[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8785-S8790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1079

(Purpose: To increase the amounts made available to carry out title III 
                  of the Older Americans Act of 1965)

  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1079.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 45, line 13, strike ``$854,000'' and insert 
     ``$854,074,000 (and an additional amount of $40,000,000 that 
     shall be used to carry out title III of such Act)''.
       On page 85, line 19, strike ``$30,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$70,500,000''.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I thank Chairman Specter and the 
ranking minority member, Senator Harkin, for their incredible 
stewardship and leadership in developing the 1998 Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education appropriations bill. It is one of the most 
difficult bills that we have to deal with because the needs are so 
great; the needs for increased medical research, for research in all of 
the areas, whether it be for breast cancer, whether it be for kidney 
programs, whether it be for the programs for AIDS research.
  Encompassed in this is how do we share the resources which are so 
limited? So it really comes down to, unfortunately, choices, of not 
giving sufficient funding to some of the most critically important 
areas affecting our health, affecting infants, and affecting all of our 
populations.
  But there is another population that continues to grow, a population 
that has not, unfortunately, had their needs met, too. That is our 
senior citizens. That is why I rise today, on behalf of America's 
elderly citizens, to increase the title III of the Older Americans Act. 
I offer an amendment that would increase it by $40 million, for a total 
of $893 million. The current Older Americans Act funding includes a 2-
percent increase. That is 15 percent. That is a cost-of-living increase 
over last year's allocation.
  Most people would say, ``Well, that's not bad in these times of 
austerity.'' I agree. But I think we have to look at the problem. The 
primary goal of these community services is to keep millions--
millions--of frail elderly people living independent in their own 
homes, in their own apartments, for as long as possible, allowing them 
to avoid unnecessary institutionalization and saving billions of 
dollars, not to mention improving their quality of life.
  So the Older Americans Act provides a whole variety of programs, home 
and community-based services to the elderly, including congregate and 
home-delivered meals--Meals on Wheels; we have heard of that--
transportation so that seniors do not live as shut-ins so they have an 
opportunity to come together with friends and neighbors, senior 
employment, senior centers, adult day care and other services.
  Three of these services account for more than two-thirds of the title 
III funding: Congregate meals, that is $250 million; home-delivered 
meals, $134 million; and transportation, $63 million. No one can deny 
the incredible needs and the fact that, if anything, they grow and 
grow.
  The face of America's population, Mr. President, is changing. It is 
growing older. Believe it or not, those elderly people who are 85 years 
of age or older are growing faster than any others. They are growing at 
a faster rate--85 and older. So when we talk about the needs of the 
frail elderly and keeping them from being institutionalized, this is 
becoming an increasing problem.
  The elderly population over age 85 will increase by 36 percent by the 
year 2005. Think of that; an incredible 36 percent. That is going to 
call for increased services, increases well beyond what we can imagine 
and envision today. And unless we do, we are talking about a vulnerable 
population. They will have no other alternatives in many cases than to 
be institutionalized. I suggest not only the quality of life of the 
seniors then becomes degraded to the extent that we do not even like to 
think about it, but the cost factors will become incalculable.
  The typical Older Americans Act participant, Mr. President, to get a 
profile of who is that person, is a woman over 75, living on a very 
limited fixed income, who needs daily help in preparing meals or weekly 
transportation to a doctor.
  Thirty-nine percent of the Older Americans Act participants have 
incomes at or below the poverty level.
  Among States, the poverty rates for participants range from 17.2 to 
86.9 percent. Twelve States report at least half of their participants 
have incomes at or below the poverty threshold.
  Mr. President, why is a $40 million increase so desperately needed? 
Well, despite the steady funding increases, the effect of inflation and 
the tremendous population growth have diminished the actual impact of 
the annual appropriations increases. Over the past 15 years, there has 
been a 40-percent loss in the program's capacity to meet the needs of 
older citizens due to a combination of the following factors: increased 
costs due to inflation, serving increased numbers of frail elderly who 
need more, and reduced Federal funding.
  If inflation and the increasing age population were accounted for 
from the OAA's start in 1973, we would have had to double the funding. 
So while the request for doubling the funding level in 1 year is 
unrealistic, certainly--certainly--the request that we put forth at 5 
percent, or $40 million, is one that I believe is extremely 
conservative and one that I hope we can meet.
  Where do we find the funds? Let me first say the committee has done 
an excellent job. It has identified funding, an increased funding of 
$15 million, by reducing the general administrative costs, which amount 
to about $1 billion, the bureaucracy, the overhead for administering 
these programs, for the bureaucrats here in Washington and in other 
areas. I believe that by a further reduction by 5 percent, we can add 
$40 million. That is a very modest reduction as it relates to overhead. 
And that is what we intend to do.
  So what we are talking about is making more resources available for 
people, the frail elderly, people who need it, a population that 
averages 75 years of age, a population that continues to

[[Page S8786]]

increase, as opposed to decreasing resources for bureaucrats.
  I believe in the days of computerization, et cetera, and effective 
efficiency, we can do that. We can actually increase the services with 
less people by way of attrition, by way of maximizing the efficiency 
and the effectiveness that one person today can bring to the work force 
by use of the computer that can do the work of two or three or four.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Is there a sufficient second? 
There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1079, As Modified

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to submit a modification to the amendment which I have offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1079), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 45, line 13, strike ``$854,074,000'' and insert 
     ``$894,074,000''.
       On page 85, line 19, strike ``$30,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$70,500,000''.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this matter 
be laid aside and be voted on at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for their 
patience.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1080

       (Purpose: To increase funding for the Public Charter 
     Schools Program under Part C of Title X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1976)

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself 
     and Mr. Coats, proposes an amendment numbered 1080.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 50, line 9, strike ``$1,271,000,000'' and insert 
     ``1,256,987,000'', and on line 10, strike ``$530,000,000'' 
     and insert ``$515,987,000''.
       On page 53, line 12, strike, ``$310,000,000'' and insert 
     ``285,000,000''.
       On page 59, line 12, strike, ``$362,225,000.'' and insert 
     ``352,225,000, of which $40 million shall be made available 
     to carry out Part A of Title X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965.''
       On page 59, line 14, after ``said Act'' insert ``, 
     $100,000,000 shall be available to carry out part C of Title 
     X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to offer an 
amendment, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Coats from 
Indiana, which would increase our investment in one of the most 
promising engines of education reform in America today, which is the 
charter school movement. This amendment would increase funding for the 
charter school grant program from the current level of $51 million up 
to $100 million for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. President, we recognize that this is a sizable jump in funding, 
but let me put it in context and then go on to explain why we believe 
it is more than warranted.
  Earlier this week, on Tuesday of this week, my friend and mentor, 
Bill Bennett, wrote a column on the op-ed page of the Wall Street 
Journal in which he began with some startling numbers. ``This 
morning,'' that is Tuesday morning, ``a record 52 million children will 
walk into America's classrooms. And this year Americans will spend more 
than a quarter of a trillion dollars trying to educate them.''
  So when we think, as this amendment would do, Mr. President, of 
taking the $51 million the Federal Government now invests in charter 
schools and raising it to $100 million--a sizable jump; just about 
doubling it--let us put it in the broader context of the quarter of a 
trillion dollars that is being spent every year in this country to 
educate our children. This additional $50 million, I think, provides 
enormous hope that the remaining quarter of a trillion dollars will be 
better spent.
  Dr. Bill Bennett went on to say that these numbers alone ensure that 
education will be at or near the top of the national political agenda, 
and indeed, in addition to this, there is greater political emphasis on 
social issues. Education is how many people talk about the condition of 
our children, cultural decline, and the Nation's moral well-being.
  Dr. Bennett goes on to cite a number of hopeful signs of reform and 
progress occurring in our education system, including some of the 
superb experiments that are now being tried with school choice or 
school vouchers, school scholarships. But he also mentions charter 
schools. I quote from his article. ``Public schools that are freed from 
many regulations, in exchange for greater autonomy and more 
accountability, are flourishing. There are now more than 700 charter 
schools in 28 States.''
  Mr. President, the goal of this amendment is to help us open, help 
the States, help individuals, help entrepreneurs open hundreds of more 
charter schools. This movement has quickly become one of the most 
popular and encouraging developments in the world of education reform. 
Since the first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1991, 29 States 
and the District of Columbia have enacted charter programs. And as 
children head back to school this month, it is expected that more than 
700 charter schools will be in operation across the country, including 
a whole new group in my own State of Connecticut, practically tripling 
the number of charters that were in existence just 2 years ago.
  The appeal of this new breed of schools is obvious. In the context of 
a school system that is not adequately educating too many of our 
children, charters offer the promise of higher standards, greater 
accountability, broader flexibility to innovate in the classroom, and 
ultimately greater choice, which is what more and more parents want in 
public education. So far the broad array of charter schools already in 
business are delivering on that potential. Parents give overwhelmingly 
high marks to charter schools for their responsiveness to them, the 
parents, as customers. Several independent studies show that this, in 
turn, is helping to generate greater parental involvement in the 
education of their children.
  These studies also show that charters are effectively serving diverse 
populations, particularly many of the disadvantaged and at-risk 
children that traditional public schools have struggled to reach. While 
it is too soon to determine what impact charter schools are having on 
overall academic performance, the early returns in places like 
Massachusetts suggest that charters are succeeding where it matters 
most, in the classroom.
  Perhaps the most powerful endorsement of the charter school approach 
came recently from the superintendent of public schools for the Seattle 
public school district, who suggested that the city should consider 
making every school in its district a charter school, freeing the 
schools of the burdens of the central bureaucracy, setting a series of 
standards of accountability that would have to be met by those who run 
the school in a given amount of time and understanding that the charter 
is not forever. The charter is only renewed if the goals set out within 
it are realized.
  The movement is being driven by a growing legion of parents, 
educators, business leaders and community activists who are convinced 
that alternatives in public education, including charter schools, 
represent the future of public education in America. But Congress, to 
our credit, has made a valuable contribution to the growth of charters 
through the Federal charter grant program, which was authorized in 1994 
with broad bipartisan support. I was privileged to be a cosponsor of 
that legislation with Senator David Durenberger, the main sponsor, 
Senator from Minnesota.

  Over the last 3 years, the Federal charter program has helped scores 
of charter schools open. What do we do? We defray the costs many groups 
face in trying to start a school from scratch. That is what the Federal 
money goes to. Most States provide charter schools, and this is the 
case in

[[Page S8787]]

Connecticut, with a per pupil allotment once they are in operation. But 
charter operators have to scramble to cover such startup expenses as 
planning a curriculum, leasing a building, hiring a staff.
  A survey of charter school operators recently conducted by the 
Department of Education highlighted this problem showing that it was by 
far the biggest obstacle to success that charter school operators face. 
It is that obstacle that this amendment intends to diminish.
  As the charter movement expands, the demand for this aid will only 
continue to grow with it. With the number of charter schools 
mushrooming each year, our ability to help them meet their startup 
costs will quickly diminish, unless we increase the amount 
appropriated, as this amendment would do.
  President Clinton recognized this when he issued a challenge in the 
State of the Union to double the funding for the Federal charter 
program. That is what we do, Senator Coats and I, in this amendment.
  By doubling funding for this program, we would help scores of new 
charter schools make the transition from the drawing board to the 
blackboard, and provide thousands of additional students with an 
opportunity to attend one of these innovative, performance-based 
programs. Moreover, we would also send a strong message to charter 
advocates and to families in general that the Federal Government is 
committed to supporting the good work that is happening at the State 
and local level and that we are serious about fundamentally improving 
public education.
  To make sure we spend this new money wisely, Senator Coats and I also 
intend to introduce legislation this fall aimed at strengthening the 
Federal charter program. From our experience to date, we have learned 
some valuable lessons about how we can improve this program to speed 
the development of charter schools in participating States and to also 
encourage nonparticipating States to join this movement. The 
legislation we're preparing would use the new Federal funding to reward 
those States that are most actively moving to create charters. It would 
also tighten a few unintended loopholes in the current law that have 
allowed schools that are not true charters to receive Federal aid that 
was not intended for them.
  We can begin strengthening this program immediately by increasing our 
investment in charter schools. And that is the purpose of our amendment 
today. To pay for this new investment, we are proposing shifting a 
relatively small amount of funds from three broad-based Federal 
programs--the title VI block grant account, Goals 2000, and the Fund 
for the Improvement of Education. All three of these programs are aimed 
at promoting educational reform and innovation, which is the same exact 
mission of the charter school program. So in essence, rather than 
cutting these three broad-based accounts, our amendment would simply 
earmark a fixed portion for a highly effective, well-targeted, and 
broadly supported program.
  The three programs from which we are shifting funding are all 
worthwhile efforts. But we feel strongly by earmarking a relatively 
small amount from them for the charter school program, we will be 
getting the most bang for the books.
  We are convinced that the charter movement, as charter expert Bruno 
Manno of the Hudson Institute has said, is arguably the most vibrant 
force in public education today. It has managed to bring together 
parents, educators, and political leaders from both parties in support 
of an effort to inject more choice, accountability, and competition 
into our public schools, an effort that focuses first and foremost on 
performance, not process--performance in educating our children.
  I hope we can come together ourselves in a bipartisan fashion, as we 
did in launching the Federal charter program, to demonstrate our 
commitment to these goals by passing this amendment. I thank the 
managers of the bill for the opportunity to speak on this important 
issue, and would ask them for their support.
  Mr. President, let me discuss the funding offsets for the Lieberman-
Coats charter school amendment.
  The Lieberman-Coats amendment would increase funding for the Federal 
charter school grant program by $49 million. Here is a breakdown of how 
this amendment is paid for: $25 million would come from the title VI 
block grant program that supports State and local driven innovation 
efforts. This would leave funding for this account at $285 million; $14 
million would come from the Goals 2000 program. This would leave 
funding for this account at $515.9 million, which would still amount to 
a $25 million increase over the fiscal year 1997 level; and $10 million 
would come from the Fund for the Improvement of Education, a pool of 
discretionary funds administered by the Secretary of Education. This 
would leave funding for this account at $40 million, the same amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
  All of these programs are broad-based efforts aimed at promoting 
education reform and innovation and lifting standards. The charter 
school program is dedicated to these same goals. So rather than cutting 
the three programs listed above, the Lieberman-Coats amendment simply 
earmarks a fixed portion of these accounts for arguably the most 
promising education reform and innovation initiative in the country.
  I notice the presence on the floor of my cosponsor and Senator 
Stevens as well. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote occur on 
the pending D'Amato amendment at 4:30 p.m. today, and that no 
amendments be in order to the D'Amato amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. I understand that shortly the Senator from Alaska will 
make a proposal that is certainly acceptable to Senator Lieberman and 
I, and I will be very brief in my comments.
  I am pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut in coauthoring and 
cosponsoring this amendment to increase funding for charter schools. 
Clearly, we are in a situation where I think there is a growing 
recognition that the status quo in our public schools is unacceptable, 
particularly our public schools located in low-income and urban areas. 
That status quo has existed for quite some time.
  It has been nearly 13 years since the President's commission reported 
about mediocrity in public education. We have seen numerous attempts 
both through public policy and through local initiatives to try to 
address the mediocrity and improve educational opportunities for our 
young people. We have met considerable resistance from the Federal 
Government, from the Department of Education, because they do not want 
to upset the status quo. Yet parents are voting with their feet and 
with considerable sacrifice and demanding at local and State levels 
that change be made. They are demanding alternatives.
  Senator Lieberman and I have explored a possibility of vouchers for 
low income, providing parents who do not have a choice, a choice that 
most of the rest of us have, that if their failing public school is not 
educating their young people they would have some means and wherewithal 
to utilize a voucher to achieve a better education.
  This is not that amendment. This is an amendment that addresses 
another alternative, a viable alternative called charter schools that 
Senator Lieberman has said is being more and more accepted throughout 
America. Even the Department of Education, in releasing its first 
formal report on the study of charter schools, has some findings 
indicating that charter schools have racial compositions similar to 
statewide averages, and in many cases have a higher proportion of 
minority students. So the charge that they are just for a certain race 
or just for the elite is not a well-founded charge.
  Sixty percent of public charter schools are new startups rather than 
conversions of public and private schools to charter status. They 
enroll roughly the same percent of low-income students on the average 
of other public schools. So a lot of red herrings about charter schools 
undermining the effectiveness of public schools is not proven.
  The Hudson Institute, located in Indianapolis, has undertaken a very 
significant and comprehensive study of

[[Page S8788]]

charter schools called Charter Schools in Action. Their research has 
involved visiting 14 States, 60 schools, and visiting thousands of 
teachers and students. The key findings are that three-fifths of 
charter school students rate their charter school teachers as better. 
Over two-thirds of parents say the charter school is better than the 
child's previous school with respect to class size and school size. 
Over 90 percent of the teachers are satisfied with their charter school 
educational philosophy, their size, colleagues and students. And among 
students who said they were failing at their previous school, more than 
half are now doing excellent or good work.
  The gains were dramatic, most dramatic for minority and low-income 
youngsters, and were confirmed by their parents.
  In summary, the Hudson Institute study found charter schools point to 
important ways to improve and reinvent public education as a whole. The 
implications from the success of charter schools indicate that 
successful public schools should be consumer-oriented, diverse results 
oriented and professional places that also function as media 
institutions in their area.
  Because of the tremendous success of charter schools in the past 6 
years, I joined Senator Lieberman in an attempt to double the funding. 
As Senator Lieberman pointed out, they offer great accountability, 
broader flexibility for classroom innovation, and ultimately more 
choice in public education.
  Senator Lieberman and I have addressed what we think are some offsets 
to provide for this doubling of funding to encourage charter schools. 
There has been some concern about where that funding comes from. I 
think there are some creative, innovative, and useful offsets, but it 
would engender considerable debate and discussion and might undermine 
this effort. Senator Stevens has found, I think, a very acceptable way 
to address this, and I appreciate his involvement and his efforts and 
his support for this.
  With that, I thank my colleague, Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, 
for his initiatives, and I am pleased to join him in this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this pending Lieberman-Coats amendment is 
a good one. We see no reason to take further time on it because the 
House bill does have the $75 million for charter schools. The effect of 
this amendment would be to increase it to that amount.
  It is the intention of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Specter, to notify the House that in conference we will recede to the 
House on this item.
  I appreciate the indulgence of the two Senators, Senator Lieberman 
and Coats, and ask under the circumstances that they accept our word 
that will be the amount of money provided for charter schools under 
this bill when it comes out of conference.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska very 
much for his statement. The willingness of the Senate conferees to 
yield to the House on this would accomplish an enormous step forward in 
Federal support of the charter school movement. There is no need to 
take any more time of the Senate. Obviously, the word of the Senator 
from Alaska is bankable. I thank him for that.
  I thank my colleague from Indiana and I appreciate very much another 
expression of bipartisan support for this educational reform movement 
that is sweeping America. With our help, it will help it even more with 
this additional amount of money.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment and congratulate the 
Senators from Connecticut, Indiana, and Alaska for not only their 
support for charter schools but also for the additional funding, 
because this is a success story. There are successes in communities all 
across the country. The number of charter schools has exploded. I think 
there are over 700 now, and growing.
  A lot of States are looking to see how can we improve our schools, 
how can we make education better. Charter schools have been a proven 
success.
  I compliment my colleagues for bipartisan work in making a real 
addition to a proven success story and improving education.


                      Amendment No. 1080 Withdrawn

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 1080) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1081

      (Purpose: To limit the use of taxpayer funds for any future 
      International Brotherhood of Teamsters leadership election)

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, and 
     Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 1081.

  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 25, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (b), none of the funds made available under this Act, or any 
     other Act making appropriations for fiscal year 1998, may be 
     used by the Department of Labor or the Department of Justice 
     to conduct a rerun of a 1996 election for the office of 
     President, General Secretary, Vice-President, or Trustee of 
     the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
       (b) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Upon the submission to Congress of a 
     certification by the President of the United States that the 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters does not have funds 
     sufficient to conduct a rerun of a 1996 election for the 
     office of President, General Secretary, Vice-President, or 
     Trustee of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the 
     President of the United States may transfer funds from the 
     Department of Justice and the Department of Labor for the 
     conduct and oversight of such a rerun election.
       (2) Requirement.--Prior to the transfer of funds under 
     paragraph (1), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
     shall agree to repay the Secretary of the Treasury for the 
     costs incurred by the Department of Labor and the Department 
     of Justice in connection with the conduct of an election 
     described in paragraph (1). Such agreement shall provide that 
     any such repayment plan be reasonable and practicable, as 
     determined by the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     Treasury, and be structured in a manner that permits the 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters to continue to 
     operate.
       (3) Repayment plan.--The International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters shall submit to the President of the United States, 
     the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Majority 
     and Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, a plan for the 
     repayment of amounts described in paragraph (2), at an 
     interest rate equal to the Federal underpayment rate 
     established under section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 as in effect for the calender quarter in which 
     the plan is submitted, prior to the expenditure of any funds 
     under this section.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment I send to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords is an amendment that deals with 
the potential rerun of the 1996 Teamsters election. I think most of my 
colleagues are aware the Teamsters election, which was held in 1996, 
has now been held invalid, at least by the administrator overseeing the 
election who determined that there was fraud, that there was 
corruption, and that there needed to be another election. She has now 
made that petition before the U.S. district court. The court will rule 
on that. My guess is she will probably order another election.
  The purpose of this is to ensure that taxpayers won't pay for the 
next election. To give my colleagues a little history of how the U.S. 
taxpayers paid for the last one, I have heard estimates of around $22 
million. I also heard more than $22 million, maybe higher or closer to 
$28 or $29 million, but the taxpayers paid millions of dollars, $20 
million-some for the 1996 Teamsters election.
  Now it seems that the Federal overseer of that election says it was 
not fair, it was not right, there was corruption, it needs to be held 
over again.
  The purpose of this amendment is to say that taxpayers will not pay 
for it again. I might mention, somebody said why would taxpayers pay 
for it in the first place? Mr. President, 99 percent of all union 
elections that are held in this country, the U.S. taxpayer does not

[[Page S8789]]

pay for. There was a 1989 decree with the Teamsters and the Justice 
Department entered into in 1989 that called for the elections both in 
1991 and 1996. The 1991 election, I might mention, had oversight by the 
Federal Government but was not paid for by the Federal Government. 
Actually, the Teamsters paid for the 1991 election.
  With Federal Government oversight, no allegations of improprieties or 
corruption were made. It was a good election. The 1996 election, 
however, provided for in the decree, provided that the taxpayers would 
pay for the 1996 election. Now the overseer of that election said, wait 
a minute, there was fraud, we will have to have another election.
  The purpose of this amendment is, let's not pay for it, let the 
Teamsters pay for it. Somebody said, well, maybe they do not have the 
money, it could cost several million. I heard it could cost $10 
million, it might cost $20 million. Who knows? I think they will be 
more frugal if they are paying for it. Certainly, they are capable of 
paying for it. In the event they do not have the money, our amendment 
allows for the taxpayers to pay for it, but we have to be paid back.
  Again, I think taxpayers did not get their money's worth out of the 
1996 election. If you paid $20 million-some and you find there was 
rampant corruption, fraud, and abuse to the extent we have to have 
another election--we should not let that happen again.
  So, that is the purpose of my amendment. I think it is a fair 
amendment. It is in accord with the 1989 decree ordered in the past. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                amendment no. 1082 to amendment no. 1081

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1082 to amendment No. 1081.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end thereof, insert the following:
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     the obligations of the United States under the consent decree 
     in United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
     88 Civ. 4486 (DNE) (S.D.N.Y.), or any court orders 
     thereunder.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the benefit of the membership, 
to describe where we are, the amendment that I have offered would 
include the Nickles amendment, but it would also add to the Nickles 
amendment: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the 
obligations of the United States under the consent decree'' entered 
into in United States v. Teamsters, decided in 1989.''
  So, effectively, the Nickles amendment would be perfected with the 
Kennedy amendment. All we are saying with the Kennedy amendment would 
be that nothing in the Nickles amendment would eliminate the 
obligations of the United States that was a part of a consent decree 
that was signed in 1989 because we are not operating in a vacuum here 
today with regard to the Teamsters elections. We are basically 
operating on the basis of a consent decree that was signed by the 
previous administration, signed by the Bush administration, and 
supported by the Bush administration.
  All that we are saying is that whatever decision that is going to be 
made, or whatever language would be included in the Nickles amendment, 
it will not be contrary to what was agreed to by the United States, 
agreed to by the U.S. Government and the previous administration and 
adhered to by the courts. We don't know what the future is going to 
bring with regard to any potential future election or what the 
allocation of responsibility would be in terms of who would be 
responsible to pay for various aspects of the election. We don't 
prejudge that. All we are saying is that nothing in the Nickles 
amendment will, in any way, undermine the responsibilities of the 
United States, which I believe is a solemn agreement and a solemn 
commitment, and that has been accepted in the courts of law by the 
United States.
  Now, Mr. President, this amendment, I believe, is basically a 
transparent attempt to punish the Teamsters Union for winning the UPS 
strike, and it doesn't deserve really to pass. This issue is no light 
matter. The amendment would require the Federal Government to abdicate 
its responsibility under the court-approved consent ordered and signed 
by the Justice Department under the Bush administration. If the Federal 
Government abdicates this responsibility, it could be subject to 
contempt proceedings in the Federal court.
  The amendment would deny Federal funds to oversee the forthcoming 
Teamsters election, which had been ordered after the 1996 election was 
nullified by the Government-appointed election officer. That election 
was paid for by Federal dollars. The Federal Government agreed to fund 
that election under a 1989 consent order in the Federal court of New 
York City that resolved a racketeering suit brought by the Government. 
The suit was a culmination of over 30 years of effort to eliminate 
organized crime from the leadership of the Teamsters Union. Congress 
has been heavily involved in that process. From the McClellan committee 
hearings in 1957 to the Senate permanent subcommittee investigation 
hearings in 1994, we have worked to reduce the influence of organized 
crime in the union and in the industry where its members work.
  In 1988, the Justice Department, under President Bush, sued the 
Teamsters under the Federal racketeering laws. The charge was that the 
union was dominated by organized crime. That was settled in 1989. The 
court-approved consent order was designed to rid the union of officers 
with ties to organized crime and to create a new, open and democratic 
structure in the union. The consent order provided that the 1991 
election for Teamster offices would be supervised by a court-appointed 
election officer. The consent order also required the 1996 election to 
be supervised by the election officer.
  Let me quote the union-defendant's consent to the election officer, 
at Government expense, to supervise the 1996 elections on page 16 of 
the consent order:

       In accord with that decree, the election officer supervised 
     the '96 election, at Government expense. Late last month, the 
     officer ruled that the '96 election must be rerun because of 
     irregularities committed by consultants to one of the 
     candidates. The election officer specifically refused to find 
     that any union officer or member committed any misconduct and 
     noted that Teamster President Ron Carey cooperated with the 
     election officer in a manner inconsistent with guilt. Under 
     the consent order, the Federal court must formally order any 
     rerun election that is held. The court's decision will be 
     issued later this month.

  It is the consent order that obligated the Government to pay for the 
1996 election. Under the consent order, any rerun of that election 
ordered by the election officer should be Government-funded. Yet, this 
amendment asks the Government to walk away from that clear obligation. 
If passed, the amendment would order the Government to subject itself 
to a contempt proceeding. These financial obligations were entered into 
by a Republican-controlled Justice Department and a Republican 
administration. They were part of a comprehensive and successful effort 
to root out organized crime from the Teamsters Union and restore 
democratic process to that union.
  It is an outrage to ask Congress to abdicate our responsibility to 
help in eliminating corruption in this union. The heart of this 
amendment is an attempt to punish the Teamsters for their extraordinary 
success in the recent UPS strike, in which the Teamsters won 10,000 
more permanent jobs for their members, improved benefits for all 
185,000 UPS employees, and sensitized the entire Nation to the gross 
abuses in many workplaces that force hard-working men and women into 
part-time jobs with lower wages and lower benefits than they deserve.

[[Page S8790]]

  Some of our Republican friends may believe the Teamsters should be 
punished for these gains. I believe that they deserve praise instead of 
punishment. I urge my colleagues to give our amendment the kind of 
support that it deserves.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.
  Mr. NICKLES. In looking at your amendment, you said that nothing in 
this section should be construed to affect the obligations under the 
consent decree. I might agree to that part. But then you also add, ``or 
any court orders thereunder.'' What do you mean by that last few words?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would expect that what we would include in that is any 
court orders that would be related under the consent decree or that 
would be related to the consent. Is there something in particular--I 
would be glad to attempt to define that, if the Senator has some 
particular concerns in some particular way. But it seems to me to be 
fairly clear. Any of the orders that would be a part of that consent 
decree. Now that we are retained and we are within the consent decree, 
there would be any of the court orders with regard to the various 
elections. And I would expect that as we did before, we would want to 
comply with the consent decree in those areas.

  Mr. NICKLES. I am just trying to help a little bit. If the Senator 
will drop those last few words, I might agree to his amendment, because 
I think our amendment is consistent with the consent decree. But I may 
be overly interpreting. I don't know exactly what the sentiment is for 
``or any court orders thereunder.'' But it might be hoped by the 
Teamsters, or something, they could go to court and find some court 
that would say, yes, the Federal Government should pay for a rerun 
election. That is not covered.
  I might tell my colleague that I have done a little homework on this. 
The rerun is not covered by the consent decree. There certainly is no 
obligation for taxpayers to pay for reruns, which is not consistent 
with the statement of the Senator from Massachusetts. That, I think, is 
factual.
  So my point is, if the Senator would delete those last few words ``or 
any court orders thereunder,'' I think I could accept his amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If there was any court order affecting the 1996 
elections of Teamsters officers--I would like to try a short quorum 
call to make sure that would be language, which I think appears to be 
to the Senator's point, and I think it would meet the objectives. But 
maybe we could suggest a short quorum call to make sure that we have 
the language that conforms to both of our understanding.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________