Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to compliment my colleague from Arkansas for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. In response to my colleague from Minnesota, I think he should read the legislation. In reading the legislation, the protection of employer rights, section 8(a) of the NLRA is amended on line 22 to read: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee applicant, in that such person seeks or has sought employment with the employer with the primary purpose of furthering another employment or agency status: Provided, That this sentence shall not affect the rights and responsibilities under this Act of any employee who is or was a bona fide employee applicant, including the right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining. . . . Mr. President, under the legislation my colleague from Arkansas has, an employee can come in, and if they want to help organize or participate in the collective bargaining process, they can do so. But they have to have the primary purpose of employment, of working with the employer. It can't be to circumvent and say, no, we want to work full time for the union, even to the destruction of the company. Unfortunately, that happens today to some companies that might be nonunion. The organizers who are trying to unionize the company sometimes say, ``We would rather destroy that company if they are not going to be union.'' I will read you one comment that was in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' organizing document on how to use salting techniques: Phase 3 is infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, and annihilation of all nonunion contractors. If we cannot get inside and organize, then we must disrupt the operations of the nonunion contractor. That is a quote. I understand they have now taken that out of their organizational manual. But, in essence, they want to infiltrate and do everything they can to disrupt, and that means filing untold numbers of unfair labor practices. That means filing untold numbers of OSHA complaints, and any other thing to disrupt the company and make them an unsuccessful organization. Unfortunately that happens. I have a letter from one of my small companies in Oklahoma, dated May 29, 1998. He is telling a story and talking about filing false and incorrect reports with the NLRB: We hired an attorney to represent us in these proceedings. Each time, we had proof, and sometimes outside witnesses, to prove our side of the story. It goes on and on and on and talks about harassment. So I compliment my colleague from Arkansas. I think he is exactly right. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Mr. President, I have two editorials. One is dated June 8 of this year, from the Daily Oklahoman, entitled ``Salt, Not Light.'' It repeats the real essence of this legislation, why it is needed. Also, I have one that was in today's Washington Times, entitled ``Pass the Salt Reform.'' It is dated Monday, September 14. I ask unanimous consent to have these printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Kempthorne), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 3:30 today.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) is necessarily absent. I also announce that Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Kempthorne), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent. I also anounce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the leadership the Senator has shown in putting this bill together.

Mr. NICKLES. I agree. Particularly, if you want to see something become law, it is going to have to be this kind of structure, or it will never happen. We would still be talking toward the end of September. We might have a good debate or a political issue, but we won't have any legislative change. I happen to be interested in trying to make a significant legislative improvement that becomes law.

Mr. NICKLES. That's correct.

Mr. NICKLES. Three.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. They could have it in the original bill or they could offer it in the form of an amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I regret that my colleague from Massachusetts has objected to our unanimous consent request to bring this bill up. Obviously, he has some concerns, but he does not have the votes. We have offered to vote on his proposal. He can draft his proposal any way he wants. We have drafted our proposal. We want to vote on our proposal. We want to pass our proposal. We will give him an up-or-down vote on his proposal. We will offer and have offered that he can have two or three amendments, and we can have two or three amendments. We can finish this bill. He can draft those amendments in any way, shape or form he wants to and address any and all issues he has addressed today that might be in this letter or another letter. I hope he will do better work in the letter than the President did in his radio address. He was factually incorrect in that. I happen to be offended by that. I just make that comment. To reiterate, we offered to bring this up in July. My colleague from Tennessee and I and others wanted to finish it in July because we know we have a difficult conference with the House. This is not the easiest legislation to consider. So it is important to move sooner rather than later, as I think I heard my colleague from South Dakota mention. So I hope we will bring it up. But we are going to have to have cooperation from our colleagues. If they continue to insist on unlimited amendments, to where they can debate this issue all month, that is not going to happen. They will be successful in killing this bill, not the Republicans. I yield to my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, I have a unanimous consent request pending at the table.

Mr. NICKLES. Again, to answer my colleague's question, I said you would have a substitute amendment. You could have three amendments, and certainly with your skillful legislative prowess, you could have all 10 things in that format.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to respond. It would be very easy for my colleague to address those considerations in the letter, which I have not seen yet. You could put those in your amendment. You could put those in your substitute. You could have that in any combination and consider everything addressed in that letter.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I will make a couple comments concerning those made by some of our Democratic colleagues who said they want to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights. We have offered throughout the month of July to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights. I will make a unanimous consent request to do it again. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues haven't been able to take yes for an answer. In other words, I think they want to debate an issue, discuss an issue, have unlimited amendments, and we are not going to give them that. We only have 22 days left in this legislative session. We tried to get this up and considered and done in July. They wouldn't accept that request. In just a moment, I am going to make a unanimous consent request to bring it up with limited amendments. I will tell my colleagues, it will be three amendments a side. You can design any amendment any way you want. You can offer your proposal in any way that you want. We are going to give you an up-or-down vote on your proposal; we are going to have an up-or-down vote on our proposal. That is going to be in my request. You would have the right to do three amendments; we would have the right to do three amendments. It is the same request that we made in July. If you want this issue to be considered and passed, that is the way to do it. If you want to say we want to have this issue on the floor all month, as was the unanimous consent request made by the minority leader, that is not going to happen. Or to say that we are going to take up the House bill and work off the House bill, that is not going to happen. So, again, I tell my colleagues, if you want to consider the bill, and if you want it passed, the Patients' Bill of Rights, we are willing to do it. What I hear our friends on the Democratic side say is, ``We know we don't have the votes so we want to talk about it.'' And sometimes I think it is important if you are going to talk about the issue that you speak truthfully. Unfortunately, I do not think the President did that in his radio address. The President, in his radio address on Saturday, frankly--I am going to come back to that issue shortly because I know my friend from Kentucky wants to go back to the bill. I am going to come back later to the floor and analyze the President's speech or his radio address where he talked about the Patients' Bill of Rights, and he characterized what the Republican bill did. And he was flat wrong. I think he should know the truth. And maybe his staff should do better work or they should quit trying to politicize this issue and he should speak factually what is in our bill and what is in his bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen on Saturday.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?