Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator 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. 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. SARBANES. I think that would be a bad consequence.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. SARBANES. What point is the Senator making?

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. 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. SARBANES. This was Attorney General Thornburgh commenting?

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. 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. SARBANES. Certainly.

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. SARBANES. I yield to the Senator.

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. SARBANES. I think we are running a risk with what we are doing on the floor of the Senate.

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. 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. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

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. SARBANES. In 1989?