[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.
____________________