Sen. Tom Harkin defends NLRB Boeing ruling: comments in Congressional Record

8/6/2019 Sen. Tom Harkin defends NLRB Boeing ruling: comments in Congressional Record

1/3

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S2859May 11, 2011

This was shown, as reported in TheHill, because Chairman CONRADwho

served on the debt commission and Ibelieve fully understands the dangersthis country faceshas repeatedly ac-

knowledged that. I really respect Sen-ator CONRADs insights into the chal-lenges this country faces. Apparently,

his proposal, which was going to besomewhat better than PresidentObamas, I assume, failed to win the

support of his conference and of Sen-

ator BERNIE SANDERS, who is a gutsySenator and is open about what he be-

lieves. But he has described himself asa Socialist and is the Senates mostpowerful advocate for bigger govern-

ment. He is a member of the BudgetCommittee. The reason Senator SAND-ERS vote became important is because

the Democrats have apparently beenworking to pass a budget through com-mittee without a Republican vote.They dont expect to get any Repub-

lican votes. The committee only hasone more Democrat than Republicans,so the chairman needs Senator SAND-ERS vote if he wants to get the budgetout of committee.

Here is an excerpt from The Hill:Reid said Senator Conrad presented to the

[Democratic] Caucus a 50/50 split when asked

about the preferred ratio of spending cuts to

tax increases. . . . Conrad has moved his

budget proposal to the left in order to gain

the support of Senator Bernie Sanders, an

outspoken progressive on the budget panel.

You know, progressive is a word

they are using now for big governmenttypes. They want to take more moneyfrom the American people because they

believe they know better how to spendit than the American people who earnit. They want to spread it around the

way they want to spend it.This is a remarkable turn of events.

It is particularly stunning because thePresidents budgetrepudiated for its

dramatic levels of spending and taxesclaimed there was a 3-to-1 ratio ofspending cuts to tax hikes. We cut

spending $3 for every $1 in tax hikes iswhat the President said. ChairmanCONRAD has indicated that would have

been his choice. He praised that. Hesaid he favored that same ratio. I dontthink that is necessarily a good ratio.We need to reduce spending more than

that.Taken literally, what this means is

that Senator CONRAD has, in a funda-mental respect, moved his plan to theleft of the President and the fiscal

commission, which also proposed aplan that actually did reduce spending$3 for every $1 in tax increases or pret-

ty close to that, pretty fairly, withoutgimmicks, and came close to achievingthat. The Presidents budget was so

gimmicked that it really didnt achieve$3 in spending cuts for every $1 of taxincreases. It did not. It wasnt correct

for him to say that.It is important to note that the

President and the fiscal commission

use a baseline that assumes tax rateswill go up. Fairly analyzed, those plansrely much more heavily on taxing than

those ratios indicate, as I said, and Ifear that the composition of this newDemocratic budget proposal may noteven meet the 5050 plan. The othershave it in terms of taxes and spendingcuts.

The merits of this 5050 split betweensavings and taxes are both a questionof philosophy and economics. Philo-sophically, the American people dontwant Washington to continue raisingtaxes to pay for larger and largerspending. American families should notbe punished for the sins and excesses ofWashington.

According to the CBO, we are goingto spend $45 trillion over the next 10years. The Senate Democratic plan,which no one is likely to see until afterthe committee meetsthat is what wehave been told, that we wont see ituntil it is plopped down at the begin-ning of the committee markup, whereamendments are supposed to be offeredsoon thereaftertheir own plan, atleast from what we read about it, saysit will cut or save just $2 trillion out of$45 trillion over the next 10 years.

The American people know there ismuch more we can and must do to

bring this government under controland to achieve real balance in thiscountry. What kind of balance? Be-tween raising taxes and cutting spend-ing, 5050? No. The balance we need isone that respects the American people,that reduces the growth in spendingand wealth taken by Washington andallows it to be kept by the Americanpeople, who earn it.

There is also a question of econom-ics. Our committee has conducted anexhaustive survey of available researchwhich conclusively shows that debt re-duction plans that rely equally on sav-ing money, reducing spending, andraising taxes are far less successful and

result in far weaker economic growththan those plans that rely on cuttingspending. We will release a white papervery soon that will share these findingswith my colleagues and the country. Itis very important that we understandthis. What history is showing us is that

when you reduce spending, you getmore growth and prosperity than in-creasing spending and taxes.

Here is one example of the manystudies we analyzed. This is a GoldmanSachs study by analysts Ben Broadbent

and Kevin Daly. The report resultedfrom a cross-national study of fiscal re-form that:

In a review of every major fiscal correction

in the OECDThe Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development, the

worlds major developed economies

since 1975, we find that decisive budgetary

adjustments that have focused on reducing

government expenditure have (i) been suc-

cessful in correcting fiscal imbalances; (ii)

typically boosted economic growth; and (iii)

resulted in significant bond and equity mar-

ket outperformance.

In other words, the stock market and

the bond market improved, and both ofthose are a bit shaky now after somerebound.

Tax driven

Tax driven, that means tax in-creases

fiscal adjustments, by contrast, typically

fail to correct fiscal imbalances and are

damaging for growth.

That is the Goldman Sachs study.Half of our U.S. Treasury Department

has been manned by people who servedat one time or another at GoldmanSachs. They are not considered a right-wing group. That is what their analysts

have said to us.The Democratic Senate, I believe,

should heed the large body of researchshowing that spending cuts on a basiceconomic level work better than tryingto drain more out of the economy by

way of taxes. In other words, the Sen-ate should produce a budget based onfacts. They should produce a budget

that grows the economy, that imposesreal spending discipline on Washington.They should produce a budget without

gimmicks and empty promises. Theyshould produce this budget publicly,openly, and allow the American people

to review and consider it before thecommittee meets in 72 hours, as my

colleagues have pleaded with the chair-man twice to do but he will not do.They should produce a budget theAmerican people deservean honest

budget that spares our children fromboth the growing burden of debt andthe growing burden of an intrusive big

government.I hope we can continue to have the

opportunity to talk about this issue. It

is right that the American people beengaged in it. I have to say, I feel asthough we failed in our responsibility

to conduct open hearings and markupson a budget.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

FRANKEN). The Senator from Iowa.f

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONSBOARD

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, recentlythe National Labor Relations Boardgeneral counsel issued a complaint

against the Boeing Company allegingthat the company had violated the Na-tional Labor Relations Act. This rou-

tine administrative procedure has setoff what I call a melodramatic outcryfrom Boeing, the business community,

the editorial writers of the Wall StreetJournal, the National Chamber of Com-merce, and, of course, our friends on

the Republican side of the aisle.A headline in the Wall Street Journal

editorial page calls it: The death of

right to work.South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley de-

clared that it was government dic-

tated economic larceny.At a press conference held at the

Chamber of Commerce yesterday morn-

ing, Senator DEMINT from South Caro-lina referred to it as thuggery.

The senior Senator from Utah

warned that foot soldiers of a vast andpermanent bureaucracy were trying toimplement a leftist agenda.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:33 May 12, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G11MY6.014 S11MYPT1


2/3

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATES2860 May 11, 2011

One would think this one decision byan administrative arm of an inde-

pendent agency was surely going tobring about the death of capitalism inthe world today. This has taken on in-

credible proportions in terms of theoutcry and the mischaracterization ofwhat has happened.

Instead of talking about how we get

Americans working again, get the mid-dle class on its feet, our colleagues onthe other side of the aisle are taking

their time on the Senate floor and inpress conferences downtown attackingthe handling of a routine affairan un-

fair labor practice charge.I do not think it is worth the time of

the Senate to debate this issue. How-

ever, because of this huge outcry andthe fact that the Wall Street Journalhas chosen to editorialize on this issue

and because of the disturbing misin-formation that has distorted public dis-cussion of this case, I am going to takesome time on the Senate floor to try

to, as they say, set the record straight.I have said before this Boeing case is

a classic example of the old saying that

a lie is halfway around the world beforethe truth laces up its boots. I wouldsay, in this case, Senate information

travels even faster than that. So it istime to set the record straight.

Here are the facts in the case. It isundisputed Boeing recently decided to

locate a production facility for the newDreamliner planes in South Carolina.They decided to do that. Many state-

ments were made by executives of Boe-ing, publicly stated, that the decisionto move there was based in whole or in

large part on the fact that there hadbeen work stoppages, strikes in thelast few years at the Boeing plant in

Everett, WA. The NLRBs complaintalleges that this decision was unlawfulretaliation against the Boeing workers

in Washington State.This has been put into a political

context, but lets again be clear abouthow this happens. The National LaborRelations Board is an independent

agency set up under the Wagner Act 75years ago. There are two branches ofthe NLRB. One is the Board, the NLRB,

the national board. It is a five-memberboard appointed by the President, withthe advice and consent of the Senate.

On the other hand, there are the careerservice people, outside of the GeneralCounsel, the civil servants who are not

appointed. They are nonpolitical. Theycarry out the day-to-day functions ofthe National Labor Relations Act. If I

may say, it is similar to the Food andDrug Administration. The Food andDrug Administration has an Adminis-

trator appointed by the President, withthe advice and consent of the Senate,as do a lot of other independent agen-

cies. But then there is a civil serviceside of it that is professionalprofes-sional people not appointed by the

President. They have career civil serv-ice status.

The general counsel of the NationalLabor Relations Board is appointed,but the rest of the staff in the area of

the career civil service. The actinggeneral counsel now has been a civilservant for 30 years.

What happens is, a business or aunionit does not have to be them; itcan be anybodycan file a complaintwith the NLRB, alleging that certainactions were in violation of the Na-tional Labor Relations Act. One of theprovisions of the National Labor Rela-tions Act says it is unlawful for a com-pany to retaliate against workers for aprotected activity conducted by thoseworkersprotected activity.

One of the protected activities underthe National Labor Relations Act is, ofcourse, the right to organize, the rightto join a union, and, of course, underthe Taft-Hartley bill, some years later,the right not to join a union if you donot want to, so-called right-to-workStates.

The protected activity in this case isthe right to strike. The National LaborRelations Act protects that activity.Organized workers in a union have theright to strike. It is a protected activ-ity. A company cannot retaliateagainst workers for exercising thatright.

So ifif, I say ifif the BoeingCompany did, in fact, move a produc-tion line to another State in retalia-tion against the workers who exercisedtheir right to strike in Washington,that would be illegal for Boeing to dothatunlawful. I said if because Iam not here taking a side in the case.I am not certain where the truth lies.This is for the trier of fact and thetrier of law.

When a complaint such as this comesto the National Labor Relations Board,they investigate it. The National LaborRelations Board investigated, underthe general counsels office, the civilservice part. They did an investigation.

They took affidavits. They talked withpeople to find out whether there wasany cause to move forward.

Again, whether it is right or wrong, Ido not know, but this independent civilservants decided there was enough evi-dence for them to warrant taking thiscase to an administrative law judge.That is the process. Boeing then canmake its case before the administra-tive law judge. The general counselsoffice can make its case. The adminis-trative law judge then makes a deci-sion. As I understand it, the adminis-trative law judge can find for the gen-eral counsel, it can uphold their theoryor it can modify it.

After that is done, either side can ap-peal it. That appeal then goes from thecivil service part over to the NationalLabor Relations Board. After the Boardthen reviews it, they make a decision.They either uphold what the adminis-trative law judge said or they do notuphold it.

From there, either side can appeal tothe circuit court of appeals, and fromthe circuit court of appeals, they canappeal to the Supreme Court of the

United States. That is the process.That process has been followed now for75 years.

We follow similar processes in otherindependent agencies of the Federal

Government. I mentioned the FederalFood and Drug Administration, theFederal Trade Commission. A lot of

other independent boards and agencieshave that same process.

What has happened now is, many of

our friends on the Republican side andin the business community have nowtaken up the hue and cry that this

process should be interfered with, that

this process should somehow bestopped politically. I do not think it is

our right, our job here to interfere insomething such as that politically. Ifmy friends on the Republican side do

not like the provision of the NationalLabor Relations Act which says it is il-legal to take retaliation against work-

ers for protected activity, if my friendson the Republican side want to changethat law, offer a bill, offer an amend-

ment. That law can be changed. Withboth bodiesthe House and the Sen-ateand the President signing it, we

can change it. But it is wrong for, I be-lieve, elected officials, such as myselfor anyone else, to interfere in that

process and to cast it as a political de-cision. But that is what is being doneby so many Republican Senators andpeople in the business community.

They have alleged that PresidentObama was behind this, that somehow

because he has appointed a couplemembers of the National Labor Rela-tions Board that he is behind this

issue. President Obama had nothing todo with it. This was a complaint filedby the Machinists Union, the Inter-

national Association of Machinists,with the NLRB. President Obama hasnothing to do with this whatsoever,and he should not have anything to do

with it. But, again, people on the Re-

publican side are allegingagain, mis-information, misinformation, misin-

formation going outthat somehowthis is being orchestrated out of theWhite House.

Again the facts: The facts are therewas a complaint filed. The NationalLabor Relations Board is doing exactly

what they have done for the last 75years. It is going to go before an ad-ministrative law judge and then find

out how it works its way through thecourts at that time.

I would ask my friends on the Repub-lican side, if in, factif, in facttheBoeing Company did retaliate against

workers because of a protected activ-ity, do my friends on the Republicanside say that should be OK? Is thatwhat they are saying; that if workers

exercise a legally protected right and acompany retaliates against thoseworkers anyway they ought to be able

to do that?I can take all kinds of cases. Lets

say a company decides to move a plantfrom Southern California to, lets justsay Fargo, ND, and the reason theystate they moved it was because there

were too many Hispanics working intheir plant in Southern California andthey didnt like that. They wanted to



3/3

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S2861May 11, 2011

move it to Fargo, ND, because thereare not that many Hispanics there.

Guess what, folks. That is illegal.

That is illegal. Do my friends on theRepublican side say they ought to beable to do that in violation of all our

civil rights laws in this country? Ofcourse not.

People say: Of course, they cantmake that kind of decision based onthat. They cant make a decision to

move a plant where there are more

men than women so they wont have tohire more women; or less African

Americans so they dont have to hiremore African Americans. We can carrythis on and on.

So I hope my friends on the Repub-

lican side are not saying a companycan retaliate and then just walk awaywithout any penalties, without even

any recourse by the workers to havetheir cases heard. That is what I amhere defending. I am defending the

rights of the workers in the plant inEverett, WA, to have their complaintsheard.

Now, I dont know the facts. I knowa little of the law, but I dont know the

facts. That is for the trier. That is forthe administrative law judge and theNLRB and the appeals court and the

Supreme Court. That is their jurisdic-tion. But for us to say it shouldnt evengo there; that these workers cant even

bring a caseand I might add, thereare a lot of cases that are filed with theNLRB that dont go there because the

NLRB investigates; they do their duediligence; and they find out there isnot even enough evidence to warrant

going forward.So all I can assume is here there was

enough evidence to warrant going for-ward. Whether there is enough to actu-ally find that Boeing did retaliate,

again, I dont know. That is up to thetrier of factthe administrative lawjudge. But I am hearing from these dra-

matic outcries that somehow we aredestroying the right to work. This casehas nothing to do with right to work

nothingzero. It has nothing to dowith right-to-work laws. This case hasnothing to do with the outcry that

somehow this is destroying the essenceof a business to be able to decide, in itsbest economic interest, where to lo-

cate.If Boeing wants to open their plant in

Timbuktu, they can do that. If theywant to open a plant in South Caro-lina, they can do that. What they cant

do is open a plant someplace in retalia-tion against the workers exercisingtheir legally protected rights; that,

they cant do.Now, again, this is an evidentiary-

type hearing. So the evidence will haveto come forward as to just what deci-sions were made, why they were made.

Quite frankly, there are executives ofBoeing who have publicly statedpub-liclythat one of the reasons theymoved was because of the work stop-

pages at the Everett plantwork stop-pages, strikes. Is that enough evidence?I dont know. Maybe it is enough evi-

dence to warrant going forward. Obvi-ously, the general counsels office de-

cided there was.I would also point out, Mr. President,

the general counsels office in casessuch as this works long and hard to try

to settle the caseto get both sides tosettle. I know the general counsels of-fice in this case did try to do that, but

they were unsuccessful; therefore, thecase goes forward.

So I want to point out againjust to

reiterate, Mr. Presidentthis is notabout doing away with the right-to-

work laws. It has nothing to do withthat. It has nothing to do with inter-fering with businesses making deci-

sions on where to locate their plants oranything such as that. It has nothingto do with that. It has nothing to do

with destroying capitalism. It has todo with whether workers have a rightfirst of all, can they exercise their le-

gally protected rights, and then canthey make a case to the NLRB theywere retaliated against because they

exercised their legal rights. That iswhat this case is about. That is whatthis case is about.

Again, I understand the desire of cer-tain people to raise money for political

campaigns. I understand that. I under-stand how one might exaggerate thingsa lot of times in direct mail and in the

press. I am sure there will be a lot ofbusinesses that will hear: You have tocontribute to this campaign or that

campaign to stop President Obama orto stop the National Labor RelationsBoard from taking your business deci-

sions away from you.Well, that is misinformation. I know

it can be used to raise a lot of cam-paign money, but it is not right. It is

not right to deceive and to misinformthe American people about a basicright that protects middle-class work-

ers in America. Americans understandfairness, and they resent it when thewealthy and the powerful manipulate

the political system to reap huge ad-vantages at the expense of workingpeople.

I think I have always been a prettygood friend of the Boeing Company. I

have been a big supporter of Boeing inso many things, going back in my 30years in the Congress. It is a great

company. They provide a lot of greatjobs for American workers. They buildgreat airplanesbetter than Airbus, I

might say. But it is wrong for themnow to come in and try to get the po-litical system to undo a legal adminis-

trative procedure the workers at thatBoeing plant have instigated and haveasked for the NLRB to investigate and

to charge Boeing with retaliation.What is happening in this case is that

the powerful and the big are trying tomanipulate the political system. Pow-erful corporate interests are pressuring

Members of this body to interfere withan independent agency rather than let-ting it run its course.

We should not tolerate this inter-ference. We should turn our attentionto the issues that matter to American

familieshow we can create jobs inWashington, and, yes, in South Caro-

lina, in Iowa, and across the country;how we can rebuild the middle class,how we can ensure that working hard

and playing by the rules will help re-build a better life for families and fortheir children. Playing by the rules is

what the workers did. They played bythe rules. They exercised their legalrights, and now there is a complaint

filed. I say it is wrong for us to inter-

fere in that.Again, if we dont like the law, if we

dont like the administrative proce-dures that undergird this, it can bechanged. It can be changed. But I dare-

say we have had 75 years of the WagnerActof this process, and I will close onthis: Sometimes businesses file a com-

plaint with the NLRB against a unionactivity, and that is investigated. Thatgoes before administrative law judges,

too. So both sides use this.I think it is unbecoming for us now

to try to turn this into some kind of a

political maelstrom, a political tor-nado, when it shouldnt be that. Letslet the law and lets let the administra-

tive procedure do its job. Then, if cor-rective action needs to be taken, thenit is the purview of Congress to dealwith it at that time. Not now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Virginia.

f

ALLEN NOMINATION

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wouldlike to express my appreciation to theleadership in the Senate of both parties

for scheduling a vote today on ArendaWright Allens confirmation for a seaton the U.S. District Court for the East-

ern District of Virginia.All of us in this body know how im-

portant it is to fill the vacancies on

our Federal bench, and particularlywhen we have highly qualified nomi-nees who have no particular issues thatneed to be discussed in a political

sense, and Virginia is no exception inthis matter. The sheer volume of ourFederal court workload demands we

appoint dedicated, qualified jurists.In that regard, Senator MARK WAR-

NER and myself were very pleased to

have recommended Arenda L. WrightAllen to the President in June of lastyear for this position on the U.S. Dis-

trict Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia. President Obama nominatedArenda Wright Allen last December.She was renominated this year. She

was reported out of the Judiciary Com-mittee without opposition on March 10of this year, and I believe the President

has made an extraordinary choice innominating Ms. Wright Allen.

Whenever a vacancy has occurred on

the Virginia Federal bench, SenatorWARNER and I have very carefully con-ducted thorough and extensive reviewsof candidates for the position. This re-

view process includes interviews andrecommendations by the bar associa-tions and in-person interviews with


Documents

Sen. Tom Harkin defends NLRB Boeing ruling: comments in Congressional Record