Don Nickles: “I do not think so for this reason: One, because I think the Congress of the United States was elected to appropriate the…”

“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.”