Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on (S. 871) to establish the Oklahoma City National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System; to designate the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 871) entitled ``An Act to establish the Oklahoma City National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System; to designate the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the chairman for his explanation of this provision and his efforts to bring this important legislation to the floor. At some point in the 105th Congress, we may be considering the national tobacco settlement entered into by the State's attorney's general and the tobacco companies. At the appropriate time Congress will have the opportunity to fully examine what FDA's role should be in the regulation of tobacco products. amendment no. 1175 (Purpose: To provide that an environmental impact statement prepared in accordance with certain regulations of the Food and Drug Administration shall be considered to meet the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) Strike section 602 and insert the following:

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Members of this Chamber are well aware of the national debate on the question of the Food and Drug Administration's jurisdiction to regulate tobacco and tobacco products. To highlight the scope of this debate, I want to point out that this question is currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals. It is also a significant issue of debate between Members of Congress as well as Congress and the administration. I am concerned that the inclusion of this provision may be interpreted by some as an attempt by Congress to indirectly affirm FDA's authority to regulate tobacco. It is my understanding that a recent report from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service stated that section 404 or any other provision in the FDA reform bill ``would not interfere with or lessen the agency's authority to regulate tobacco products.'' I notice that a rule-of-construction amendment has been included in the FDA reform bill that is intended to clarify further that section 404 of the bill will not affect any authority which the FDA may have to regulate tobacco. Is this the understanding of the Chairman?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Thank you, Mr. President. Tribal Welfare

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand the bill before us contains several categories of Interior Department funding for Indians, one of which is the ``new tribes'' account. I also understand that the committee has included, as requested by the Administration, $160,000 from this account for the Delaware Tribe of Indians, a tribe located in eastern Oklahoma. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Washington, is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy regarding Oklahoma Indian funding with the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what is the situation on time?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I heard the comments of my colleague from Maryland, but he is incorrect. The consent decree that was agreed to in 1989 stated that the Teamsters would pay for the election. I will just read it. ``The union defendants further consent to U.S. Department of Labor''--this is from the consent decree, page 16--``supervising any IBT''--that is the Teamsters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters-- ``elections or special elections to be conducted after 1991 for the office of President, Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President and Trustee.'' They have agreed to supervision. And the Federal Government supervised the 1991 and 1996 elections. What was unique about the 1996 election, we paid for it as well. We conducted it. We paid $22 million. I hope all my colleagues understand that. We paid $22 million, the Federal taxpayers paid $22 million for the 1996 election. It was the one that was determined to be corrupt. We did not do that in 1991. What was the difference? I think people are a lot more willing to cheat maybe if it is somebody else's money. And they did. There was corruption with the taxpayers' money. We will still have supervision. My amendment does not prohibit supervision. It does not abrogate the consent decree. The consent decree, frankly, was silent on who would pay for any subsequent elections. I even called the former Attorney General and asked him. No, we did not say anything about that. I read this section. It is not there. Now, some people would like to interpret it as, oh, the taxpayers will pay for this forever. If there is corruption in the next election, the taxpayers will pay for it. If there is corruption in the next election, we are going to continue having taxpayers get stiffed. In this case, the Teamsters got hurt. I am talking about members of the Teamsters. Union members got hurt because they had a fraudulent election. They have to have it again. And the taxpayers got hurt. I am trying to say it wasn't the taxpayers' fault there was fraud last time. We should not have taxpayers getting ripped off again. What is the cost of this? Twenty-two million dollars. Every other union in the country pays for their own election. Every other union in the country. This is not a group that is not doing well. Senator Kennedy and Senator Wellstone have been bragging how well they did in the contract. I do not know what kind of improvements they got. I did check; I think the average wage is about $27 an hour, wages and benefits. That is pretty good. That is $50,000-some a year. In the last election, the taxpayers paid $22 million; there are 1.4 million Teamsters; a little less than 500,000 voted. That is a cost to the taxpayers of about $45 a vote. That is pretty high. If the Teamsters have to pay for this themselves, I calculate it is about $15 a member. That is about a half-an-hour's pay. But they should have to pay for it. When any other union has an election, when the Teamsters have an election, they pay for it. The taxpayers should not have to pay for this. So, Mr. President, this amendment is consistent with the consent decree. We are just trying to make it perfectly clear we are not going to pay for the next one. And for anyone to say, well, wait a minute; we don't have the right to do that, they are not reading the Constitution. The consent decree does not say anything about a future election. Maybe they would like to have the discretion, and if the Teamsters have a good attorney they can convince some judge, well, maybe this will be a continuation and therefore taxpayers should pay for it, but that is not in the consent decree. And frankly that should not happen. By passing this amendment--and I am optimistic that we will pass this amendment--we say we are not going to pay for it again. We got ripped off once. We paid $22 million for a fraudulent election. We, being the taxpayers, paid $22 million for a fraudulent election last time. We should not do it again. Frankly, we are not going to do it again. Do we have the right to do this? Somebody said the consent decree supersedes law. No way in the world. I will read a memo that came from Deputy U.S. Attorney Jamie Gorelick. This is dealing with the Antideficiency Act, but she said, ``You should be particularly mindful of this restriction if you are contemplating entering into any consent decree. Please ensure the terms of the consent decree do not obligate the government to spend funds beyond your office litigation budgets or beyond the current fiscal year.'' They know that. The CRS did some study on the 1989 consent decree, and this was dated May 18, 1995. ``Legislation enacted by Congress limiting or restricting funds for the 1996 election would be Federal law and Government parties would be bound to take appropriate action in reliance of that law.'' That would be if we had denied funding for the 1996 election. We didn't do that. What this amendment will do is say we are going to deny taxpayers' subsidy to the 1998 election. We can still have supervision. As a matter of fact, there will be supervision. There will be supervision on any subsequent election, but it will not be paid for by the taxpayers. Let the Teamsters pay for it. They are the ones who engaged in this corruption. And if anyone looks at the report of the election observer, she talks about ``outside money into this election and thus change the outcome.'' She said there ``were egregious violations by high level campaign functionaries who believed winning at all costs was more important than abiding by the rules and the law.'' I do not want to repeat that. If we allowed the opponents of this amendment to prevail, we could have the exact same thing happen again. We could have another election. We could have more corruption, and they would be coming back to say, oh, we want you to pay for it again. There is no end to what they say would be the outflow of Government dollars. I do not think it is needed. I do not think it is necessary. We got ripped off once. We should not be ripped off again. And so I urge my colleagues to adopt the Nickles-Jeffords-Gregg amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in listening to my colleagues, I heard, ``Well, the reason why this amendment is offered is because the Teamsters strike against UPS was a phenomenal success.'' I have never commented on that. But I don't know that I could consider success that they have 15,000 fewer workers today after the strike than they had before the strike. I know that some people characterize it. But I will tell my colleagues, you can question my integrity or not, that is not the reason I am offering this amendment. I am offering this amendment because I read that taxpayers paid $22 million for it. I don't know who won that strike. With strikes I think basically everybody loses. I think the company loses, and the workers lose. And if you have 15,000 fewer jobs, that is a loss. And certainly the company loses lots of money and lots of customers. So that is a loss. But that is not the purpose of my amendment. The purpose of my amendment is that I didn't know that the taxpayers were paying for that election. I thought, why did we pay for that election? Well, there was a consent decree order in 1989 that said we will have a couple of elections to deal with, 1991 and 1996. And they agreed in the consent decree to supervise all future Teamsters elections. It is in the consent decree. They said, in 1991, the Teamsters will pay for it. They said, in 1996, the taxpayers will pay for it. They were silent on any subsequent elections. I want to make sure that we do not pay for it. I do not think we should have paid for the one in 1996. I did not know about it until after the fact. So if anybody wants to question my motives, I almost could put out--I am not questioning other people's motives. I have not raised the fact the Teamsters put in so much money in these elections, and so on. I have never said people are out here defending this because they received support. I am not going to do it. I am not questioning other people's motives. I am a little sensitive to that statement because it was made last week, and I did not respond to it earlier this week and now it is repeated. That is infringing, or very close to infringing on Senate rules. We have a right to say how money is appropriated in this body. My colleague from Minnesota said, well, maybe in this institution a consent decree overrides the Constitution. I do not think so. In the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 9 says, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' That is by Congress. Article I of the Constitution says, under congressional powers, Congress has the right to appropriate money. We have the right basically not to appropriate money, and that is what this amendment says. This amendment says we do not want to spend another $22 million. We can supervise the election. Frankly, we have to supervise the election. The consent decree says we will supervise the election. What happened in the last election? According to the report that was done by the election officer of the Teamsters' last election, ``The violation of the rules described above were not merely''--this is a quote from her report, and I will put it into the record. ``The violations of the rules described above were not merely technical but products of schemes to funnel union and outside money into the election and thus change the outcome. These were egregious violations by high level functionaries who believed that winning at all costs was more important than abiding by the rules and the law. Members cannot have confidence in their union or its leaders if they see that their choice of officers has been manipulated by outsiders. The election officer has searched for means of properly remedying the violations while at the same time avoiding the burden on the union and its members inherent in holding a new election. Unfortunately, no such path is apparent.'' Mr. President I will ask unanimous consent that at least these two pages of the report of the election officer be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment that I have before the Senate, cosponsored by myself, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Craig basically would say that the taxpayers would not have to pay for a subsequent Teamsters election. The last one cost $22 million, and only 500,000 people voted. My amendment does not prohibit supervision. There can still be supervision. My amendment says that if the President certifies to Congress that the Teamsters don't have the money for the election, taxpayers could pay for it, but the Teamsters would have to pay it back, and pay it back with interest. I might mention, in 1991, there was an election that the taxpayers didn't pay for, supervised by the Government, and it was fair, it worked. In 1996, the election was supervised and paid for by the taxpayers, and there was corruption. It was a mistake and we should not repeat that mistake. This would protect taxpayers and, in my opinion, the Teamsters as well.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series of three votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce that this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1061, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. As under the order reached last evening, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided on the Nickles amendment, No. 1081, regarding Teamsters elections, to be followed by 30 minutes of debate equally divided on the Gregg amendment, No. 1070, regarding educational testing. Following that debate time, at approximately 10 a.m. there will be a series of four stacked rollcall votes, including final passage of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Following those votes, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 830, the FDA reform bill. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour of debate under the control of Senator Jeffords, and 1 hour of debate under the control of Senator Kennedy. In addition, a cloture motion is expected to be filed on the FDA reform bill today. Also, it is anticipated that the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill. Subsequently, following the ordered votes, which begin at approximately 10 a.m. this morning, additional votes are expected. I wish to thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, thank you.