John Sarbanes: “No. I think the Senator is absolutely correct. Just as the court is about to pass on this previous election and make…”

“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.…”