[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[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:

       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.

  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.

                          ____________________