[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8293-S8294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TEAMSTERS UNION ELECTIONS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the 
body an issue which is percolating under the surface as we move toward 
the end of this week; that is, the question of the financing of the 
Teamsters Union elections which were financed by tax dollars, and which 
elections may be held again for which there has been a request to 
finance them again with tax dollars.
  The last time we went down this road, the Teamsters Union ran an 
election which was overseen by the U.S. attorney in New York with the 
assistance of the Justice Department. And the U.S. Marshals I believe 
were also involved in it. The taxpayers of this country spent $17 
million to oversee this election. The election was then reviewed. It 
was determined that the election had been fraudulently run, that it had 
corruptly proceeded, and that it was basically an election which had to 
be voided by the Federal judge who was overseeing the election.
  So for the $17 million of tax money which we invested in order to get 
a fair and honest election in the Teamsters

[[Page S8294]]

Union, the taxpayers got a dishonest, corrupt, and fraudulent election.
  That is bad enough. What is even worse is that the taxpayers had to 
pay in the first place to oversee a union election.
  This is the largest union in the United States, I believe, relative 
to membership. It is a very wealthy union. It is obviously a union 
which has had some significant problems over the years, both with its 
leadership and with the management, and especially with its pension 
funds for its rank and file. But it clearly is a union which has the 
financial strength to pay the cost of oversight of its elections to 
assure that the rank-and-file membership of the union get a fair and 
honest election.
  I personally felt sorry for the membership of the Teamsters Union 
which has been put through this election which has been so fraudulently 
managed. But I also think that the taxpayers have to be concerned. We 
have to be concerned about the taxpayers. Why should the taxpayers of 
this country be asked to pay for the cost of overseeing a union 
election for a union which is so wealthy? Clearly, for any oversight 
that occurs, the cost should be borne by the union itself. I should 
think it would want to in order to obtain an honest and fair election. 
But no, that didn't happen.
  In the last election, the taxpayers came up with $17 million, which 
was clearly wasted. Have we been reimbursed for that? Have the 
taxpayers been reimbursed for that $17 million? No, we haven't. I 
realize that in Washington $17 million seems like a meager sum, but I 
have to tell you, it is a lot of money.
  There are a lot of people in New Hampshire both who are union members 
and who are nonunion members, who work very hard and who work all year 
long to pay their taxes. And if you were to add up their taxes, you 
would find it didn't meet $17 million. I suspect that is probably for 
5,000 or 6,000 people in the State of New Hampshire the tax burden for 
a year. I am not sure. That is a guess. But I suspect it is a large 
number of people who work all year paying their taxes so they can be 
put into this union election, which is then fraudulently run. And we 
didn't get the money back.

  Now they come to us again. They say, ``We need another--we don't know 
what the final figure might be.'' But initially they need another $8 
million of tax money in order to run this second election. Fool me 
once, and it is your fault. Fool me twice, and it is my fault. Clearly, 
it is the taxpayer who is being taken down the road. If the Congress 
allows this to happen again, it is the Congress that is being taken 
down the road, and as a result we are not carrying out our obligation 
to support the taxpayers.
  So for us to pay another $8 million--it may end up being much more 
than that. It may be $20 million in order to support another union 
election after we haven't been reimbursed for the $17 million we spent 
in the last election, which was basically totally mismanaged. It is 
inconceivable. It is inappropriate. It makes no sense. Fortunately, 
that is my view. Unfortunately, there are a number of people around 
here who have a different view.
  The White House wants us to spend this money. The Justice Department 
wants us to spend this money. The Speaker of the House wants to spend, 
I guess, this money. A number of Members of our own body want to spend 
this money. But to get this money, they have to, at least in theory, 
come to the committee that I chair and get me to authorize and 
reprogram to do it.
  I want to go on record as to why I am not doing it. I am not going to 
reauthorize that reprogram because I am not going to go back to New 
Hampshire and be walking through a factory somewhere, or on a farm 
somewhere, or in a small software company somewhere, and have one of my 
constituents come up to me and say, ``You know, last year I paid X 
dollars in taxes, and you just sent it to run a corrupt election for 
the Teamsters. What are you doing with my money? Aren't you supposed to 
be taking care of that money down there? Aren't you supposed to be my 
fiduciary? Aren't you supposed to be overseeing it so it doesn't get 
wasted?''
  If I approve this transfer, my answer to them would have to be, I am 
not doing my job, that I am not fulfilling my obligation to protect the 
taxpayers from the fraudulent misuse of their funds.
  The Teamsters Union has the financial wherewithal to pay the cost of 
overseeing its own elections. The last election was such an abysmal 
failure from the standpoint of integrity, from the standpoint of 
appropriateness of an election process, that it is absolutely 
inexcusable that the Court, that the Justice Department, that the White 
House, or that anyone else would come to us again and say, Taxpayers, 
we are going to go down this road one more time. We are going to take 
you on this ride one more time. We are going to spend your money one 
more time to run another election for a union which has proven itself 
to be so corrupt in the manner in which it runs elections.'' It is just 
beyond my comprehension how we can pursue that course of action. But 
that seems to be the desire of a number of members in this body and a 
number of members of the other body, of the White House and of the 
leadership of the Justice Department. However, if they are going to do 
it, they are going to do it without my support, and I will do 
everything I can in this body to make sure that those tax dollars are 
not spent in this way.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________