Don Nickles: “I have never commented on that. But I don't know that I could consider success that they have 15,000 fewer workers today…”

“I have never commented on that. But I don't know that I could consider success that they have 15,000 fewer workers today after the strike than they had before the strike. I know that some people characterize it. But I will tell my colleagues, you can question my integrity or not, that is not the reason I am offering this amendment. I am offering this amendment because I read that taxpayers paid $22 million for it. I don't know who won that strike. With strikes I think basically everybody loses. I think the company loses, and the workers lose. And if you have 15,000 fewer jobs, that is a loss. And certainly the company loses lots of money and lots of customers. So that is a loss. But that is not the purpose of my amendment. The purpose of my amendment is that I didn't know that the taxpayers were paying for that election. I thought, why did we pay for that election? Well, there was a consent decree order in 1989 that said we will have a couple of elections to deal with, 1991 and 1996. And they agreed in the consent decree to supervise all future Teamsters elections. It is in the consent decree. They said, in 1991, the Teamsters will pay for it. They said, in 1996, the taxpayers will pay for it. They were silent on any subsequent elections. I want to make sure that we do not pay for it.”