The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TEAMSTERS UNION ELECTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S8293-S8294 on July 16, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
