Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank the Chair and my colleague, Senator Reid, for his cooperation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, tomorrow, at 2:30 p.m., the Senate will vote on the Daschle-Kennedy amendment which deals with collective bargaining for municipal employees. I say ``municipal employees,'' meaning public safety employees in the States. I used to be a State legislator. I was in the State senate for 2 years. We dealt with collective bargaining in my State. Almost every State has dealt with that issue. Some States prohibit collective bargaining for police, firefighters, sheriffs, and emergency personnel. Most States allow it. But I am looking at the legislation that Senator Kennedy and Senator Daschle are trying to put on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, and they go a lot further than most of the States. Then I think, wait a minute; one, we are not supposed to legislate on appropriations bills. We passed a rule, Senate rule XVI, saying we are not going to legislate on appropriations bills. This is clearly legislation on an appropriations bill. It is brand new legislation creating a new title. It says this title may be cited as the ``Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001.'' It is brandnew legislation. It is dealing with collective bargaining on public safety employees. It does not belong on this bill. It has been reported out of the Labor Committee. Senator Daschle is the majority leader. He can call it up at any time. It should not be on an appropriations bill. I checked the parliamentary procedures, and I was told the Parliamentarian would say there is underlying language in the House bill, so maybe it would be germane, and therefore we would have a vote on germaneness. In other words, it is OK to legislate on this appropriations bill. I do not agree with the result, but, anyway, the net result is, we are talking about legislating on dealing with collective bargaining that almost all the States do. Why are we doing it on the Federal level? I read the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Why is the Federal Government getting ready to do something that it has never done? We are going to take over what the States and what the cities have done. We are going to dictate collective bargaining rights; there is a whole series of rights. I do not disagree with any of them particularly; I just think it should be done by the State, not by the Federal Government. I have no problem if firefighters or police or sheriffs or emergency personnel want to organize within the States' laws. Great. Most of them do. Most States have some collective bargaining rights. Fine. But it should not be a Federal statute. It should not be a Federal cause of action. There should not be things in this legislation that most States do not have. There is language in this bill that most States are not aware of and most individual Senators, who may have said they would support this amendment, are not aware of. There is requiring an interest impasse resolution mechanism, such as fact-finding, mediation, arbitration, or comparable procedures. I will tell you, as State legislators, we fought for a long time on whether we would have binding arbitration. This amendment is basically saying you have to have something like binding arbitration. Wow. I wonder if people are aware of that. My point is, this amendment that we are going to be voting on, the Kennedy-Daschle amendment, dealing with public safety, employer- employee relations, is not a Federal issue. It has never been a Federal issue. Yet some people are trying to make it that. And they didn't do a very good job legislating. I mention that they dictate a lot of things that a lot of States do not have. They affect a lot of individuals who have never been in collective bargaining. They go to very small cities. Somebody says: We exempt those small cities. Yes, a population of less than 5,000. That is way too small. Oh, yes, we will exempt employee groups if they have 25 people or less. Wait a minute. The Federal Government is going to now get involved in employer-employee negotiations on units in small towns with a population that is greater than 5,000 people? Or if they have 26 or more employees, we are going to dictate: Here are your collective bargaining procedures? And, yes, there is a new Federal agency that is going to dictate the rules for negotiating contracts for elections. We are going to make that a Federal issue? There is no reason to do it. There are lots of reasons not to do it. I urge my colleagues to look at these letters. I will ask to have them printed in the Record. I will read part of the letter from The United States Conference of Mayors: However, the federal government should not impose collective bargaining procedures and practices on those local governments that have chosen over time to develop alternative methods for the management of the human resource and personnel administration needs. The National Volunteer Fire Council: The National Volunteer Fire Council is a non-profit membership association representing the more than 800,000 of America's volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. They are not exempt in this bill. As a matter of fact, the unions that this bill purportedly is trying to help do not really care for volunteers. As a matter of fact, people who join their union cannot be a volunteer. Lots of small communities have volunteer firefighters, volunteer police organizations, sheriff volunteers. The volunteers--I will just read from the letter--are very opposed to this amendment. Part of the letter says: As you know, firefighters, 75% of which are volunteers, are our nation's first responders to all types of emergencies. . . . Currently, the International Association of Fire Fighters Constitution includes a provision prohibiting its members from becoming volunteer firefighters or advocating that other members become volunteer firefighters. We have found that in some collective bargaining negotiations in the past, local unions have incorporated similar provisions in their agreements with their local governments. As such, a union may prevent its firefighters from serving as volunteers and a union may negotiate for a provision in a collective bargaining agreement preventing all firefighters working for the employer from serving as volunteer firefighters. The National Volunteer Fire Council believes these provisions are a violation of first amendment rights: ``Once again, we urge you to oppose the Daschle amendment unless language is inserted to'' exempt volunteers. For my colleagues' information, if cloture is invoked, we are going to have a lot of amendments to fix this language. It should not be in here. I have already stated that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. This is the right jurisdiction for the States, not the Federal Government. If we are going to legislate, we are going to do it right. So we are going to have a lot of amendments. I am aware of the fact that Senator Specter kept offering amendments that were going to be hotly debated and contested and take a long time. If cloture is invoked tomorrow, then we are going to have a lot of amendments. I think having an exemption that says 25 or fewer is way too small. I am going to have an amendment to increase that. I think the exemption for communities being as small as 5,000 is way too low. So I am going to have an amendment to increase that. I am going to have an amendment, along with Senator Gramm, making sure people are not coerced into joining the union. Nobody should be compelled to do that. Some might say: Wait a minute; why is that a Federal issue? It should not be, but this bill tries to turn it into a Federal issue. We are also going to have an amendment to make sure people are not compelled to pay dues. If they want to, that is great; I have no objection to that. We want to have an amendment making sure volunteers are exempt. We should not discourage volunteers, but that is the net impact of this legislation. This legislation doesn't belong on this bill. The States have legislative bodies. Let them decide. They have done it. Already two States have said, no, they don't believe in collective bargaining for public service employees. Those States are North Carolina and Virginia. The volunteers, the firefighters, and safety employees of Virginia did an outstanding job. So whether they are union or nonunion, they did a great job. I compliment all of the relief workers. We had relief workers from Oklahoma in New York, and they were union and nonunion. This amendment should not be on this bill. We should allow the States, as the Constitution provides in the 10th amendment, to dictate this policy. It should not be resolved on the Federal side. But if it is, we are going to have to have several amendments on the Kennedy- Daschle amendment to improve it substantially, to exempt volunteers and smaller communities, and a greater number of people and allow people the freedom to join unions and/or the freedom not to pay dues. I urge my colleagues, let's not preempt States, tell the States we know better with one quickly drawn amendment that does not belong here, and that we are going to superimpose our will on the States. Many of them have wrestled with collective bargaining for their cities and counties. I would venture to say most sheriffs departments are not unionized in most States. Under this bill, they would be encouraged to do so. I don't think that is our job. Let the States decide that. And the same goes for emergency workers, ambulance workers, and so on. If they want to unionize, let the States wrestle with that issue. We should not be making those decisions. Allow the States to decide what groups should have collective bargaining rights, how far the rights should go, and whether they should have binding arbitration or other remedies as provided for in this bill. I don't think this bill is right. I think it should be preserved to the States. I encourage people, if you want to unionize, do it under State laws. Almost all States allow collective bargaining but not in the same manner as dictated in the amendment proposed by Senators Daschle and Kennedy. Finally, this side has shown some restraint on nongermane amendments to the underlying bill. I urge our majority leader, Senator Kennedy, and others to show restraint as well and hopefully withdraw this amendment. If not, I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture tomorrow at 2:30. I ask unanimous consent to have the letters I have referred to printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has provided $1.5 million for the Southern Plains Range Research Station in Woodward, OK. However, it has come to my attention that there is an urgent need for a conference center at the facility to house agricultural conferences and agricultural training programs as well as community activities. Because this center is to be available to the community, the city of Woodward has committed to provide $3,000,000 for the construction of the conference center. The study for this facility is estimated to cost $400,000 to determine if this facility would be a good use of Federal tax dollars. I hope the agency will complete this study within available funds.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President I am pleased that the Senate today will confirm two outstanding jurists, Claire V. Eagan and James H. Payne, to be U.S. District Court judges in my State of Oklahoma. President Bush could not have chosen two finer individuals to serve our country as district court judges. These individuals are exceptionally well-qualified and will prove to be great assets to the judicial system in Oklahoma and our country. Judge Eagan has been confirmed to serve as district judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. She is currently a U.S. magistrate judge for the northern district where she has served for 3 years. Prior to that she served as a litigation attorney with the firm of Hall, Estill for 20 years. During that time, she handled a wide array of litigation as well as significant pro bono work and bar activities. As a magistrate, she has gained judicial experience in criminal, civil, habeas, and bankruptcy matters. She also supervised the court's settlement program and devoted considerable time to early case resolution. Judge Eagan is recognized as both a leader and instructor in the fields of trial and appellate practice and alternative dispute resolution. She has served on the faculty at the University of Tulsa College of Law and as an adjunct settlement judge for Tulsa Country District Court. Judge Payne has been confirmed to serve as district judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. He is currently a U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma where he has served for 13 years. Prior to that he served as a private practice attorney with the firm of Sandlin and Payne for 15 years, handling civil matters. He also served 3 years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the eastern district. He has maintained an active role in the community by providing pro bono services to several local charitable organizations. As a magistrate, he has gained experience in a broad range of criminal and civil issues. He has implemented an Alternative Dispute Resolution Program for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, which has allowed him to conduct an average of 100 settlement conferences per year. Following graduation from the University of Oklahoma College of Law, Judge Payne's 30-year legal career has included military service as an Air Force Judge Advocate General officer. I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Hatch, and the Judiciary Committee for their work on these nominations.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will state the objection that I understand will be raised, but let me assure my colleague and friend that there is an interest on both sides of the aisle to extend the moratorium, maybe with not this precise language, maybe it would be the Enzi proposal, maybe it would be something Senators Allard and McCain and others are working on. We will try to work with you to make sure the moratorium is extended. At this particular time, an objection will be raised. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to tell our colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we will make sure he has Members available for a quorum because we want to get many of these nominations reported out of committee. I appreciate his cooperation both in having the executive session to report those nominees and also in having the hearings tomorrow. I hope we will have many more in the remaining weeks. I thank him very much for his accommodation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on this issue of judicial nominations for a few moments. I urge us to get as many of these judges reported as possible, but I do also think we need to stick to some of the facts. I will put in the Record a few facts. President Bush has submitted 60 nominees for confirmation to us this year; we have confirmed 8. That is 13 percent. President Clinton through all of 1993--the Senate confirmed 27; he submitted 47; so that was a total of 57 percent. The first President Bush, in 1989, in his first year, submitted 24. We confirmed 15. So he had 62 percent of the judges he submitted to Congress in his first year be confirmed. President Reagan, in 1981, submitted 45. Forty-one were confirmed for a confirmation rate of 91 percent. For President Reagan, we confirmed 91 percent of the judges he submitted in his first year in office; President Bush, 62 percent; President Clinton, 57 percent. This year with President George W. Bush, we have confirmed 8 out of 60--only 13 percent. So we are way behind compared to the three previous Presidents. We have a lot of catching up to do. Those are the facts. We are way behind on circuit court nominees. We have had more circuit court nominees submitted this time than in the past. We have only confirmed 4, but we have had 25 submitted. So we have only confirmed 16 percent of the circuit court nominees. I just mention that. For the district court, 35 have been submitted, and we have only confirmed 4. We have a few more in the pipeline, and hopefully we will get those through, but we still have a lot. My point is, out of 60 judges submitted by President Bush this year, we have confirmed 8. That is only 13 percent. That is far behind the 57 percent for President Clinton's judges. Sixty-two percent of President Bush's judges and 91 percent of President Reagan's judges were confirmed in the first year. So we are moving very slowly. We need to accelerate. That is the reason why some of us are saying wait a minute before we agree to move forward on all the appropriations bills. Let us try to see if we cannot come up with an agreement where we can have expeditious consideration of these judges. They should not be penalized. This Congress should confirm the judges. I know Senator Daschle and Senator Reid have told me they concur with that. So I hope in the very near future we come up with an agreement on how to proceed that all would say is a fair way of dealing with these judges. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) are necessary absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Further reserving the right to object, I appreciate the remarks of my friend and colleague. If we can keep the bill itself pretty much to relevant amendments, I think and believe we can get this bill passed this week. For the information of our colleagues, we are very close to concluding the antiterrorism package. I appreciate the patience of my friend and colleague from Arizona. We have been trying to pass two bills this week: one, an antiterrorism package, and the other an airport security package. I hope and believe we can pass both this week. The antiterrorism package is much closer to being there. In fact, it is our hope we can pass it today. We are in the process of trying to conclude a unanimous consent request to pass the antiterrorism package today that will be in agreement and hopefully have the vote by 6 o'clock tonight. With that in mind, the fact we are so close to doing the antiterrorism package and getting it to conclusion at this point, I object to the unanimous consent request proposed by the Senator from Arizona.