bush can join with us and sign a bill and we can be shaking hands. I have mentioned this to Senator Kennedy--we have been adversaries on this issue for a couple years now--I hope we can be shaking hands and saying we have done a good job; we have protected patients, and we did it in a way that did not really increase costs very much, and maybe we did some things that would increase the number of insured in the process, so that we did not do any damage. We should do no harm. Congress would be much better off not to pass any bill than to pass a bill that greatly increased the cost to people buying health care and/or increasing the number of uninsured. Let's say we want to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. Great. But let's do no harm. Let's not increase costs dramatically. Let's not increase the number of uninsured, especially if we are talking about millions. And that is what we are talking about in the bill before us today. I wish that were not the case. Let's go through the bill. And I think we will have some time. We need some time since we have not had any hearings on this bill. This bill has never been through a Senate markup. In the last Congress, we did mark up the Norwood-Dingell bill. We did not pass Norwood-Dingell in the Senate. We passed a substitute bill on which many of us worked. I thought it was a positive piece of legislation. I thought it had a lot of good things. It would have addressed the problem our friend, the Senator from North Carolina, just addressed. He said an individual, Steve Grissom, was denied health care. That was unfortunate. The bill we passed last year had internal-external appeals. That external appeal would have been quick. That person would have had health care and would not have had to go to court and would not have had to choose between State court and Federal court, seen trial attorneys--would not have had to do any of that. They would have had health care. They would have had an appeals process, and that appeals process would have been binding. Somebody said: We need accountability. We need enforceability. We had it binding where, if the plan did not comply with the external appeal, they would be fined $10,000 a day. So I think in that case--and that is a terrible case, where maybe somebody, unfortunately, was denied care--they would have gotten the care; and they would have gotten it quickly; and they would not have gone to court. They would not have received the care in the courtroom but would have received it by doctors. I agree. Let's solve that problem. We were very close to an agreement on internal-external appeals to resolve 99 percent of these cases. That is not the case with the bill we have before us. In the bill we have before us, I would say, for the 128 million private-sector Americans who are in private health care, who receive their health care from their employer, look out, because there is legislation coming, with a very good name, that makes the employer liable in almost all cases, not just the HMOs, and it makes them liable to the extent that a lot of employers are going to be scared to offer their employees health care. Some may opt out. In addition, it will increase costs so significantly that a whole lot of people are going to say: Wait a minute, these costs are so high, I can't afford it. My employees didn't appreciate how much money we were spending on health care. So I asked them, instead of me spending $5,000 or $6,000 a year per family on health care--up to $7,000 now--would you prefer the money and you can buy health care on your own? A lot of employees will say: Yes, count me; I would like to have that money. Maybe they will buy health care on their own, and maybe they won't. Unfortunately, a lot of employees would not, so the number of uninsured would rise, and I believe rise dramatically. So employers would be scared from the cost standpoint, and they would also be frightened because there would be unlimited liability. There has been some misrepresentation by some, saying: This bill has caps on liability. It does not have any caps on noneconomic damages. There are all kinds of damages. And this bill has new causes of action for Federal lawsuits. It has new causes of action for State lawsuits. It allows people to be able to jury shop: Let's find a good jury in a good county. With one good jury, you can become a billionaire nowadays. Wow. A lot of employees would say: Thank you very much, but I can't afford that exposure; I can't afford that liability, the fact that one jury case, for something I had nothing to do with whatsoever, could put me into bankruptcy. So they might say: We are just going to opt out. We don't have to provide this benefit. Some people would like to mandate that employers provide health care, but that is not going to pass, and they know that is not going to pass. So the net effect is, a lot of employers will say: I don't have to provide this benefit. I want to, but I can't afford the exposure. I just met somebody today who owns a restaurant. Actually, today, I met with two people who own a restaurant each. I heard people say: Hey, you are going to choose between the HMOs and the people. I met with two people today who each owns and operates a restaurant. One owns a small restaurant in Maryland. They said, if this bill passes, because of the liability provisions, they probably won't provide health care for their employees. They just started providing health care for their employees. Restaurants are the type of business where not everybody provides health care for their employees. All the major automobile manufacturers provide health care for their employees. They will probably continue to do so because of collective bargaining agreements. Interestingly, there is a little section that exempts collective bargaining agreements. Whoops. I thought we were providing all these protections for everybody. But there is a protection for organized labor here that kind of exempts the organized labor contracts for the duration of their contracts. So they might be exempt for years. We will get into some of the loopholes left in this provision. But this small restaurant owner said: I don't think I can afford the liability. I am afraid of doing that. And this person--female--operates her own business, which is family operated, I believe second generation, and they have had the business for 30-some-odd years, I believe. It is not all that large. About half her employees now have health care. She said today, she does not think she can continue providing health care if this bill passes. I met with a restaurant owner who has a larger restaurant not too far from here in Northern Virginia. This person started providing health care for their employees and said: No way, not with this liability. You would make it impossible. Wait a minute; employers are exempt. I heard that today. Oh, employers are exempt? Yes, there is a section in this bill exempting employers, on page 144: ``Causes of Action Against Employers and Plan Sponsors Precluded.'' Great. That will make Don Nickles happy, and others happy. That sounds pretty good. That is paragraph (A). Paragraph (B): ``Certain Causes of Action Permitted. Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a cause of action may arise against an employer or other plan sponsor. . . .'' Look out, employers. You had better read paragraph (B). You are liable. Oh, there are a few little exemptions. If they do this, this, and this, they will not be liable. But it does not cover everybody. I promise you, as an employer, if they complete their fiduciary responsibilities, they are liable. And when employers find out they are liable, they are going to be scared of this bill and the results of this bill, and a lot of them will quit providing health care for their employees. In other words, if we take legislative action, maybe with very good intentions, there may be very adverse results. They did that in the State of California on energy. They passed a bill that had a great title calling it a deregulation bill, but it had all kinds of regulations, and it had a lot of adverse results. This bill, I am afraid, if we passed it today, and it became law, would have a lot of adverse results. President Bush has said he would veto this bill. And he is right in doing so. And we have the votes to sustain that veto. Some people said: Why not pass this bill as it is, let the President veto it, you sustain his veto, and, hey, you have covered the subject? I do not think that is responsible legislating. Maybe it would be the easy way out. That way, we can just raise a few objections, vote no, and let him veto the bill. I do not think that is responsible. I think we need to review this bill. I think every Senator should know what is in this bill. I will tell you, from the public comments I have heard, in some cases the sponsors of this bill may not know what is in this legislation. So we need to consider what is in this bill. We need to talk about it. We need to see if we can improve it. Hopefully, we can improve it to the degree that we will have bipartisan support for a solution with perhaps 80 sponsors of the bill and have overwhelming support. I would love to see that happen. I will work to see that happen. I have invested a lot of time on this issue. I want to pass a good bill. This bill does not meet that definition. I heard a couple people say this bill is consistent with the principles the President outlined. That is factually inaccurate. That is a gross misinterpretation of the President's principles. They were not written that fuzzily. I will outline in another speech what are the President's principles and where this bill falls fatally short--not short in a gray area but fatally short. I am just concerned that maybe some people are a little loose in their statements, saying this is consistent with what the President wants, and so on, this is consistent with the Texas plan, and so on. I do not think that is factually correct. So I wanted to mention that. I want to do a good bill. This does not fit the pattern. What about a couple of other things? Should the Federal Government take over what the States are doing in the regulation of health care? Some people obviously think we should. As a matter of fact, I look at the scope sections of the bill, and I am almost amused. We are going to have a preemption: State flexibility. It says, on page 122, ``[nothing shall] be construed to supersede any provision of State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement solely relating to health [insurers]. . . .'' Boy, that sounds good. I like that section. I don't know if there is a bait-and-switch section in here or what, but that sounds so good. That sounds like something I would put in there. But it doesn't stop there. It goes on. Then it says, on the next couple pages: If the State law provides for at least substantially equivalent and effective patient protections to the patient protection requirements which the law relates. In other words, we are not going to mess with the States unless the States, of course, have to provide at least substantially equivalent and effective patient protections as this bill does. Well, what does substantially equivalent and effective mean? It means, States, you need to do exactly what we tell you to do. We are going to preempt everything you have. If you have an ER provision, it has to match our ER provision, our emergency room provision. If you have access to OB/GYN, you have to match our access provision to OB/ GYN. And there is a lot of difference. If you have clinical trials in your State, you have to match these clinical trials, which are enormously expensive clinical trials, which are covered by anything that NIH would offer or anything by FDA or anything by DOD or anything by the VA. There are a lot of clinical trials. You have to pay for them. It may be the State of New Jersey did pay for them or did not. Under this bill, there is not one State in the Union that meets the clinical trial provisions of this bill. Why? Because they are very expensive provisions; because they are unknown provisions; because no one knows how much they would cost. And so the States have been kind of cautious on putting in clinical trial provisions. They have done it rather cautiously. The State of Delaware is considering clinical trials today, legislation on a patients' bill of rights. They have a clinical trial provision, and it is not nearly as expensive as the one that is mandated in this bill. The essence of this bill is, State, we don't care what you have negotiated. We don't care how many hearings you had. We don't care if the legislature worked on this for months and negotiated it with the Governors and the providers in your State. We don't care because we know what is best. One size fits all. I guess two or three Senators decided they know what is best. They know better than every single State insurance commission. They know better than every State legislature. They know better than every Governor, every person who is in the buying business. We are going to mandate that these have to be in your contract, in your coverage. I accidently said the word ``contract.'' Most of this is done by contract. There is a provision in here that says you don't have to abide by the contract. That is a heck of a deal. So when people try to have a contract, here is what we will cover, here is what we don't cover, so you can have some kind of limitation on cost. There is a little provision in the bill that says the reviewer shall consider but ``not be bound by the definition used by the plan or issuer of medically necessary and appropriate.'' Not be bound--in other words, they can provide anything they want to provide. It doesn't make any difference what is in the contract. That is in this little bill. How do you get a cost estimate of how much this bill is going to cost? Because no one knows. The contracts aren't binding. Wow. There are a lot of things in here. Then I have heard people say: We are going to make sure the States have provisions that are substantially equivalent and as effective. Who is going to determine if something is as effective? We are going to have the Federal Government. HCFA is going to review the State standards. HCFA will determine whether or not you are substantially equivalent and as effective. The only way you are going to get there with any certainty is to have identical language. And then who is going to know whether or not it is as effective? That is as subjective as it could possibly be. You have a standard that is higher than HCFA. You have a standard higher than anybody has ever imposed. It says: Here is everything we mandate. If you want Federal, nationally dictated health care, it is in this bill. Wow. I didn't know we were taking over for the State. I didn't know we had the people to do it. Guess what. We don't. There is no way in the world the Federal Government has the resources in HCFA, the Health Care Finance Administration--which now has a new name which I can't remember and won't for the time being--there is no way in the world they could do this. Every State has insurance commissioners or regulators that are in charge of making sure the insurance companies in their State are adequately financed, meet their fiduciary responsibilities, that they meet their insurance responsibilities, that they uphold what they say they are going to do in the contracts, every State. I would imagine in New Jersey, it is hundreds of people--hundreds. I am sure it is in the hundreds. My State of Oklahoma is in the hundreds. HCFA, the Health Care Finance Administration, couldn't enforce that. There is no way in the world. There is a list of patient protections that every State has done. In my State, it is 40 some; in most States it is 30, 40, 50 different State protections. We are going to say: We don't care what you have done. Those aren't good enough. We are going to basically say these protections are preeminent. These will supersede what your State has done. You must do as we tell you to do. If you don't, the Federal Government will take over enforceability of those provisions. Then you will have the awkward situation of having the Federal Government enforce some provisions in your health care contract but not all the provisions. That is really going to make a lot of sense. Then there is going to be this little period of time where the State has been enforcing these State regulations. Now we have a new Federal regulation, and it is supposed to be prevailing. But the State regulation, we are used to enforcing it. Which one do we abide by? They are not familiar with the Federal enforceability. No one has ever enforced this one before. So should the State enforce the Federal regulation? They can't do it. The HCFA person hasn't signed off. Therefore, HCFA is going to take over, and they don't have anybody to enforce it. Now what you have is language saying you have these protections, but you don't have anybody to enforce it because HCFA can't do it. They absolutely can't do it. Somebody should ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services, do you have the capability to regulate State insurance to enforce these provisions that the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill would do? The answer is no. No, they couldn't do it. So we are going to have a long list of protections that we supposedly are telling everybody they have: look what we have done for you, but there is no enforceability because the Federal Government doesn't have the wherewithal to do it. And we shouldn't do it. That is not our responsibility. Yet we are going to have that kind of takeover. I think that would be a serious mistake as well. Then what about this comment: Under this bill, we insure all Americans. Wow, sounds really good. We are really going to provide protections for all Americans. First, I should ask: Are we disabusing Federal employees? Are we disabusing our families, Senators' families who are under the Federal employees health care plans? Do they have such a crummy deal that we need to change their plans? The truth is, we don't change Federal employees. We change State employees. I hope everybody knows that we are going to go out and tell every Governor, every State insurance commissioner: we are going to change your public employees' health care plans. We are going to mandate you do all these things. We exempted Federal employees. Whoops. You mean we are going to mandate all State employees, all teacher plans. We are going to mandate that all of those have to have what we have decided big government knows best. Yet for Federal employees, whoops, we exempted them. Organized labor, if they have a contract, we exempted them. Medicare, for we exempted them. Medicaid, low-income individuals, whoops, these don't apply to Medicaid. They don't apply to Medicare. They don't apply to Federal employees. They don't apply to union members, until their contract is renewed, maybe 5 years or so before that happens, if they have a long-term contract. There are a lot of little gaps. If this is so good for the private sector, why don't we put it on the public sector? Why don't we put it on the Senate? A Senator or their family members, can they sue the Government? If they are aggrieved, can you sue the Government? The answer is no. You still can't. Even if this bill passes, you can't sue the Government. Everybody else can sue their employer. You can't sue yours. I wonder if cost has anything to do with it. There are some things that just don't fit. It is fine for us to do this on all private sector plans, act as if that will only cost 37 cents a day. Maybe they said a week. The cost of health care right now for a family is about $7,000. At 4.2 percent of $7,000, figuring this up, you are talking about $300 a year. Some people say: That is just cents; that is a dollar a week or something. It is not a dollar a week. It is $300 a year. Maybe that is about a dollar a day. That is about the equivalent of the tax cut that a lot of Americans are going to receive this year. We are just going to take it away. So we give a tax cut with one hand and we take it away with higher health care costs in the next by this bill? We can sure do that. Somebody said: I broke even for the year. What if you are one of the 1 or 2 million people who lost your health care because your employer dropped it? You came out on the real bad end of the deal. This didn't cost you a dollar a day. This didn't cost you a Big Mac. This cost you your health care--probably to a person who needs health care the most. A lot of people who are in that low-income bracket, maybe working for a small restaurant in Montana, or someplace, and maybe their employer just started to provide health care, or wants to provide it, and they could not do it because they could not afford it, or because they are afraid of the liability.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Please do.

Mr. NICKLES. It takes unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays. I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith would vote ``yea.''

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

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I also appreciate the discussion on the amendment. I may be off base, but I am reading the amendment, and it says: . . . State educational agency, may deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet after school in a designated open forum to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts of America, based on that group's favorable or unfavorable position concerning sexual orientation. Maybe I am misreading that, but it looks to me as if it is an invitation for gay activist groups, for all kinds of groups, to meet. If you give access to the Boy Scouts, then you have to give access to gay activists in elementary schools, grade schools, schools up to the 12th grade, senior high schools.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would vote ``nay'.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Allen), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to simplify the taxation of life insurance companies, along with Senator Conrad and several of our colleagues. Our legislation repeals section 809 and section 815 of the Internal Revenue Code. Due to significant changes in the life insurance industry and their taxation over the years, these provisions are no longer relevant and their repeal will simplify the tax code. Section 809 was enacted in 1984 as part of an overhaul of the taxation of life insurance companies. At the time, mutual life insurance companies were thought to be the dominant segment of the industry, and Congress sought to ensure that stock life insurance companies were not competitively disadvantaged. However, today, mutual life insurance companies comprise only about ten percent of the industry. Section 809 raises little revenue, but is very complex and burdensome. Since the reason for its enactment no longer exists, our bill repeals it. Section 815 has an even longer history, dating back to 1959. Tax changes in 1959 created an accounting mechanism called a ``policyholders surplus account'' for stock life insurance companies. These companies were allowed to defer tax on one-half of their underwriting income so long as it was not distributed to shareholders. This income was accounted for through the policyholder surplus account. In 1984, Congress eliminated the deferral of income, but they did not address the issue of the policyholder surplus accounts. The amounts in those accounts remain subject to tax if certain triggering events occur. Since no company is willing to ``trigger'' the account, this provision also raises little or no revenue, but it directly inhibits business decisions of these companies. Our bill would also repeal this provision. Congress has worked hard over the last few years to modernize laws governing the financial services industry to encourage its growth and enhance its competitiveness. Elimination of these old, complicated tax provisions will complement this effort and provide greater certainty to the taxation of these companies. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this initiative.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to simplify the taxation of life insurance companies, along with Senator Conrad and several of our colleagues. Our legislation repeals section 809 and section 815 of the Internal Revenue Code. Due to significant changes in the life insurance industry and their taxation over the years, these provisions are no longer relevant and their repeal will simplify the tax code. Section 809 was enacted in 1984 as part of an overhaul of the taxation of life insurance companies. At the time, mutual life insurance companies were thought to be the dominant segment of the industry, and Congress sought to ensure that stock life insurance companies were not competitively disadvantaged. However, today, mutual life insurance companies comprise only about ten percent of the industry. Section 809 raises little revenue, but is very complex and burdensome. Since the reason for its enactment no longer exists, our bill repeals it. Section 815 has an even longer history, dating back to 1959. Tax changes in 1959 created an accounting mechanism called a ``policyholders surplus account'' for stock life insurance companies. These companies were allowed to defer tax on one-half of their underwriting income so long as it was not distributed to shareholders. This income was accounted for through the policyholder surplus account. In 1984, Congress eliminated the deferral of income, but they did not address the issue of the policyholder surplus accounts. The amounts in those accounts remain subject to tax if certain triggering events occur. Since no company is willing to ``trigger'' the account, this provision also raises little or no revenue, but it directly inhibits business decisions of these companies. Our bill would also repeal this provision. Congress has worked hard over the last few years to modernize laws governing the financial services industry to encourage its growth and enhance its competitiveness. Elimination of these old, complicated tax provisions will complement this effort and provide greater certainty to the taxation of these companies. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this initiative.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy for bringing the nomination of Ted Olson to be Solicitor General to the floor of the Senate. I am delighted we are going to have a vote on Mr. Olson. I know him well. I think he will be an outstanding Solicitor General not only for this President and this administration but for our country as well. Mr. Olson's qualifications are beyond reproach. He was an undergraduate at the University of the Pacific and received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. He has been a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, one of the nation's leading law firms, from 1965 to 1981, and also from 1984 until the present time. He served as Assistant Attorney General from 1981 to 1984, providing legal advice to President Reagan and Attorney General William French Smith and other executive branch officials. He has handled a lot of very important cases. Probably the best known case was Bush v. Gore. No matter which side of that case you supported, you had to admire the skill with which he argued a very complicated and, needless to say, very important case. In addition, he has argued numerous other very significant cases before the Supreme Court and other federal and state courts. I will include for the Record a highlight of seven of these important cases. Ted Olson has been on both sides of the courtroom battles. He has defended the Government and counseled the President. As Assistant Attorney General, he dealt with limiting government power as well. In private practice, he has defended private interests against the Government. In his arguments on both sides of the courtroom, he has presented factual cases and positions in both Federal and state courts, arguing for the government and against the Government. That type of experience is almost unequaled in a nominee for Solicitor General. He will be an outstanding credit to the administration and to the country. His nomination is supported by liberals and conservatives, by individuals such as Robert Bork, Robert Bennett and Laurence Tribe. Different people with different viewpoints have reached the same conclusion I have reached: Ted Olson will be an outstanding Solicitor General, and he should receive our very strong support. I am delighted we will be confirming him as the next Solicitor General of the United States. I ask unanimous consent to print the list of cases to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 378.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period for morning business beginning at 10 a.m. tomorrow. It is hoped the Senate can begin consideration of the tax reconciliation conference report at a reasonable time during tomorrow's session. Senators should be aware a vote is expected on the conference report prior to adjourning for the Memorial Day recess. The Senate may also consider any executive or legislative items available for action.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.