Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. And not provide a way for the union to come out from under the consent decree and the election officer.

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. SARBANES. I yield for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

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. 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. SARBANES. That's right.

Mr. SARBANES. That's the point.

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. SARBANES. If I could interrupt my colleague----

Mr. SARBANES. Sixteen.

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. SARBANES. How would you have an election officer?

Mr. SARBANES. Do you think you could have an election officer to that election?

Mr. SARBANES. That is right.

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 conduct an election without the use of an election officer?

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. SARBANES. And an undesired consequence.

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

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. SARBANES. Wasn't this consent decree approved by the Justice Department?

Mr. SARBANES. So this amendment----