[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 16, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2264) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes:

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, the Hoekstra amendment, HA 356, 
bars the use of Federal funds to pay for an election officer to 
continue overseeing the election of any officer or trustee of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
  The Government has already spent about $17 million to oversee the 
Teamsters' 1996 election because the Bush administration's 1989 consent 
decree obligated the Government to do so. The consent decree, signed by 
the Government in 1989 said:
  ``The union defendants consent to the Election officer, at Government 
expense, to supervise the 1996 IBT elections.''
  The election officer concluded on August 21, 1997 that the 1996 
election had to be run again because the election protests filed with 
the officer uncovered campaign misconduct that, she concluded, ``could 
have persuaded at least a small percent'' of the voters and ``affected 
the outcome.''
  Given these facts, Mr. Hoekstra's amendment, if enacted, bars funding 
necessary to supervise the court ordered re-run of the 1996 election.
  The election officer has explained why she thinks we need to proceed 
with this re-run election:
  [t]he election of International officers is the clearest expression 
of the control of the members over their Union; it is also the key to 
insuring that organized crime, employers, or any other outsiders do not 
use the Union for their own purposes. To avoid a rerun because of the 
disruption it brings could allow this union to lose its most valuable 
resource: the support, participation, and confidence of its membership. 
Such a result cannot be allowed.
  A study of the recent history of the Teamsters shows we have come a 
long way in out effort to rid this union of mob influence.
  In 1986, former Chief Circuit Judge Irving R. Kaufman, the chair of 
President Reagan's Commission on Organized Crime, concluded that the 
mob's influence of the Teamsters was both intrusive and pervasive and 
insisted that President Reagan prosecute the Teamsters and use of civil 
RICO statute to take over the union.
  In 1989, the Bush administration entered into a consent decree, the 
one I've mentioned already, that permitted the Federal district court 
to take over the union, to appoint a monitor, and to appoint an 
election officer. This consent decree also changed the Teamsters' 
constitution, providing for the unprecedented direct election of the 
Teamsters' top officers by the rank and file members.
  By 1989, we had learned some hard lessons when we had not been 
vigilant in the supervision of union elections. The Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations was highly critical of one union 
election, after 20 months of a government trusteeship, that resulted in 
the mob-dominated union officers being replaced by a slate allegedly 
tied to these same officers. Thus, the scrutiny of the Teamsters' 
election was intense.
  The Bush administration's consent decree split the anticipated burden 
of the first two elections, requiring that the Teamsters pay the $21 
million necessary to run the first election in 1991, and that the 
Government pay the cost of second election.
  Therefore, I believe we are legally obligated by the consent decree, 
agreed to by the Bush administration. This House can not support the 
Hoekstra amendment without being in contempt of a court order.

                          ____________________