Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Bennett] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. To outline just a little bit, the Department of Education has 307 education programs and spends a little over $59 billion. The Department of Health and Human Services has 172 Federal education programs, that costs $8.6 billion. The Department of Labor has 21 at a cost of $5.4 billion, and I can go on down the list but we have had it printed in the Record. It is a total of 788 programs; a total cost of almost $97 billion a year. I found that hard to believe, and I served on the Budget Committee for years and thought I knew a little bit about Federal budgeting. But I started looking at these figures, and they are astronomical. Mr. President, we have had this information printed in the Record. I hope my colleagues will pay a little attention to it. I hope as a result of that they will realize there is no way in the world that we, on the Federal level, from Washington, DC, can micromanage 788 programs. The amendment of the Senator from Washington says let's let the local school boards do it. Let's put this money, with a few exemptions-- impact aid and a couple of other exceptions that maybe really have Federal cause--let's exempt them. But for the most part, let's take the balance of them, 788 programs, and put that money together and turn it over to the local school boards and to the parents and to the teachers where they can really do some quality education. They know what works. Frankly, what works in Oklahoma may be different than what works in New York, what works in Arizona. So I think my colleague from Washington has an outstanding amendment. I hope and urge my colleagues to support it. I hope it will be adopted tomorrow morning. I complement him for his outstanding work and hope this amendment passes. I believe, if it passes, it will make a very positive contribution towards improving education throughout this country. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, for an outstanding amendment. Every once in a while we will vote on an amendment that will make a significant difference in our lives and the lives our families, and this is just such an amendment. This is an amendment that says local school boards, local school districts and parents will be making decisions instead of Washington, DC. I remember when we debated welfare reform and I asked my staff: How many Federal welfare programs do we have? I was thinking maybe we had 60 or something. It turned out we had 350-some Federal welfare programs. They were stacked on top of each other and, frankly, people could qualify for any number of programs, multiple programs. Then I remember we started talking about education. I asked somebody how many programs do we have and how much money are we spending in education? And my staff sent me back: Well, there's hundreds of programs and we spend almost $100 billion. I thought, ``Well, I don't really think that's the case. We don't spend that much in the Department of Education. And we don't spend that much--I know we have other education programs in other agencies, but surely that is an exaggeration. Maybe that was something that some right-wing Rush Limbaugh group or somebody made up.'' So I asked the question and we did some homework and we got some information from CRS. This is a listing of all the Federal education programs. It is a big list. There are 788 Federal education programs. I don't care how bright anyone is, there is no one person who can keep track of all these programs. These are all Federal education programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point--not this lengthy list, because I don't want to charge the Government that much--but a little summary of the list by departments, programs, and funding; and also by category; the listing and the amount of money spent on Federal education programs. I ask unanimous consent to have these printed in the Record at the close of my statement.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that was originally scheduled to occur immediately after the Gorton amendment occur at 6 o'clock.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, earlier today the Senate adopted an amendment No. 1109, an amendment that I introduced along with Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, Senator Grams from Minnesota, and Senator Hagel, that deals with Social Security Administration personal earnings and benefit estimate statements [PEBES]. The amendment that we passed requires the Social Security Administration to include the employee contributions as well as employer contributions on the PEBES. Right now, when those statements are compiled, they show employee contributions but not employer contributions. Due to the support of the chairman of the Finance Committee and Senator Moynihan, these statements in the future will show not only what the individual contributed but also what the company contributed and what their future anticipated benefits will be. I think it is a good amendment. It is a disclosure amendment. A lot of people are not aware of the fact that not only do they contribute 7.65 percent of their payroll for Social Security and Medicare, but their employer matches it, for a total of 15.3 percent of payroll. This personal benefit statement will be sent to every eligible working American from Social Security beginning in fiscal year 2000. Americans will receive this financial disclosure every year, so people will know what they have contributed to Social Security and what their employer has contributed as well. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment, especially the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee and Senator Specter. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in 1989, Congress enacted legislation that requires that the Social Security Administration provide workers with regular statements about the value of their Social Security benefits. SSA is required to send these forms--known as the Personal Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statements (PEBES)--to any eligible individual who requests one and was mandated to send an annual PEBES to each eligible workers over the age of 59 in 1995. In FY 2000, the Secretary will be required to send this form annually to all eligible workers over the age of 25--An estimated 123 million Americans are expected to receive this form in FY 2000. The SSA projects that the cost of administering this law in FY 2000 will be $80 million. These forms are specifically designed to help beneficiaries understand the value of their Social Security benefits. While I agree with the stated goal of the PEBES forms, I do not agree that the PEBES form in its current design meets the test of providing that information. In fact, I believe that in its current structure the PEBES form is misleading to beneficiaries. Right now, individuals are provided an estimate of their retirement benefit. They are provided a yearly breakdown of their reported earnings, and a yearly breakdown of the taxes he or she paid. What is NOT reflected in this statement is the employer's contribution. My amendment will require the Social Security Administration to include the employer's contribution on the PEBES statement. By not including the employer's contribution, the form misleads workers on the actual amount of money being contributed into Social Security on their behalf and distorts the true rate of return on their taxes. Most people think that FICA represents 7.65 percent of their wages. Actually, it is twice that when you consider the employer's contribution totaling 15.3 percent--12.4 percent designated Social Security and 2.9 designated to Medicare. Mr. President, the employer share of FICA is a labor cost. This is a cost of employing somebody in this country. This is compensation that is not available to go to the employee but instead is contributed on their behalf through FICA taxes. While we refer to this as the employer share, in reality this additional 7.65 percent comes out of the employee's compensation. The PEBES is only telling half the story. Omitting the employer's share of FICA is a gross misrepresentation. The worker who looks at his or her statement will falsely assume that their estimated benefit is providing them a much higher rate of return. In fact, the rate of return is much lower because the taxes that a person is paying is actually TWICE what the PEBES form indicates. The PEBES form does provide for representation of the self-employed share, however, those workers who are not self-employed are not getting the truth about the performance of their Social Security taxes. Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It will require that we are honest to taxpayers about not only what their full benefits will be but that we are also honest on what the full cost of those benefits are. If we are going to take the time and resources to educate workers on their benefits we should ensure that it is done honestly and correctly. Frankly, I believe that we would improve the PEBES form even more by tackling some of the issues that Senator Grams has laid out in his legislation Workers should be informed on the real rate of return on their taxes; they should understand how the Social Security program is performing compared to the private market; and finally, when the Social Security Administration projects benefit estimates they should also be required to inform beneficiaries that the trust fund won't be able to pay benefits after 2029. I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted by the managers of the bill and I believe it will help improve one of the few tools available to us in educating the public about planning for their retirement. amendment no. 1093

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent Senator Ashcroft be added as cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Brownback used the word ``saint.'' And I can't recall too many living individuals that I ever referred to as a saint. But I remember during Mother Teresa's life, after meeting her in 1985 and subsequent to her speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, I referred to her as ``a living saint.'' The very fact is that her life touched other lives in letting them know that they are loved by God. Looking at her speeches and at her statements, she truly did make this world a better place. She did love people who were downtrodden. She did love the people that no one else would love. She did reach out to protect all individuals. Her love for the ailing and for the sick is well known. Her love for the unborn is well known. In her speeches at the National Prayer Breakfast, she was talking about abortion and what a terrible cruelty it is. Then she ended up, and concluding said, ``Well, send me your children. If you do not want your child, I will take your child.'' Again we are talking about a real missionary of love. So, Mr. President, it is with sadness that we note Mother Teresa's passing. But we did want to recognize her great contributions to mankind throughout the world. And so it is with a sense of sadness that the Senate today will be voting on this after lunch today, but we wanted to recognize the wonderful expression of love that Mother Teresa of Calcutta has had and the impact she has had on our lives, and really the lives of countless people throughout the world. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Whatever You Did Unto One of the Least, You Did Unto Me (By Mother Teresa of Calcutta) On the last day, Jesus will say to those at his right hand, ``Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.'' Then Jesus will turn to those on his left hand and say. ``Depart from the because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.'' These will ask him, ``When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or sick, and did not come to your help?'' And Jesus will answer them, ``Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto me!'' As we have gathered here to pray together, I think it will be beautiful if we begin with a prayer that expresses very well what Jesus wants us to do for the least. St. Francis of Assisi understood very well these words of Jesus and his life is very well expressed by a prayer. And this prayer, which we say every day after Holy Communion, always surprises me very much, because it is very fitting for each one of us. And I always wonder whether eight hundred years ago when St. Francis lived, they had the same difficulties that we have today. I think that some of you already have this prayer of peace, so we will pray it together. Let us thank God for the opportunity he has given us today to have come here to pray together. We have come here especially to pray for peace, joy, and love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had told us what that good news is when he said, ``My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.'' He came not to give the peace of the world, which is only that we don't bother each other. He came to give peace of heart which comes from loving--from doing good to others. And God loved the world so much that he gave his son. God gave his son to the Virgin Mary, and what did she do with him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary's life, immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as she came into the house of her cousin, Elizabeth, Scripture tells us that the unborn child--the child in the womb of Elizabeth--leapt with joy. While still in the womb of Mary, Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in the womb of Elizabeth. And as if that were not enough--as if it were not enough that God the Son should become one of us and bring peace and joy while still in the womb, Jesus also died on the Cross to show that greater love. He died for you and me, and for the leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person lying in the street--not only of Calcutta, but of Africa, of everywhere. Our Sisters serve these poor people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted that we love one another as he loves each one of us. Jesus gave his life to love us, and he tells us that he loves each one of us. Jesus gave his live to love us, and he tells us that we also have to give whatever it takes to do good to one another. And in the Gospel Jesus says very clearly, ``Love as I have loved you.'' Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for him to do good for us--to save us from our selfishness and sin. He gave us everything to do the Father's will, to show us that we too must be willing to give everything to do God's will, to love one another as he loves each of us. If we are not willing to give whatever it takes to do good for one another, sin is still in us. That is why we too must give to each other until it hurts. Love always hurts. It is not enough for us to say, ``I love God.'' But I also have to love my neighbor. St. John says that you are a liar if you say you love God and you don't love your neighbor. How can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live? And so it is very important for us to realize that love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no love in me and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me. It hurt Jesus to love us. We have been created in his image for greater things, to love and to be loved. We must ``put on Christ,'' as Scripture tells us. And so we have been created to love as he loves us. Jesus makes himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and he says, ``You did it to me.'' On the last day he will say to those on his right, ``whatever you did the least of these, you did to me,'' and he will also say to those on his left, ``whatever you neglected to do for the least of these, you neglected to do it for me.'' When he was dying on the Cross, Jesus said, ``I thirst.'' Jesus is thirsting for our love, and this is the thirst for everyone, poor and rich alike. We all thirst for the love of others, that they do out of their way to avoid harming us and to do good to us. This is the meaning of true love, to give until it hurts. I can never forget the experience I had in visiting a home where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters who had just put them into an institution and, maybe, forgotten them. I saw that in that home these old people had everything: good food, comfortable place, television-- everything. But everyone was looking toward the door. And I did not see a single one with a smile on his face. I turned to Sister and I asked, ``Why do these people, who have every comfort here--why are they all looking toward the door? Why are they not smiling? '' (I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people.'' Even the dying ones smile.) And Sister said, ``This is the way it is, nearly everyday. They are epxecting--they are hoping--that a son or daughter will come to visit them. They are hurt because they are forgotten.'' See, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we there? Are we willing to give until it hurts, in order to be with our families? Or do we put our own interests first? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, especially as we begin this Year of the Family. We must remember that love begins at home, and we must also remember that ``the future of humanity passes through the family.'' I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it like that, when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East? And the answer was, ``Because there is no one in the family to receive them.'' Our children depend on us for everything: their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope, and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy that they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married, or have given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets, and get involved in drugs, or other things. We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin. There are the things that break peace. But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child--a direct killing of the innocent child--murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love--that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa, where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today: abortion, which brings people to such blindness. ``I want this child!'' And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere: ``Let us bring the child back.'' The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things--to love and to be loved. In this Year of the Family we must bring the child back to the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that our world can survive, because our children are the only hope for the future. As other people are called to God, only their children can take their places. But what does God say to us? He says, ``Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand.'' We are carved in the palm of his hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception, and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, out forever. God can never forget us. I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption--by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals, and police stations: Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child.'' So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: ``Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child.'' And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child. But I never give a child to a couple who has done something not to have a child. Jesus said, ``Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me.'' By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus, but by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus. Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy! I know that couples have to plan their family, and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self, and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other, as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily. The greatness of the poor I also know that there are great problems in the world-- that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. This is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion. The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching them natural family planning, and said: ``You people--who have practiced chastity--you are the best people to teach us natural family planning, because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.'' And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich. Those who are materially poor can be wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: ``You take care of the other three, I will take care of the one who looks worse.'' So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, and she said one thing only: ``Thank you,'' Then she died. I could not help but examine my conscience before her. I asked, What would I say if I were in her place?'' And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said, ``I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain,'' or something like that. But she gave me much more--she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face. Then there was the man we picked up from the drain, half- eaten by worms. And after we had brought him to the home, he only said, ``I have lived like an animal in the street, but am going to die as an angel, loved and care for.'' Then, after we had removed all the worms from his body, all he said--with a big smile--was: ``Sister, I am going home to God.'' And he died. It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man, who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel--this is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich, even when they are materially poor. A sign of care We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together. There is so much hatred, so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice, are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put into what we do. If we are contemplatives in the heart of the world with all its problems, these problems can never discourage us. We must always remember what God tells us in the Scripture: Even if the mother could forget the child in her womb--something that is impossible, but even if she could forget--I will never forget you. And so here I am talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. Bear the good news to your own people first. And find out about your next-door neighbors. Do you know who they are? I had the most extraordinary experience of love of a neighbor from a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said, ``Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something.'' So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children, their eyes shining with hunger. (I don't know if you have ever seen hunger, but I have seen it very often.) And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her, and went out. When she came back, I asked her, ``Where did you go? What did you do?'' And she gave me a very simple answer: ``They are hungry also.'' What struck me was that she knew. And who were ``they?'' A Muslim family. And she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening, because I wanted them--Hindus and Muslims--to enjoy the joy of sharing. But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the joy and peace with their mother because she had the love to give until it hurts. And you see this is where love begins: at home in the family. God will never forget us, and there is something you and I can always do. We can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our hearts, and share that joy with all we come in contact with. Let us make that one point: that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared for, or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts--with a smile. Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a professor from the United States asked me, ``Are you married?'' And I said, ``Yes, and I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse--Jesus--because he can be very demanding--sometimes this is really something true. And there is where love comes in--when it is demanding, and yet we can give it with joy. One of the most demanding things for me is traveling everywhere, and with publicity. I have said to Jesus that if I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to heaven for all the traveling with all the publicity, because it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready to go to heaven. If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as he loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak--the unborn child--must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor this resolution with Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Brownback, and Senator Hutchinson. I want to compliment Senator Brownback for his outstanding statement, and also thank Senator Brownback and Senator Hutchinson for their work to award Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal. Earlier this year, when she spoke to both the House and the Senate, and, frankly, to the country, we had a real honor, a real pleasure, maybe of seeing a real saint in our presence. I have had the pleasure of greeting Mother Teresa two or three times in my Senate career: Once in 1985, when she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and then also when she addressed the National Prayer Breakfast, I believe it was in 1994. At the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Mother Teresa's statement, her speech to the National Prayer Breakfast. It was an outstanding speech; a moving speech.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. How long would it take?

Mr. NICKLES. Then I will object, with great respect for my friend and colleague from Arizona, because I think we are going to need to dispose of the amendment that I have offered. Senator Kennedy has offered a second-degree amendment. We have talked about it. We negotiated about it. We tried to figure out what it would mean. We keep getting different opinions. So my guess is, I think we will have to at some point move to table Senator Kennedy's amendment, find out where the votes are, and dispose of my amendment. I would hate to have to wait longer and longer. So I would just as soon move ahead with our amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.