[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 151 (Monday, November 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11445-S11448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       THE DASCHLE-KENNEDY AMENDMENT TO LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS

  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

[[Page S11446]]

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.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      The United States Conference


                                                    of Mayors,

                                 Washington, DC, November 5, 2001.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Assistant Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: The United States Conference of 
     Mayors opposes Amendment 2044 to the Labor-Health and Human 
     Services-Education Appropriations bill.
       It is our position that this measure, if passed, would be a 
     preemption of local authority and would impose an unfunded 
     mandate on a large number of our nation's cities. While the 
     costs may not be evident at first glance, they would be 
     significant in that time-tested working personnel systems 
     would have to be significantly modified.
       No one can dispute the valuable contribution our public 
     safety forces make daily, especially after their outstanding 
     work in the wake of the September 11 attacks on our Nation 
     where their contributions received deservedly high level 
     attention. 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.
       On behalf of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, I thank you for 
     your assistance on this important matter. If you have any 
     questions,

[[Page S11447]]

     please contact Ed Somers or Roger Dahl with the Conference 
     staff at (202) 297-7330.
           Sincerely,
                                                J. Thomas Cochran,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                              National Volunteer Fire Council,

                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 2001.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: The National Volunteer Fire Council 
     (NVFC) is a non-profit membership association representing 
     the more than 800,000 members of America's volunteer fire, 
     EMS, and rescue services. Organized in 1976, the NVFC serves 
     as the voice of America's volunteer fire personnel in over 
     28,000 departments across the country. On behalf of our 
     membership, I urge you to oppose the Daschle Amendment as 
     currently written that would insert the language of Public 
     Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (S. 952/H.R. 1475) 
     to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3061).
       As you know, firefighters, 75% of which are volunteers, are 
     our nation's first responders to all types of emergencies. 
     Most volunteer departments serve small, rural communities and 
     are quite often the only line of defense in those 
     communities. The brave men and women of these departments, 
     who risk their lives in the name of public service, save 
     local taxpayers an estimated $36 billion per year.
       Currently, the International Association of Fire Fighters 
     (IAFF) 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 NVFC 
     feels that these types of provisions are a violation of First 
     Amendment rights.
       One of the largest problems faced by America's volunteer 
     fire service is recruitment and retention. Even though fire 
     department call volumes continue to increase, the number of 
     volunteer firefighters has declined over 10% since 1983. 
     Major factors contributing to the decline include increased 
     fundraising and time demands, more rigorous training 
     standards, and the proliferation of two-income families whose 
     members don't have the time to volunteer. Therefore, any 
     legislation that may lead to the prohibition of volunteerism 
     is contrary to the interests of the volunteer fire service 
     and must be opposed by the NVFC and its membership.
       Once again, we urge you to oppose the Daschle amendment 
     unless language is inserted to explicitly protect a person's 
     right to serve as a public safety volunteer. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Craig Sharman, NVFC's Government 
     Affairs Representative, at (202) 887-5700. We appreciate your 
     continued support of America's volunteer fire service.
           Sincerely,
                                            Philip C. Stittleburg,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                             National Right to Work Committee,

                                Springfield, VA, November 1, 2001.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the 
     National Right to Work Committee, I am writing you today to 
     request your full-fledged opposition to the deceptively 
     titled ``Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act'' 
     (S. 952, now masquerading as Amendment 2044, to the Labor/HHS 
     Appropriations bill H.R. 3061, pending on the Senate floor).
       Senator, if enacted, this language would represent the most 
     far-reaching expansion of union officials' power to corral 
     workers into unions in decades.
       S. 952/Admt. 2044 is a dangerous, freedom-crushing bill 
     that must be stopped.
       It is designed to install union officials as the 
     ``exclusive'' bargaining agents of police, firefighters, 
     county paramedics and other public-safety officers in all 50 
     states.
       It would by federal fiat force public-safety officers, 
     including many who have chosen not to be union members, to 
     accept union officials as their ``exclusive'' negotiators in 
     employment contract talks.
       Effectively, Organized Labor thus obtains a monopoly over 
     employees' participation in the bargaining process.
       Twenty-seven states have so far either refused completely 
     to grant union officials monopoly power over public-safety 
     employment, or have acquiesced to a more limited form of 
     ``exclusive'' bargaining than is mandated by S. 952/Admt. 
     2044.
       If this bill is enacted, hundreds of thousands of police, 
     firemen and paramedics will be stripped of their freedom to 
     negotiate on their own behalf.
       And the personal safety of millions will be jeopardized as 
     a result of these employees' loss of freedom.
       One predictable result of enactment of S. 952/Admt. 2044 
     would be the decimation of volunteer firefighter departments 
     currently protecting countless communities that cannot afford 
     to hire enough professional firefighters to meet their needs.
       The constitution of the International Association of 
     Firefighters union (IAFF/AFL-CIO) bars its 245,000 members 
     from becoming volunteer firemen.
       IAFF officials who are already empowered by state law to 
     act as ``exclusive'' bargaining agents for taxpayer-funded 
     firemen regularly demand and obtain contract provisions 
     barring these firemen from volunteering on their own time.
       The fact is, 75% of all firemen are volunteers.
       And more than half of these volunteers are professional 
     firemen who offer their spare time to help their communities, 
     saving local taxpayers an estimated $37 billion annually.
       Such unselfish professional firemen, who are already 
     trained and experienced, are the backbone of volunteer units.
       Enactment of S. 952/Admt. 2044 would ultimately force 
     volunteer departments across the country to disband or to 
     operate while severely understaffed.
       This bill merits no consideration by Congress, especially 
     at a time when communities of all sizes must face the 
     possibility of having to rescue victims of terrorist attacks.
       And the grave harm S. 952/Admt. 2044 would inflict on 
     volunteer fire departments is only the tip of the iceberg.
       State and local taxpayers could expect to be hit up for 
     hundreds of millions of dollars just to pay for the direct 
     costs of the ``exclusive'' bargaining process.
       And the bill would predictably inspire a spate of illegal, 
     dangerous police and firefighter strikes.
       States adopting laws mandating public-sector ``exclusive'' 
     bargaining endure, on average, four times as many strikes 
     against vital public services once the law takes effect, 
     according to the Public Service Research Council of Vienna, 
     VA.
       Legal provisions allegedly intended to ban strikes have 
     proven useless.
       Union officials simply refuse to call off illegal strikes 
     against vital services until they win amnesty for having 
     broken the law.
       If S. 952/Admt. 2044 is adopted, its so-called ``no-
     strike'' provisions are sure to prove equally useless.
       Senator, by promptly taking a clear public stand against 
     this Amendment language, you can strongly discourage union 
     lobbyists from delaying congressional action on truly 
     important national issues in order to get it to your desk.
       I'm sure you agree with me that Congress's focus over the 
     next year should be on protecting Americans' lives and 
     liberty, and not on expanding forced unionism.
       That's why I hope you will oppose the Daschle Amendment, 
     Admt. 2044 to the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill.
       If you have any questions abut this measure, please call me 
     or Mark Mix, the Right to Work Committee's Senior Vice 
     President for Legislation, at 703-321-9820.
           Sincerely,
     Reed Larson.
                                  ____



                                    National League of Cities,

                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 2001.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: The National League of Cities is 
     writing in opposition to Amendment No. 2044 to H.R. 3061, the 
     Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations 
     bill. We believe that this measure should not be included as 
     an authorizing provision in the spending bill. Furthermore, 
     several state municipal leagues strongly believe that this 
     amendment would preempt state and local authority, where many 
     state laws sufficiently cover collective bargaining rights, 
     without the need for federal intervention.
       The National League of Cities applauds the heroism of 
     firefighters and all public safety personnel, especially in 
     the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. 
     However, NLC's National Municipal Policy does not support 
     this approach through Amendment No. 2044.
       NLC believes that the federal government should not 
     undermine municipal autonomy with respect to making 
     fundamental employment decisions by mandating specific 
     working conditions. The federal government should not mandate 
     collective bargaining rights, legalize strikes, or require 
     compulsory binding arbitration. In view of the labor 
     protections provided by state laws, labor agreements, city 
     government civil service systems and municipal personnel 
     procedures, NLC opposes Amendment No. 2044.
       Thank you for your consideration of the National League of 
     Cities' position on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Borut,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                     Denver, CO, November 5, 2001.
     Reference: Amendment No. 2044 to the Labor/HHS Appropriations 
         bill (H.R. 3061).
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Byrd and Stevens: The National Conference of 
     State Legislatures is writing in opposition to Amendment No. 
     2044 to H.R. 3061, the Labor-Health and Human Services and 
     Education Appropriations bill. The amendment would federalize 
     a critical area of labor law best left to state and local 
     governments. We believe that this measure should not be 
     included as an authorizing provision to the spending bill. 
     This amendment

[[Page S11448]]

     would preempt state and local authority, where many state 
     laws sufficiently cover collective bargaining rights.
       The National Conference of State Legislatures applauds the 
     heroism of firefighters and all public safety personnel, 
     especially in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks 
     on America. However, NCSL reminds Congress that absent a 
     compelling reason for preemption, abandoning a commitment to 
     balance in the state-federal partnership is uncalled for and 
     shortsighted.
       NCSL believes that the federal government should not 
     undermine state and municipal autonomy with respect to making 
     fundamental employment decisions by mandating specific 
     working conditions. The federal government should not mandate 
     collective bargaining rights, legalize strikes, or require 
     compulsory binding arbitration. In view of the labor 
     protections provided by state laws, labor agreements, city 
     government civil service systems and municipal personnel 
     procedures, NCSL opposes Amendment No. 2044.
       Thank you for your consideration of the National Conference 
     of State Legislatures' position on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William T. Pound,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Tennessee is recognized for 12 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, the Daschle amendment is simply 
another amendment in the long tradition of amendment after amendment 
basically federalizing things that have been under the purview of State 
and local government for many years. Usually, we choose a politically 
opportune moment to do this; we give lipservice all the time to the 
concept of federalism. We have tort reform debates, where it comes up 
many times in many different ways, and many proponents of the Daschle 
amendment and I have joined together in pointing out that we should be 
slow to federalize things that have been under the purview of State law 
for 200 years.
  We give lipservice to the fact that State and local governments are 
closer to the people and the Federal Government doesn't have the 
solution to all problems. All the time, while we are giving lipservice, 
we are slowly, bit by bit, amendment by amendment, passing things that 
go against the entire concept of federalism.
  Those who are promoting this amendment a short time ago, during the 
Patients' Bill of Rights debate, were taking the position that State 
liability law should apply; that State courts should be the ones to 
determine State liability. Federalism was a good thing back then. 
Federalism was a good thing when we considered issues on tort reform. 
But now we have an amendment that basically federalizes and preempts 
State and local laws regarding the unionization of public safety 
officers.
  It seems that some of us want to be Jeffersonians on Mondays, 
Wednesdays, and Fridays and Hamiltonians on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and 
Sundays. So we have this amendment before us, and it is an amendment 
that is a significant intrusion on the rights of States to set their 
own rules. As we know, the National Labor Relations Act applies to 
unionism in the private sector employment. No Federal statute regarding 
unionism applies to State and local Government employees. It has always 
been within the purview of States and local communities to create laws 
governing the employment of police officers and firefighters.
  The Daschle amendment would be an unprecedented expansion of Federal 
authority at the expense of State and local communities. It basically 
gives Federal labor relations the authority and the power to determine 
whether or not a State's laws are up to par. If they determine that the 
State's laws are not up to par or in compliance with Federal standards, 
the Federal Labor Relations Authority will establish collective 
bargaining standards that will apply to the States.

  Madam President, this amendment would require changes to the laws of 
over half the States in the Nation--the laws that they have been 
administering all this time. Two States have passed laws that 
explicitly prohibit public safety unions. We are all familiar with the 
debates we have concerning whether or not it is a good idea for people 
in certain public professions to unionize, whether or not we are more 
likely to be faced with strikes and things of that nature which go 
against the public welfare. Different States have reached different 
conclusions as to whether or not this is a good idea, whether or not it 
is a good idea to allow them to unionize. Of course, that is what 
States do. They do different things, depending on what the people in 
the States want.
  Many other States, including my home State, are silent on the issue 
of union rights of public officials, which allows counties, cities, and 
other local communities to determine whether or not they will allow 
unions to collectively bargain with them or not.
  In my view, this is exactly where these decisions should be made. 
Surely, questions about hiring decisions and the qualifications of the 
people who provide services that safeguard the community should be made 
by the people who live in those communities.
  I have received letters from a dozen communities in Tennessee from 
Fayetteville to Johnson City, Smyrna, Germantown, and many others. Many 
of those letters were sent by police departments expressing their 
concern over the adverse impact of this legislation on their 
communities.
  No one can doubt the tremendous service that is provided by our 
firefighters and police officers. They put their lives on the line 
every day to ensure our safety. But this amendment is not a fitting 
response to that service. It is not a fitting response to subvert the 
basic relationship between the States and the Federal Government or the 
local communities and the Federal Government. It is not a fitting 
response to fundamentally alter a system that has been established and 
has served us well for 200 years.
  This amendment essentially writes State laws for States and requires 
the States to pass them or have the Federal Government apply their own 
standard. It is not the place of the Federal Government to make 
decisions that are closely tied to the needs of traditional 
responsibilities of States and local communities.
  This amendment is an unwarranted intrusion on self-government. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose it.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________