[Pages S8792-S8817]
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, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Stevens and Grams be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1079 to S.
1061.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to
speak for up to 3 minutes on the pending D'Amato amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the amendment by Senator
D'Amato to add funding for the support services for seniors to the
additional funding. They perform a very vital service as places for
seniors to gather and to have their meals and to carry out the purposes
of the legislation to improve the quality of life in the golden years;
and especially in the context where senior benefits have come under
such attack, so much concern that I heard, for example, in my travels
through Pennsylvania, where there is concern about the solidity of
Social Security and what is happening with Medicare. I believe it is a
wise course to make an allocation from administrative costs across the
board, to add the funding in the D'Amato amendment.
We have funded, last year, some $300,556,000. The administration made
a request to cut that funding to $291,375,000. Our Senate markup,
agreed to by Senator Harkin and myself in our committee and in the full
committee, was $305,556,000. So, instead of dropping the amount by more
than $9 million as the administration had requested, we put an
additional $5 million in. On reflection, hearing the arguments of the
Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato, I think that the addition of
this $40 million is well placed, so I lend my voice in support of the
pending amendment.
Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from New York on
the floor. I see him reaching for the microphone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me thank the chairman of this
committee, Senator Specter. As I indicated before, this is a most
difficult, difficult task, the management of scarce resources for
Labor, Health, and Human Services, with the demands from the various
communities for additional funding for medical research, the scarceness
of resources, and the difficult time in the allocations. His support is
greatly welcomed in this area. I am deeply appreciative.

[[Page S8793]]

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Aging Subcommittee, I
have spent a great deal of time concentrating on how to improve the
ways the nutrition programs and senior services that are part of the
Older Americans Act. I appreciate the work of the Senator from New York
on this related funding issue.
In March 1995, I was pleased to have New Hampshire meals provider
Debbie Perou-Hermans come to Washington to testify before the Aging
Subcommittee; she emphasized the role these programs play for our
seniors in New Hampshire and across the Nation. I also know that what
we accomplish through the funds spent on other senior services--such as
supporting congregate centers, transportation services, and health
programs and counseling--is vital to the meeting the requirements of
this population.
I think it is important to note, in addition, that this program has
several other important qualities: The Older Americans Act requires the
States to invest in these critical services; it has a great track
record for leveraging private funds; and it generally makes its
services available to all seniors, many of who are suffering from the
challenges of social isolation, not just those in financial need. Need
wears many faces in America.
I believe that we should work hard to ensure that the benefits are
maximized through more flexibility in the funding of needed services,
to be certain that the decisions about how and where these dollars are
being spent are made at the State and local level. That will be the
goal of the reauthorization bill that I am assembling which will be
based on the bill I introduced in the 104th Congress.
However, I would like to quickly ask a question of my colleague from
New York, Senator D'Amato. You stated in your introductory remarks that
your goal is to increase the availability of services to our seniors
through the infusion of this additional $40 million. But I do not note
any specific assignment of these funds. Would the Senator clarify again
for me his intention to ensure that these dollars are spent on services
that are proven to be effective and efficient, and not to pad the
administrative accounts over at the Administration on Aging, or to
allow them funds to try new things?
Mr. D'AMATO. I would like to assure the Senator from New Hampshire
that my intention is to put this $40 million in to those services that
we know are making the lives of our seniors healthier and more
independent. Indeed, at the same time this amendment seeks to bring
more resources into effective services for the elderly, it also reduces
funding from administrative accounts. I share the Senator's interest in
both getting needed services to our seniors and in reducing overhead
costs.
Mr. GREGG. Then I am pleased to have the opportunity today to support
the Senator from New York's increase in funding to the services
provided by the Older American's Act.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we are ready to proceed now to
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from New York, amendment No. 1079, as modified.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman]
and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] are necessarily absent.
The result was announced, yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Bingaman
Glenn
Murkowski
The amendment (No. 1079), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1071

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I believe that in order to achieve a goal,
we must set the goal, commit the necessary resources to reaching the
goal, and establish a method for measuring our progress toward that
goal. Voluntary national testing would enable us to reach our goal of
raising the achievement levels of America's children.
I oppose the Coats Amendment because it deprives parents, school
administrators, teachers, and students of the information needed to
continue the work of constructive education reform. Funding for the
development, planning, implementation, and administration of voluntary
national testing for individual students in mathematics and reading is
important for several reasons. Requiring a Federal statute would impede
cooperative efforts to ensure that children in every State have the
necessary knowledge and skills to be competitive in today's highly
mobile and globally conscious society.
Put simply, we need voluntary testing because we cannot ascertain
where we are going if we do not know where we are.
Parents need to know how their child's educational achievement level
in reading and mathematics compares with that of other children
nationwide. Because families are relocating with increasing frequency
these days, children need to feel confident that they can perform at a
consistent level of achievement even though they may change school
districts. These tests would empower parents by providing them with the
same information that Members of Congress receive from National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Parents deserve to know this
information so that they can make the best decisions regarding their
child's well-being. Also, there is considerable public support for
national testing. A recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll showed that 67
percent of Americans favored using standardized national tests to
measure the academic achievement of students.
Furthermore, there is a demand for the tests among teachers,
principals, State school officials, and school boards. States and
school districts with over 20 percent of fourth- and eighth-graders in
the Nation have committed to using the tests. Let me stress that
committing to voluntary national testing does not mean committing to a
national curriculum. Local education authorities will determine how to
use the results. The tests simply give them the tools to do their jobs
better.
Mr. President, we in Congress should be doing all that we possibly
can to ensure that America's children have the very best opportunity to
excel in a technologically advanced 21st century. But we have to know
where our children stand so that we can move forward. Research has
shown that high academic standards generate high academic performance.
Our children deserve no less.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill, S. 1061,
the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
The bill provides $236.4 billion in new budget authority and $188.6
billion in new outlays for programs of the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education and related agencies.
When adjustments are made for prior-year outlays and other completed
actions, the bill as adjusted totals $286.3 billion in budget authority
and $285.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998.

[[Page S8794]]

The committee-reported bill is within the subcommittee's revised
602(b) allocation just filed with the Congress' return.
There are several items for which the Senator from New Mexico would
like to express appreciation. One item is continued funding for
Hispanic Serving Institutions. With a slight increase over the 1997
level, the bill retains this program as separate from the Strengthening
Institutions program. In addition, I appreciate the committee's
willingness to continue funding PATH grants for the homeless.
I continue to be concerned about the practice of providing a $300
million contingency fund for LIHEAP that must be designated as
emergency spending to be released. These expenses, in most cases, can
be anticipated and should be addressed through the regular
appropriations process.
I am especially pleased, that within the funding for the Centers for
Disease Control, the committee has provided an $18 million increase for
diabetes, including the establishment of a ``community-based
intervention project in Gallup, New Mexico.''
As you know, this is an historic year in which we have set forth a
plan to balance the budget in 7 years. The authorizing committees have
completed a very difficult task in implementing this historic
bipartisan budget agreement. I am pleased that the Appropriations
Committee is attempting to live within funding and priority proposed in
this agreement.
A concern I continually have, is the reduction of mandatory spending
within appropriation bills. When mandatory savings are included in
appropriations bills, it is generally to offset discretionary spending,
instead of deficit reduction. In particular, the subcommittee has
reduced the cap on the Social Services block grant by $255 million for
fiscal year 1998.
Overall, I am supportive of the work of the committee and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1061, LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS, 1998, SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
Budget authority......................................... ....... 79,558 144 206,611 286,313
Outlays.................................................. ....... 75,926 65 209,167 285,158
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority......................................... ....... 79,558 144 206,611 286,313
Outlays.................................................. ....... 76,009 65 209,167 285,241
President's request:
Budget authority......................................... ....... 73,025 60 206,611 279,696
Outlays.................................................. ....... 74,571 48 209,167 283,786
House-passed bill:
Budget authority......................................... ....... 79,869 144 206,611 286,624
Outlays.................................................. ....... 75,935 64 209,167 285,166

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:

Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority......................................... ....... .......... ....... ......... ........
Outlays.................................................. ....... -83 ....... ......... -83
President's request:
Budget authority......................................... ....... 6,533 84 ......... 6,617
Outlays.................................................. ....... 1.355 17 ......... 1,372
House-passed bill:
Budget authority......................................... ....... -311 ....... ......... -311
Outlays.................................................. ....... -9 1 ......... -8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may have the attention of my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SPECTER. I believe Senator McCain is prepared to offer an
amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished
managers of the bill, do they intend to dispose of the pending
amendment, or is it agreeable to them to set aside the pending
amendment for the purpose of proposing an amendment?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so that the Senator from----
Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, since that is my
amendment.
I ask the Senator, you want unanimous consent to set our amendment
aside for how long?
Mr. SPECTER. For the Senator from Arizona to present his amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. How long would that take?
Mr. McCAIN. I do not know, since I do not believe that the amendment
will be agreed to by some Members.
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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had suggested setting aside the
amendment to move to Senator McCain on the theory a little more time
might find some resolution. But if the Senator from Oklahoma thinks
not, it is his prerogative to proceed with his amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. How long would it take?
Mr. McCAIN. In response to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am not sure
how long it would take because I am not sure how strong the
disagreement would be with the amendment.

amendment no. 1082

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. GRAMM. Can we get a time limit on the debate before the tabling
motion?
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?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are pending in the first and
second degree.
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

[[Page S8795]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are mindful now that we are only a few
short days from the time that the UPS strike was resolved and settled,
and settled in a way which benefited many thousands of workers. There
are 186,000 workers that were involved, and there was important
progress made in the areas of pensions and part-time work. There was
great progress made in a number of different areas which we may or may
not have an opportunity to discuss here this evening.
But, quite frankly, Mr. President, I doubt whether this amendment
would be before us if we had not seen the success of the Teamsters as a
result of a collective-bargaining process. We saw 15 days where the
Nation was focused on the issue about whether the workers of UPS were
going to participate in the extraordinary kinds of successes that UPS
was involved in. Americans around the country responded to the fact
that many of those that had been on part-time were not having part-time
mortgages, part-time payments in terms of food bills, part-time
payments in terms of children's clothing bills. Finally, the UPS and
the Teamsters worked out an agreement. It was important for those
working men and women.
There are some here, some here in the Senate who just cannot stand
the fact that workers were able to have their rights considered and to
have their rights resolved in a positive and constructive way. And
there are those who just want to somehow get back at these workers,
somehow get back at them. I believe here we are seeing some attempt to
try to do so by the mischievousness of this particular amendment.
The amendment which I have proposed is an amendment to the Nickles
amendment that does not require the American taxpayers to pay. The
Senator from Oklahoma believes that the judge does not have the
authority to require the payment for the election by the taxpayers. All
the amendment that I have offered is saying is that if the consent
agreement does not require it, it does not have to be expended; if it
does require it, we are not going to take any action that is going to
interfere with a judicial process and a consent agreement that was
signed under the Bush administration, was initiated by a Republican,
Mr. Giuliani, in New York, was ratified by the Attorney General, Mr.
Thornburgh, who is on record in strong support of this agreement.
This agreement is still applicable. As a matter of fact, the
respondents are required, under the Southern District Court, to file
their briefs on September 19--on September 19. This is a court order
that is in effect at the present time. All we are saying in support of
the amendment that I have offered is, let us not interfere with the
court order that was established in 1989 that was agreed to by the
participants. It is part of a judicial process and procedure.
What we are basically asking, under the Nickles amendment, is that we
are going to interfere with a legitimate judicial procedure. All my
amendment says is, let the judicial procedure flow as it was designed
and agreed to at an earlier period of time. That is the extent of my
amendment. We are not requiring, in my amendment, that taxpayer money
be used. We are not saying that it will not be used. We are saying,
whatever the judge, under that consent agreement in 1989, understood
that agreement to be, that we will not interfere with it.
But that is not satisfactory to Senator Nickles. He wants to rig,
evidently, or change the consent agreement. We believe that the consent
agreement ought to be maintained for the reason that consent agreements
are put into place and agreed to by the different parties. When the
consent agreement goes in and the different parties agree, we do not
see that they agree on one day and the next day we are going to have
interference with that particular agreement. That is really what is at
issue.
Here is Rudolph Giuliani, in 1988, saying, ``Today the U.S.
Government is bringing a lawsuit to attack and reverse, once and for
all, a major American scandal.'' This is not an issue that is just
brought up today. This has been the result and consent agreement from a
long, long history which I reviewed earlier in the debate.
Richard Thornburgh said, ``This settlement, which union leaders agree
to today, culminates 30 years of efforts''--30 years of efforts--``by
the Department of Justice to remove the influence of organized crime
within the

[[Page S8796]]

Teamsters Union,'' and then indicates support for it. Thirty years of
effort and the consent agreement in 1989.
We have seen a continued consent agreement, as these cases are going
on to the Southern District Court today. The briefs are required by
September 19. So this issue is very much alive, Mr. President.
All we are saying in support of our amendment, which is basically an
add-on to the Nickles amendment, all our amendment says is nothing in
this section under the Nickles amendment shall be construed to apply to
the expenditures required by the consent decree in the U.S. v.
International Brotherhood. We do not say you are going to have to pay
for them. We don't say you will have to pay part of them. We don't say
that they are not going to or we are going to restrict the judge. That
is effectively what we are basically attempting to do with this
particular amendment.
Mr. President, I think there are strong reasons for accepting this
amendment. I will speak just for a few more moments on this particular
issue. Mr. President, as I mentioned, in 1988, the Justice Department
under President Bush sued the Teamsters Union under the racketeering
laws, and the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case was Rudolph
Giuliani, another Republican, who now, of course, is the mayor of New
York City. In 1989, Mayor Giuliani negotiated a resolution to the suit
with the Teamsters that imposed sweeping reforms on the union.
A critical part of the election reform was the supervision of all
aspects of the union elections by a court-appointed election official.
Thus, the consent decree establishes the position of election officer
and gave the officer substantial authority to regulate the entirety of
the electoral process. Under the consent order the expenses of the 1991
Teamster election were borne by the union itself, including the
expenses of the election officer.
But the 1996 election was different as to that election. The consent
order stated the union defendants consent to the election officer at
Government expense to supervise the 1996 election. The election officer
and all parties to the suit complied with this provision of the consent
decree. The Republican refusal to appropriate funds for fiscal year
1996 for the Labor and Justice Department forced the election officer
to seek a court order requiring the Justice Department to fund the
critical preelection activities. The Justice Department and union
joined in the election officer's request for that order which
ultimately was granted in October of 1995. Ultimately, however, the
funding was obtained and the election was conducted. Protests were
filed with the election officer to resolve them and an opinion issued
late last month. In that opinion, the election officer found that
misconduct by consultants to one candidate required that the election
be rerun. The officer specifically declined to find wrongdoing by any
officer or member of the union and noted that President Carey had
conducted himself throughout the investigation in a manner inconsistent
with guilt.
So, there is a judicial finding and conclusion that there has been no
conclusion to this current election and has not been certified and
therefore the election officer maintains the jurisdiction.
In accordance with this decision, the election officer did not
certify the 1996 election. She did, however, apply to the Federal court
for an order requiring that the election be rerun. That application is
pending. The parties' briefs will not be filed until September 19 and
the court will not rule until after that time. The court may order that
the election be rerun or it may not. It may require the Government to
fund the election officer's supervision of the election or it may
require the union to do so or it may require each party to bear some
part of the cost. Let me repeat that: The court may order the election
be rerun or it may not. It may require the Government to fund the
election officer's supervision of that election or it may require the
union to do so. Or it may require each party to bear some part of the
cost. We do not know that. We do not know that. That still has to be
resolved.
Under the Nickles amendment it would prejudge that. All we are trying
to do is say we had the agreement in 1989. It is under active
consideration before the Southern District Court of New York and we
should do nothing that is going to affect that agreement which has been
agreed to by all the principle parties and negotiated under the
previous administration.
The point is we do not know how the court will rule. But this
amendment would tell the court that regardless of its ruling the
Government will not be permitted to fund the election, even if the
consent order requires the Government to pay, this amendment will
refuse to permit that. Thus the amendment would interfere with an
ongoing judicial process.
That is, basically, the issue. Are we going to permit legislative
interference in an ongoing judicial process? It is as simple as that.
Moreover, the amendment would renege on an agreement that a Republican-
controlled Justice Department entered into 8 years ago by repudiating
part of that agreement. The amendment would order the Government to
subject itself to a contempt proceeding, and that is an outrage and an
untenable result.
Why do those on the other side of the aisle seek to achieve this
result? It can only be because they want to punish the Teamsters Union
for their tremendous success in the recent UPS strike. That is what is
at the bottom of this, make no mistake about it. Does anybody think if
they had not been successful in that strike we would be considering
this here? It is a basic, fundamental assault on the fact that they
were able to negotiate some protections for part-time workers and for
pension rights for workers. There are those in this body and in this
country that cannot stand that. They want to give those workers a
comeuppance. That is really what is at issue here. That is what is
being attempted, to try to interfere with this judicial process.
That strike resulted in significant improvements for 185,000 workers
at UPS. It sensitized the entire Nation to the gross abuses in many
work forces that forced hard-working men and women into part-time jobs
with lower wages and lower benefits than they deserve.
Let me highlight a few of the achievements of the Teamsters in the
UPS strike: 10,000 new full-time jobs by combining existing low-wage
part-time positions. That is in addition to the full-time opportunities
that are normally created through growth in the company, retirements or
people leaving for other reasons. Pension increases that are the same
or better as the increases the company had already said it would make,
but under the Teamster pension plan, not a company-controlled pension
plan. Under the Teamster's central pension fund, a UPS worker could
retire at 30 years with a pension of $3,000 per month, 50 percent more
than the current amount. Limits on subcontracting--to replace some
contractors with UPS workers, so that as UPS grows, full-time UPS jobs
grow as well. Wage increases of $3.10 an hour for full-time plus an
extra dollar an hour for part-time workers. That may not sound like a
lot to the Members of this body but that is important for working
families. Safety protections for workers who handle heavy packages may
not sound important to a lot of people around this body but that is
important for a lot of workers who are handling those heavy packages.
The list goes on, and the list goes on.
Our Republican colleagues seem to think that the Teamsters deserve to
be punished for these gains and I think the union deserves praise.
Mr. President, I believe, for the reasons I have outlined here, this
is a consent decree, that the consent decree is still active, that
there is pending action that is before the Southern District Court, and
the amendment which I introduced would effectively accept the Nickles
amendment but it would indicate there would be no interference with any
decision that is going to be made by the judge in that decree that will
be forthcoming, and the outcome of which we do not know.
Let me mention, Mr. President, some of the observations of the Judge,
David Edelstein, approving the consent decree.

Just over two months ago I signed a consent decree between
* * * Teamsters and the government. The decree contains an
acknowledgment by the Teamsters leadership that there are
severe shortcomings in the way it has conducted its affairs
in the past, and it embodies the standards by which the
leadership of the * * * Union should conduct its affairs in
the future.* * *

[[Page S8797]]

These goals alone, however, are merely statements of good
intentions--and we all know where those can lead. Without a
dedicated effort to put these ideals into practice, the good
intentions will become empty promises and unfulfilled hopes.
* * * The public has a significant stake in the outcome of
the decree. The IBT exercises vast power and cuts across
every segment of society--political, social, and economic. It
affects every aspect of our lives. Such power must be
insulated against corruption and criminal elements and must
be reserved for legitimate use to achieve legitimate ends.
* * * The conditions that have necessitated and justified
such unprecedented measures are extreme. The remedy therefore
is necessarily extreme. The court expects that all parties
involved--the union, the government, and the three
individuals I am about to appoint--live up to the spirit and
letter of the laws and Constitution of the United States as
well as the consent decree.
Mr. SPECTER. Could we enter into a time agreement, say, with the vote
at 6 o'clock?
Mr. KENNEDY. I do not expect we would go beyond 6 o'clock but I am
reluctant just to enter into it at this time since there are Members
that indicated to me they wanted to speak and indicated they would like
to speak, but I don't anticipate we would go beyond 6 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. A point of inquiry.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. As I understand what the Senator from Massachusetts is
saying in reply or in response to the Senator from Pennsylvania is that
we want to try and finish but there are some other Senators that want
to speak and the Senator is right, I would like to speak.
I think it is a shame we did not have an agreement. We should have.
This is a very reasonable second degree, I think, but I want to make it
clear to my colleague from Pennsylvania I would like to speak, and I
can be relatively brief.
Mr. SPECTER. I make an inquiry as manager of the bill to see if we
can move it along.
We have quite a number of amendments. I would like to speak for 5
minutes. If the Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak for 5 minutes,
he can get a sequencing. It would be helpful.
Mr. GRAMM. I assume we will go back and forth?
Mr. SPECTER. And perhaps agree to limit speeches to 5 minutes, if
that is acceptable.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I indicated, I have talked to some
Senators who wanted to speak. I do not anticipate going beyond 6
o'clock. I cannot speak for them at the present time.
After Senator Wellstone speaks, I can make inquiries of the Senators
and inform the Chair.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. So, here we have the Republican administration that is
committed to this consent decree. We have the consent decree still
active in the southern district court requiring the submission of
various briefs, a judge that is going to make a judgment based upon
those briefs, and the facts as have been found on the recent election.
We do not know what the terms of the pronouncement is going to be in
terms of the judge, and all we are saying in the Kennedy amendment is
that we are not going to interfere with the judgments of that judge in
fulfilling the consent decree requirements that were agreed to by all
parties, that go back over a long period of time, some 30 years of
involvement, and we are not going to prejudge that, tonight, to
interfere with a judicial proceeding.
That is, basically, what the effect of the Kennedy amendment would be
as a perfecting amendment to the Nickles proposal.
Mr. President, I find it difficult to see how a President of the
United States, if this were to go through and to pass and to be
actually accepted in the committee in the conference report, how a
President of the United States could sign this appropriation that would
have a legislative intrusion in terms of a consent decree that had been
agreed to and honored by all of the parties.
It seems to me that this would be a clear interference by the
legislative body into the judicial consent decree and would certainly
be subject to a Presidential veto. It is of that importance and of that
consequence. I hope my amendment will be agreed to. Just to repeat it,
all we want to say is that nothing in this section--which would be the
Nickles amendment--should be construed to apply to expenditures
required by the consent decree. We are not saying what they may be,
what they might not be, whether they would be or would not be. But all
we are saying is that we would not interfere with the consent decree.
It is as plain and as clear as can be, Mr. President. I hope the
amendment will be accepted.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me review what the issue is before the
Senate and make it clear that there is nothing confusing about the
Kennedy amendment. The objective of the Kennedy amendment is to require
the taxpayer to pay for yet another union election.
Now, let me go back to the facts and then delineate where I believe
Senator Kennedy drifts far afield from the facts. I also want to
respond to this assertion about UPS, which borders on violating rule
XIX of the U.S. Senate.
Now, first, let me begin with the consent decree. Because of
corruption in the Teamsters, we entered into a consent decree which
resulted in the taxpayers paying for the 1996 Teamsters election. The
taxpayers spent $22 million. The person appointed to oversee the
election, having been paid $300,000 to $400,000, a couple of weeks
after it was known that we clearly had violations in the election, now,
belatedly, has raised questions.
Now, my point and the point of the Nickles amendment is that we
agreed to pay for the election, and we paid for the election. The point
is that we did not get the election that we paid for. Perhaps the
amendment of Senator Nickles should demand that we get our $22 million
back because the same corruption we were trying to stop apparently
occurred again.
Now, nothing in the Nickles amendment interferes with the consent
agreement, except that the Nickles amendment makes it clear that the
Constitution of the United States does not give a judge the power of
the Federal purse. The Nickles amendment says we paid for an election
we didn't get, and we are not paying for another election. The judge
can require another election, which I assume he will do. But under the
Nickles amendment, he will have to require the Teamsters to pay for the
election. We have already paid for one election and we didn't get it. I
hope while he is at it, he will fire everybody who drew these salaries
to oversee an election through which they slept.
Now, as for the UPS strike having anything to do with this amendment,
that assertion violates rule XIX of the U.S. Senate. We are impugning
the motives of people offering this amendment. If I stood up on the
floor of the Senate and said that this amendment was offered by a
Democratic Senator because the Democratic Party colluded with the
Teamsters Union, I would be subject to rule XIX, and rightly so. I
would never do that. And to come to the floor of the Senate and suggest
that Senator Nickles' amendment has anything to do with anything other
than stopping the purchase of another election when we didn't get the
first one we paid for is outrageous. I was on the verge of raising rule
XIX on that assertion. I think it assaults the dignity of the Senate to
try to impugn the motives of people who are offering serious
amendments.
Now, with regard to the judge, the Nickles amendment doesn't restrict
the judge. The judge can order a new election; he can fire the people
who didn't do their jobs the first time; and the judge can set out the
parameters of the new election. But under the Nickles amendment, the
judge cannot say to the taxpayer: You already paid for an election you
didn't get and we are going to make you pay for another election.
All the Nickles amendment does is assert the power of Congress to
expend money. It says to the judge and the courts that we are passing a
law that says we already paid for our election and any future election
will have to be reimbursed. The cost that the Federal taxpayer should
incur in overseeing that election will have to be reimbursed by the
beneficiaries, the members of the union, who, hopefully, will get an
honest election in the future.
We had a consent decree; the Federal Government has lived up to the
consent decree. We spent $22 million for an

[[Page S8798]]

election that we did not get. We were supposed to have gotten an honest
election, but apparently did not. The question is: Are we going to do
it again? I think it is a very clear vote.
We attempted to have an honest election once, which we did not get,
even after the taxpayer paid $22 million. Now the person who was given
the responsibility of overseeing that election says that a fair
election did not occur. Should we be forced to pay again? The Nickles
amendment says no. I think the American people would say no.
So the Kennedy amendment puts this back in the hands of the court.
And, basically, his argument is, let a Federal judge appropriate and
expend another $22 million if he chooses. The Constitution is very
clear about who has the power of the purse. The Nickles amendment,
totally within the consent decree, simply says that we paid to have an
honest election, but we didn't get what we paid for. Quite frankly, I
would vote for an amendment that demanded our $22 million back. But the
point is that the Nickles amendment simply says that if another
election is ordered, which it almost certainly will be, the
beneficiaries of the election pay for it. So it does not interrupt the
consent decree.
We have lived up to our end of the bargain, but the participants in
the election and the overseers did not live up to their end of the
bargain. This is a question of whether you want the taxpayers to fund a
second election when the first election was apparently fraudulent. The
Nickles amendment says no; the Kennedy amendment says yes, but does it
indirectly by saying let's let the judge take the rap for requiring us
to pay for the election the second time.
I say this is an issue the Congress should decide. We have the
constitutional responsibility to spend or not spend money. I say buying
one election you didn't get is one too many. I support the Nickles
amendment, and I hope people will vote to defeat--by voting to table--
the Kennedy amendment so that we can vote on the Nickles amendment,
which simply says that we paid for an honest election, we didn't get
it, and we are not paying for a second one. That is the issue. It is as
clear-cut as it can be, and hiding behind some black-robed official who
does not have the inconvenience of having to run for reelection and
having to answer to voters for spending their money, I don't think is a
way the U.S. Senate, as the greatest deliberative body in the world,
should be acting.
This is a clear-cut choice, and the choice is: No more money to pay
for elections that don't seem to be held fairly.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Texas wants to focus
on the black-robed judges, but I think his analysis is a bit
ahistorical. Rudolph Giuliani, former U.S. attorney, 1988: ``To date,
the United States Government is bringing the lawsuit to attack and
reverse once and for all the major American scandal.'' Richard
Thornburgh, Attorney General, March 14, 1989--not a black-robed judge:
``This settlement, which union leaders agreed to earlier today,
culminates 30 years of efforts by the Department of Justice to remove
the influence of organized crime within the Teamsters Union.''
This was an agreement with a Republican administration. The second-
degree amendment here, the Kennedy amendment, simply says, nothing in
this section shall be construed to apply to expenditures required by
the consent decree in United States versus The International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. My colleague from Oklahoma wants to say there
isn't anything in his amendment that goes against this consent
agreement. If so, this second-degree amendment should be acceptable. We
should not even be having this debate.
Now, I heard what my colleague from Texas said about the need to not
be personal. I won't be. Let me make a different kind of argument.
When, all of a sudden and unrelated to the bill on the floor, there is
an amendment that goes after a consent agreement that goes back to the
actions of a Republican administration, and when that all-of-a-sudden
move on the Senate floor follows only a few short weeks from a very
inspiring and successful effort on the part of the Teamsters to
collectively bargain, and when this effort, unrelated to the bill on
the floor all of a sudden comes up just a few short weeks after many
people in the country are saying, thank goodness there is a focus on
trying to have full-time jobs as opposed to part-time jobs, thank
goodness there is a focus on living-wage jobs, thank goodness those of
us who are hard-pressed and struggling to earn a decent living and
raise our children well are going to have a chance, I think this is the
wrong time for such an extraordinary move.
I don't think we can decontextualize what we do on the floor of the
Senate. It would be a little foolish to believe that, whatever the
intentions are of colleagues, people in the country, many working
families, union or nonunion, won't look upon this effort as just
payback. That will be the perception. That is the way it looks in terms
of the chronology of this. That is the way it looks in terms of the
timeliness of this. That is the way it looks in terms of this action by
the Senate, following up on the successful effort on the part of a
union to bargain collectively.
Finally, once again, it is such an extraordinary move to go against
an agreement that a Republican administration was a part of and to take
this extraordinary, and I think really very imprudent, action. Senator
Kennedy's second-degree amendment is reasonable. It just says--and I
will finish--nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
expenditures required by the consent decree. Whatever those
expenditures are or are not, this amendment just says, look, we don't
come out here on the floor--it is not in the dark of night, but all of
a sudden--with this kind of major move, and I think this is an
extremely reasonable second-degree amendment. I hope my colleagues will
support it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. We have taken the time to go through the various aspects
in the consent decree that was agreed to, the agreement, in terms of
the allocation of resources, some of which was spelled out in the
consent decree. Let me mention, reading specifically, and I will--I ask
unanimous consent that the full consent decree be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Order 88 CIV. 4486
(DNE)]

United States of America, plaintiff, v. International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, et
al., defendants.

Whereas, plaintiff United States of America commenced this
action on June 28, 1988, by filing a Complaint seeking
equitable relief involving the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL-CIO (hereinafter, ``the IBT''), pursuant to
the civil remedies provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (``RICO'') Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964;
and
Whereas, the Summons and Complaint have been served,
answers filed, and pretrial discovery commenced by and
between the parties; and
Whereas, plaintiff United States of America and defendants
IBT and its General Executive Board, William J. McCarthy,
Weldon Mathis, Joseph Trerotola, Joseph W. Morgan, Edward M.
Lawson, Arnold Weinmeister, Donald Peters, Walter J. Shea,
Harold Friedman, Jack D. Cox, Don L. West, Michael J. Riley,
Theodore Cozza and Daniel Ligurotis (hereinafter, the ``union
defendants'') have consented to entry of this order; and
Whereas, the union defendants acknowledge that there have
been allegations, sworn testimony and judicial findings of
past problems with La Cosa Nostra corruption of various
elements of the IBT; and
Whereas, the union defendants agree that there should be no
criminal element or La Cosa Nostra corruption of any part of
the IBT; and
Whereas, the union defendants agree that it is imperative
that the IBT, as the largest trade union in the free world,
be maintained democratically, with integrity and for the sole
benefit of its members and without unlawful outside
influence;
It is hereby ordered and decreed that:

A. Court Jurisdiction

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action, has personal jurisdiction over the parties, and
shall retain jurisdiction over this case until further order
of the Court.

[[Page S8799]]

2. Upon satisfactory completion and implementation of the
terms and conditions of this order, this Court shall
entertain a joint motion of the parties hereto for entry of
judgment dismissing this action with prejudice and without
costs to either party.

B. Duration

3. The authority of the court officers established in
paragraph no. 12 herein shall terminate after the
certification of the 1991 election results by the Election
Officer for all IBT International Officers as provided in
this Order, except as follows:
(1) The Election Officer and the Administrator shall have
the authority to resolve all disputes concerning the conduct
and/or results of the elections conducted in 1991 under the
authority granted to them under paragraph 12(D) herein, and
the Investigations Officer and the Administrator shall have
the authority to investigate and discipline any corruption
associated with the conduct and/or results of the elections
to be conducted in 1991 under the authority granted them
under paragraph 12 (A) and (C) herein, so long as said
investigation is begun within six months of the final
balloting.
(2) The Investigations Officer and the Administrator shall
have the authority to resolve to completion and decide all
charges filed by the Investigations Officer on or before the
date on which the authority granted to them under paragraphs
12 (A) and (C) herein terminates the authority pursuant to
subparagraph (3) below.
(3) The role and authority provided for in paragraphs 12
and 13 of this Order regarding the Investigations Officer and
the Administrator and their relationship with the Independent
Review Board shall terminate not later than nine (9) months
after the certification of the 1991 election results.
(4) As used herein, the date referred to as ``the
certification of the 1991 election results'' shall be
construed to mean either the date upon which the Election
Officer certifies the 1991 election results for all IBT
International Officers or one month after the final
balloting, whichever is shorter.

C. Status of the Individual Union Defendants

4. The union defendants herein remain as officers of the
IBT, subject to all of the terms herein, including the
disciplinary authority of the Court-appointed officers,
described in paragraph 12(A) herein.

D. Changes in the IBT Constitution

5. The portion of Section 6(a) of Article XIX of the IBT
Constitution that provides, ``Any charge based upon alleged
conduct which occurred more than one (1) year prior to the
filing of such charge is barred and shall be rejected by the
Secretary-Treasurer, except charges based upon the non-
payment of dues, assessment and other financial
obligations,'' shall be and hereby is amended to provide for
a five (5) year period, running from the discovery of the
conduct giving rise to the charge. This limitation period
shall not apply to any actions taken by the Investigations
Officer or the Administrator.
6. Section 6(a) of Article XIX of the IBT Constitution
shall be deemed and is hereby amended to include the
following: ``Nothing herein shall preclude the General
President and/or General Executive Board from suspending a
member or officer facing criminal or civil trial while the
charges are pending.''
7. Immediately after the conclusion of the IBT elections to
be conducted in 1991, Section 8 of Article VI of the IBT
Constitution shall be deemed and hereby is amended to provide
that a special election be held whenever a vacancy occurs in
the office of IBT General President, pursuant to the
procedures described later herein for election of IBT General
President.
8. Article IV, Section 2 of the IBT Constitution shall be
deemed and is hereby amended to include a new paragraph as
follows:
``No candidate for election shall accept or use any
contributions or other things of value received from any
employers, representative of an employer, foundation, trust
or any similar entity. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to
prohibit receipt of contributions from fellow employees and
members of this International Union. Violation of this
provision shall be grounds for removal from office.''
9. (a) The IBT Constitution shall be deemed and hereby is
amended to incorporate and conform with all of the terms set
forth in this order.
(b) By no later than the conclusion of the IBT convention
to be held in 1991, the IBT shall have formally amended the
IBT Constitution to incorporate and conform with all of the
terms set forth in this order by presenting said terms to the
delegates for a vote. If the IBT has not formally so amended
the IBT Constitution by that date, the Government retains the
right to seek any appropriate action, including enforcement
of this order, contempt or reopening this litigation.

E. Permanent Injunction

10. Defendants William J. McCarthy, Weldon Mathis, Joseph
Trerotola, Joseph W. Morgan, Edward M. Lawson, Arnold
Weinmeister, Donald Peters, Walter J. Shea, Harold Friedman,
Jack D. Cox, Don L. West, Michael J. Riley, Theodore Cozza
and Daniel Ligurotis, as well as any other or future IBT
General Executive Board members, officers, representatives,
members and employees of the IBT, are hereby permanently
enjoined from committing any acts of racketeering activity,
as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq., and from knowingly
associating with any member or associate of the Colombo
Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra, the Genovese
Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra, the Gambino
Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra, the Lucchese
Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra, the Bonnano
Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra, any other Organized
Crime Families of La Cosa Nostra or any other criminal group,
or any person otherwise enjoined from participating in union
affairs, and from obstructing or otherwise interfering with
the work of the court-appointed officers or the Independent
Review Board described herein.
11. As used herein, the term, ``knowingly associating,''
shall have the same meaning as that ascribed to that term in
the context of comparable federal proceedings or federal
rules and regulations.

F. Court-Appointed Officers

12. The Court shall appoint three (3) officers--an
Independent Administrator, an Investigations Officer and an
Election Officer--to be identified and proposed by the
Government and the union defendants, to oversee certain
operations of the IBT as described herein. The parties shall
jointly propose to the Court at least two persons for each of
these three positions. Such proposal shall be presented to
the Court within four weeks of the date of the entry of this
Order, except that for good cause shown such period may be
extended by the Court. Except as otherwise provided herein,
the duties of those three officers shall be the following:
(A) Disciplinary Authority.--From the date of the
Administrator's appointment until the termination of the
Administrator's authority as set forth in paragraph 3(3)
herein, the Administrator shall have the same rights and
powers as the IBT's General President and/or General
Executive Board under the IBT's Constitution (including
Articles VI and XIX thereof) and Title 29 of the United
States Code to discharge those duties which relate to:
disciplining corrupt or dishonest officers, agents, employees
or members of the IBT or any of its affiliated entities (such
as IBT Locals, Joint Councils and Area Conferences), and
appointing temporary trustees to run the affairs of any such
affiliated entities. The Investigations Officer shall have
the authority to investigate the operation of the IBT or any
of its affiliates and, with cause,
(i) To initiate disciplinary charges against any officer,
member or employee of the IBT or any of its affiliates in the
manner specified for members under the IBT Constitution and,
(ii) To institute trusteeship proceedings for the purpose
and in the manner specified in the IBT Constitution.
Prior to instituting any trusteeship proceeding the
Investigations Officer shall notify the General President of
the Investigations Officer's plan to institute said
trusteeship proceeding and the basis therefor and give the
General President ten (10) days to exercise his authority
pursuant to the IBT Constitution to institute such
trusteeship proceedings. If the General President timely
institutes such proceedings and/or a trusteeship is imposed,
the Investigations Officer and the Administrator shall have
authority to review any action thus taken by the General
President and/or any trusteeship imposed thereafter and to
modify any aspect of either of the above at any time and in
any manner consistent with applicable federal law. If the
General President fails to institute trusteeship proceedings
within the ten-day period prescribed herein, the
Investigations Officer may immediately proceed in accordance
with the authority specified above.
When the Investigations Officer files charges, the
following procedures shall be observed:
(a) the Investigations Officer shall serve written specific
charges upon the person charged;
(b) the person charged shall have at least thirty (30) days
prior to hearing to prepare his or her defense;
(c) a fair and impartial hearing shall be conducted before
the Administrator;
(d) the person charged may be represented by an IBT member
at the hearing; and
(e) the hearing shall be conducted under the rules and
procedures generally applicable to labor arbitration
hearings.
The Administrator shall preside at hearings in such cases
and decide such cases using a ``just cause'' standard. The
Investigations Officer shall present evidence at such
hearings. As to decisions of the IBT General Executive Board
on disciplinary charges and trusteeship proceedings during
the Administrator's tenure, the Administrator shall review
all such decisions, with the right to affirm, modify or
reverse such decisions and, with respect to trusteeship
proceedings, to exercise the authority granted above in this
paragraph. Any decision of the Administrator shall be
final and binding, subject to the Court's review as
provided herein. For a period of up to fourteen (14) days
after the Administrator's decision, any person charged or
entity placed in trusteeship adversely affected by the
decision shall have the right to seek review by this Court
of the Administrator's decision. The Administrator shall
also have the right to establish and disseminate new
guidelines for investigation and discipline of corruption
within the IBT. All of the above actions of the
Administrator and Investigations Officer shall be in
compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations.
(B) Review Authority.--From the date of the Administrator's
appointment until the certification of the IBT elections to
be conducted in 1991, the Administrator shall have

[[Page S8800]]

the authority to veto whenever the Administrator reasonably
believes that any of the actions or proposed actions listed
below constitutes or furthers an act of racketeering activity
within the definition of Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, or
furthers or contributes to the association directly, or
indirectly, of the IBT or any of its members with the LCN or
elements thereof:
(i) any expenditures or proposed expenditure of
International Union funds or transfer of International Union
property approved by any officers, agents, representatives or
employees of the IBT,
(ii) any contract or proposed contract on behalf of the
International Union, other than collective bargaining
agreements, and
(iii) any appointment or proposed appointments to
International Union office of any officer, agent,
representative or employee of the IBT.
In any case where the Administrator exercises veto
authority, the action or proposed action shall not go
forward. The Administrator, upon request of the IBT's General
President or General Executive Board, shall, within three (3)
days, advise the IBT's General President and/or General
Executive Board whichever is applicable, of the reasons for
any such veto. For a period of up to fourteen (14) days after
the Administrator's decision, the IBT's President and/or
General Executive Board shall have the right to seek review
by this Court of the Administrator's decision. The
Administrator may prescribe any reasonable mechanism or
procedure to provide for the Administrator's review of
actions or proposed actions by the IBT, and every officer,
agent, representative or employee of the IBT shall comply
with such mechanism or procedure.
(C) Access to Information.--(i) The Investigations Officer
shall have the authority to take such reasonable steps that
are lawful and necessary in order to be fully informed about
the activities of the IBT in accordance with the procedures
as herein established. The Investigations Officer shall have
the right:
(a) To examine books and records of the IBT and its
affiliates, provided the entity to be examined receives three
(3) business days advance notice in writing, and said entity
has the right to have its representatives present during said
examination.
(b) To attend meetings or portions of meetings of the
General Executive Board relating in any way to any of the
officer's rights or duties as set forth in this Order,
provided that prior to any such meeting, the officer shall
receive an agenda for the meeting and then give notice to the
General President of the officer's anticipated attendance.
(c) To take and require sworn statements or sworn in-person
examinations of any officer, member, or employee of the IBT
provided the Investigations Officer has reasonable cause to
take such a statement and provided further that the person to
be examined receives at least ten (10) days advance notice in
writing and also has the right to be represented by an IBT
member or legal counsel of his or her own choosing, during
the course of said examination.
(d) To take, upon notice and application for cause made to
this Court, which shall include affidavits in support
thereto, and the opportunity for rebuttal affidavits, the
sworn statements or sworn in person examination of persons
who are agents of the IBT (and not covered in subparagraph
(c) above).
(e) To retain an independent auditor to perform audits upon
the books and records of the IBT or any of its
affiliated entities (not including benefit funds subject
to ERISA), provided said entity receives three (3)
business days advance notice in writing and said entity
has the right to have its representatives present during
the conduct of said audit.
(ii) The Independent Administrator and the Election Officer
shall have the same rights as the Investigations Officer as
provided in sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of A, herein.
(iii) The Independent Administrator, Investigations Officer
and Election Officer shall each be provided with suitable
office space at the IBT headquarters in Washington, D.C.
D. IBT Election.--The IBT Constitution shall be deemed
amended, and is hereby amended, to provide for the following
new election procedures:
(i) The procedures described herein shall apply to
elections of the IBT's General President, General Secretary-
Treasurer, International Union Vice Presidents, and
international Union Trustees;
(ii) Delegates to the IBT International convention at which
any International Union officers are nominated or elected
shall be chosen by direct rank-and-file secret balloting
shortly before the convention (but not more than six months
before the convention, except for those delegates elected at
local union elections scheduled to be held in the fall of
1990), and with all convention Candidate election voting by
secret ballot of each delegate individually;
(iii) Delegates shall nominate candidates for eleven (11)
Regional Vice Presidents, as follows: Three (3) from the
Eastern Conference, three (3) from the Central Conference,
two (2) from the Southern Conference, two (2) from the
Western Conference, and one (1) from the Canadian Conference.
In addition, there shall be nominated candidates for five (5)
Vice Presidents to be elected at large. All duly nominated
Vice Presidents shall stand for election conducted at local
unions on the same ballot and time as the election of General
President and General Secretary-Treasurer, as provided
herein;
(iv) At such an International convention, after the
nomination of International Union Vice Presidents and
election of Trustees, all delegates shall then vote for
nominees for the offices of IBT General President and
Secretary-Treasurer;
(v) To qualify for the ballot for the direct rank-and-file
voting for IBT General President, Secretary-Treasurer, and
Vice President, candidates must receive at least five (5)
percent of the delegate votes at the International
convention, for the at large position, or by conference for
regional positions, as the case may be;
(vi) No person on the ballot for the position of IBT
General President may appear on the ballot in the same
election year for the position of Secretary-Treasurer; and
further no member shall be a candidate for more than one (1)
Vice President position;
(vii) No less than four (4) months and no more than six (6)
months after the International convention at which candidates
were nominated, the IBT General President, General Secretary-
Treasurer and Vice Presidents shall be elected by direct
rank-and-file voting by secret ballot in unionwide, one-
member, one-vote elections for each at large position, and
conference wide, one-member one-vote elections for each
regional position;
(viii) All direct rank-and-file voting by secret ballot
described above shall be by in-person ballot box voting at
local unions or absentee ballot procedures where necessary,
in accordance with Department of Labor regulations; and
(ix) The current procedures under the IBT Constitution for
filling a vacancy between elections in the office of General
Secretary-Treasurer, International Trustee, and International
Vice President shall remain in effect.
The Election Officer shall supervise the IBT election
described above to be conducted in 1991 and any special IBT
elections that occur prior to the IBT elections to be
conducted in 1991. In advance of each election, the Election
Officer shall have the right to distribute materials about
the election to the IBT membership. The Election Officer
shall supervise the balloting process and certify the
election results for each of these elections as promptly as
possible after the balloting. Any disputes about the
conduct and/or results of elections shall be resolved
after hearing by the Administrator.
The union defendants consent to the Election Officer, at
Government expense, to supervise the 1996 IBT elections. The
union defendants further consent to the U.S. Department of
Labor supervising any IBT elections or special elections to
be conducted after 1991 for the office of the IBT General
President, IBT General Secretary-Treasurer, IBT Vice
President, and IBT Trustee.
At the IBT 1991 International Convention, the delegates
shall be presented with these aforesaid amendments for vote;
provided further that nothing herein shall be deemed or
interpreted or applied to abridge the Landrum-Griffin free
speech right of any IBT officer, delegate or member,
including the parties hereto.
(E) Reports to Membership.--The Administrator shall have
the authority to distribute materials at reasonable times to
the membership of the IBT about the Administrator's
activities. The reasonable cost of distribution of these
materials shall be borne by the IBT. Moreover, the
Administrator shall have the authority to publish a report in
each issue of the International Teamster concerning the
activities of the Administrator, Investigations Officer and
Election Officer.
(F) Reports to the Court.--The Administrator shall report
to the Court whenever the Administrator sees fit but, in any
event, shall file with the Court a written report every three
(3) months about the activities of the Administrator,
Investigations Officer and Election Officer. A copy of all
reports to the Court by the Administrator shall be served on
plaintiff United States of America, the IBT's General
President and duly designated IBT counsel.
(G) Hiring Authority.--The Administrator, the
Investigations Officer and the Election Officer shall have
the authority to employ accountants, consultants, experts,
investigators or any other personnel necessary to assist in
the proper discharge of their duties. Moreover, they shall
have the authority to designate persons of their choosing to
act on their behalf in performing any of their duties, as
outlined in subparagraphs above. Whenever any of them wish to
designate a person to act on their behalf, they shall give
prior written notice of the designation to plaintiff United
States of America, and the IBT's General President; and those
parties shall then have the right, within fourteen (14) days
of receipt of notice, to seek review by this Court of the
designation, which shall otherwise take effect fourteen (14)
days after receipt of notice.
(H) Compensation and Expenses.--The compensation and
expenses of the Administrator, the Investigations Officer and
the Election Officer (and any designee or persons hired by
them) shall be paid by the IBT. Moreover, all cost associated
with the activities of these three officials (and any
designee or persons hired by them) shall be paid by the IBT.
The Administrator, Investigations Officer and Election
Officer shall file with the Court (and serve on plaintiff
United States of America and the IBT's General President and
designated IBT counsel) an application, including an itemized
bill, with supporting material, for their services and
expenses once every three months. The IBT's

[[Page S8801]]

General President shall then have fourteen (14) business days
following receipt of the above in which to contest the bill
before this Court. If the IBT's President fails to contest
such a bill within that 14-day period, the IBT shall be
obligated to pay the bill. In all disputes concerning the
reasonableness of the level or amount of compensation or
expense to be paid, the Court and parties shall be guided by
the level of payment as authorized and approved by the IBT
for the payment of similar services and expenses.
(I) Application to the Court.--The Administrator may make
any application to the Court that the Administrator deems
warranted. Upon making any application to the Court, the
Administrator shall give prior notice to plaintiff United
States of America, the IBT's General President and designated
IBT counsel and shall serve any submissions filed with the
Court on plaintiff United States of America, the IBT's
General President and designated IBT counsel. Nothing herein
shall be construed as authorizing the parties or the Court-
appointed officers to modify, change or amend the terms of
this Order.

G. Independent Review Board

Following the certification of the 1991 election results,
there shall be established an Independent Review Board
(hereinafter, referred to as the ``Review Board''). Said
Board shall consist of three members, one chosen by the
Attorney General of the United States, one chosen by the IBT
and a third person chosen by the Attorney General's designee
and the IBT's designee. In the event of a vacancy, the
replacement shall be selected in the same manner as the
person who is being replaced was selected.
(a) The Independent Review Board shall be authorized to
hire a sufficient staff of investigators and attorneys to
investigate adequately (1) any allegations of corruption,
including bribery, embezzlement, extortion, loan sharking,
violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 530 of the Landrum Griffin Act,
Taft-Hartley Criminal violations or Hobbs Act violations, or
(2) any allegations of domination or control or influence of
any IBT affiliate, member or representative by La Cosa Nostra
or any other organized crime entity or group, or (3) any
failure to cooperate fully with the Independent Review Board
in any investigation of the foregoing.
(b) The Independent Review Board shall exercise such
investigative authority as the General President and General
Secretary-Treasurer are presently authorized and empowered to
exercise pursuant to the IBT Constitution, as well as any and
all applicable provisions of law.
(c) All officers, member, employees and representatives of
the IBT and its affiliated bodies shall cooperate fully with
the Independent Review Board in the course of any
investigation or proceeding undertaken by it. Unreasonable
failure to cooperate with the Independent Review Board shall
be deemed to be conduct which brings reproach upon the IBT
and which is thereby within the Independent Review Board's
investigatory and decisional authority.
(d) Upon completion of an investigation, the Independent
Review Board shall issue a written report detailing its
findings, charges, and recommendations concerning the
discipline of union officers, members, employees, and
representatives and concerning the placing in trusteeship of
any IBT subordinate body. Such written reports shall be
available during business hours for public inspection at the
IBT office in Washington, DC.
(e) Any findings, charges, or recommendations of the
Independent Review Board regarding discipline or trusteeship
matters shall be submitted in writing to an appropriate IBT
entity (including designating a matter as an original
jurisdiction case for General Executive Board review), with a
copy sent to the General President and General Executive
Board. The IBT entity to which a matter is referred shall
thereupon promptly take whatever action is appropriate under
the circumstances, as provided by the IBT Constitution and
applicable law. Within 90 days of the referral, that IBT
entity must make written findings setting forth the specific
action taken and the reasons for that action.
(f) The Independent Review Board shall monitor all matters
which it has referred for action if, in its sole judgment, a
matter has not been pursued and decided by the IBT entity to
which the matter has been referred in a lawful, responsible,
or timely manner, or that the resolution proposed by the
relevant IBT entity is inadequate under the circumstances,
the Independent Review Board shall notify the IBT affiliate
involved of its view, and the reasons therefor. A copy of
said notice shall be sent by the Independent Review Board, to
the General President and the General Executive Board.
(g) Within 10 days of the notice described in paragraph (f)
above, the IBT entity involved shall set forth in writing any
and all additional actions it has taken and/or will take to
correct the defects set forth in said notice and a deadline
by which said action may be completed. Immediately
thereafter, the Independent Review Board shall issue a
written determination concerning the adequacy of the
additional action taken and/or proposed by the IBT entity
involved. If the Independent Review Board concludes that the
IBT entity involved has failed to take or propose
satisfactory action to remedy the defects specified by the
Independent Review Board's hearing, after notice to all
affected parties. All parties shall be permitted to present
any facts, evidence, or testimony which is relevant to the
issue before the Independent Review Board. Any such
hearing shall be conducted under the rules and procedures
generally applicable to labor arbitration hearings.
(h) After a fair hearing has been conducted, the
Independent Review Board shall issue a written decision which
shall be sent to the General President, each member of the
General Executive Board, and all affected parties.
(i) The decision of the Independent Review Board shall be
final and binding, and the General Executive Board shall take
all action which is necessary to implement said decision,
consistent with the IBT Constitution and applicable Federal
laws.
(j) The Independent Review Board shall have the right to
examine and review the General Executive Board's
implementation of the Independent Review Board's decisions;
in the event the Independent Review Board's decisions; in the
event the Independent Review Board is dissatisfied with the
General Executive Board's implementation of any of its
decisions, the Independent Review Board shall have the
authority to take whatever steps are appropriate to insure
proper implementation of any such decision.
(k) The Independent Review Board shall be apprised of and
have the authority to review any disciplinary or trusteeship
decision of the General Executive Board, and shall have the
right to affirm, modify, or reverse any such decision. The
Independent Review Board's affirmance, modification, or
reversal of any such General Executive Board decision shall
be in writing and final and binding.
(l) The IBT shall pay all costs and expenses of the
Independent Review Board and its staff (including all
salaries of Review Board members and staff). Invoices for all
such costs and expense shall be directed to the General
President for payment.
(m) The Investigations Officer and the Administrator shall
continue to exercise the investigatory and disciplinary
authority set forth in paragraph 12 above for the limited
period set forth in paragraph 3(3) above, provided, however,
that the Investigations Officer and the Administrator may,
instead, refer any such investigation or disciplinary matter
to the Independent Review Board.
(n) The IBT Constitution shall be deemed and hereby is
amended to incorporate all of the terms relating to the
Independent Review Board set forth above in this paragraph.
This amendment shall be presented to the delegates to the
1991 Convention for vote.

H. Indemnification

13. The IBT shall purchase a policy of insurance in an
appropriate amount to protect the Administrator, the
Investigations Officer, the Election Officer and persons
acting on their behalf from personal liability for any of
their actions on behalf of the IBT, the Administrator, the
Investigations Officer or the Election Officer. If such
insurance is not available, or if the IBT so elects, the IBT
shall indemnify the Administrator, Investigations Officer,
Election Officer and persons acting on their behalf from any
liability (or costs incurred to defend against the imposition
of liability) for conduct taken pursuant to this order. That
indemnification shall not apply to conduct not taken pursuant
to this order. In addition, the Administrator, the
Investigations Officer, the Election Officer and any persons
designated or hired by them to act on their behalf shall
enjoy whatever exemptions from personal liability may exist
under the law for court officers.

I. IBT Legal Counsel

14. During the term of office of the court-appointed
officers, the IBT General President shall have the right to
employ or retain legal counsel to provide consultation and
representation to the IBT with respect to this litigation, to
negotiate with the appropriate official and to challenge the
decisions of the court-appointed officers, and may use union
funds to pay for such legal consultation and representation.
The Administrator's removal powers and authority over union
expenditures shall not apply to such legal consultation and
representation.

J. Non-Waiver

15. To the extent that such evidence would be otherwise
admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, nothing
herein shall be construed as a waiver by the United States of
America or the United States Department of Labor of its right
to offer proof of any allegation contained in the Complaint,
Proposed Amended Complaint, declarations or memoranda filed
in this action, in any subsequent proceeding which may
lawfully be brought.

K. Application to Court

16. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to supervise the
activities of the Administrator and to entertain any future
applications by the Administrator or the parties. This Court
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide any and all
issues relating to the Administrator's actions or authority
pursuant to this order. In reviewing actions of the
Administrator, the Court shall apply the same standard of
review applicable to review of final federal agency action
under the Administrative Procedure Act.

L. Future Practices

17. The parties intend the provisions set forth herein to
govern future ITT practices in those areas. To the extent the
IBT wishes

[[Page S8802]]

to make any changes, constitutional or otherwise, in those
provisions, the IBT shall give prior written notice to the
plaintiff, through the undersigned. If the plaintiff then
objects to the proposed changes as inconsistent with the
terms and objections of this order, the change shall not
occur; provided, however, that the IBT shall then have the
right to seek a determination from this Court, or, after the
entry of judgment dismissing this action, from this Court or
any other federal court of competent jurisdiction as to
whether the proposed change is consistent with the terms and
objectives set forth herein.

M. Scope of Order

18. Except as provided by the terms of this order, nothing
else herein shall be construed or interpreted as affecting or
modifying: (a) the IBT Constitution; (b) the Bylaws and
Constitution of any IBT affiliates; (c) the conduct and
operation of the affairs of the IBT or any IBT-affiliated
entity or any employee benefit fund as defined in ERISA or
trust fund as defined by Section 302(c) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, as amended; (d) the receipt of any
compensation or benefits lawfully due or vested to any
officer, member or employee of the IBT or any of its
affiliates and affiliated benefit fund; or (e) the term of
office of any elected or appointed IBT officer or any of the
officers of any IBT-affiliated entities.

N. Non-Admission Clause

19. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by
any of the individual union defendants of any wrongdoing or
breach of any legal or fiduciary duty or obligation in the
discharge of their duties as IBT officers and members of the
IBT General Executive Board.

O. Future Actions

20. Nothing herein shall preclude the United States of
America or the United States Department of Labor from taking
any appropriate action in regard to any of the union
defendants in reliance on federal laws, including an action
or motion to require disgorgement of pension, severance or
any other retirement benefits of any individual union officer
defendant on whom discipline is imposed pursuant to paragraph
12 above.

P. Limits of Order

21. Nothing herein shall create or confer or is intended to
create or confer, any enforceable right, claim or benefit on
the part of any person or entity other than to the parties
hereto and the court-appointed officers established herein.
As to the undersigned defendants hereto, this order
supersedes the order of the Court entered on June 28, 1988,
as thereafter extended.

Q. Execution

22. Each of the undersigned individual defendants has read
this order and has had an opportunity to consult with counsel
before signing the order.

March , 1989.
David N. Edelstein,
U.S. District Judge.
Consented to: Benito Romano, United States Attorney, Southern
District of New York, One St. Andrew's Plaza, New York,
New York 10007, Attorney for Plaintiff, United States of
America.
By: Randy M. Mastro, Assistant United States Attorney, Mudge
Rose Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, 16 Maiden Lane, New
York, New York 10038, Attorneys for Defendants IBT and
its General Executive Board.
By: Jed S. Rakoff, James T. Grady, Esq., General Counsel,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 25
Louisiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
By: James T. Grady, Esquire.

Defendant William J. McCarthy;
Defendant Joseph Trerotola;
Defendant Joseph W. Morgan;
Defendant Arnold Weinmeister;
Defendant Donald Peters;
Defendant Walter J. Shea;
Defendant Harold Friedman;
Defendant Jack D. Cox;
Defendant Michael J. Riley;
Defendant Theodore Cozza;
Defendant Daniel Ligurotis.

Mr. KENNEDY. ``The union/defendants consent to the election officer,
at Government expense, to supervise the '96 elections.''
And then it reviews this. It says ``at Government expense.''
If we are to take the Nickles--this is in the consent decree. This is
not the judge reaching this. This is the Republican Justice Department,
under Attorney General Thornburgh, agreeing to this, and where they had
made that kind of commitment and agreement. All we are saying is, in
any kind of new election, we don't know exactly what they are going to
recommend, but we do not want to restrict or affect that consent decree
by interfering with legislative action.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts that I would
agree. That is why I find it hard to understand why there can't even be
an agreement here on the floor of the Senate because I think the
position that the Senator takes is very reasonable, and I think it is
important to have this consent decree as part of the Record for that
very reason.
Mr. President, I will yield the floor, if my colleague wants to
speak. If that is what he really wants to do, I am pleased to yield the
floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have a question for the Senator from
Minnesota. It is not about the subject matter at hand. It is about this
rather disturbing assertion by the Senator from Minnesota and the
Senator from Massachusetts about the motives behind the Nickles
amendment. It is disturbing. And I think the Senator from Texas is
right when he said that in fact this borders on a violation of rule
XIX.
Let me make a statement. And then I would like the Senator to
respond.
Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield, why doesn't he put the
question to me first?
Mr. SANTORUM. Let me put the information out, and then I would like
the Senator to respond to it. I can do it in the form of a question.
But the Senator from Minnesota makes the assertion that this comes
right on the heels of a Teamsters strike when they were successful in
negotiating some changes in their contract. The Senator talks about the
chronology. Let's also talk about the chronology of when Barbara Zack
Quindel, who is the overseer of the election, came out with her order
following the strike. That didn't occur 3 months ago. That didn't occur
6 months ago. It occurred 3 or 4 weeks ago over the break. The first
opportunity for us to address this issue is this bill.
To suggest that we somehow waited until after this Teamsters strike
to do this is ridiculous. The timing is perfectly appropriate. It is
appropriate because it is the first legislative opportunity to address
this issue after the overseer ruled on the election. If we waited 6
months and there happened to be a strike and we happened to come
forward with this after that successful strike by a union, then you can
make the argument. But that is not what is happening here.
To suggest and imply and impugn the integrity of the Senator from
Oklahoma and his motives I think is really below the dignity of this
Senate given the chronology that the Senator from Minnesota is well
aware of. I hope that given that knowledge--and maybe he did not have
that knowledge--but given the knowledge that this in fact was right
after this decision was handed down by the overseer of the election,
and that this was in fact timely, and had nothing to do with the
Teamsters strike, in fact one might add that the fact that Ms. Quindel
sat on this report for a couple of weeks might have had something to do
with the Teamsters strike. But that is not the issue here. What is at
issue is the Senator from Oklahoma addressed this issue expeditiously
right after the decision was made on the first legislative vehicle to
do so. And I think any other construction of motivation really does not
hold water very well.
So I would be pleased with a response, given that information.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to respond. I know the majority
leader wants to respond.
First of all, if the Senator was listening carefully, I said,
whatever the intention, it just seemed to me that it is hard
contextually with what we do from what is happening outside the Senate.
And I think it is a big mistake to do this. I think many people will
view this as nothing less than an effort to retaliate.
That is my position. Whether or not I am right or wrong, I say to my
colleague from Pennsylvania that the proof will be in the pudding. We
will see how people in the country respond. We will see what
interpretation people put on this. I think it is a big mistake. I think
this is a real overreach.
As I tried to do in this debate, I went back through the history of
this. I make it crystal clear. Richard Thornburgh, in this settlement
of March 14, 1989, which union leaders agreed to earlier today, said
culminates 30 years of efforts by the Department of Justice to remove
the influence of organized crime within the Teamsters Union. We are
saying in the second-degree amendment that nothing that we do should be
construed to apply to expenditures.
Don't overreach, and don't take an imprudent action, and don't try to

[[Page S8803]]

overturn this. That is profoundly mistaken.
That is my argument. And that will continue to be my argument,
irrespective of what some of my other colleagues believe.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have never seen so many red herrings in my
life. We should be flying a flock. This is not about the recent
Teamsters strike at UPS, although clearly that strike injured millions
of Americans and small businessmen and women. And I heard a lot of
those concerns while I was home. I had a lot of calls in my offices
pleading for help in some way. ``Please find a way to help end this
strike because of what it is doing to us as individuals and small
businesses.''
It is not about a union or a particular union. I have had a good
relationship with individual teamsters over the years. When I practiced
law I represented the longshoremen, the boilermakers, and every other
union you can name.
No. What is this really about? This is about fairness for the
American people. That is why this amendment has been offered and why it
is so important. The taxpayers of America are paying for union
elections. Do we want that? I don't think my constituents know that,
and they would be horrified to know it. That is what this is all about.
Paying for the Teamsters to hold an election has not happened once. It
has happened twice. The question now is, Will it happen a third time
because of fraudulent elections, or is it in fact a bill the American
people have to foot in perpetuity?
I've heard a great deal of talk about a consent degree. I am not
impressed that a judge said that the people of this country, the
taxpayers, should pay for union elections. I am not impressed, whether
it was a Republican or a Democrat administration, or which Justice
Department went along with it. This is wrong.
When the people find out the truth of what is going on here, they
will be in an uproar because we should not be paying for private union
elections.
So that is the remarkable thing about this situation. That is why
this amendment has been offered--to set up a process to stop taxpayers'
money being used to conduct union elections; and more importantly, it
sets up the process for taxpayers' money to be repaid.
That is one of the key components of the amendment of the Senator
from Oklahoma. It says that there will be a process whereby the
Teamsters, if, in fact, taxpayer dollars are involved, will have to pay
back in an agreed-to process with a plan to repay the cost of these
elections. The taxpayers of America paid $22 million for the last
Teamsters' election; that is $45 per Teamster vote.
As the Washington Times noted, ``the taxpayers were monumentally
ripped off.'' It turns out there was a fraudulent election. And now
there is an indication, well, a judicial official might decree that the
taxpayers should have to pay the Teamsters again. This is a horrible
procedure. This is a horrible precedent. I don't care what union it is;
what business it is. We shouldn't be paying for these kind of
elections, and certainly not without some process to get the taxpayers
repaid for what they have put into this process.
The Nickles amendment puts an end to this nonsense. It allows the
Federal Government to continue the fight against corruption in the
Teamsters Union but says the teamsters have to pay the American people
back for the privilege of an honest election. For heaven's sake.
Nothing could be more fair than that.

Last month, a Federal election official determined that
``corruption''--this is a quote--``in the Teamsters remains a major
problem.'' Citing ``extraordinary'' and ``egregious improprieties,''
the Federal election officials threw out the Teamsters election. We
didn't have anything to do with that. That is what the Clinton
administration is saying about this. Taxpayers paid for what turned out
to be a stolen private election.
Somehow or other the Justice Department, which was supposed to be
overseeing this process, let someone in the Teamsters steal an election
right from under its nose with the taxpayers paying the tab for the
election. Guess what? Now they are saying, ``Well, we don't know but
maybe we will have to have another election, and maybe the taxpayers
should pay again.'' Ridiculous. It is time that we stopped this.
The Clinton FBI, not the Republican Congress, alleges that there was
an intricate money laundering scheme pouring thousands of dollars from
the union treasury into union president Ron Carey's campaign.
Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues: This is a travesty. It is a
travesty that these elections are fraudulent again and again. People
around here forget that the Teamsters have even been thrown out of the
AFL-CIO in the past for such corruption. Now you add to that equation
more taxpayer funding. This won't sell in America.
The Nickles amendment should be adopted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the issue now pending exists on
complexity on a number of levels.
I agree with the remarks just made by our distinguished majority
leader that the American people ought not to pay for union elections.
It is an open question as to how the consent decree was entered into
when it was, and why the U.S. Government entered into that consent
decree. But that is what we face at the present time.
My view is that we have a question of judicial authority here which
is paramount, and it is a matter for the court to decide under our
doctrine of separation of powers.
We are very premature in what we are doing here on two scores.
One is there has been a recommendation for a new election, which, as
I understand the record, has not yet been approved in the court. This
is a complicated matter. There are lots of complexities on it. But my
understanding is that it has not been approved by the court. And then
the court under any expected interpretation would come to the
conclusion that this is a new election, and not to be paid by the
Treasury of the United States under the preexisting arrangement. That
election has already been paid for. But essentially this a matter for
the court to decide. And there would be ample time for the Congress to
turn down an appropriation in the future on the basis that is not an
appropriate matter to be paid for by taxpayers' money. But on this
state of the record, it is my view that it is a judicial matter, and
not a matter of the Congress.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to follow the statement
that is made by Senator Specter, the chairman of the subcommittee. It
is my understanding also that the election officer's recommendation has
not been approved by the court. I share the consternation of many
people here about the timing of that election officer's report of her
findings concerning that Teamster election.
It is clear that under the existing situation there is no order of
the court. Even the court hasn't even considered that recommendation,
if we have one who has exercised severe bad judgment in terms of the
timing of the announcement of her finding. And it is apparent that she
could be overruled as to even her findings. But the main thing is that
this is a bill that has nothing in it pertaining to this matter.
There now comes another one of our cause celebre riders that could
well lose the product of this bill.
Mr. President, we have 14 appropriations bills to pass by this Senate
before September 30, 13 bills coming out of conference, and one
continuing resolution. That says that if we can't send them all to the
President and get them signed before the 30th, there will have to be a
continuing resolution in any event. In addition to that, we have this
bill and two other bills to pass.
We are really going to be in appropriations every day during this
period of September.
I have great respect for my friend from Oklahoma. But I have to say
the time to deal with this issue is when and if the administration asks
Congress for money to pay for this election. We don't even know that
there is going to be a new election. If the court rules there is to be
a new election,

[[Page S8804]]

there is no authority in the Department of Justice or the Department of
Labor to use existing funds for that election. They will have to come
up here with a supplemental request. That is the time we should deal
with it.
I have to say that it is my feeling, very frankly, as chairman of the
committee, that I would rather risk a supplemental--an issue where we
disagree with the administration--than risk the whole year's bill. To
my knowledge, this is the only issue that would lead this bill to be
subject to a veto.
So I really have to say, as I did to my friend from Oklahoma, that I
disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts, too; that I don't think
his amendment is necessary, the amendment in the second degree. And I
don't think it is timely to raise the Nickles amendment now.
What we need to do is get on with our work and get this bill passed.
We still have the Interior bill, we have the District of Columbia bill,
and then we have all 13 bills to pass as conference reports, and then
we have to pass a continuing resolution. And it has a conference
report, too.
So, if we want to be here all year working appropriations, then we
can spend our time on these riders again. For me, there is no necessity
for the second kick of a mule. I got kicked the last time we had this
problem on that supplemental. I don't see any reason to go through it
again.
I urge the Senate not to approve these riders that are controversial.
Every one of them has something we would like to have settled. And, if
they are noncontroversial and we can work them out, we should do it.
But this is a controversial matter. It is, obviously. I am told that
the Department of Labor believes it is cheaper to pay for the
supervision of the election rather than to have to deal with many
complaints on the next election, if one is ordered.
So this is a very complicated issue.
From my point of view, it is not involved in this bill before us. I
respect my good friend from Oklahoma in terms of his views about that
election officer, as I have said, and the timing of the release, but
there is nothing before us yet. The court has not approved that report.
We are dealing with speculation as to whether there will even be
another election. So why tie up this bill and tie up the Senate on an
issue that is premature, Mr. President, and I urge the Senate to join
me in voting against both my friend from Massachusetts and my friend
from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I heard the comments of my colleague from
Alaska, but basically what he is saying is we should not tell the
Department of Labor how to spend money. In this appropriations bill we
appropriate money for the Department of Labor. In this case they
appropriated about $22 million--admittedly it came from the Department
of Labor and the Department of Justice--to conduct this last election.
And they did a pretty crummy job. We paid millions of dollars and we
ended up with a corrupt election.
I do not want that to happen again. We talk about adherence to the
consent decree that was agreed to in 1989. I think my original
amendment is in adherence to the 1989 consent decree, because it said
that the Teamsters will pay for the 1991 election. They paid for it.
And guess what. There was no complaint that it was a corrupt election.
They paid for it themselves. You know what. People are a lot more
frugal with their own money. They are less likely to steal from their
own members. They are less likely to be corrupt maybe with their own
members' money than they would be with taxpayer money.
So we had a 1991 election. Mr. Carey won. Fine. And I don't know that
anybody--there was an overseer in the 1991 election. They did not
allege fraud in that. So the 1991 election was done by the Teamsters.
They paid for it. They should have paid for it. They had a good
election. No one said a thing. The 1996 election the taxpayers paid
for.
I will admit I did not know we paid for it until I read about it. And
when did we read about it? Well, the overseer of the election, she
announced during, or after the UPS strike--and that is the only thing
UPS has to do with this--she waited until after the UPS strike to
announce that there was fraud and that her recommendation would be that
we need a new election. Mr. Carey only won by a few thousand votes. She
said that maybe there were hundreds of thousands of dollars that were
funneled in his direction and so she thought a new election was
warranted.
Fine. Let there be a new election. I am just saying in the new
election taxpayers should not pay for it. We did not pay for the one in
1991. It was a clean election. We paid for the one in 1996 and there
was corruption. A lot of money was moved around. Let's make sure, if we
have an election in 1998, it is not a corrupt election.
That is the purpose. This bill funds the Department of Labor for
1998. Let's make sure that taxpayer money is not used for this purpose.
Somebody says, well, is this in compliance with the consent decree. I
will tell you the consent decree is silent on a rerun election. It does
not say it. I read the consent decree two or three times. It does not
say anything about a rerun. So maybe a judge would determine, well,
maybe taxpayers should pay for it. Maybe a judge would not. But wait a
minute. Congress is supposed to appropriate money, and we have
opinions. If somebody says, well, we are violating, we are stamping out
the consent decree, hogwash. The consent decree does not say it.
I did not request this, but there is a Congressional Research Service
study dated May 1995, what would happen if Congress--does Congress have
the right to withhold the money? The answer is yes. I will read you the
quote from CRS. I will ask unanimous consent to put the entire study
into the Record. But it says:

Legislation enacted by Congress limiting or restricting the
funds for the 1996 election would be a Federal law, and the
Government parties would be bound to take appropriate action
in reliance on that law.
What are the consequences to the Congress of not
appropriating all the funds necessary to supervise the 1996
IBT elections?
There would appear to be no consequences to the Congress.
The consent decree does not appear to obligate the Government
to supervise the 1996 elections, either directly or
indirectly. Rather, the decree embodies the consent of the
union defendants to governmental supervision.

We had governmental supervision in 1991. We will in 1998. What I am
saying is let's just not pay for the election. This is not a destitute
group of individuals. These are people who do quite well. Great.
I read something; they average $27 an hour, about $50,000 a year.
Fine. Why is the Federal Government paying for the election? We did not
pay for the other election. We did not pay for the 1991 election. Why
would we pay for a rerun of the election?
All I am trying to do is protect taxpayers' money. And my colleague
is suggesting, well, maybe somebody is upset about the UPS settlement.
That has nothing to do with it. I am offended by that allegation. That
is totally ridiculous. All I am trying to do is protect taxpayers.
They had their strike. They had their settlement. And some people are
running around saying, ``great victory,'' and so on. So be it. I am
just saying you are not entitled to another $22 million of taxpayers'
money. If the Teamsters pay for it--if it cost the Teamsters maybe less
than half an hour to pay for their own election, they should pay for
it.
I even went so far in the amendment to try to be fair. Some people
said make sure you put in language that no Federal funds be used to
conduct the election. You could use it to oversee the election, to
supervise the election. We do that in Third World countries. We do that
in new democracies, so maybe we would spend a little money to oversee
the election.
I think that is fine, to have observers to try to monitor the
election, to see that we would eliminate some of the corruption, but we
had corruption when we had Federal funding because people took some of
the Federal money and abused it. I am trying to make sure that does not
happen again.
Do we have the constitutional right to do it? Absolutely. CRS said we
do. The consent decree is silent on a rerun. Certainly we can do that.
And my colleague from Alaska says the judge may not even agree. We had
the overseer, who made $300,000 or $400,000 monitoring this election,
find out it is corrupt, withholds that information until after

[[Page S8805]]

the UPS strike and then says, oh, yeah, we are going to have a new
election. I didn't want to tell anybody during the strike because it
might have influenced the strike one way or another. Oh, yes, but we
need a new election.

I am saying fine. If they need a new election, I agree. If that's her
recommendation, fine. I am saying taxpayers shouldn't pay for it. Very
plain and simple. We can monitor it. We can try to make sure it is not
corrupt. But we should not pay for it. It's that simple. We didn't pay
for the 1991 election. They had a good election. Certainly we can allow
an election in 1998, if there is to be an election. If there isn't
going to be an election, fine. My amendment wouldn't cost the
taxpayers. I am trying to save the taxpayers money. So this amendment
wouldn't cost anything.
The very thought of my colleague who said maybe the administration
would veto it, wait a minute. You have an appropriations bill that is
actually hundreds of billions of dollars. They are going to veto this
bill because they want to protect the Teamsters from what? Paying for
their own election. Give me a break. You have to be kidding. How
special interest could this group be? I know I saw the Vice President
with the Teamsters on Labor Day, with thumbs up, and so on. But surely
they would not veto a bill that says this group, which is pretty well
compensated at an average--I guess truckers are making something like,
I don't know, $27 an hour, wages and benefits--surely they say
taxpayers that make a lot less than that should not be paying for their
election when the consent decree does not say that. The consent decree
is silent, frankly, on election reruns. I can't imagine that the
administration would recommend vetoing a bill over something that
special interest.
So, Mr. President, I think we have had adequate debate. I would just
urge my colleagues to vote to table the Kennedy amendment, and I move
to table the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for 2 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The motion to table is not
debatable.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I
suggest the absence a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of 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. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for 4
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Just two brief comments. One with regard to the
Congressional Research Service. It is not true that section O of the
consent decree permits the U.S. Government to avoid its legal
obligations under the decree, including its legal obligation to pay for
supervision of the upcoming election.
Section O is a general savings clause retaining the right of the
Government to seek remedies against the defendants for misconduct. It
was never intended, nor can it be reasonably read, to override the
remainder of the consent decree.
Under the overbroad reading of section O, the consent decree is
meaningless--the parties would have agreed to nothing, because section
O would always undermine the original understanding. This is an absurd
reading of the provision.
It violates the basic rule of legal construction that meaning must be
given to the entire text of the decree.
It has also been argued that under the decree the United States did
not need to insist on supervision of the election and therefore need
not pay for the election. This is also absurd--the United States did
elect to supervise the election, and therefore must pay for the
election. To say otherwise is to make the Federal Government a
deadbeat; a party to litigation weaseling out of its legal duties.
Mr. President, Senator Stevens said it best when he talked about
bringing into this appropriation matters which are not directly related
to the appropriations. I have here the statement of administration
policy, September 2. I will read these provisions.

The administration understands that a number of
controversial amendments may be offered, such as an amendment
to prohibit the use of funds in the act for supervising the
Teamster's election * * * The President's senior advisers
would be forced to recommend that the President veto the
bill.

There are other provisions but that I think supports what the Senator
from Alaska has mentioned.
I had hoped that we could have tabled the whole proposal, and I would
have supported it. But nonetheless we don't have that opportunity at
this time, so I hope that the proposal of the Senator from Oklahoma to
table the measure would not be agreed to. And if that were the case, I
would not object to tabling the whole proposal and get on with the
business of the appropriations.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not debatable.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, 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 question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Oklahoma to table the amendment. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
Murkowski] is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--42

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Glenn
Murkowski

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1082) was agreed
to.
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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment which I
send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr.
Nickles, and Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered
1083 to amendment No. 1081.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this second-degree amendment----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk has not concluded reading.

[[Page S8806]]

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. KENNEDY. Objection. Can we have the reading of the amendment? It
has not been distributed to the Members. It seems to me we ought to
have the amendment read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to read.
Mr. KENNEDY. May we have order?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may we have order, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken, the Senate is not in
order. The clerk will continue to read.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Strike all after the word ``Section'' and insert the
following:
(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 calendar quarter in which
the plan is submitted, prior to the expenditure of any funds
under this section.
(c) This section shall take effect one day after enactment
of this Act.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment clarifies a few
points in the first-degree amendment. As you noticed, the clerk read
section (c) which merely discusses time of enactment and time in which
the proposed amendment would take effect. What we have here, of course,
is the fundamental question that has been brought by the Senator from
Oklahoma: Who should pay for the elections of a private union?
The question fundamentally put before this Senate is very simple for
all of us. Should it be the taxpayers or should it in fact be the
union? I think we are concluding here that it should be the union in
this instance. The taxpayers have done what they should do in this
instance and should do no more.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I rise in support of the amendment offered by my
colleague from Idaho.
Mr. President, let me just clarify again, some of our colleagues were
not aware of the taxpayers' support for the last election. I told a
couple colleagues--they said, ``How much did we spend?'' We spent $22
million; some people said more. The union has 1.4 million members. A
little less than 500,000 voted. And $22 million is a lot of money. And
a lot of money was wasted or maybe abused. It was abused, frankly,
because it was taxpayers' money. That did not happen when it was their
own union money. I mention, every other union in the country uses their
own money for their own elections, as they should.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. This is not
an unfair amendment. This even says that we can still use taxpayers'
money. If for some reason the Teamsters do not have the money, they can
borrow money from the Federal Government. They just have to pay it
back. It happens to be, in my opinion, consistent with the consent
decree because the consent decree is silent. The word ``rerun
election'' is not mentioned in the 1989 decree.
So what we are trying to say is, in future elections they should pay
for it. We can still have Federal Government monitors. We can still
have some oversight to try to make sure it is not abused, as that last
election was. Taxpayers were abused as well as Teamsters last time.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
Mr. CRAIG. Would the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Would the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. Certainly.
Mr. CRAIG. Does your first-degree amendment prohibit the Government
from overseeing the rerunning of an election?
Mr. NICKLES. The answer to the Senator's question is no. The
Government can have some oversight and be involved in monitoring the
election, trying to make sure there is not corruption in the election.
We should not have to pay for it.
Mr. CRAIG. In other words, if Teamsters were concerned, and there was
at issue here corruption in the last election, and therefore a
reelection to get rid of that corruption, or at least to have an
outcome that all would be satisfied with, we could still have the
Department of Labor and/or Justice involved in overseeing the rerunning
of this election, and your amendment does not prohibit that?
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is exactly right.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one final comment.
We talk about this money, and people say, ``Big deal.'' We are
talking about $22 million. The Federal subsidy for Presidential
campaigns is what? $71 million for a general election. That is the
amount of money that Senator Dole received; that is the amount that
Clinton-Gore received from the taxpayers. This is one-third as much.
That amount of money was for the entire country. We are talking about
1.4 million people, and only 500,000 or less voted last time.
Should taxpayers be liable for $22 million, or more? I do not think
so. So this amendment tries to protect taxpayers. That is all it does.
It tries to be fair to Teamsters and does not get involved in who
should win in any way, shape, or form. It does not have anything to do
with the UPS strike whatsoever.
The only involvement of the UPS strike was the fact that they found
out there was a corrupt election, and that information was withheld
until after the strike was over. I am just saying, let us just make
sure that taxpayers do not get stuck again. We got stuck in 1996. It
was a corrupt election. Let us not let it happen again for future
elections.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as two Senators have indicated, this is
basically a restatement of the Nickles amendment. The Senator from
Oklahoma indicated earlier in the course of the debate that he was not
interested nor did he want to interfere with the consent decree that
had been signed in 1989.
I offered an amendment to make sure that that would be the case, by
neither requiring the payment of taxpayers' funds to be used in a
subsequent election nor prohibiting funds to be used. The principal
issue that is before the Senate is whether we are going to interfere
with a judicial proceeding that is before the Southern District Court
of New York in which briefs are required to be filed on September 17.
This agreement, this consent decree, is not the result of the Clinton
administration or the Clinton Department of

[[Page S8807]]

Labor. This consent decree was initiated by Mayor Giuliani in 1988 and
agreed to in the Federal District Court of New York in 1989 and
approved by a Republican Attorney General. They understood the powers
which were being included in that consent decree. They understood fully
what was being agreed to. The record demonstrates that. We can have a
chance to go through that in greater detail if there really is a
question by the Members on that particular fact. They understood the
range of authority and responsibility as a result of that particular
agreement.
This was based upon some 30 years of various activities by the
Teamsters and the resulting initiative by Mr. Giuliani, who was the
U.S. attorney in New York trying to bring a resolution to a great deal
of the challenges, the difficulties, and the corruption that had been a
part of the Teamsters in the past.
So now we have had intervening activities under that consent decree.
But that consent decree has not been concluded. As I mentioned, that
consent decree is active, and it is very much alive.
I did not hear the voices of those who are so troubled this evening
complaining about that consent decree in 1988 or 1989. I did not hear
the voices that are speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate tonight
that are concerned about how the consent decree was going to be
implemented, saying that we will agree to a certain part of the consent
decree but we will not agree to other provisions of it. That was not
the case.
The only initiative, and the new initiative, to somehow interfere
with this consent decree comes 2 weeks after the UPS and Teamsters
strike, which was a strike for some 15 days and which resulted in the
protection of certain rights of American workers, the 185,000 workers
that were working for UPS, and other rights in terms of part-time
workers and other issues involving pensions.
There are those who say, ``Well, this is completely coincidental.
This is really just here today. We just feel it now in our bones that
the fact that it is just after the successful UPS strike has nothing to
do with it. And the indignity which has been demonstrated on the floor
of the U.S. Senate to suggest that there might be some kind of
correlation between the fact that this amendment is being offered now
today, tonight on this appropriations bill, is startling to me.'' It
speaks for itself. The facts speak for themselves. The facts speak for
themselves. I think the Members in this body understand what is going
on here.
As has been pointed out by Members on the other side--Members on the
other side--this is a judicial process, judicial proceeding, and it
should not be altered or changed. That was a Republican Senator,
Senator Specter, who pointed that out very effectively and very well.
And we have the statements of others on the other side. The Senator
from Alaska, Senator Stevens, said we should be about the fact of
having an appropriations and move the appropriations process forward
and should not become involved in these extraneous issues.
There will be those comments later on, I am sure, probably not too
long from now, about how some Members are delaying the completion of
the appropriations bill, when we took an hour last night to consider
the issues of fetal transplantation, which is an issue that has been
debated and debated and debated and debated, in which this body had
gone on record time and time again, and we debated that over the course
of the morning, which was basically an extraneous issue, and now we
have been debating over the course of the afternoon about this issue
which is extraneous to the appropriations process and procedure.
The statement of the administration with regard to this legislation
is very clear. I will read it again: Unfortunately, the administration
understands that a number of controversial amendments may be offered,
such as an amendment to halt the testing initiative, an amendment to
prohibit the use of funds in the act for supervising the Teamsters'
election.
That is what this amendment does. It effectively undermines the
court's flexibility in terms of the supervision of the Teamsters
election.
Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. Doesn't, in fact, this amendment undercut the consent
decree? The consent decree leaves open, as I understand it, the
possibility that the supervision of this election will be done by
public funds. It does not say that it will be, but it leaves open that
possibility. This amendment closes out that possibility. It closes out
that possibility. That possibility was part of the consent decree. It
was left to the judgment of the court whether, in fact, that remedy
will be used. Is that not the case?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. With the understanding of the Justice Department that
that may very likely or probably be utilized.
Mr. SARBANES. Wasn't this consent decree approved by the Justice
Department?
Mr. KENNEDY. Approved by the Republican Justice Department under
Secretary Thornburgh, who embraced and endorsed and supported it, this
consent agreement, that was initiated by now Mayor Giuliani, who was
the Republican U.S. attorney in New York City.
Mr. SARBANES. So this amendment----
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could further respond, the consent decree required,
as of September 17, the submission of additional briefs--September 17--
to be submitted in the district court of New York on this very issue
with regard to the recent election. This is a consent decree that is
ongoing and is continuing.
What we are being asked is effectively to have legislative
interference into a judicial proceeding. That case was made very
clearly, I thought, and convincingly by Senator Specter and others,
that there is a clear constitutional issue about separation of powers.
I think it is very clear from the administration's letter that this
will open this measure to a veto. I certainly believe that it should,
since it is a clear violation of the separation of powers.
We were not either requiring, under the amendment that we had, that
there be an expenditure of public funds or not. We are not trying to
give guidance to the court to make a judgment. That judgment ought to
be made on the basis of the facts and the briefs that are submitted to
it.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield further for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that the consent decree left
open that question and placed the power to decide it in the court; is
that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. This amendment would, in effect, negate that aspect of
the consent decree, would it not?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. NICKLES. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. SARBANES. For a question.
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. SARBANES. Yes, you are; because the consent decree opens the
possibility that the court will require that the election be paid for
with public funds. It does not say that it will, but it does not say
that it will not. It leaves open that option to the court. You are
denying that option by your amendment and, therefore, undoing the
consent decree.
How do you expect people to enter into a consent decree?
Was it 30 years they spent trying to work out a consent decree, did
the Senator say earlier?
Mr. KENNEDY. Thirty years that this was a matter.
Mr. SARBANES. A consent degree that was involved with the Bush
administration, approved by Attorney General Thornburgh, actually
carried out, I take it, by U.S. Attorney Giuliani at that point.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Of the Southern District of New York.
Now we are coming with an amendment to undo this process.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

[[Page S8808]]

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.
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. SARBANES. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, my understanding
was that the 1996 election was never certified.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct, so it is still an
open question. That is a basic and fundamental point. That 1996
election has never been certified.
Mr. SARBANES. So the rerun they are talking about would in effect
flow out of the 1996 election, does it not?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. It is not necessarily a
requirement for a rerun. We do not know what the judge is going to
require. The judge may require a rerun. The judge may not require a
rerun. All we are saying is that we are not going to interfere in the
prerogatives of the consent agreement which has been agreed to by the
various parties who had a clear understanding about what the powers
were for the various parties.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. McCAIN. I am reminded of the words of the wonderful Mo Udall who
said, ``Everything on this subject that could possibly be said has been
said, only not everybody has said it,'' and I wonder if we had any time
that we might want to conclude this debate since I do have a couple of
pending amendments that I would like to address tonight.
Could the Senator from Massachusetts give me an idea as to perhaps
when we might be able to move on?
Mr. KENNEDY. As long as this matter is before the Senate I think we
are going to have an opportunity to talk about it. There are more
Members here now than there were earlier. I would not object to setting
this aside to consider other measures. That is not my idea of delaying.
If it were to be set aside, I would not object to that process.
However, if we are going to be on this amendment, there are both
speakers and additional points that I think ought to be made.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. So, as the Senator from Maryland has pointed out, the
court may order the election to be run or it may not. It may require
the Government to fund part of the election officer's supervision in
some ways. It may be limited, maybe to that election, or it may require
the union to do so, or it may require each party to bear some of the
costs. All of that is out and all of that is possible.
The point is we do not know how the court will rule. We don't know
how the court will rule, but this amendment now would tell the court
that regardless of its ruling, regardless of its ruling, the Government
will not be permitted to fund any of the election. Even if the consent
order requires the Government to pay for part of it, the amendment
would refuse to permit that. Thus, the amendment would interfere with
an ongoing judicial process.
Effectively, the amendment, I believe would force the Government to
be in a position of reneging on this consent decree. It would, I
believe, leave the Government subject to a contempt citation. I think
you can make a strong case at that time if we were to take this kind of
action that the Government itself would be liable to a contempt
citation.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. SARBANES. In fact, as I understand it, part of the consent order
was a consent by the union to have the 1996 election supervised by an
election officer, is that not the case?
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Of course, part of that was that would be done at
Government expense, to supervise the 1996 election? In other words,
what the Government was getting out of this at the time was continued
supervision of Teamster elections, and part of the consent decree was
that the supervision of the 1996 election, extending well beyond the
1991 election, would be done at Government expense, is that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Now the consent decree remains silent on the question
of a rerun of that election since it has not been certified. This
amendment would, in effect, deprive the court of an option that is now
available to it, an option that, in fact, was left open by the consent
decree. This is simply undoing a consent decree. You will never get
consent decrees.
The Bush Administration held out the accomplishment of this consent
decree as a major achievement, is that not correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
Mr. SARBANES. In 1989?
Mr. KENNEDY. Correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Did not the President and the Attorney General hold it
out as a major accomplishment?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Now, our colleague from Oklahoma and others are trying
to undo the consent decree at a time, as I understand, that the court,
2 weeks from yesterday, will be receiving briefs on this very issue of
the election, is that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. If ever there was an instance of trampling in on the
part of the Congress and in effect, undoing an arrangement that was
very carefully and elaborately worked out and, in fact, done so by now
Mayor Giuliani but then U.S. Attorney Giuliani in the Southern District
of New York, approved by the Department of Justice, headed by Richard
Thornburgh, and held out by President Bush as a major accomplishment.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his comments because they make
the case extremely well and effectively.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Several comments were made that we are vitiating the
consent decree. Totally false. I will tell my colleagues, you can read
the consent decree, it does not say anything about a rerun election.
The consent decree did say that the Teamsters would pay for the 1991
election and taxpayers would pay for the 1996 election.
The Teamsters came out very well. They got a nice gift, $22 million,
maybe more, which is over about $45, maybe $50 per person as the cost
to the taxpayers of this vote. That is pretty high. Some of us do not
think we should do it again.
Maybe I was asleep at the switch in 1989. It happened. Nobody
objected. And in 1991, since the Teamsters paid for it, it never came
up. I was not aware of it until after the 1996 election and we found
the abuse. It is an abuse on the Teamsters and on the taxpayers and
should not be repeated. That is the reason we have the amendment before
the Senate.
We do not vitiate the consent decree. We say in the future, judge, we
know the consent decree is silent. It does not say who should pay for
it.
Now, frankly, if you read the Constitution it says Congress shall
have the power to appropriate money. It does not say ``an unelected
judge.'' It does not say a judge, where a consent decree is silent, has
the power to go in and mandate something, like mandating U.S. taxpayer
funds. Some of us think elected officials should make that decision,
not unelected judges.
We are stating that in the future if there is another election, let
the Teamsters pay. This is not a group of individuals that cannot
afford it.

[[Page S8809]]

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator feel the election should be supervised
by an election officer?
Mr. NICKLES. I tell my colleague my thought is it should be handled
the way it was in 1991. We had Federal supervision and observation of
the election in 1991 but the cost of the election was borne by the
Teamsters.
Mr. SARBANES. But the consent to have an election officer was
provided for by the Teamsters in the consent decree. Do you not
ordinarily have an election officer to supervise an election?
The Senator says----
Mr. NICKLES. I have the floor.
Let me correct you. What I said, the way I hope it would be done is
the way it was done in 1991. You had Federal supervision, you had
Federal observers, you had Federal monitors, but you did not have
taxpayers paying $22 million for the election in 1991, and you had, in
1991, an election that had Federal observers stating that they thought
this was a fair, clean election. That is what I want. I want the
Teamsters to have a fair, clean election and I do not want the
taxpayers to take another ride for $22 million.
If we followed the thought that you and Senator Kennedy have, you
could have another corrupt election, taxpayers would be out another $20
or $30 million, an observer could receive another $400,000 for saying,
``Oops, it was corrupt again,'' and we could do it again and again and
again.
Taxpayers have been taken for a ride once, we should not be taken for
a ride again.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. SARBANES. Well, in fact, what the taxpayers got out of the
consent decree was the use of the election officer for the 1996
election.
The Senator seems to proceed on the premise that having an election
officer to supervise the election is the normal course of events. That
is not the case. One of the things that was negotiated in the consent
decree was getting an election officer for the 1996 election.
Let me read from the consent decree.
Mr. NICKLES. Is that a question?
Mr. SARBANES. I will ask a question.
``The union defendants consent to the election officer at government
expense to supervise the 1996 IBT elections.''
Now, that represented a major concession by the union in the consent
decree to place themselves under an election officer. Part of the
consent decree was, obviously if they were going to do that, that the
costs of the election officer would be paid by the Government and you
are undoing that aspect of the consent decree.
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. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it, this election has not been certified.
That has been brought out in the debate, and therefore we are still
operating under the election of this year. As I understand it further,
the Senator can correct me if I am wrong, that this finding of this
election overseer now goes to a judge, the judge will make a decision
as to whether or not to have a rerun of the election and, further,
cannot that judge then decide who should pay for it, also?
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. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield? I have a question whether or not
this is premature. Why not wait until the courts take their action and
see what has happened before the Senate then operates. Obviously, it
will happen in the next few weeks, I assume, and then the Senate can
work its will after the judge makes a decision.
Would that not be a reasonable course to take?
Mr. NICKLES. I do not think so for this reason: One, because I think
the Congress of the United States was elected to appropriate the money,
not an unelected judge in New York; and, two, this is timely because
this is an appropriations bill for 1998. If the election is ordered, it
will be for 1998. I think, instead of allowing the Departments of Labor
and Justice and this administration, who has very close ties with this
particular union and might like to give them a $22 million gift--I
don't think we should do that. So in this bill we are appropriating for
next year, I think we should make it very clear that the taxpayers got
the shaft and so did the Teamsters out of this last $22 million, and it
should not happen again.

We clearly have the constitutional prerogative and right, as stated
by CRS and the Constitution, to control Federal funds. I think we
should make it very clear that in any subsequent election the Teamsters
should pay for their own election. Every other union in the country
pays for their own elections. They should do so.
Incidentally, when you look at the 1991 election, which they paid
for, it was a good election. Then look at the election where the
taxpayers put in $22 million; it was a corrupt election. That should
tell you something. Federal funds don't automatically mean you are
going to have clean elections. We can still have oversight. We have
oversight in Third World countries where our Government is involved in
bringing people in, whether it's President Carter or others, to help
oversee and make sure elections are clean and upright.
Don't get me wrong. The Mafia has been very involved in the
Teamsters, and they have been for decades. I want them to be out. I
want the union to be clean. I want people to be able to vote and elect
their representatives. It is kind of embarrassing, despite all this
money, when you have a union of 1.4 million people and only 400-some-
odd-thousand voted in the last election. I don't think the U.S.
taxpayers should have to take the hit for paying for it to the tune of
$22 million.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KYL. Let me ask this question of the Senator from Oklahoma. Since
this is boiling down to a question of whether the taxpayers of the
United States should pay for a union election or whether the union
should pay for its own election, why was it that the consent decree
that some of our colleagues seem to be focusing so much attention on
was entered into in the first instance? Why was the U.S. Government
involved in dealing with the Teamsters Union in the first instance? And
why was it that a special officer to oversee the election had to be
assigned for that, or the parties agreed to have that officer oversee
the election to ensure that it would be a fair election? Why was the
U.S. Government obligated to provide these funds for this labor union,
for a private labor union election?
Mr. NICKLES. I will read a statement that came from the Department of
Justice, on page 2: ``Because of the deep entrenchment of La Cosa
Nostra in the Teamsters electoral process, the consent decree gave the
Government and the IBT the option to have the IBT election supervised
by a court-appointed officer.''
It is because of the mob influence that has been with this union for
a long time. I want it to be out. Hopefully, it is out. Obviously,
there was still some corruption in the last election, which had a lot
of taxpayer funding. The fact that the taxpayers had funds in it didn't
clean it up. That is my point.
Mr. KYL. If I could ask this question. So the reason that my
constituents in

[[Page S8810]]

Arizona had to help pay for this union election is because of past
fraud and alleged illegal conduct of the union. That is why they are
having to pay for this union election, or why they paid for the last
union election; is that correct?
Mr. NICKLES. That's correct. Obviously, the fact that they paid $22
million didn't guarantee a clean election.
Mr. KYL. Obviously. The last question I ask is, why, if it is the
union's elected officials' fault that the taxpayers had to spend this
money in the first instance because they had allowed the fraud and
alleged corruption to come into the union and tossed out the ability of
the union to conduct its own election on behalf of its members, why,
once the taxpayers paid for an election, should they have to pay for it
a second time? The taxpayers didn't do anything wrong; it was the union
officials.
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. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to respond to the questions put
by the Senator from Arizona. The Senator seems to proceed on the
premise that you are entitled to have an election officer to supervise
a union election, although he referred to them as ``private unions''
and said, ``Why are we paying for this with public funds?''
Now, the deal that was made in 1989 by the Bush administration and by
Attorney General Thornburgh was that the 1991 election would be held
with an election officer, paid for by the union. The Government
obviously wanted to have an election officer in the picture in the next
election, the 1996 election. But part of the consent decree was, if the
election officer was going to be in the picture for the 1996 union
election, the cost of that election was going to be paid for by the
Government. Now, you all talk about how anxious you are to keep the
influence of the mob out of the union. I certainly subscribe to that.
But what you are doing by this amendment is you are setting up the
possibility that the union can conduct its election without an election
officer because it is out from under the consent decree. The consent
decree required the 1996 election to be done with an election officer.
That election has not been certified. It is that election about which
there are questions, which the judge is now going to hear. Now, you are
going to come in and, in effect, undo part of the consent decree. I
simply point out to you that it carries with it the very high risk that
an election officer will no longer be required. That is how the Bush
administration got an election officer for the 1996 election, through
the consent decree. They got it for 1991, and they got it for 1996.
The Bush administration obviously wanted an election officer in the
1996 election. They didn't want the Teamsters out from under the
consent decree altogether after the 1991 election. Part of the
arrangement, in order to get the consent decree, was that the election
officer would be, at Government expense, appointed to supervise the
1996 election. Now, that is the election that is in question. That is
the election that has not been certified. I mean, you act as though the
involvement of public moneys did not achieve a public objective.
What was the Bush administration thinking about, and what was
Attorney General Thornburgh thinking about, to support a consent decree
that provided that the Government would pay for the 1996 supervised
election? Obviously, what they were thinking about is they would get an
election officer to supervise the 1996 election, so they would carry
the supervision of the Teamsters beyond the 1991 election.
Now you are coming in and you want to undo this arrangement. My view
is, you are intervening in an established court procedure under the
consent decree. Second--and I suggest that people stop and think about
this very carefully--you are running the very high risk that you will
enable the Teamsters to come out from under the consent decree, as far
as having an election officer is concerned. The people on the other
side will certainly say that other unions pay for their elections; the
Government doesn't pay for their union elections. That is true. But
they don't have an election officer to supervise it either.
In fact, the other side referred to this as private elections on the
part of the union. Those private elections on the part of other unions
are not supervised by election officers. With respect to the Teamsters
elections, given the corruption we were trying to deal with, we thought
it imperative to have an election officer. They got an election officer
in 1991 for that election. The union paid for that election as part of
the consent decree. But the Bush administration obviously wanted to
supervise the next election as well, in order to ensure that they
didn't revert back to past practices.
Part of getting an election officer for the 1996 election was that
the Government assumed the cost of that supervision. Now, that election
has not been certified. It still remains an open question, and that is
the very matter on which the judge will be holding these hearings in
less than 2 weeks' time. Now we come in here and are sort of, in
effect, trespassing on this whole arrangement, portraying it as though
there was no return to the Government for the arrangement. The
Government got the use of election officers in order to supervise these
elections. I mean, the Senator ought to want election officers to
continue----

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield----
Mr. SARBANES. And not provide a way for the union to come out from
under the consent decree and the election officer.
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. SARBANES. I say to my colleague that that is not the consent
decree which the Bush administration approved and which they presented
forward as a major accomplishment. That is an interesting argument, but
the Senator should have used it in 1989, at the time the Bush
administration sanctioned this consent decree. Otherwise, you never
would have had an election officer for the 1996 election. It is treated
as though that is a normal course of events. That is a major part of
the bargain that was reached in the consent decree, keeping an election
officer. The other part of the bargain was that the Government would
pay the cost for the supervised election.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.
Mr. BINGAMAN. It strikes me that the job of Congress is to
appropriate funds for the Federal courts to administer justice as best
they see fit. I am wondering why we are trying to wade in and specify
how this particular Federal judge administered the implementation of
the consent decree which has been entered in his court. It strikes me
that we have Federal courts all over the country and we have consent
decrees in place in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases all over the
country. Here we are, singling out one of those cases and saying we are
going to step in and specify how a Federal judge in the future should
implement the administration of that consent decree. It just seems to
me that we are micromanaging, in the worst possible way, and really
stepping into an area that the Congress should stay out of.
We should get on with the business that we were given to do under the
Constitution, which is to pass appropriations bills, and we should let
the courts administer the cases that are before them. I ask the Senator
from Maryland if he would agree with that basic view.
Mr. SARBANES. I think the Senator makes a very valid point, but I
will take it a step further. By meddling into this, we may well make it
possible for the Teamsters to come out from under the consent decree
with respect to the use of an election officer to conduct the election.
I ask my colleagues on the other side, is that a result they want? Do
they want the Teamsters to be able to

[[Page S8811]]

conduct an election without the use of an election officer?
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. SARBANES. I observe to the Senator that the only reason you got
that supervision was because of the consent decree. The reason you had
an election officer in 1991, and the reason you had one in 1996 was
because of the consent decree. You don't automatically get election
officers to supervise union elections. You are absolutely right,
ordinarily union elections are paid for by the union. It is a private
association. They pay for the elections. There is no election officer
to supervise those elections.
Now, what the consent decree gave you was an election officer because
the Government wanted to supervise the election as a way of rooting out
corruption and the influence of the mob in the Teamsters Union. They
got a consent decree and it gave them an election officer in 1991, and
also gave them an election officer in 1996 because, obviously, the Bush
administration didn't want to have just one election and then they are
off the hook. They wanted to keep the supervision for the 1996
election. But in order to get that agreement and that understanding in
the consent decree, they agreed to pay the costs of the supervision for
the 1996 election, which is, in a sense, the election that is still
before us, since it has never been certified.
Now you are coming in, and you want to in effect eliminate an option
that is available to the judge in terms of carrying out the consent
decree. My point is that is carrying with it the very high risk that
you eliminate the election officer. Then that raises a question. Why do
you want to eliminate the election officer to supervise the teamsters
election? That brings us back to why we have the election officers to
begin with. So that works the whole thing back full circle. This is a
classic example of tramping in without fully thinking through what the
consequences of doing so are.
As the Senator from New Mexico has pointed out, it intrudes into the
judicial operation, clearly. But, beyond that, I think it carries with
it a very high risk that you are going to be hoisted by your own petard
here, and you are going to end up without an election officer, which is
an essential part of the consent agreement that was reached which the
Bush administration at the time trumpeted as a major accomplishment.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question
without losing his right to the floor?
Mr. SARBANES. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. FORD. Can the Senator help me a little bit in the position that I
find myself? We are sitting here with the Federal judges--almost 100
vacancies around the country. And they have to pass a litmus test
before we can ever get them to the floor so we might approve them so
that justice might be done and not delayed. Now we find this amendment
before us saying that we want to interfere in the courts that are
already there.
My fear is that democracy, as we know it, is being deleted, in my
opinion, because of the meddling with the Federal courts and the delay
of the appointment of judges and the interference of statutory
provisions that would tell the judge what to do and what not to do.
That is not what this country was founded on. It was founded on justice
by judges, and you have the ability to go to court. Now we are saying
you can't.
Am I right or wrong? Have I lost something here, or have I found
something on which my fear might be substantiated?
Mr. SARBANES. I think the Senator is on a very important point. As
the Senator from New Mexico said, you have the Congress coming in and
trying to in effect dictate what the conclusions are going to be in the
court proceedings--improper intrusion into the process, and a total
lack of respect for the separation of powers. We are talking about a
consent decree here. We are not even talking about a matter which is
just in the initial stages of litigation in which we have traditionally
shied away from intervening in saying it is a matter to be resolved by
the courts. We have a matter here that was in extended litigation and
which resulted in a consent decree entered into under an order of the
court.
Now we are coming along and we are going to play around with this
consent decree, and it is treated as though there is no downside to it.
In other words, they say, ``Well, we will not honor the consent decree
that requires that we pay for the election but we will keep the
election officer which was provided in the consent decree.'' Which is
unprecedented. That is not the normal way you do an election with an
election officer.
So they are going to keep the election officer. But they are going to
deny the court the ability to handle the apportioning of the cost of
that, which is apparent currently available to the court under the
consent decree. You are playing with fire. The end result of this may
be that the teamsters get out from under the consent decree, and they
don't have to use an election officer in order to conduct their
election.
If that is what you really want to do, I mean I think one ought to be
explicit about it. I don't think that is desirable. The questions that
have been raised about this election that just happened--and, you know,
obviously, you want to be sure you have a fair election given the long
history of this issue involving the Teamsters Union.
Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
Mr. FORD. Am I right if what I see here is that we are trying to say
that this is a bad union here that is going to get taxpayer dollars to
have an election? So, therefore, we are going to interfere. The issue
is emotional. No question about it. But we are going to interfere with
the courts, and we will diminish the courts. Isn't it time for
thoughtful people to try to protect the judiciary here so that even
though the question may be sensitive it may be a tough vote--we have
had tough votes before. A lot of times they are not easy votes. But
this is one I think we have to look beyond to the long-term harm that
might be done to the judiciary.
Am I all wrong in this?
Mr. SARBANES. No. I think the Senator is absolutely correct. Just as
the court is about to pass on this previous election and make some
judgment as to what ought to be done with respect maybe to holding
another election, we come along with this amendment, and in effect
alter the consent decree.
What the Government got out of the consent decree was continued
supervision of the Teamster election by an election officer. In order
to get that for the 1996 election in the consent decree, the Government
undertook to pay the costs of that election. Now people want to
preclude that side of the bargain but they want to keep the election
officer.
I am simply suggesting to them that they may lose the election
officer as well and bring the Teamsters out from under the consent
decree. I would think upon reflection that that is something they would
not want to do. In fact, the consent decree very clearly states that
the union defendants consent to the election of officers at Government
expense to supervise the 1996 IBT elections.
This was a litigated matter. It was in the courts. In fact, the mayor
of New York, the current mayor of New York, was then the U.S. Attorney,
Rudy Giuliani, and this was the agreement they worked out as part of
the consent decree, as part of this litigation. Now, it is suggested
that, well, we didn't get anything for it. Of course, we got something
for it. We got the continued supervision of these elections with an
election officer. You don't ordinarily get that with union elections.
Ordinarily the unions pay for the election. There is no election
officer. The Government wanted an election officer. They wanted to
supervise these elections. The union said pay for the '91 election. But
they, obviously, want out from under it. In effect, the deal was if you
are going to continue to supervise us with an election officer through
the 1996 election, you are going to pay the costs of the 1996 election.
This election we are talking about here is in effect a continuation of
the 1996 election, and that one has not been certified.
So now we are playing, as it were, fast and loose with this consent
decree.

[[Page S8812]]

The end result of it may be that you will get an unsupervised election
throwing the whole thing right back. This thing was negotiated, as I
understand it, after a long period of time with very intense and
extended negotiations. And it was finally put in a place under the
order of a U.S. district judge, and it was consented to by the U.S.
Attorney. It was consented to by the U.S. Government, and consented to
by the plaintiffs and by the defendant. In fact, there is a long list
of signatures consenting to the consent decree. Otherwise, you would
have been in litigation. You don't know what the outcome would have
been.
At the time, I can recall President Bush declaring this a great
success. I think it was an accomplishment by the Bush administration,
by Attorney General Thornburgh. Now we come along, and we are undoing
it here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one comment in the form of
a question?
Just to quote from Attorney General Thornburgh, who said on March 14,
1989, to back up the Senator's point, ``This settlement, which union
leaders agreed to earlier today, culminates 30 years' of efforts by the
Department of Justice to remove the influence of organized crime within
the Teamsters Union''--to go back.
Mr. SARBANES. This was Attorney General Thornburgh commenting?
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
Just one question, because the Senator has been on the floor and I
have been listening very carefully. It initially started out as a
debate. I expressed my concern that I thought whatever the intentions
were--I said good intentions--on the part of the colleagues, but that I
thought that you really couldn't talk about this except in the context
of what has happened with the Teamsters, and I thought this was
profoundly mistaken. But now, what the Senator has been doing as a
lawyer is--I am a lay person. I have been listening very carefully. As
I understand the Senator, what he is really saying is that the most
serious part of this above and beyond my concerns is that it really
does--as the Senator from Oklahoma said earlier, he didn't see this as
being anything in contradiction with the consent decree--the Senator
from Maryland is arguing that it is most certainly in contradiction, in
which case it becomes a very dangerous intrusion into the judiciary.

Is that correct? Is that the legal principle here, and the government
principle?
Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator, yes. That is correct. What my
colleagues on the other side are failing to understand is the history
out of which this consent decree arose. In other words, the Federal
Government filed suit against the Teamsters alleging mob influence in
the Teamsters, and it went through an involved presentation of what the
issues were, the campaigns of fear and extortion, and so forth and so
on. That suit is pending. The Government then reaches a consent decree
with the Teamsters. The matter never went to full-scale litigation. You
don't know what the outcome of the litigation would have been. They
reached a consent decree, and the Attorney General stated at the time,
``This settlement, which union leaders agreed to earlier today,
culminates 30 years' of efforts by the Department of Justice to remove
the influence of organized crime within the Teamsters Union.'' And the
observer goes on to note that the Teamsters signed a consent decree
with the Federal Government to avoid a trial over a lawsuit. The union
agreed to purge its mob connections and hold democratic elections. Then
they discussed the supervision that was taking place with respect to
the 1991 election. And the grumbling, in fact, on the part of some of
the rank and file of the Teamsters is that the union no longer belonged
to them, ``their second-guessing of internal decisions that we make,''
et cetera, et cetera. ``They are eliminating democracy to ensure
democracy,'' one of these dissidents said.
We got that arrangement in order to supervise this election in order
to try to root out this mob influence. Part of the consent decree was
not only that you have a supervisor for the 1991 election but you have
one for the 1996 election, which was a marked departure from how these
things are handled.
My colleagues on the other side say, well, we don't pay for the
elections of any other unions. That is quite true. No. We don't pay for
them. We don't have election officers to supervise them either. We
don't have them under a consent decree. There is a national purpose or
objective to be achieved by rooting out the corruption that existed in
the Teamsters Union. This consent decree negotiated by Mr. Giuliani, or
by his associates, when he was a U.S. attorney in New York, approved by
the Department of Justice, by Richard Thornburgh, the Attorney General,
was an effort to accomplish that objective. In order to do that, we
were able in effect to impose an election regime upon the Teamsters,
not only for the 1991 election, the immediately next forthcoming
election, but also for the 1996 election.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SARBANES. Let me finish my point, and I will yield. Obviously, as
part of the effort to extend out supervision beyond another 5 years out
into the 1996 election, the Government undertook to pay the costs of
the supervision of the 1996 election. But we got an election officer to
supervise it. That is the election that is now in question. That is the
election that is going to be under the scrutiny of the Federal District
judge in New York. Now we are sort of messing with that situation
without even beginning to have any full appreciation of what the
consequences may be.
I yield for a question by my colleague from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague. In looking at the consent decree.
We talked a lot about it. I think we should look at it and see what it
actually says with regard to the effort in the 1991 election. What I
read it to say--perhaps there is more than I read. But this is what I
have. It says that the union defendants further consent to the United
States Department of Justice supervising any IBT elections--any. They
consent to them supervising any elections or special elections to be
conducted after 1991 for the officers of the IBT, president, general
secretary treasury, vice president, and trustees.
Mr. SARBANES. What point is the Senator making?
Mr. SESSIONS. I think it says that it gives the United States clearly
the option to do so, and pay for that election or not. In fact, I have
in my hand a memorandum of the U.S. Department of Justice which says
just that--interprets it just that way. It says on page 2, ``Because of
the deep entrenchment of the La Cosa Nostra in the IBT's electoral
process, the consent decree gave the Government the option to have the
1996 elections supervised by a court appointed officer.''
Mr. SARBANES. That is right.
Mr. SESSIONS. I don't think we would be in violation of the decree to
have the Government--and we speak for the Government, don't we?--say to
them we don't intend to fund the second one.
Mr. SARBANES. Do you think you could have an election officer to that
election?
Mr. SESSIONS. I think you have an option to.
Mr. SARBANES. How would you have an election officer?
Mr. SESSIONS. The U.S. Government, because of its concern about the
mob influence of a union, protected itself with the right to assert,
the right to provide an election officer in supervision, to supervise
the election. So we don't have to exercise that option.
Mr. SARBANES. I say to my colleague, a distinguished former U.S.
attorney in Alabama, the consent decree specifically says the union
defendants consent to the election officer at Government expense to
supervise the 1996 IBT elections.
Now, if you do not regard this election that is coming up as a
continuation of the 1996 election, how are you going to get an election
officer for it given the specific provisions that are in this consent
decree?
Mr. SESSIONS. What page is the Senator on?
Mr. SARBANES. Sixteen.
Mr. SESSIONS. Are you reading the first full paragraph there? It
doesn't say 1996 election. It says they consent to supervision of any
election. That means obviously the United States did not intend to
supervise all those elections. The United States only undertook to do
so if it chose to do so.

[[Page S8813]]

Mr. SARBANES. If I could interrupt my colleague----
Mr. SESSIONS. That is what the Department of Justice, the Clinton
Department of Justice, memorandum says, that it has the option. I think
that's the most plain reading of it, and I suggest to you the union
agreed to this reluctantly, preferring not to perhaps but because they
had to. I just don't think that would be a fair interpretation of it. I
think the most normal interpretation would be that they have the option
to do so, and I think this body has the right to say we choose not to
fund it. Let's not do it.
Mr. SARBANES. I say to my colleague, the consent decree I am looking
at, in the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 16 says,
``The union defendants consent to the election officer, at Government
expense, to supervise the 1996 IBT elections.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. But I think the option is the same.
Mr. SARBANES. That's the point.
Mr. SESSIONS. Let's look at what the Department of Justice memorandum
says. The point of the Department of Justice memorandum about the 1996
election was that it concluded the Departments of Justice and Labor
believed they should be involved in supervising the 1996 election.
Mr. SARBANES. That's right.
Mr. SESSIONS. And they chose to exercise that option. I think this
body has the right to say we don't think we should exercise the next
option; at least we are not going to fund it.
Mr. SARBANES. The Department wanted to supervise the 1996 election.
They got the consent, they got it as part of the consent decree from
the union to do so, but the costs of the election would be borne by the
Government.
We ought to let the court decide what the consent decree means
because, if you start playing around with a consent decree with respect
to the cost of the election, the next thing you may discover is that
you have let the Teamsters out from under the consent decree and you
will not have an election officer, which was part and parcel of the
arrangement that was made in the consent decree.
That is the point I am trying to make. You are running a very large
risk here that you are going to lose your election officer to moderate
and supervise these Teamster elections. And we have a strong public
interest in preserving an election officer. Let the court decide what
the consent decree means, and the court can then do it in a way that
assures you that the Teamsters will not come out from under application
of the election officer. That is the point.
Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I must say I am most
impressed with the eloquence that the Senator has brought to this
argument and has done remarkably well, I think, with not a lot to work
with.
The Congressional Research Service has also indicated that:

Basically, the union consented that they would allow themselves,
their private entity, to be supervised as a consequence perhaps of, as
part of, a settlement to avoid even more severe punishment that could
have been enacted against them as a result of Mr. Giuliani's actions
against that union. That would be to me the most logical interpretation
of the agreement.
Mr. SARBANES. That's right. The union agreed to this as part of the
consent. But the consent decree says the union defendants consent to
the election officer, at Government expense, to supervise the 1996 IBT
elections.
You are coming along and saying we want to keep the election
officer--let me put this question to the Senator. Does the Senator want
the Teamsters to be able now to go ahead and have a private union
election without supervision, without an election officer?
Mr. SESSIONS. This Member says that I would oppose strongly any more
funding of a $22 million election, and I am prepared to vote against it
in that regard.
Mr. SARBANES. Even if the consequence of that is that you have an
unsupervised Teamster election because they are out from under the
consent decree? Is that correct?
Mr. SESSIONS. They may be. That is right.
Mr. SARBANES. I do not agree with the Senator. I mean, I put this
question earlier, and it is interesting now to have this discussion
take this turn because now we are beginning to see apparently on the
part of some Members, they are really prepared to countenance the
notion of having an unsupervised Teamster election.
Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield----
Mr. SARBANES. In effect, we are repudiating the option of continued
Government payment of the election as a way of in effect losing your
supervision over the Teamsters election. I do not see how the Senator
can take that position when questions have been raised about the
validity of the 1996 election. This is the very thing that the court is
going to be deciding up in New York, and we ought to let the court
decide what the consent decree means.
I think this exchange just now is a pretty dramatic illustration of
why we ought to let the court decide what it means because otherwise we
are running the very high risk of exactly what the Senator said he
would countenance happening; namely, an unsupervised election. I am
sure there are many Members who do not want an unsupervised election.
Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I do not think the
legislation requires that. In 1991, we did not fund the elections but
had supervision. I think we can have supervision through the Department
of Labor or Justice. But we do not have to fund a $22 million election.
Mr. SARBANES. It is not quite the same. I say to the Senator that is
not the agreement that is embodied in the consent decree. This consent
decree was not done by this administration. This consent decree was
done by the Bush administration. Attorney General Thornburgh said about
it, ``This settlement, which union leaders agreed to earlier today,
culminates 30 years of effort by the Department of Justice to remove
the influence of organized crime within the Teamsters Union.''
The Senator had service as a U.S. attorney, and you know when you
agree to enter into a consent decree, you know, in effect, there is
some give and take on both sides, and this was the arrangement that was
made. It was done by Giuliani, approved by Thornburgh, trumpeted by
President Bush as a success. I thought it was a success. I continue to
think it is a success. And I certainly don't think we should run the
risk here of undoing the consent decree by refusing to carry out the
Government cost of the elections and lose the election officer as a
consequence and allow the Teamsters to have an unsupervised election,
and that is the fire you are playing with here.
What we really should do here is we should back off and let the court
handle this matter. The court has a consent decree to administer. It
has options. Under that consent decree, the court could, in effect,
maintain supervision and not pick up the costs of it. But that is a
matter for the court to do as it interprets the consent decree. If we
try to do it on the floor as we are trying to do right now, we run the
risk of upsetting this whole apple cart and the whole effort to purge
the Teamsters and to get an honest union.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for yielding, and I just would
disagree; I don't think the Government is required to conduct or fund
this election, and I do not think we should.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question not even related to
this at all? I would like to know if the Senator has any information or
knowledge about how long we are going to be here this evening? I say
that as the minority manager of this bill.
If we are not going to vote this evening--maybe someone on the other
side could tell me. If we are not going to vote this evening, I think
we ought to let Senators know so Senators can go home. It is now 8
o'clock at night. We have had a fairly spirited discussion and debate.
I don't mean to limit debate or anything, but I think we ought

[[Page S8814]]

to have some information so that Senators can either stay around for a
vote or at least go home to be with their families.
Does the Senator know anything about that?
Mr. SARBANES. No. This isn't my amendment. I am just responding to
the offering of this amendment, which I think is a very bad idea and
which I am trying to develop. Actually there is a benefit to be
gathered by some discussion of this matter, which was illustrated by
the exchange we just had, because it was clear that at least there are
some Members who, in order to avoid the costs, are prepared to let the
Teamsters have an unsupervised election and let them out from under the
consent decree. I think that would be very bad.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree.
Mr. SARBANES. I think that would be a bad consequence.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree entirely with the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. And an undesired consequence.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree completely with the Senator.
Mr. SARBANES. I think we are running a risk with what we are doing on
the floor of the Senate.
Mr. HARKIN. I am just thinking about what the procedure is going to
be for the rest of the evening. There are only four or five Senators,
six, in the Chamber. I hope we would have some information so the
Senators could make plans.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I do not have the floor. He has the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. My understanding was that a vote was expected tonight
but that a number of Senators had some things they wanted to say about
this bill and were being provided the opportunity to do so. I am not
aware that there is any agreement not to vote. I thought the agreement
in fact was to vote.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say in response to my colleague from
Iowa, I think there are Senators who want to speak on it. I don't know
whether or not there will be time tonight in order to accommodate
different people who want to comment on this amendment.
But as I understand it, and I will just try to summarize, there are
two different sets of concerns I have. One set of concerns which I
would repeat has to do not with the intentions of colleagues at all but
has to do just with the sequence of events, the chronology. I just
think that there is a great deal of discussion about what the UPS
workers did. This was a Teamsters strike. There was a focus on the need
to have more full-time jobs as opposed to part-time jobs. There was a
focus on living-wage jobs.
The interesting thing is that I think the public really rallied
behind the UPS workers. I think that the public felt that what the
workers were talking about, what this union was talking about, was how
you earn a decent living and how you are able to give your children the
care you know they need and they deserve.
I think that this amendment, the Nickles-Craig amendment, is such an
overreach because now what we have, just on the heels of this
successful effort on the part of Teamsters to bargain collectively, is
an effort--and now I have listened to this; I am not a labor lawyer--
but an effort which essentially overturns a consent decree which was
extremely important and essentially says we are going to go right to
the heart of the judiciary and go back to an agreement which goes back,
what, 30 years or thereabouts. I am sorry, this was initially agreed to
in--I had it before me. Might I ask the Senator from Massachusetts a
moment, the original agreement with the Bush administration was in
1989?
Mr. KENNEDY. In 1989, yes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. In 1989. I have quoted Attorney General Thornburgh on
this. The idea was, look, this was, as my colleague from Maryland has
said, an unprecedented situation. We were talking about corruption. We
were talking about workers who want to have a fair election. And we
finally had, after 30 years, an agreement here.
Now, this election has not yet been certified. The Kennedy amendment
made no judgment about expenditure of money. But the idea of
essentially trying to overturn this consent agreement, to interfere
directly with the judicial branch, to really preempt what kind of
ruling a judge might make before any kind of ruling has been made, and
to do this on an appropriations bill, is profoundly mistaken. It is not
prudent. So there are a number of Senators who have come to the floor
and have raised a whole set of questions.
The Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, raised some questions having
to do with the judicial appointments being blocked here--now, yet, a
kind of threat to interfere with the judicial branch of Government--and
whether or not this just was not the kind of political interference
which is very inappropriate. He made the point that he felt that, as a
Senator, if you were going to make a wise decision about this you would
have to be in opposition to this amendment.
Senator Kennedy started out tonight talking about both the context of
this, the UPS workers and the successful effort on the part of the
Teamsters, and now this--what is this all about? Just raising questions
about the timing of it. But, then, more important, or just as
important, Senator Sarbanes has been on the floor and he has, I think,
provided many of us his view--I certainly include myself, and this was
essentially the position I think the Senator from Pennsylvania has
taken--which is this is just an overreach. I mean, to just try to
overturn or basically contradict or subvert this consent agreement, to
interfere with the judicial branch, is a profound mistake.
So, my colleague from Alabama is correct. The point was that there
would be a vote after Senators had a chance to fully discuss this. But,
from my point of view, there are now three sets of questions that have
been raised that I think are extremely important. Other Senators may
want to discuss this as well. Or we might be able to reach some kind of
agreement as to how we proceed. But, I think this is something that, if
the Senate is a deliberative body, then we need to be very deliberative
about this.
We had an agreement with a Republican administration, the Bush
administration, which really dealt with 30 years' history. It was
important. It was an effort to root out corruption. We had an agreement
that was, I think, a very important step forward. Now what we have is
an effort to essentially overturn that agreement. Now what we have is
an effort to directly intervene or interfere with the judicial branch.
Now we have an effort, which I think on political grounds, and probably
on constitutional grounds, though I am not a lawyer, I am not even sure
that, from a constitutional point of view--I believe the Senator from
Pennsylvania may have raised this question--we should even be doing
this, and for that reason there are a number of us who have been out on
the floor and have been speaking about this.
If other Senators want to speak, I have had an opportunity several
times tonight to raise these concerns. Senator Sarbanes was on the
floor a long time, I think really zeroing in on what the implications
of this are, just in terms of branches of Government and separation of
powers and what our constitutional system is about, which I think are
pretty important questions. And one more time, as a Senator from
Minnesota who had a chance to see what these workers were able to do
and who strongly supported, I think, the justice, the justice goals of
the strike--I have raised concerns about. I don't think it looks good.
I don't think it's the right thing to do for the Senate to be involved
in such an overreach, taking such drastic action, which I think,
unfortunately, certainly looks like--I don't know what the motivations
are of Senators--that it is very connected to this UPS workers' strike.
Mr. President, I will not speak any longer on the floor of the
Senate. I will yield the floor.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I questioned earlier the distinguished
Senator from Maryland as to a real problem that I have as it relates to
the

[[Page S8815]]

amendment that has now been submitted by the Senator from Oklahoma and
the Senator from Idaho. My friend from Alabama, the junior Senator, has
been a prosecutor. He has a great case. All of a sudden the Congress of
the United States blows him out of the water because we don't believe
what he is pursuing there is in the best interests of politics.
So, now we are confronted with a question that is in the courts and
we are trying to make a judgment here to supersede what might be in the
courts. Do we have a right to do that? I am sure we do. But in this
Senator's feeling about this institution and this country, we have
three separate branches. And those branches must set on their own
bottom, as we would say down in west Kentucky. We should let them make
their decision.
I think this is a very dangerous position. The emotion of the
amendment is good. We have a big, bad union here that we don't want to
spend any more taxpayers' dollars to see that they have a noncorrupt
election. We want a noncorrupt election, but we don't want to spend any
money. We made an agreement in 1989 under the Bush administration.
There is no question about that. Let it be under President x's
administration. The question still flies: Do we then, by our actions
here, micromanage the courts? We are about a hundred judges short in
this country now. The majority will not let those judges come to the
floor. Maybe 1 or 2 or 3, hopefully 4 we might get out, with 35 to 50
being held hostage.
So, what we have done, what we are doing tonight, even though the
image here is one thing, the end result is another. If there ever was a
question that you must put aside, however you feel, I think it is
important that we support the system that has made this country great.
And that is not micromanaging the Federal courts.
One of the things the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has
always attempted to do is follow the procedure and the precedent on the
separation of powers. He just has helped take a piece of legislation
through the courts on line-item veto. And we are getting ready to do it
again. So the courts will make a decision on what this body has been
able to do. Now we are trying to take the position that we want to do
this ourselves, in lieu of what the courts are about to do.
I know the big bad union, and spending taxpayers' money and all that,
is a pretty good issue. But, to me, to this Senator, there is a much
deeper question as it relates to the three branches of Government and
the strength of this great land of ours in that we are attempting now
to usurp those things that we will go out and beat our chests about
back to our constituents how great we have been doing to try to protect
them as consumers, those in our States or districts, as our
constituents. Yet we are tonight, in my judgment, trying to usurp the
power of the judiciary. In my opinion, if I sign a contract, it ought
to be valid. Then to have a valid contract canceled by the legislative
body just doesn't seem to me to be in the right direction.
I hope my colleagues will look beyond the emotion of the question and
be sure that their judgment does not usurp the strength and foundation
of this great country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to respond to some of the
things that have been said, or questions that have been raised when I
was off the floor a few moments ago. First of all, I think I just need
to reiterate here what is at stake is taxpayers' money being used to
pay for labor union elections where there has been a record of fraud
and abuse. Yes, there was a consent degree in 1989. How long does it
apply? In perpetuity? We had a fraudulent election, on which, to my
absolute horror, $22 million of taxpayers' dollars were spent. It
turned out it had problems. The FBI has said so. The Justice Department
has even said so. So now they say, oh, yes, let's have another one and
let the taxpayers pay for that. So the American people understand very
clearly here, this is taxpayers' money going to pay for labor union
elections. Judges may or may not say that it ought to be done. All I
have to say is, if judges are saying taxpayers' money should be used to
pay for private sector, or labor union elections of any kind, I think
it is time we take some action to say we are not going to allow that.
The second thing is, the question was raised, ``Why don't we have
some votes? Why doesn't somebody tells us when we will have some
votes?'' Hey, we are ready to vote. Let's vote on the Nickles amendment
right now. The motion to table the amendment of the Senator from
Massachusetts carried; 56 Senators voted to table that motion. I
believe the Senate is ready to vote for the amendment of Senator
Nickles.
But, as we try to do around here, we try to accommodate everybody's
schedules and their desire to be able to check with the administration
or I don't know who. We could probably work out something, to have a
vote on Senator Nickles' amendment at some time certain other than
tonight. He has indicated he would, perhaps, be willing to do that. But
if anybody has raised any questions about why don't we vote, why isn't
somebody saying what the schedule is going to be--if you want to vote,
let's vote. If anybody wants to know that, any one of the Senators who
have been speaking, I am ready to vote. That's what we ought to do. We
already had a statement of the Senate on this issue. The Senate is
concerned about use of taxpayers' money to pay for labor union
elections.

But I have also been working on a whole series of things that I think
would be fair to the Senate. Unfortunately, our business was
interrupted today. From 2 to 4, we had to go out so the Environment and
Public Works Committee could have a hearing and begin a markup on the
Superfund bill, a bill that the American people surely would be for,
because it means improving the way that we clean up hazardous waste.
We all know now lawyers are cleaning up. They are doing fine. But we
are not cleaning up any hazardous waste sites. We ought to have
Superfund reform. And yet there was an objection made to the committee
meeting, so we had to go out for 2 hours. We would not be here right
now probably if it had not been for that 2-hour interruption. But when
we take out 2 hours in the day, we are going to make up that 2 hours at
night, or 3 hours.
I have spent a year trying to be sensitive to Senators' needs, to
know what the schedule is going to be, to be with their families, to be
with their children, to be with their dog, dogs, so we can have a life,
but it takes cooperation on both sides.
I hope we won't start down that trail where we start these things
that force us to be in session late at night. But if it's necessary, we
will. That is why we are here now. I had offered a UC request, and I am
going to ask for this unanimous-consent agreement that would allow us
to not have any more votes tonight, not have any votes tomorrow, but
have further debate on amendments on the very important Labor and
Health and Human Services bill during the day tomorrow, with no votes;
that we would come in on Monday, we would have more amendments on the
Labor and Human Services appropriations bill with a vote at 5 o'clock,
but only one at the request of the Democratic leader; and that we would
get at the close of business Monday a final, finite list of all
amendments pending to this appropriations bill. Both the managers would
very much like for us to help them get that done. Then we would have
other votes that might be pending from Friday or Monday on this bill
Tuesday at 9 or 9:30. Then we would be able to wrap up the finite list,
which is not that long. There are a couple controversial issues. I
think we can get them worked out. Then we would have final passage on
all amendments and the bill on Tuesday.
Then at 5 o'clock on Tuesday, we would go to the Food and Drug
Administration reform bill at 5 o'clock, not have any votes on cloture
tomorrow, not go through the cloture exercise. An overwhelming number
of Senators on both sides of the aisle support this FDA reform bill. It
was reported out of committee, I think, 13 to 2.
Mr. COATS. Fourteen to four.
Mr. LOTT. When we get to final passage, the vote on FDA is going to
be 95 to maybe 5, maybe more. Ninety-five Senators want to vote on the
substance of FDA reform. The American people want that. The American
people want

[[Page S8816]]

to get a better system for approving drugs and medical devices and a
more active and a more efficient FDA. We ought to give it to them. I
believe the House is going to act on this. So it was a process to allow
the Senators to continue on this bill, to get this bill completed, get
FDA up in a reasonable way, and not have more votes tonight.
Senator Kennedy has indicated he can't agree to that. The alternative
then is this: We will have to pull down Labor-HHS tonight. We will then
go to two votes on Federal judges tonight. We will vote in the morning
at 9:45 on cloture. If we get cloture, then, of course, the Senator
from Massachusetts and others perhaps can talk all day tomorrow if they
want to. They can talk for 30 hours if they want to after cloture on
the motion to proceed--on the motion to proceed now, I want you to
know--to the FDA bill that over 90 Senators support.
Then on Monday, we will go back to Labor-HHS, and we will have a vote
on two more judges Monday, perhaps even earlier in the day than we had
indicated earlier, and then we will go to votes at 5 o'clock.
I mean, we are trying to get these things cleared. We are going to
have recorded votes on them. I think plan A is in the best interest of
the Senate and the American people, our time and efficient legislating.
We can get our work done without unnecessary acrimony, without getting
outdone by each other.
If the alternative is two votes tonight and a cloture vote in the
morning at 9:45, inconveniencing unnecessarily--and, again, I am trying
to accommodate people, we need to go a little later because some can't
quite be here at 9:45, others at 10. We will have the vote at 9:45, and
we are going to vote cloture. I just don't see why that is necessary.
That is where we are.
I am going to make a unanimous-consent request on that in a moment
and then go to judicial nominations. Does anybody have any comment or
questions on that? I yield to Senator Kennedy for a question.
Mr. KENNEDY. I know the Senator is going to make a proposal in just a
moment. I do want to just point out for the Members the obvious, and
that is that we have spent all day today debating two basic issues: One
is the issue of fetal transplantation which, basically, has no position
on this legislation, an issue that we have debated and debated and
debated and which the Senate has voted on time and again and the
outcome of which was fairly obvious. We took all morning to debate
that.
All afternoon we have been debating the Nickles amendment which, as
the Senator from Alaska has pointed out, is not really basic and
essential to this appropriations bill, which the administration
indicates it would very likely veto. So it has not been the Members on
this side who have delayed the Senate from moving ahead. As one, among
others, who is concerned about the Nickles amendment, I indicated that
if the leader wanted to set that aside and continue to vote on other
measures this evening, there would be no objection on our side.
So I think that it is important to understand what the situation is.
We are basically considering an item which is an antilabor item. It is
raised in the wake of the successful UPS strike and, basically, is
legislative interference on a consent decree which raises very
important constitutional issues. So there should not be any surprise
about that factor.
With regard to FDA reform, the Senator made a very good point about
the Members being ready and willing to vote on the medical devices and
the FDA reform. What the Senator didn't mention is the other provisions
which apply to the cosmetic industry which effectively is going to
preempt every State in this country from getting adequate warning in
terms of health and safety in the utilization of cosmetics. We know it
is a $20 billion industry that for the last 20 years has been trying to
get this achieved and have a preemption on issues relating to health
and safety that primarily affect the American women in this country.
I am not going to be a part of rushing and ramrodding that particular
provision through the U.S. Senate. And if I am the only one who votes
against cloture tomorrow, I will take my time and explain in good time
what we are being asked to consider. I have no regrets for insisting
that we have a cloture vote. I indicated to the majority leader, if he
wanted to have the cloture vote later at a more convenient time on
Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of next week, that is fine with me,
absolutely, whatever he wanted to do to accommodate other Members.
Mr. LOTT. If I can claim my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask recognition----
Mr. LOTT. On that particular point, I have been reasonable. I have
put off scheduling.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I can finish my point and then I will be glad to
yield, Mr. President.
Mr. LOTT. All right.
Mr. KENNEDY. But I have made that, so if Members didn't want to vote
tomorrow, we could vote on this on Tuesday or Wednesday, give the
majority leader an hour's notification to Members whenever that would
come up any time Tuesday or Wednesday, but that has been rejected. We
are going to be here for another 5, 6 weeks in this body. We have been
attempting to negotiate these particular issues. I am very hopeful we
will.
I want to vote for the medical devices and the pharmaceuticals. I
commend Senator Jeffords and all of our colleagues on the committee for
the excellent work that they have done. I think that measure is a very,
very important measure. There are one or two items which I think would
be addressed in terms of amendments, but on the issue of the cosmetics
preemption of every State in the country in terms of health and safety,
that is an issue that is not going to go easily.

Mr. COATS. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. I will yield, since his name, I believe, was invoked
earlier, for a response to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I felt compelled to give the other side of the story.
Yesterday, when I offered the fetal tissue amendment to the Parkinson's
legislation, I had discussed the matter with Senator Wellstone. I had
indicated I was willing to take a 20-minute time agreement on the
amendment, 10 minutes on each side. I didn't want to do anything that
unnecessarily delayed the bill. I was informed that it was not--it was
acceptable to Senator Wellstone but it was not acceptable to Democratic
Members who wanted to speak on the bill but didn't want to do it
yesterday. That is within their rights. We could have proceeded. We
didn't.
This Senator agreed to allow to be pulled over until this morning. I
once again offered a time limit, and the time limit was not acceptable.
So we essentially sat here for 2\1/2\ hours this morning listening to
Members of the party of the Senator from Massachusetts oppose the
amendment, which they have a right to do. But there was no delay
initiated on the part of the Senator who offered the amendment, nor was
there any delay on the part of the majority leader.
In regards to the FDA legislation, we were ready to go with that
legislation before the recess, and it was the Senator from
Massachusetts who prevented us from doing that. The Senator has every
right to do that. If he has an objection to a part of the bill, he has
a right to utilize the rules of the Senate to stop the bill from moving
forward. But the facts are that the Senator doesn't have the votes. I
didn't have the votes on some of my amendments. I didn't have the votes
on fetal tissue, but I didn't stand here and insist the Senate stay in
on a day when Members from both sides made plans and made travel plans
just because I didn't have the votes or I couldn't get my way.
The Senator does not have the votes for the bill. He did not have
them in the committee, and he does not have them on the floor. There is
widespread support for the FDA reform bill, including the cosmetics
provision which was voted on in committee. We had debate, and we voted
on it in committee. The Senator didn't have the votes from the
opposition party, didn't have the votes from his own party. He doesn't
have the votes on this floor.
If he wants us to go through this exercise on a motion to proceed--
this is just the procedure to start debate on the bill--why doesn't the
Senator do what the rest of the Senators are doing, and that is, move
forward on the bill, make your argument, have a vote, count the votes?
If you win, you win; if you lose, you lose. But you can use the

[[Page S8817]]

rules of the Senate. It is a right to the minority. We have used it. If
the Senator wants to do that, he has the opportunity to do that, but it
inconveniences everybody else, and if you think it is going to change
the result, maybe it is worth it, but if it is just to be obstinate or
intransigent because you didn't win or your point of view isn't
accepted by your fellow colleagues, it puts everybody else at a
disadvantage. To imply the majority leader----
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COATS. Or the Republicans have somehow conspired to deny the
Senator from Massachusetts the right to make his point or to argue his
point, my goodness, we have been hearing that over and over and over
and over. We know what the Senator's position is. He has the right to
argue it, and he has the right to delay it. Let's make sure it is not
implied somehow there is some devious effort on the part of the
Republicans to deny the Senator his opportunities.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield.
Mr. LOTT. If you will allow me to respond to some of the things the
Senator from Massachusetts said. He asked for 1 minute to wrap up, and
I need to respond, and then I will be glad to yield.
With regard to the amendment before us, it was offered at 5:05. An
offer was made to limit the time on that to 30 minutes. I believe the
managers of the bill were very content with that. An offer was made to
limit speeches to 5 minutes on this issue. There was no desire to drag
it out. So, again, to imply that we have been prolonging this is just
not accurate.
Now, with regard to the Food and Drug Administration effort to make
the bureaucratic FDA more responsive to the needs of the American
people, this really affects quality of life and health care, and I know
the Senator from Massachusetts cares a great deal about that. This is
one way we can help them to get medical devices and pharmaceutical
products available to the American people. The vote in the committee
was 14 to 4. Usually when you have a vote in the committee and it is
overwhelming in a bipartisan way, you bring it to the floor and you
have debate, amendments, vote, and move on.
But somehow or other, I mean, some folks seem to think when you have
a vote in a committee and lose, then the negotiations begin. The leader
of both parties always has to be sensitive to that. I have allowed
Senators on both sides of the aisle to continue negotiations on the
foster care bill, on other bills, but I have been very patient on this.
And I wanted a cloture vote on this back in July. I was told
repeatedly, ``Oh, we're about to get it agreed to, about to get it
done.'' Every time we were about to get it done, the Senator from
Massachusetts said, ``Oh, no, there's something else here I want.''
I think the Senator from Vermont has been doing the very best he can
in the negotiations. I personally think he has negotiated too dang
much. The vote in the committee was 14-4. Why are we negotiating on all
this stuff? Let us bring it to the floor and let us vote.
So when I get this magnanimous offer: Oh, you can have a cloture vote
next week, put it off another--I offered a UC that would have given the
Senator from Massachusetts an opportunity to negotiate Friday, Monday,
all day Tuesday, and go on the bill on Tuesday night. He said no. But
if we wait until next Tuesday to have a cloture vote on the motion to
proceed, then he may try to force us to have a vote on going to the
bill itself later on on a cloture vote, and then we might someday, in
another week or so, get to FDA. That is ridiculous. There has been
enough time.
The Senate wants to vote on this issue, overwhelmingly, in a
bipartisan way. The committee has spoken. On a cloture vote, on a
motion to proceed, the requisite number of Senators will vote for
cloture, I believe. So I mean, that is not very responsive. It is time
we get to this issue. Make your case, offer your amendments.
On the cosmetic thing, I mean, the Senator from Massachusetts is
defending and worrying about States rights. Boy, getting some role
reversals around here, when he doesn't want us to even get an amendment
and vote on it. He may have the merits on his side. If he does, let us
hear them; we will vote.
But, you know, it is time that we move forward on Labor-HHS. It is
time we vote on the merits of FDA reform. I cannot believe we want to
further delay. Every day we delay on FDA reform, there is some other
delay by the bureaucracy at that agency that denies the people of this
country medical devices and pharmaceuticals that help them with their
lives and lifestyles. And so we are not going to delay it any longer.
We are going to get an agreement to go to the bill on Tuesday or we are
going to have a cloture vote in the morning. And if the vote doesn't
succeed, we will have another one. I think I have been more than
reasonable, and so has everybody else.

____________________