Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

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

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. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 Amendment No. 1080 Withdrawn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. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. We had an overseer in the 1991 election, but it didn't cost $22 million. We ought to be able to have one in the 1998 election and not have it cost taxpayers $22 million. The overseer costs almost $400,000 for that one position. That is a lot of money. I don't have too many constituents that make that kind of money--$175 an hour. We had a lot of supervision and still had a corrupt election. We can still have supervision, but we should not pay for it. We had a clean election in 1991. We should not have to do this again in 1998.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield----

Mr. NICKLES. I agree. That is the purpose of the amendment. We have a majority--I think we have one, or I believe we will have a majority when we vote, and I hope that we vote on the amendment in the not-too- distant future.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to respond. The consent decree does not say who would pay for the next election. Now, the judge may interpret that the judge has the authority. I do not think they do, but that remains to be seen. What our amendment would do would be to clarify, ``Judge, you can make your order, but Uncle Sam or the taxpayers are not going to pay for the next election.''

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, since I have the floor I will make a comment. I am not undermining that because the consent decree touched two elections, for my colleagues' information. It touched the 1991 election and touched the 1996 election, and it did both elections differently. I hope my colleague will realize that, and if he reads the consent decree he will see that is the fact. It said in 1991 the Teamsters paid for the election with some Federal supervision. In 1996 it said we will have Federal supervision and taxpayers pay for it. It does not say anything about a rerun. I am just saying on the rerun we should not pay for the election. We can still have supervision but we should not pay for it. That simple.

Mr. NICKLES. Is that a question?

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

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to tell my colleague that in reviewing the consent agreement we did not undo anything. The consent decree does not say anything about a rerun election. It says that the Teamsters will pay for the 1991 election and it says taxpayers will pay for the 1996 election. It does not say anything about who will pay for a subsequent election. We are trying to clarify that. We had 56 votes who say the taxpayers should not, that the Teamsters should. I think that is consistent with the consent decree. I might mention, the CRS just studied this, and whose legal analysis I will refer to again, says the Congress has the right to do this, period.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. If you read page 16 of the consent decree, it does not mention ``rerun.'' We are not affecting or changing the consent decree in any way.

Mr. NICKLES. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1083 to Amendment No. 1081 (Purpose: To limit the use of taxpayer funds for any future International Brotherhood of Teamsters leadership election)

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, so everyone can understand what the Nickles amendment is and what the Kennedy amendment is--and we will be voting on a motion to table the Kennedy amendment and, hopefully, a motion on the underlying Nickles- Jeffords amendment. The Nickles-Jeffords amendment is this: Taxpayers should not have to pay for the Teamsters' election twice. Mr. President, in 1989, the consent decree said that there will be an election in 1991 and said that the Teamsters would pay for it. They did. They had a successful election. It had oversight and management by the Government, but it was paid for by the Teamsters. It was deemed to be a good election. The 1996 election had oversight and management by the Federal Government, and it was also paid for by the Federal Government. The overseer of the election, though, said there was some fraud, said there was some corruption, and said in her opinion we needed to have a new election. She has now petitioned a judge, and the judge will be ordering a new election. My point being, it is not the taxpayers' fault that there was fraud. That came from the Teamsters. I do not have any qualm on who is elected or who is not elected. That is not my issue. Somebody, I think, said, ``You're trying to influence an election.'' Far from it. That is not my decision. My decision is to protect taxpayers. Taxpayers should not have to pay for it again. The estimates of the cost are $22 million. I heard subsequent to that that it will be well over $22 million. I heard estimates up to $28 million, $30 million. My point is, we should not have to pay for it again. We paid for it once. It was not U.S. taxpayers that had the corruption. That happened to come from within the union. They hired some consultants, and they funneled money to various campaigns. We should not have to pay for that. That is not the taxpayers' fault. So what would our amendment do? Our amendment basically says you can have a rerun election and, if the Teamsters do not have the money, the Federal Government can pay for it; just that the Federal Government has to be paid back. So to me it is eminently fair. It does not have any influence, saying, ``This group is favored over another group.'' It does not say anything in the wording--my colleague from Massachusetts said this has something to do with the UPS strike. That is totally hogwash. There was an abuse in dealing with the UPS strike. That was the fact that the overseer knew there was corruption in the election, knew it during the strike, but did not let the rest of the country know. This is one of the most important strikes, but that does not have anything to do with it. My point being, if there is another election, let the Teamsters pay for it. These happen to be individuals who make good money. Almost all elections in the country are paid for, if you are talking about union elections, are paid for by the union. And they should be paid for by the union. This is not that big a deal. There are 1.4 million members. I think a little less than 500,000 people voted in the last election. I think they can pay for it. The average payroll of the Teamsters can well afford this, so they should pay for it. If they do not have the money, the taxpayers can pay for it, and the taxpayers can be paid back with interest. It is only fair. Is it consistent with the consent decree of 1989? Yes, it is. The consent decree of 1989 said that the Teamsters would pay for the 1991 election and that the taxpayers would pay for the 1996 election. It did not say taxpayers pay for a 1996 rerun if there is corruption in the election. Some people would like--and I believe Senator Kennedy's position would be: Well, let's leave that up to a judge. We will let a judge decide whether taxpayers have to pay for it or not. The consent decree was silent. It didn't say who would have to pay for a rerun if there's corruption in the election. I want to eliminate the question mark. I want to make sure that taxpayers do not pay for it. It is that simple. Why leave it to the determination of a judge? I do not think the judge has --frankly, if the judge reads the consent decree, there is nothing in the consent decree that would indicate taxpayers should pay for a 1996 rerun. But why leave it ambiguous? Let us just say, wait a minute, if we are going to have a rerun, fine, let the Teamsters pay for it, and, if necessary, if they do not have the money, the U.S. taxpayers pay for it, but they have to be repaid. I think our amendment is eminently fair. I wish my colleague from Massachusetts had not second-degreed it. It is confusing. His amendment looks innocuous, but we do not want to turn it over to the courts. Therefore, at the appropriate time, after a couple of our colleagues have spoken on the amendment, I will move to table the Kennedy amendment. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I am prepared to move to table the amendment. I would like to speak for a few minutes, Senator Kennedy would probably like to speak for a few minutes, and the Senator from Texas probably would like to speak for a few minutes. I will not move to table at this point, but it is my intent to move forward rather expeditiously to bring this to closure. Mr. President, let me make a couple comments. Mr. President, is our amendment pending before the Senate?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I love my colleague from Arizona. And I think my amendment is somewhat the same. I thought maybe we would be able to dispose of our amendment in a short period of time and have a clear vote on our amendment that would try to make sure that taxpayers would not have to pay for the Teamsters' election twice. Senator Kennedy came up with a very clever amendment, and I am still trying to figure out what the net impact would be. I still do not know. I have the greatest respect for my colleague. That is one of the reasons I am not sure I want to agree to his amendment. I have a great desire to work with my colleague from Massachusetts, but in the last 2\1/2\ hours I still have not been able to determine, if we adopted his second-degree amendment, who would pay for the Teamsters' election. Therefore, Mr. President, I think, after consulting with others, that I will debate the Kennedy amendment. At some point I will move to table the Kennedy amendment. Then we can dispose of our amendment and proceed to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona and dispose of the bill.

Mr. NICKLES. I just say I would like to have it where we would have supervision, like in 1991. I don't think we have to give a $22 million gift to the Teamsters to have an election. It is a big union and a nice group of people. They ought to be able to elect their leaders, and we should not have to give them a $22 million gift in the process. We can do it like we did it in 1991.

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.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent.