Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
YOU CAN SEE LIVE HOUSE COVERAGE
ON C-SPAN.
NOW HERE ON C-SPAN2, LIVE SENATE
COVERAGE.
THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THE CHAPLAIN, DR. BARRY BLACK,
WILL LEAD THE SENATE IN PRAYER.
LET US PRAY.
ETERNAL AND
MERICFUL GOD, THANK YOU FOR BOTH
SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL
BLESSINGS, PARTICULARLY THE
RICHES OF YOUR MERCIES POURED
DOWN UPON US.
THANK YOU FOR BLESSING OUR
LAWMAKERS, FOR GUIDING THEIR
THOUGHTS AND WORDS, SO THAT
THEIR LABORS GLORIFY YOU.
LORD, GIVE THEM THE STRENGTH AND
COURAGE TO FULFILL YOUR
COMMANDS, TRUSTING YOUR WISDOM
MORE THAN THEIR OWN.
SAVE THEM FROM EITHER DESIRING
OR SEEKING THE HONOR THAT COMES
ONLY FROM HUMANITY, BUT MAY THEY
DESIRE YOUR APPROVAL MORE THAN
LIFE
ITSELF.
KEEP THEM FROM EVIL AS THEY FIND
SAFETY IN YOUR LOVE.
LORD, GIVE THEM THE HUMILITY TO
KNOW THAT NO ONE HAS A CORNER ON
YOUR TRUTH AND THAT WE NEED EACH
OTHER TO DISCOVER YOUR GUIDANCE
TOGETHER.
WE PRAY IN YOUR SACRED NAME.
AMEN.
JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE
TO THE FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO
THE FLAG OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND TO THE REPUBLIC
FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE,
WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE
CLERK WILL READ A COMMUNICATION
TO THE SENATE.
WASHINGTON D.C.,
MAY 5, 2011.
TO THE SENATE:
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 1,
PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STANDING
RULES OF THE SENATE, I HEREBY
APPOINT
THE HONORABLEBENJAMIN CARDIN,
A SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE
CHAIR.
SIGNED: DANIEL K. INOUYE,
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER.
MR. PRESIDENT,
NORMALLY IN OPENING, THE
MAJORITY LEADER GOES FIRST, BUT
HE AND I HAVE NEVER VIEWED THIS
AS A CONTENTIOUS PROCESS.
SO SINCE HE IS NOT HERE YET, I
WILL GO AHEAD WITH MY STATEMENT.
THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
WHEN IT COMES
TO THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SEEN ENOUGH
CHOREOGRAPHED RALLIES ON FACTORY
FLOORS AND SPEECHES THAT SOUND
GOOD BUT LEAD TO NOTHING.
AFTER TWO YEARS OF CHRONIC
JOBLESSNESS, THEY WANT RESULTS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE SEEN A
GROWING CONSENSUS IN WASHINGTON
OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS THAT
SOMETHING SERIOUS MUST BE DONE
ABOUT OUR NATION'S DEBT.
EVEN DEMOCRATS NOW ADMIT THAT
FAILING TO BRING DOWN THE DEBT
WOULD BE FAR MORE DAMAGING TO
OUR NATION'S ECONOMY IN THE LONG
RUN THAN FAILING TO RAISE THE
DEBT CEILING.
THE SITUATION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED
AS THE MOST PREDICTABLE CRISIS
IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE NOW REALIZE THAT THE
WARNING BELLS ARE TOO LOUD TO
IGNORE, AND LAST MONTH PRESIDENT
ADMISSION.
OBAMA HIMSELF MADE A CRUCIAL
IN A SIGN THAT HE TOO IS
STARTING TO WORRY ABOUT THE
PROSPECTS OF INACTION, THE
PRESIDENT SAID THAT FAILING TO
PRODUCE A SERIOUS PLAN FOR
TACKLING THE DEFICIT AND DEBT
COULD BE A BIGGER DRAG ON THE
ECONOMY THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
SO MORE AND MORE PEOPLE SEE THE
PROBLEM.
NOW THE CHALLENGE IS ACHIEVING A
RESULT.
THAT'S WHY I'VE PROPOSED A FEW
BASIC PRINCIPLES YESTERDAY THAT
I BELIEVE COULD GUIDE US TO
SUCCESS.
THIS MORNING I WANT TO REITERATE
THOSE PRINCIPLES AHEAD OF THE
MEETING AT THE BLAIR HOUSE.
BY SETTING OUT CLEAR PRINCIPLES
UP FRONT WE'RE FAR MORE LIKELY
TO ACTUALLY GET SOMEWHERE AND TO
PREVENT THE CRISIS BEFORE IT
STRIKES.
FIRST, IT'S TIME FOR OUR FRIENDS
ON THE OTHER SIDE TO STOPL
PITTING ONE TKPWRAOUFP -- STOP
PITTING ONE GROUP OF AMERICANS
AGAINST ANOTHER.
SOLVING THIS CRISIS WILL REQUIRE
ALL OF US WORKING TOGETHER SO
IT?
WHY DON'T WE START ACTING LIKE
SECOND, THE LEVEL OF SPENDING
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO MAINTAIN
ISN'T IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT RAISING
TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHICH
WE KNOW ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE'RE ONLY GOING TO SOLVE THIS
CRISIS BY ADMIT -GS UP FRONT
THAT WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.
THIRD, ENTITLEMENTS NEED TO BE A
PART OF THE DISCUSSION, SO LET'S
DROP THE SCARE TACTICS AND WORK
TOGETHER ON REFORM.
NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING
ANYONE'S MEDICARE.
FOURTH, RAISING TAXES IS THE
LAST THING WE SHOULD BE DOING IN
THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION.
WHAT'S MORE, A BIPARTISAN
MAJORITY RIGHT HERE IN THE
STPHAPT -- IN THE SENATE OPPOSE
RAISING TAXES.
INSTEAD.
LET'S FIND COMMON GROUND
IF WE RECOGNIZE THESE THINGS, WE
CAN AVERT THIS CRISIS.
IF WE DON'T, WE WON'T.
AND I ASSURE YOU, WE'LL ALL
ANSWER FOR IT.
CRISIS COMING.
VERY FEW PEOPLE SAW THE LAST
THIS ONE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS
CLEAR AS DAY.
FAILING TO WORK TOGETHER IN GOOD
FAITH ON A SOLUTION WOULD BE
COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE.
CRISIS.
EVERYONE AGREES THIS IS A
MORE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE
PRESIDENT, AGREE THAT FAILING TO
ADDRESS IT WOULD BE DISASTROUS
FOR JOBS AND THE ECONOMY.
AND EVERYONE KNOWS THE UPCOMING
DEBT LIMIT VOTE IS THE BEST
OPPORTUNITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
SO WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
DOING SOMETHING MEANINGFUL ABOUT
THE DEBT IS THE CENTERPIECE OF
ANY SERIOUS JOBS AGENDA IN
WASHINGTON.
OTHER THINGS WILL HELP ON THAT
FRONT, AND THE PRESIDENT MADE A
SMALL BUT IMPORTANT STEP IN THAT
RIGHT DIRECTION YESTERDAY BY
ANNOUNCING HE WAS READY TO BEGIN
TALKS ON A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
WITH COLOMBIA, SOMETHING WE'VE
BEEN CALLING FOR HIM TO DO FOR
YEARS.
RATIFYING THIS AGREEMENT ALONG
WITH OTHER AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTH
KOREA AND PANAMA WILL OPEN UP
MARKETS TO U.S. GOODS AND CREATE
THOUSANDS OF JOBS.
THAT WAS JUST ONE OF THE IDEAS
REPUBLICANS INCLUDED IN A
COMPREHENSIVE JOBS AGENDA WE
RELEASE THIS HAD WEEK, AN AGENDA
IN A FOCUSES ON EXPANDING
OPPORTUNITY, LOWERING COSTS AND
CLEARING BUREAUCRATIC OBSTACLES.
IF WE CAN'T GET SPENDING UNDER
CONTROL, WE'LL NEVER GET THE
ECONOMY MOVING.
IF THE ECONOMY DOESN'T GROW, WE
WON'T BE ABLE TO REDUCE OUR
DEFICITS AND OUR DEBT.
AND IF WE DON'T REDUCE OUR
MASSIVE FEDERAL DEBT, WE FACE A
CRISIS THAT MAKES THE FINANCIAL
DAY ON WALL STREET.
PANIC OF 2008 LOOK LIKE A SLOW
SO THIS DEBATE COULDN'T BE MORE
IMPORTANT TO OUR NEAR-TERM AND
LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH.
DEBATE.
EVERYONE HAS A STAKE IN THE
IF WE FACE UP TO IT LIKE ADULTS,
WE'LL NOT ONLY PREVENT THIS MOST
PREDICTABLE CRISIS, WE'LL HELP
PRESERVE OUR WAY OF LIFE.
AND THE BEST PART IS NO ONE SIDE
CREDIT.
WILL BE ABLE TO CLAIM THE
THIS IS THE MOMENT.
WE CANNOT LET IT PASS.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
THE
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
I UNDERSTAND H.R.
1214 IS DUE FOR SECOND READING.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
H.R. 1213, AN ACT
TO REPEAL MANDATORY FUNDING
PROVIDED TO STATES IN THE
PATIENT PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, TO
ESTABLISH AMERICAN HEALTH
BENEFIT EXCHANGES.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
OBJECT TO ANY FURTHER
MATTER.
PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION TO THIS
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
CALENDAR.
IT WILL BE PLACED ON THE
MR. PRESIDENT,
FOLLOWING LEADER REMARKS, THE
SENATE WILL BE IN A PERIOD OF
MORNING BUSINESS UNTIL 5:00 P.M.
TODAY, WITH REPUBLICANS
CONTROLLING THE FIRST 30 MINUTES
AND THE MAJORITY CONTROLLING THE
SECOND 30 MINUTES.
THE NEXT ROLL CALL VOTE IS GOING
TO BE MONDAY, MAY 9 AT
5:30 P.M., AND WE WILL NOTIFY
SENATORS ON THE SUBJECT MATTER
OF THAT.
IT WILL BE IN REGARD TO A
NOMINATION.
MR. PRESIDENT, IN REGARD TO THE
COMMENTS MADE BY MY FRIEND, THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER, AS I LISTENED
TO HIM, I PICKED UP ABOUT THREE
OR FOUR POINTS I THINK ARE
FAIRLY OBVIOUS.
ONE IS DON'T TOUCH THE TAX CUTS
FOR THE RICH.
NUMBER TWO, DON'T TOUCH TAX CUTS
FOR THE RICH.
AND NUMBER THREE IS THAT THEY
WANT TO GO AFTER ENTITLEMENTS.
THE LARGEST OF COURSE ARE
MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICAID.
WE KNOW THAT THE RYAN BUDGET
CALLS FOR PRIVATIZING MEDICARE.
EVEN THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
LEADER TODAY WAS QUOTED IN THE
PAPERS AS SAYING WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO BACK OFF THAT.
THAT'S -- I'M PARAPHRASING.
EVERYONE CAN READ IT.
IT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE OF "THE
WASHINGTON POST" NEWSPAPER.
BUT THE RYAN BUDGET HAS A NUMBER
OF WAYS OF SEUFG MONEY.
MONEY.
THE MOST -- WAYS OF SAVING
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT WAY IS TO
DESTROY MEDICARE.
THE FOURTH POINT, MR. PRESIDENT,
AFTER RECOGNIZING, AS MY FRIEND
THE REPUBLICAN LEADER SAID, WE
NEED TO GO AFTER ENTITLEMENTS IS
DON'T TAX THE RICH.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE ON THIS SIDE
OF THE AISLE REALIZE WE HAVE
SOME PROBLEMS WITH SPENDING AND
IT.
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
WE HAVE TO DO -- THE PROBLEM IS
IT'S ABOUT DEFICITS.
NOT AS MUCH ABOUT SPENDING.
WHAT ARE WE WITH GOING TO DO
ABOUT -- WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO
ABOUT THESE DEFICITS THAT
ACCUMULATE EVERY YEAR?
WE HAVE EXPERIENCE IN RECENT
YEARS HOW TO HANDLE THAT.
DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, WE
REMEMBER SPENDING LESS MONEY --
WE WERE SPENDING LESS MONEY THAN
WE WERE BRINGING IN.
THE CRITICISM CAME FROM A NUMBER
OF IMPORTANT ECONOMICS THAT WE
WERE RETIRING THE DEBT TOO
QUICKLY.
WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK OFFICE,
HE TOOK THAT TO HEART.
THAT TIME WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE IT
WAS ABOUT $11 TRILLION SURPLUS
OVER TEN YEARS.
HE TOOK CARE OF THAT.
IN FACT, WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA
TOOK OFFICE, THAT EVAPORATED AND
IT EVAPORATED.
WE LOST 8 MILLION JOBS.
IT EVAPORATED BECAUSE WE HAD TWO
MONEY.
WARS ALL PAID FOR WITH BORROWED
WE HAD ALL THESE TAX CUTS PAID
FOR WITH BORROWED MONEY.
SO ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE, WE
WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO REIN IN
THESE DEFICITS, AND WE'VE HAD
EXPERIENCE AND WE KNOW HOW TO DO
THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID DURING
THE CLINTON YEARS WAS UNIQUE BUT
WE DID IT, AND IT WAS HARD.
WE HAD SOMETHING CALLED THE
PAYGO RULES.
WITHOUT ANY WASHINGTON INSIDE
JARGON, WHAT THIS MEANT IS IF
YOU HAVE A NEW PROGRAM TOUGH PAY
FOR IT.
EITHER HAVE TO PAY FOR IT BY
TAKING OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE
IN EXISTENCE AND GETTING RID OF
THOSE OR RAISING REVENUES.
WE DID THAT IN THE CLINTON
YEARS.
WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK OFFICE,
REPUBLICANS IN THE CONGRESS
WORKED WITH HIM AND GOT RID OF
THOSE RULES.
THAT'S HOW COME WE HAD
EVERYTHING THAT WAS UNPAID FOR.
IN FACT, UNPAID FOR IS AN
UNDERSTATEMENT.
IT WAS ALL BORROWED MONEY.
SO WE KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM
WITH DEFICITS AND WE WANT TO
WORK WITH THOSE.
TODAY AT THE WHITE HOUSE THERE
IS A MEETING.
I'VE APPOINTED A COUPLE OF
PEOPLE TO REPRESENT THE
DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE.
SENATOR INOUYE, CHAIRMAN OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE;
SENATOR BAUCUS, CHAIRMAN OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THE OTHER THREE LEADERS IN THE
CONGRESS HERE APPOINTED PEOPLE.
THEY'RE GOING TO MEET AND TALK
SERIOUSLY ABOUT WAYS OF REDUCING
THE DEFICITS WE HAVE.
I WOULD HOPE ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN TALKS
ABOUT WITH THEM, AND I'M
CONFIDENT WILL BE, IS WE DON'T
CAPS.
NEED TO TALK ABOUT SPENDING
CAPS.
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT DEFICIT
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WORK
TOWARD REDUCING THESE STAGGERING
DEBTS BY LOOKING AT EVERYTHING.
MR. PRESIDENT, I AM, LIKE MOST
EVERYBODY HERE IN THIS BODY, DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT
THOSE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO
ARE IN THE MILITARY.
BUT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE TOLD US IN A REPORT WHICH
WE FILED THAT THERE IS $100
BILLION A YEAR IN THE PENTAGON
THAT'S WASTED.
$100 BILLION.
WHEN ASKED IN A HEARING HOW MANY
PRIVATE CONTRACTORS THE MILITARY
HAS, THEY SAID WE DON'T KNOW.
UPON FURTHER QUESTIONING, THEY
SAID, WELL, WE EITHER HAVE, IT'S
BETWEEN A MILLION AND NINE
MILLION PEOPLE THAT ARE
CONTRACTORS.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THERE'S A LOT OF FAT IN THIS,
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT
DURING THE IRAQ WAR, IN THE
HEARINGS HELD AND CONDUCTED BY
SENATOR DORGAN, THAT THEY WERE
FOOTBALL.
USING WADS OF $100 BILLS TO PLAY
WE CAN SAVE A LOT OF MONEY BY
LOOKING AT DOMESTIC
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, MILITARY
SPENDING AND DOING A BETTER JOB
FAIR.
OF MAKING OUR TAX SYSTEM MORE
MR. PRESIDENT, TO SHOW HOW
UNFAIR OUR TAX SYSTEM IS TODAY,
WE TAX THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY
ABOUT $1 TRILLION A YEAR.
A LOT OF MONEY.
TAX BREAKS TO
$1,100,000,000,000.
CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS OF
WE GIVE MORE IN TAX BREAKS THAN
WE HAVE AS REVENUE TO THIS
COUNTRY.
WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE ALL THIS.
MY FRIEND WHO IS THE PRESIDING
OFFICER -- AND I SEE MY FRIEND
FROM UTAH HERE WHO WILL BE THE
COMMITTEE, FINANCE COMMITTEE --
RANKING MEMBER OF THAT IMPORTANT
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK
MORE FAIR.
TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS TAX SYSTEM
AND SO I APPRECIATE MY
REPUBLICAN FRIEND TALKING ABOUT
ALL OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO
HERE, BUT ONE THING THAT IS VERY
CLEAR THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO
RICH.
TOUCH ARE THOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE
IT'S VERY CLEAR HE DOESN'T WANT
TO DO ANYTHING TO DEAL WITH THE
TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.
HE WANTS TO GO AFTER
ENTITLEMENTS.
HE SAID SO HERE THIS MORNING,
WHICH ARE MEDICARE, SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICAID.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE A LOT
OF WORK TO DO.
THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO WORK
OUR WAY THROUGH THIS IS ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS.
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO IT.
THE HEAVILY REPUBLICAN HOUSE HAS
TO RECOGNIZE THAT.
THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE
THAT'S TO REALIZE THAT AND THE
PRESIDENT HAS TO REALIZE THAT
AND HE DOES AND THAT'S WHY HE'S
CONVENED THIS BIPARTISAN MEETING
MEETING.
UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP
TIME IS RESERVED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
SENATE WILL BE IN A PERIOD OF
MORNING BUSINESS FOR DEBATE ONLY
UNTIL 5:00 P.M. WITH SENATORS
PERMITTED TO SPEAK THEREIN FOR
UP TO 10 MINUTES EACH WITH THE
FIRST HOUR EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED BETWEEN THE TWO
LEADERS OR THEIR DESIGNEES WITH
THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLING THE
FIRST 30 MINUTES AND THE
MAJORITY CONTROLLING THE NEXT 30
MINUTES.
THE SENATOR FROM UTAH IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I BE
PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR 20
MINUTES.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE SENATOR IS
RECOGNIZED.
I RISE TO SPEAK ABOUT
AN UNFORTUNATE AND DISTUSHING
MATTER.
WHILE WE WERE HOME DURING THE
MOST RECENT RECESS, THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATION BOARD AFTER 17
MONTHS OF INDECISION ISSUED ONE
OF THE MOST FAR-REACHING AN
OUTRAGEOUS COMPLAINTS ISSUED
AGAINST THE BOARD.
THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST BOEING IS
ONE OF THE MOST OUTLANDISH AND
REGRETTABLE COMPLAINTS I HAVE
SEEN IN MY YEARS IN THE SENATE.
THE NLRB GENERAL COUNSEL SITTING
IN HIS IVORY TOUR IN WASHINGTON,
D.C., SUBSTITUTED HIS BUSINESS
JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF A PRIVATE
CORPORATION.
IN ESSENCE MR. SULLIVAN CLAIMED
THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHERE
AND HOW A PRIVATE COMPANY IS
PERMITTED TO DO BUSINESS.
THIS IS A PIECEUS CLAIM.
BOEING DID NOTHING WRONG AND I'M
CONFIDENT IT WILL ULTIMATELY
PREVAIL.
THIS COMPLAINT CARRIES A
POTENTIAL COST OF BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AN THOUSANDS OF NEW JOBS
FOR THE COMPANY AND THE
COMMUNITY WHERE IT CHOSE TO
OPERATE.
ALL?
SO WHY MAKE THIS DECISION AT
WHY ATTACK A PRIVATE COMPANY
WITH A LEGAL CHALLENGE THAT WILL
COST AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY
TO DEFEND, DISRUPTS BUSINESS,
UNDERMINES THE EFFORTS OF STATES
TO INCREASE JOBS AND PROMOTE
ECONOMIC RECOVERY, BUT THAT WILL
FAIL FOR ITS LACK OF MERIT?
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE, THE UNIONS
WANTED IT.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER CHAPTER IN
THE SORRY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
UNIONS, BIG GOVERNMENT AND THE
PARTY OF BIG GOVERNMENT.
I HAVE TO SAY I ADMIRE
MR. SULLIVAN'S MOXIE BY MAKING
THIS DECISION DURING A
CONGRESSIONAL RECESS.
IT IS ALMOST AS IF HE THOUGHT IT
MIGHT AVOID OUR SCRUTINY.
MAYBE HE THOUGHT NEWS LIKE THIS
MIGHT NOT MAKE ITS WAY BACK TO
THE STATES.
TO THAT I SAY, NICE TRY, BUT YOU
WILL NOT ESCAPE THE SCRUTINY OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN IT
COMES TO AN ACTION THIS OVER THE
TOP.
THE SUNSHINE WILL FALL ON A
DECISION LIKE THIS THAT IS SO
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
IN THE LIGHT OF DAY THE DECISION
AND THE DECISION MAKERS ARE
GOING TO LOOK AWFULLY BAD.
THE NLRB BOEING COMPLAINT HAS
BEEN CRITICIZED HERE IN THE
SENATE AND THROUGHOUT THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY AS A FEDERAL
DEMOCRACY RUN AMUCK.
THIS IS MORE THAN ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF AN UNACCOUNTABLE
BUREAUCRACY HURTING JOB MAKERS
AND EMPLOYERS.
WHAT MAKES THIS CASE
PARTICULARLY UGLY IS THIS IS A
CASE OF REGULATORS SUPPORTING
BIG LABOR AGAINST PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE.
WHAT MAKES THIS CASE APPALLING
IS THAT IT IS A GIFT WRAPPED
PRESENT TO THE INTEREST THAT SO
HAPPENS TO BE THE LARGEST
CONTRIBUTOR TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY
CAMPAIGNS.
THE NLRB ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT
AGAINST BOEING FOR ALLEGEDLY
TRANSFERRING ASSEMBLY WORK ON
THE DREAMLINE ARER AIRPLANES
FROM PUGET SOUND WASHINGTON TO
SOUTH CAROLINA.
BOEING MADE A LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS DECISION TO OPEN A NEW
PLANT WITH NEW WORKERS AND A NEW
MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY CLIMATE.
IT CHOSE SOUTH CAROLINA IN PART
TO AVOID LABOR DISPUTES AND
CRIPPLING STRIKES WHICH HAD
BEFALLEN THE COMPANY REPEATEDLY
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
WHEN BOEING FIRST MADE THIS
DECISION WAY BACK IN 2009, IT
HAD EXPERIENCED FOUR MAJOR LABOR
STRIKES IN 20 YEARS.
THE MOST RECENT WORK STOPPAGE, A
53 DAY STRIKE IN 2008 COST THE
COMPANY $1.8 BILLION.
WITH THE DECISION TO BRING NEW
WORK TO SOUTH CAROLINA A PRUDENT
BUSINESS DECISION, BOEING FACES
SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL COMPETITION.
THE FRENCH COMPANY AIRBUS IS
ANXIOUS TO TAKE BOEING'S
BUSINESS WITH THE HELP AND
BACKING, I MIGHT ADD OF THE
FRENCH GOVERNMENT, WAS THE
DECISION GOOD FOR AMERICAN
WORKERS?
CLEARLY BOEING'S DECISION WAS.
IN THE CURRENT MARKETPLACE MANY
OF BOEING'S COMPETITORS MIGHT
HAVE CONSIDERED MOVING JOBS
OVERSEAS MUCH INSTEAD OF
FOLLOWING THAT COURSE, BOEING
SAVED AMERICAN JOBS.
THE PRESIDENT LIKES TO TALK
ABOUT JOBS THAT HE HAS CREATED
AND SAVED.
WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, NOT A
SINGLE JOB UNION OR NONUNION WAS
LOST IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
AS A RESULT OF BOEING'S
DECISION.
IN FACT OVER 2,000 NEW JOBS HAVE
BEEN CREATED IN PIEWJ IT --
PUGET SOUND SINCE THE COMPANY'S
ANNOUNCEMENT TO BEGIN WORK ON
THE NEW FACILITY.
THIS IS NOT TO MENTION SOUTH
CAROLINA WHERE HUNDREDS OF NEW
JOBS WERE CREATED.
ADDED JOBS IN WASHINGTON AND
ADDED JOBS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUNDS LIKE A WIN-WIN FOR
AMERICAN WORKERS TO ME.
SO, YES, BOEING'S DECISION TO
BUILD ITS NEW PLANT IN SOUTH
CAROLINA WAS GOOD FOR JUST ABOUT
EVERYBODY.
YET, WITHOUT ASSERTING ANY
EVIDENCE OF ANTIUNION ANIMUS ON
THE PART OF BOEING OR AN ADVERSE
IMPACT ON UNION WORKERS
EXERCISING THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS,
THE NLRB SOUGHT TO STEP IN AND
MAKE BOEING'S BUSINESS DECISIONS
FOR THEM.
AS SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR
DESCRIBED IT IN AN APRIL 26
"WALL STREET JOURNAL" EDITORIAL
-- QUOTE -- "THE EXCITEMENT IN
SOUTH CAROLINA TURNED TO GLOOM
FOR MILLIONS OF SOUTH
CAROLINIANS WHO ARE RIGHTLY
AGHAST AT THE THOUGHT OF THE
GREATEST ECONOMIC SUCCESS WE
HAVE SEEN IN DECADES BEING
RIPPED AWAY FROM DEMOCRATS.
I THINK GOVERNOR HALEY SHOULD BE
APPLAUDED FOR CALLING THE NLRB A
HAND WRAPPED PRESENT TO BIG
LABOR COURTESY TO THEIR FRIENDS
IN THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY AND
THE ADMINISTRATION.
LET'S LOOK AT THE NLRB'S
COMPLAIFNLT LET'S CONSIDER THE
TIMING OF THE COMPLAINT.
IT IS HIGHLY SUSPECT, IF YOU CAN
ASK ME.
-- IF YOU ASK ME.
THE BOEING COMPLAINT COMES A FEW
MONTH BFS THE NEW SOUTH CAROLINA
FACILITY WAS SCHEDULED TO OPEN
IN JULY AND WELL AFTER MOST OF
THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED
AND THE NEW WORKERS WERE HIRED.
IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER MOST OF
BOEING'S SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS
HAD BEEN MADE, THE HEAVY HAND OF
THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
INTERVENED TO DICTATE THAT ITS
BUSINESS DECISION MUST BE
REVERSED.
IN ITS APRIL 21 EDITORIAL "THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL," DESCRIBES
THE BOEING COMPLAINT SAYING --
QUOTE -- "AFTER 17 MONTHS
AND $2 BILLION, THE NLRB
SANDBAGS BOEING."
THE EDITORIAL CONTINUED -- QUOTE
-- "THERE ARE PLENTY OF LEGAL
PRECEDENCE THAT GIVES BUSINESSES
THE RIGHT TO LOCATE BUSINESSES
IN RIGHT-TO-WORK STATES.
THAT RIGHT HAS CREATED HEALTHY
COMPETITION AMONG STATES AND
KEPT TENS OF MILLIONS OF JOBS IN
AMERICA RATHER THAN OVERSEAS."
AN OPINION EDITORIAL BY STEVEN
PEARLSTEIN IN "THE WASHINGTON
POST" IS EVEN MORE TELLING.
ALTHOUGH MR. PEARLSTEIN WAS NOT
UNEXPECTEDLY SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE
OF BIG LABOR AND THE NLRB'S
ACTION IN THIS CASE HE
NEVERTHELESS ACKNOWLEDGED --
QUOTE -- "IF THE AGENCY PREVAILS
AND ENABLES BOEING TO OPEN AN
ADDITIONAL LINE IN SEATTLE THEY
CAN PUT A BRAKE ON THE STEADY
FLOW TO MANUFACTURING JOBS IN
RIGHT-TO-WORK STATES IN THE
SOUTH.
PEARLSTEIN HITS IT ON THE HEAD.
THE DECISION TO FILE THIS
COMPLAINT IS AN ATTACK ON
BUSINESS FRIENDLY STATES
ATTRACTING COMPANIES AND
CREATING JOBS.
IT IS AN EFFORT BY WASHINGTON
DEMOCRATS AND CAREER BUREAUCRATS
COUNTRY.
TO FORCE UNIONISM ON THE ENTIRE
YET IN MY VIEW PEARLSTEIN DOES
NOT ADEQUATELY STATE THE
RADICALISM OF THE NLRB'S
DECISION.
THE FACT IS THAT IF THE NLRB
DURING THE -- DOING THE BIDDING
OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINIST AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS PREVAILS HERE, IT WILL
GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DICTATE
BUSINESS LOCATION DECISIONS
EVERYWHERE EVEN IN
NONRIGHT-TO-WORK STATES.
NOW THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF
MISINFORMATION COMING FROM THOSE
WHO SUPPORT THE NLRB'S ACTIONS.
IN THIS ARTICLE PEARLSTEIN
INACCURATELY DESCRIBES BOEING'S
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY IN SOUTH
CAROLINA AS A RUNAWAY SHOP.
BOEING HAD NO -- IT WAS NOT
OBLIGATED UNDER ANY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO KEEP THE
WORK THERE.
IT SIMPLY CHOSE TO LOCATE NEW
WORK AND NEW EXPANSION IN A
BUSINESS FRIENDLY RIGHT-TO-WORK
STATE.
IS THAT A RUNAWAY SHOP?
I THINK NOT.
AND I THINK MOST EVERYBODY WOULD
THINK NOT.
APPARENTLY THE NLRB AGREES WITH
ME BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT DOES
NOT ALLEGE THAT THIS WAS A
CLASSIC RUNAWAY SHOP.
IN THOSE SITUATIONS BARGAINING
UNIT WORK THAT IS CONTRACTUALLY
OBLIGATED TO BE PERFORMED BY
MEMBERS OF THE UNION IS SHUT
DOWN UNILATERALLY BY MANAGEMENT.
EMPLOYEES ARE LAID OFF AND THE
COMPANY STEALTHILY SLIPS OUT OF
TOWN WITH LITTLE OR NO NOTICE
ONLY TO OPEN IN A NEW LOCATION
TO PERFORM THE SAME WORK ON A
UNION FREE BASIS.
UNDER THE LAW THAT IS WRONG.
THE NLRB MAKES NO SUCH
ALLEGATIONS HERE BECAUSE THAT'S
NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.
INSTEAD THE COMPLAINT FALLS BACK
ON THE BROAD CATCH-ALL ARGUMENT
THAT BOEING'S ACTIONS WERE
INHERENTLY DESTRUCTION OF UNION
WORKERS SECTION 7 RIGHTS,
REFERRING TO THE RIGHTS
PROTECTED IN SECTION 7 OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
WHICH IN THIS CASE MEANS THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE.
IF THAT THEORY WERE TO APPLY TO
ALL CASES LIKE THIS ONE, IF
COMPANIES CANNOT FACTOR LABOR
DECISIONS INTO DECISIONS
REGARDING NEW OPERATIONS WITHOUT
IT BEING INHERENTLY DESTRUCTIVE
OF SECTION 7 RIGHTS, THERE IS NO
LOGICAL END TO WHAT PRIVATE
DECISIONS CAN BE OVERRULED BY
THE NLRB.
THIS IS AN AGENCY RUN AMOK AND
CONGRESS.
TRYING TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THIS
FORTUNATELY THE LEGAL PRECEDENCE
DEALING WITH THIS TYPE OF
DECISION DO NOT SUPPORT THE
ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL'S
INTERPRETATION IN THE BOEING
COMPLAINT.
THE CASES CITED IN THE COMPLAINT
ARE ALL DISTINGUISHABLE.
NOT ONE OF THEM DEALS WITH FACT
PATTERNS INVOLVING NEW WORK
BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING UNLAWFUL
ABOUT OPENING A NEW FACILITY TO
PERFORM NEW WORK THAT IS NOT
OBLIGATED UNDER AN EXISTING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
PUT SIMPLY, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER
EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE
UNION-PACKED OBAMA NLRB TO UNDO
YEARS OF LABOR PRECEDENCE TO
SATISFY BIG LABOR.
IF BOEING'S ACTIONS ARE
INHERENTLY DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
ANTIDISCRIMINATION?
UNION'S RIGHT WHERE IS THE
ONCE AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT, NO
NOT A SINGLE UNION WORKER LOST A
JOB OR AN HOUR OF WORK AS A
RESULT OF BOEING'S BUSINESS
DECISION.
LET'S BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, BOEING
WORKERS IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON ACTUALLY GAINED NEW
WORK AND GAINED 2,000 NEW JOBS
FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN 2009.
THESE JOBS ARE AMONG THE BEST
PAID IN AMERICA.
DISCRIMINATION?
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE ANTIUNION
OF COURSE NOT.
THIS WAS NOT A STUFFED MOVE IN
THE DARK OF THE NIGHT.
NO ONE WAS SURPRISED CAUGHT OFF
GUARD.
OF.
THE MACHINIST UNION KNEW THAT
BOEING WAS BUILDING A
MACHINIST -- WORKERS KNEW ABOUT
BOEING'S PLANS AS WELL.
SO DID THE NLRB.
BUT BEFORE ISSUING HIS
COMPLAINT, THE ACTING GENERAL
COUNSEL STOOD FOR 17 MONTHS
WHILE NEW FACILITIES WERE BEING
CONSTRUCTED AT GREAT EXPENSE IN
SOUTH CAROLINA AT THE COST OF
BILLIONS OF BURGLARS AND WORKERS
WERE HIRED TO RUN THE ASSEMBLY
LINES.
IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT IF
CAROLINA WORKERS WANTED A UNION,
THEY, LIKE ANY OTHER PRIVATE
SECTOR EMPLOYEES IN SOUTH
CAROLINA OR ANY OTHER STATE,
COULD FILE A PETITION WITH THE
ELECTION.
NLRB FOR A UNION REPRESENTATION
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, ZERO
EVIDENCE OF ANTIUNION
DISCRIMINATION BY BOEING TO ANY
UNION PETITION OR UNION
REPRESENTATION ELECTION.
BUT, AND I CAN'T STRESS THIS
ENOUGH, THE MOST IMPORTANT
FACTOR IS THAT THE WORK IN SOUTH
CAROLINA WAS NEW WORK, WHICH
BOEING WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO
PERFORM IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON UNDER ITS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
BOEING SIMPLY DECIDED FOR SOUND
BUSINESS REASONS TO OPEN A NEW
FACILITY TO PERFORM NEW WORK IN
A BUSINESS FRIENDLY STATE.
THIS IS SOMETHING BUSINESSES CAN
DO ALL THE TIME AND DO DO ALL
THE TIME.
THAT IS THEY USED TO DO IT ALL
THE TIME BEFORE PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL
IN THE -- AND THE MIGHT OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY UNDER THE
HEAVY HAND OF CONTROL OF BIG
LABOR DECIDED TO STEP IN TO
INTERFERE WITH BOEING'S
DECISION.
IF THIS COMPLAINT IS UPHELD AND
THIS INTERPRETATION BECOMES THE
NEW STATUS QOA WHO KNOWS HOW IT
FUTURE.
WILL IMPACT BUSINESSES IN THE
EVERY CITIZEN IN SOUTH CAROLINA
AND EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, OUGHT TO
BE OUTRAGED BY THE NLRB, THE
NATIONAL RELATIONS LABOR BOARD'S
DECISION AN ACT.
-- AND ACTION.
IF THEY CAN DO IT HERE THEY CAN
DO IT ANYWHERE.
IN THE NLRB CAN DO THIS IN SOUTH
CAROLINA DISRUPTING BUSINESS AND
KILLING JOBS, IT CAN HAPPEN
ANYWHERE INCLUDING UTAH OR ANY
OTHER RIGHT-TO-WORK STATE OR
NONRIGHT-TO-WORK STATES.
THE MOST APPALLING PART ABOUT
THIS COMPLAINT, MR. PRESIDENT,
IS NOT THE BORDERLINE
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, NO,
IT'S THE REMEDIES THE AGENCY IS
SEEKING.
AFTER ASSERTING THAT BOEING
UNLAWFULLY TRANSFERRED
BARGAINING WORK TO SOUTH
CAROLINA, THE BEING AING GENERAL
COUNSEL, A CAREER NLRB
BUREAUCRAT THROUGHOUT HIS
GOVERNMENT LEGAL CAREER HAS
NEVER BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAKING A SINGLE ENTREPRENEURIAL
DECISION OR CREATING A SINGLE
JOB SOUGHT AN ORDER STIPULATING
THAT THE BOEING WORK ON THE 787
DREAMLINER COULD NOT BE
PERFORMED IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND
WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED BACK TO
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
NOT BACK, THIS WOULD BE TO THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
THIS IS NEW BUSINESS.
AS IS TYPICAL IN THESE CASES THE
BOEING COMPLAINT WOULD BE SURELY
SUBJECT TO LENGTHY LITIGATION
WHILE BOEING'S FOREIGN
COMPETITORS EAGERLY SEEK TO SUB
PLANT BOEING'S BUSINESS ORDERS.
EVEN IF
BOEING PREVAILS IT COULD LOSE
ARE THE BUSINESS WAR TO FIERCE
BUSINESS OPPOSITION.
THAT IS STUPID TO PUT THEM IN
THIS POSITION.
THE MACHINISTS KNOW THAT AND SO
DOES THE NLRB.
MIGHT I REMIND THE SUPPORTERS OF
THE NLRB IS THAT JUSTICE DELAYED
IS JUSTICE DENIED.
THE LONGER THE WHEELS TURN THE
WORSE IT IS FOR BOEING'S
BUSINESS AND THE WORSE IT IS FOR
AMERICA'S JOBS AND PROSPERITY.
THE COMPANY MIGHT BE FORCED TO
SEEP SETTLE -- TO ACCEPT A
SETTLE.
THIS IS NO LESS THAN ECONOMIC
WARFARE BEING WAGED BY THE NLRB
ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
FRIENDS, THE LABOR UNIONS
AGAINST BOEING, WORKERS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA AND 22 RIGHT-TO-WORK
STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
AND IT MAY EVEN BE AGAINST THE
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND
BENEFITS OF THE PEOPLE IN
WASHINGTON, BECAUSE IF BOEING TO
BE COMPETITIVE HAS TO MOVE
OFFSHORE, THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE
THEIR JOBS.
IN THE END IT IS ECONOMIC
WARFARE BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION AGAINST ALL
BUSINESS-FRIENDLY STATES AND
AGAINST CAPITALISM AND FREE
ENTERPRISE EVERYWHERE.
I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE SAYING
THIS.
I KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE
ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN NINE STATES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY: NEVADA,
VIRGINIA, GEORGIA, OKLAHOMA,
FLORIDA AND SOUTH CAROLINA, HAVE
WRITTEN TO MR. SRAUPBL ASKING
THE BOEING -- MR. SULLIVAN
ASKING THE BOEING BE WITHDRAWN.
IT REPRESENTS -- IT IS AGAINST
THE ABILITY OF OUR STATES TO
RECRUIT JOBS.
YOUR ACTIONS SERIOUSLY
UNDERMINES OUR CITIZENS' RIGHT
TO WORK AS WELL AS THEIR ABILITY
TO COMPETE GLOBALLY.
THEREFORE, AS ATTORNEYS GENERAL
WE WILL PROTECT OUR CITIZENS
COERCION.
FROM UNION BOEING AND FEDERAL
WE CALL UPON YOU TO CEASE THIS
ATTACK ON OUR RIGHT TO WORK, OUR
STATE'S ECONOMIES AND OUR JOBS.
EDITORIALS FROM ACROSS -- FROM
NEWSPAPERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
HAVE CRITICIZED THE BOEING
COMPLAINT.
EVEN THE SEATTLE TIMES WROTE IN
AN APRIL 22 EDITORIAL -- QUOTE
-- "THIS PAGE REGRETTED BOEING
DECISIONS BUT NEVER THOUGHT OF
IT AS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE OR
SHOULD BE REVERSED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."
THAT THE -- QUOTE -- "NATIONAL
THE ARTICLE CONTINUES SAYING
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LABELED
BOEING'S DECISION AN UNFAIR
LABEL PRACTICE AND IS ASKING THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MOVE THE
LINE.
WE WOULD CELEBRATE THE DAY
BOEING DECIDES TO DO THAT BUT IT
IS BOEING'S DECISION."
THE SAME EDITORIAL CONCLUDED
"THE COMPANY HAS A RIGHT TO
BUILD ASSEMBLY PLANTS.
IT CAN BUILD THEM IN SOUTH
CAROLINA OR AFGHANISTAN IF IT
LIKES.
ITS DECISION MIGHT BE UNWISE BUT
IT IS BOEING'S."
THESE SAME SENTIMENTS WERE
EXPRESSED IN THE PRESIDENT'S
HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER.
A CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
DESCRIBED THE NLRB ACTING
GENERAL COUNSEL'S ACTIONS A --
QUOTE -- "GROSS INTRUSION."
THE EDITORIAL CONTINUED "BOEING,
A CHICAGO-BASED AVIATION
COMPANY, ALREADY HAS ONE
HEADACHE.
ITS MAIN RIVAL AIRBUS S.A.S.
RECEIVED FROM EUROPEAN NATIONS
SUBSIDIES PROHIBITED BY
INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.
THAT IS CHALLENGING ENOUGH FOR
BOEING AS IT TRIES TO COMPETE IN
AN INTERNATIONAL MARKET."
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TRIES TO
DICTATE WHERE BOEING CAN DO
BUSINESS?
THAT'S EVEN HARDER TO STOMACH.
UNQUOTE.
THE TRIBUNE EDITORIAL CONCLUDED
-- QUOTE -- "THE DISASTROUS
UNINTENDED MESSAGE TO A MAJOR
U.S. EMPLOYER, KEEP YOUR MOUTH
SHUT AND FIND ANOTHER COUNTRY TO
DO BUSINESS, UNQUOTE.
THE DETROIT NEWS HAS THE
ADMINISTRATION PEGGED.
PRESIDENT AND HIS PROUNION
ABOUT THIS DECISION THE HE EDITORS
WROTE, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
MADE CONCILIATORY SOUNDS SEEKING
TO DO BUSINESS.
CONGRESS OUGHT TO HOLD HEARINGS
ON REINING IN THE NLRB.
UNQUOTE.
IF THE NLRB'S COMPLAINT IS SO
TRANSPARENTLY AWFUL, WHAT IS
THIS ALL ABOUT?
LET'S SEE.
AN UNFAIR DECISION COMES LATE IN
THE GAME.
IT THREATENS TO DESTROY RATHER
THAN CREATE JOBS.
AND IT IS BASED ON SPEECHLESS
LEGAL REASONING.
JOBS.
REST ASSURED, THE ISSUE IS NOT
THE ISSUE IS UNION JOBS.
AND THE ISSUE IS NOT BETTER PAY
FOR WORKERS.
THE ISSUE IS ABOUT MONEY IN THE
UNION COFFERS.
AND ULTIMATELY THE ISSUE IS
ABOUT THE 2012 ELECTIONS BECAUSE
MONEY IN UNION COFFERS MEANS
MONEY FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS UNION IS IMPORTANT TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
IT ENDORSED HIM AND CONTRIBUTED
SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES TO HIS
CAMPAIGN.
AND WHILE PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD
NOT DELIVER ON SUCH LEGISLATIVE
INITIATIVES AS THE EMPLOYEE-FREE
CHOICE ACT, HE APPEARS
DETERMINED THAT EVERY LEVER OF
GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY AT THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
WILL BE TURNED IN THE UNION'S
FAVOR.
THE CONTEMPT FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ON DISPLAY IN THIS
DECISION IS ASTOUNDING.
THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL
DEMOCRATS WERE UNABLE TO ENACT
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT
CONGRESS.
EVEN WITH SUPERMAJORITIES IN
THAT'S THE CARD CHECK BILL.
NOT TO WORRY, JUST HAVE SOME
BUREAUCRATS DO IT FOR THEM.
SINCE THE CONGRESS COULDN'T ACT,
WHY NOT HAVE THESE BUREAUCRATS
USURP CONGRESS'S POSITION AND DO
IT FOR THEM?
KEEP THIS EPISODE IN MIND THE
NEXT TIME YOU HEAR PROGRESSIVES
TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR
ENLIGHTENED ADMINISTRATION.
KEEP IT IN MIND WHEN YOU HEAR
PROGRESSIVES, REALLY LIBERALS,
COMPLAIN THAT THE PRESIDENT IS
JUST INTERESTED IN DOING WHAT
IDEOLOGICAL.
WORKS AND THAT HE IS NOT
PROGRESSIVES ULTIMATELY HAVE
LITTLE RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF
LAW OR FOR THE PEOPLE
THEMSELVES.
FOR ALL THEIR TALK ABOUT
NONPARTISANSHIP AND DOING WHAT
WORKS, WHAT THEY REALLY PROMOTE
IS A SUPPOSEDLY ENLIGHTENED
BUREAUCRACY THAT IN FACT WILL
PUSH LIBERAL POLICIES REGARDLESS
OF WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.
PROGRESSIVES ARE TO
NONPARTISANSHIP AS DONALD TRUMP
IS TO SUBTLETY.
ULTIMATELY, PROGRESSIVES ARE AS
PARTISAN AS THEY COME AND THEY
PUSH THEIR LIBERALISM THROUGH A
VAST AND PERMANENT BUREAUCRACY
THAT PLODS ALONG DAY AFTER DAY,
LARGELY OUT OF SIGHT OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER
ELECT REPRESENTATIVES WHO WOULD
ACTUALLY PROMOTE THIS LEFTIST
ANTIBUSINESS AGENDA.
WHEN FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
NANCY PELOSI SAID ELECTIONS
SHOULD NOT MATTER AS MUCH AS
THEY DO, THIS IS WHAT SHE MEANT.
LIBERALISM SHOULD ADVANCE NO
MATTER WHAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS
COUNTRY ACTUALLY DESIRE.
AND THE FOOT SOLDIERS THAT WILL
ADVANCE THE CAUSES OF
PROGRESSIVE LEFTISM DAY IN AND
DAY OUT ARE THE UNELECTED AND
LARGELY UNACCOUNTABLE
BUREAUCRATS THAT CHURN OUT PAGE
AFTER PAGE OF REGULATION AND
INFILTRATE THE DECISION MAKING
PROGRESS OF EVERY BUSINESS, NO
MATTER HOW SMALL THE DECISION OR
HOW SMALL THE BUSINESS, WHICH
BRINGS ME TO THE NLRB'S ACTING
GENERAL COUNSEL.
HOW DID HE WIND UP IN A POSITION
THAT CAUSED THIS LEVEL OF
ECONOMIC MAYHEM?
NOT UNDER THE ESTABLISHED
PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTING AN
INTERIM GENERAL COUNSEL UNDER
SECTION 3-D OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT WHICH
PROVIDES VERY CLEARLY AS
FOLLOWS: IN CASE OF SRAEUBG IN
THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT IS
AUTHORIZED TO DESIGNATE THE
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHO SHALL
ACT AS GENERAL COUNSEL DURING
SUCH VACANCY.
BUT NO PERSON OR PERSONS SO
DESIGNATED SHALL SO ACT, ONE,
FOR MORE THAN 40 DAYS WHEN THE
CONGRESS IS IN SESSION UNLESS A
NOMINATION TO FILL SUCH VACANCY
SENATE.
SHALL HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
OR, TWO, AFTER THE ADJOURNMENT
SIGN DIE OF THE SESSION OF THE
SENATE IN WHICH SUCH NOMINATION
WAS SUBMITTED.
PRESIDENT OBAMA IGNORED THE
STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR
APPOINTING A COUNSEL UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND
INSTEAD MADE MR. SUL LIMAN HIS
PERSONAL ACT THE COUNSEL UNDER
THE VACANCIES ACT, WHICH IS
INTENDED TO APPLY TO GOVERNMENT
VACANCIES IN GENERAL.
EVEN IF HE IS TECHNICALLY
AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT USE THE
VACANCIES ACT TO SUPPLANT OR
DISPLACE SPECIFIC STATUTORY
PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTING
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO VACANCIES
WHEREAS HERE AS UNDER THE
NATIONAL RELATIONS LABOR ACT THE
ORGANIC LAW IS CLEAR AS TO THE
INTENDED PROCESS.
WHY DID PRESIDENT OBAMA MAKE THE
APPOINTMENT UNDER THE VACANCIES
ACT RATHER THAN FOLLOW THE MORE
PREFERRED AND TRADITIONAL
PROCEDURE PROVIDED UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT?
THE ANSWER IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
UNDER THE VACANCIES ACT
MR. SULLIMAN WAS ALLOWED TO STAY
IN THE JOB IN AN ACTING CAPACITY
FOR AN INITIAL 210 DAYS RATHER
THAN THE 40 DAYS PROVIDED UNDER
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
AND THEN BE REAPPOINTED AGAIN
FOR ANOTHER 210 DAYS AND A THIRD
TIME FOR ANOTHER 210 DAYS UNTIL
TERM.
THE END OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
THIS IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
THE PRESIDENT END RUNNING THE
LAW IN ORDER TO ESCONCE IN
OFFICE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD
HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME SURVIVING
THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED
CONFIRMATION PROCESS, A PROCESS
THAT ENSURES THE PEOPLE AND
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SOME
APPOINTEE.
MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT OF THE
SO WHY NO COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS
APPOINTMENT BEFORE NOW?
I SUPPOSE SOME SHOULD HAVE.
I SUPPOSE AFTER THE BATTLE OF
THE NOMINATION OF AFL-CIO AND
SEIU, SOCIAL COUNSEL CRAIG
BECKER TO THE NLRB, MANY WERE
CONVINCED THEY COULD DO A LOT
WORSE RATHER THAN HAVE A CAREER
COUNSEL.
NLRB SERVE AS ACTING GENERAL
I'M NOT SURE ANYONE FEELS THAT
WAY NOW.
IN SPITE OF RECENT ACTIONS, IT
IS HARD TO CONCEIVE OF A WORSE
CHOICE FOR ACTING GENERAL
COUNSEL.
REVISITED.
THAT DECISION SHOULD BE
THAT'S WHY I'M WRITING TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA TO REQUEST THAT
HE WITHDRAW THE APPOINTMENT OF
MR. SULLIMAN.
AS FAR AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
NOMINATION OF MR. SUL LIMAN FOR
FULL TERM AS GENERAL COUNSEL IS
CONCERNED, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
IMAGINE HOW MR. SULLIMAN COULD
BE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE IN
VIEW OF HIS ACTIONS WHILE
COUNSEL.
SERVING AS ACTING GENERAL
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS LIKE THE ONES
WE'VE SEEN WITH THE BOEING
COMPLAINT ARE DEBILITATE TO GO
OUR ECONOMY AT A TIME WE ARE
STRUGGLING TO RECOVER FROM ONE
OF THE NATION'S WORST RECESSIONS
SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
SUCH BUREAUCRATIC DECISIONS COST
JOBS AT A TIME WE'RE STRUGGLING
TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT.
THEY DELAY BUSINESS ADDITION
MAKING.
THEY UNDERMINE BUSINESS
CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT.
WHY SHOULD COMPANIES INVEST IN
EXPANDING BUSINESSES IN THE
UNITED STATES IF, WITH THE DROP
OF A HAT A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT
CAN SIMPLY REVERSE THAT DECISION
AND DESTROY THAT INVESTMENT?
AT THIS POINT WE ARE LEFT
SCRATCHING OUR HEADS.
WHY WOULD THE ACTING GENERAL
COUNSEL DO THIS OUTRAGEOUS ACT?
UNFORTUNATELY, THE ANSWER
APPEARS TO BE THAT THE DECISION
TO ISSUE THE COMPLAINT WAS A
POLITICAL ONE DESIGNED TO
PLACATE AN IMPORTANT ALLY OF THE
PRESIDENT'S: ORGANIZED LABOR.
THAT ANSWER, WHILE UNACCEPTABLE,
IS THE ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER.
AS THE APRIL 21 "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" CONCLUDED, -- QUOTE --
"BEYOND LABOR POLITICS, THE
NLRB'S RULING WOULD SET A
TERRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR THE FLOW
OF JOBS AND INVESTMENTS WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES.
IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY GIVE LABOR
A VETO OVER MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
ABOUT WHERE TO BUILD FUTURE
PLANTS."
HAPPEN.
THAT MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO
THE NLRB SHOULD WITHDRAW THE
BOEING COMPLAINT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA'S
RECOGNIZED.
I WOULD ASK THAT
THE QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED
WITH.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE THERE'S AN
AGREEMENT THAT ANOTHER MEMBER
WOULD SPEAK AT 11:00.
IF SO, WILL YIELD AT THAT TIME.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
FINANCIAL STATUS OF OUR COUNTRY.
WE ARE CLEARLY ON AN
UNSUSTAINABLE SPENDING PATH.
THE PEOPLE ARE RIGHTLY FURIOUS
WITH THEIR CONGRESS.
WE SHOULD, AS THEY WELL KNOW,
NEVER EVER HAVE GOTTEN OURSELVES
IN THE FINANCIAL SITUATION WE'RE
IN TODAY IN WHICH WE ARE ARE
PROJECTED TO HAVE A DEFICIT THIS
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
SEPTEMBER 30th
OF $1.5 TRILLION, THE LARGEST
DEFICIT THE COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD
ON TOP OF DEFICITS THE LAST TWO
YEARS OF $1.2 TRILLION,
OF $1.2 TRILLION, $1.3 TRILLION.
WE'RE ON A PATH TO DOUBLE THE
ENTIRE UNITED STATES DEBT IN
LESS THAN FOUR YEARS.
IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, MAYBE
ONE MORE YEAR, WE WILL DOUBLE
STATES.
THE ENTIRE DEBT OF THE UNITED
WE ARE ON AN UNSUSTAINABLE PATH,
AS EVERY WITNESS WHO'S EVER
TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR BUDGET
COMMITTEE, AT LEAST IN RECENT
YEARS HAS STATED IT IS AN
UNACCEPTABLE SITUATION THAT WE
ARE IN.
THERE WAS A IS A SHALACKING OF BIG
GOVERNMENT FOLKS.
WE'VE NOT EVEN HAD A BUDGET IN
HAD A BUDGET.
TWO YEARS,, 735 DAYS, WE HAVE NOT
THE BUDGET ACT REQUIRES THAT
CONGRESS PASS A BUDGET BY
APRIL 15th.
THE HOUSE HAS DONE THEIRS.
THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE HAS PASSED
A BUDGET, A HISTORIC BUDGET.
THE REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATIC SENATE
NOW IS TALKING ABOUT COMMENCING
HEARINGS TUESDAY.
AND I HOPE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD
HEARING AND MAYBE WE WILL HAVE
SO, I WILL JUST SAY, THAT OUR
MEMBERS, THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS
OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE ASKED
OUR CHAIRMAN TO DO AS THE HOUSE
DID AND MAKE PUBLIC YOUR BUDGET
IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING SO
THAT IT CAN BE EXAMINED.
IT'S A COMPLEX DOCUMENT.
IT'S TAKES SOME TIME AND EFFORT,
NOT JUST TO PROP IT DOWN THE DAY
THE HEARING STARTS AND I'VE BEEN
INFORMED THAT -- THAT BUSINESS
AS USUAL WILL CONTINUE UNLIKE
WHAT THE HOUSE DID IN THE -- TO
HAVE A DOCUMENT OUT EARLY.
THEY WILL HAVE -- BRING US OUT A
BUDGET THAT DAY AND WE'LL
COMMENCE OUR GUESTS TO TRY TO
VOTE ON IT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A
HEALTHY WAY TO -- TO PROCEED.
WE ARE FACING THE GREATEST
FINANCIAL RISK MAYBE THIS
COUNTRY HAS EVER FACED.
THE PRESIDENT APPOINTED A FISCAL
COMMISSION, WE CALL IT THE DEBT
COMMISSION.
ERS KIN BOWLES -- ERSKINE BOWLES
AN ALAN SIMPSON, APPOINTED BY
THE PRESIDENT, THEY WROTE A
DOCUMENT THEY PRESENTED TO US AS
THEIR REMARKS THROUGH THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE THAT SAID THIS NATION
IS FACING THE MOST PREDICTABLE
ECONOMIC CRISIS IN ITS HISTORY.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE SAYING
THE PATH WE ARE ON IS SO
UNSUSTAINABLE THAT IT'S EASY TO
PREDICT THAT WE'RE FACING AND
CRISIS.
HEADING TOWARD A FINANCIAL
AND THERE'S NO HIGHER DUTY, NO
HIGHER RESPONSIBLY FOR MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
THAN TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF
THIS COUNTRY FROM A FORESEEABLE
DANGER.
WHEN ASKED BY CHAIRMAN CONRAD
WHEN WE MIGHT HAVE SUCH A
CRISIS, MR. BOWLES SAID IN HIS
OPINION IT COULD BE TWO YEARS, A
LITTLE LESS, A LITTLE MORE.
A FINANCIAL CRISIS.
SOMETHING LIKE GREECE IS WHAT
HE'S REFERRING TO, ANOTHER
RECESSION, A SURGE OF INFLATION,
A SURGE IN INTEREST RATES.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING HE'S
TALKING ABOUT.
SENATOR SIMPSON, THE CO-CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMISSION SAID, I THINK
IT COULD BE ONE YEAR.
THE S&P 500 BOND EVALUATORS HAVE
DEBT.
WARNED THEY COULD DOWNGRADE OUR
IN FACT, MOODY'S IN DECEMBER
WARNED THAT THEY COULD REDUCE
THE RATING OF THE AMERICAN DEBT
IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS.
WE'RE AT A -- WE'RE IN A
SERIOUS, UNSUSTAINABLE POSITION.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A BUDGET.
WELL, THE PRESIDENT IS REQUIRED
BY LAW TO SUBMIT A BUDGET.
EVERY PRESIDENT DOES.
I ASK THAT WHEN HE MADE HIS
STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS THAT
HE WOULD ADDRESS AND DISCUSS THE
DANGER WE ARE IN WHY THE NATION
NEEDS TO REDUCE SPENDING, WHY
IT'S NOT SOME PARTISAN BROUHAHA,
BUT A REAL THREAT TO THE FUTURE
OF THE COUNTRY AND WHY IT IS
THAT WE MUST TAKE STEPS TO PULL
BACK.
HE REALLY DID NOT DO THAT IN HIS
STATE OF THE UNION.
HE TALKED ABOUT INVESTMENTS,
INVESTMENTS, AND MORE
INVESTMENTS.
THEN A FEW DAYS AFTER -- AND
THEN I ASKED DID HE PRODUCE A
BUDGET TO HELP GET US OFF THE
UNSUSTAINABLE PATH.
I WAS NEVER MORE DISAPPOINTED IN
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.
HE CLAIMED IT WOULD SAVE
SAVE $1 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS.
HOW MUCH IS THAT?
WELL, ACCORDING TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
THAT OBJECTIVELY ANALYZES THESE
THINGS, THE DEFICIT WILL
INCREASE AT RATE WE'RE SPENDING
OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS
YEARS $14 TRILLION.
SO WHAT IS SAVING $1 BILLION?
NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.
-- ENOUGH TO GET US OFF THE
UNSUSTAINABLE PATH.
THE DEBT COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
A $4 TRILLION REDUCTION IN
SPENDING, WHICH WAS NOT ENOUGH
EITHER.
THIS WAS HIS
OWN COMMISSION THAT HE
APPOINTED.
AND THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH, BUT AT
HONEST.
LEAST THE NUMBERS WERE FAIRLY
THE PRESIDENT'S NUMBERS,
UNFORTUNATELY, WERE NOT EVEN
HONEST.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
ANALYZED HIS BUDGET, AND THEY
CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD INCREASE
THE DEBT, NOT REDUCE THE DEBT
RATE PROJECTIONS.
IT WOULD NOT REDUCE THE
PROJECTED INCREASE IN DEBT FROM
14 TO 13.
WHAT C.B.O. SAID IT WAS WORSE.
IT WOULD ADD TO THE DEBT $2.7
TRILLION OVER THE C.B.O.
BASELINE.
I SAID AT THE TIME IT'S THE MOST
IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGET EVER
PRESENTED.
MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN FIND
SOMEWHERE IN THE DISTANT PAST A
MORE IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGET.
BUT WHEN WE KNOW WE ARE FACING
DEBTS AND INTEREST RATES, THE
LIKES OF WHICH WE'VE NEVER SEEN
BEFORE, WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE
THAT WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES.
AND HIS BUDGET DID NOT CHANGE.
JUST, FOR EXAMPLE, LET ME NOTE
HIS BUDGET CALLED FOR A 10.5%
INCREASE IN EDUCATIONAL FUNDING.
IT CALLED FOR A 9.5% INCREASE IN
THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT.
IT CALLED FOR A 10.5% INCREASE
IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND A
60% INCREASE IN SPENDING FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
WITHOUT ANY REAL SOURCE OF
REVENUE TO PAY FOR IT IN ORDER
TO HAVE A MONUMENTAL NEW PROGRAM
TO BUILD HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND
OTHER THINGS THERE.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
INFLATION RATE IS NOT ABOVE 3%,
2% OR SO, AND WE'RE GETTING
DOUBLE-DIGIT INCREASES WHEN THE
COUNTRY CANNOT AFFORD THE PATH
WE'RE ON?
IT'S UNBELIEVABLE REALLY.
SO AFTER TAKING GREAT HEAT FROM
OBJECTIVE OBSERVERS AND SO
FORTH, THE PRESIDENT MADE A
SPEECH.
THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH.
AND HE SAID IT SEEMS THAT -- HE
HAD A PARAGRAPH OR TWO IN HIS
SPEECH ABOUT THE REASON WE NEED
TO TAKE SOME RESTRAINT AND
REDUCE SPENDING AND WHY WE
COULDN'T JUST INVEST, INVEST,
INVEST; WHY WE NEEDED TO
RESTRAIN SPENDING.
THAT WAS IN HIS SPEECH.
AT LEAST HE ACKNOWLEDGED IT A
LITTLE BIT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT
THE KIND OF DETAILED, SERIOUS
ENGAGEMENT OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IN A DISCUSSION AS TO WHY
WE CAN'T CONTINUE AT THE PACE
WE'RE IN.
IT JUST WASN'T SUFFICIENT TO MY
WAY OF THINKING.
MAYBE I'M BIASED.
I DON'T THINK SO.
I DO NOT THINK HE'S DONE THAT.
AND IN FACT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS
IN THE HOUSE PROPOSED REDUCING
SPENDING THIS YEAR, HE
STEADFASTLY OPPOSED IT.
PRESIDENT.
SO WE HAVE A PATTERN WITH THE
HE SAYS HE'S FOR DOING SOMETHING
ABOUT THE DEBT PATH WE'RE ON.
HE OPPOSES ANY SPECIFIC ACTION
THAT ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE
IN THAT REGARD.
AND THEN FINALLY WHEN THEY WERE
DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING
INTO SAVING ABOUT $300 BILLION
OVER TEN YEARS, THE PRESIDENT
TOOK CREDIT FOR IT, LIKE IT WAS
HIS IDEA.
WELL, THEY HAD BEEN OPPOSING IT
ALL ALONG.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER HERE
PROPOSED A $4 BILLION REDUCTION
IN SPENDING, WHICH WAS NOTHING.
SO I JUST WOULD SAY I'M WORRIED
ABOUT WHERE WE'RE HEADING, HOW
SERIOUS WE ARE.
NOW, THE SENATE REPUBLICAN
BUDGET STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THE
PRESIDENT'S SPEECH AND TRIED TO
SEE WHAT'S IN IT AND SEE WHERE
WE COULD GO FROM THERE.
WHAT THEY FOUND IS IT DOES NOT
REDUCE SPENDING BY $4 TRILLION.
DOES NOT.
HIS FRAMEWORK, AS HE CALLED IT,
TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY $4
TRILLION WOULD ACTUALLY GROW THE
DEFICIT BY $2.2 TRILLION ABOVE
BASELINE.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE AN
HONEST FACT-BASED BUDGET.
INSTEAD, THE PRESIDENT'S DEFICIT
SPEECH WAS THE BIGGEST GIMMICK
YET.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENT'S
APRIL 13 SPEECH EXPOSES THE
FALSITY OF THE CLAIM THAT THIS
NEW FRAMEWORK WOULD RESULT IN $4
TRILLION IN DEFICIT REDUCTION.
THE ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S FRAMEWORK IS SIMPLY
A RHETORICALLY PACKAGED,
REPACKAGED VERSION OF THE BUDGET
HE SUBMITTED ON FEBRUARY 14, A
BUDGET THAT THE C.B.O. ESTIMATED
COULD ACTUALLY WORSEN OUR
DEFICITS BY $2.7 TRILLION.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF HAS
CONCLUDED THE PRESIDENT'S
FRAMEWORK COMPARED TO THE
CURRENT C.B.O. BASELINE WOULD
NOW WORSEN THE DEBT BY $2.2
TRILLION OVER TEN YEARS.
THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH IS A
SLEIGHT OF HAND PROCESS THAT
CREATES THE IMPRESSION OF
BRINGING NEW DEFICIT-REDUCTION
MEASURES TO THE TABLE WITHOUT
ACTUALLY DOING SO, LEAVING US AT
BOTTOM WITH THE ORIGINAL FLAWED
PROPOSAL ONLY PRESENTED IN
LANGUAGE THAT SEEMS TO BE NEW.
HERE'S HOW THE PROCESS WORKED IN
THE SPEECH AND HOW WE ANALYZE
IT, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS A FAIR
ANALYSIS OF IT.
FIRST, HE OFFERS THE SAME
PROPOSALS IN HIS FRAMEWORK AS
HIS FORMAL BUDGET SUBMISSION,
BUT USING NEW LANGUAGE.
TWO, HE ASSUMES SAVINGS FROM HIS
FEBRUARY BUDGET THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE HAS
ALREADY FOUND TO BE BOGUS.
HE CONTINUES TO ASSUME SAVINGS
THAT THE OBJECTIVE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE SAYS ARE NOT
LEGITIMATE SAVINGS.
SO IF YOU SCORE SAVINGS IN YOUR
BUDGET, YOU CAN CLAIM YOU'VE
MADE SAVINGS WHEN YOU HAVEN'T.
WE'VE SEEN THAT TIME AND TIME
AGAIN.
IN FACT, IT'S ONE REASON THIS
GOVERNMENT IS IN SO MUCH DEBT.
THE C.B.O., BY THE WAY, IS A
BIPARTISAN GROUP, BUT ITS
LEADERS ARE SELECTED BY THE
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY.
THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY.
THIS IS A GROUP THAT'S NOT
HOSTILE TO THE PRESIDENT.
THEY'VE REJECTED MANY OF HIS
CLAIMS OF SAVINGS.
NUMBER THREE, IT CALCULATES THE
SAVINGS OVER 12 YEARS.
10.
EVERYBODY'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT
IT'S BEEN A 10-YEAR BUDGET HE
SUBMITTED.
SO TO MAKE HIS NUMBERS LOOK
BETTER, HE EXTENDS IT TO 12
YEARS AND CLAIMS MORE SAVINGS
THAN OTHERWISE WOULD BE THE CASE
IF YOU'RE COMPARING APPLES TO
APPLES AND ORANGES TO ORANGES.
A TEN-YEAR BUDGET.
HE ADDS LONG-TERM SAVINGS FROM
THE JUST-PASSED CONGRESSIONAL --
THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION.
CLAIMS CREDIT FOR THE SPENDING
REDUCTIONS THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FORCED ON US.
ENOUGH.
SOME SAID IT WASN'T NEARLY
THAT'S REALLY TRUE.
THEY HAD PROPOSED SAVING ABOUT
$800 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS.
ABOUT TIME DEMOCRATIC RESISTANCE
HAD GONE FORWARD AND THE
PRESIDENT HAD RESISTED, WE ENDED
UP WITH ONLY ABOUT A $300
BILLION SAVINGS OVER TEN YEARS.
HE CLAIMS CREDIT FOR THAT IN HIS
NUMBERS.
AS THE ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES,
THE FRAMEWORK IN HIS SPEECH
OFFERED NO NEW PROPOSALS BEYOND
THE DANGEROUSLY FLAWED FEBRUARY
BUDGET.
EVEN IF THEY USED THEIR OWN
ESTIMATES THAT HAVE BEEN
DISCREDITED BY C.B.O., THE
FRAMEWORK STILL FALLS AN
ASTONISHING $3.2 TRILLION SHORT
OF WHAT THE DEFICIT COMMISSION
THAT HE APPOINTED RECOMMENDED.
PERHAPS THIS IS WHY THE WHITE
HOUSE HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO HEED
THE CALL OF THE SENATE BUDGET
COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS.
WE WROTE HIM AND ASKED THAT HE
TAKE HIS SPEECH AND THE BUDGET
THAT HE SUBMITTED -- AND IT IS
ABOUT 18 INCHES WORTH OF
DOCUMENTS.
WE SAID, WELL IF YOU MADE A
SPEECH NOW AND IF YOU'VE CHANGED
WHAT YOU HAD IN YOUR BUDGET,
TRANSLATE THAT INTO A NEW BUDGET
AND SEND IT TO US -- WE'VE HAD
THAT DONE IN THE PAST A NUMBER
OF TIMES.
THEY REFUSED.
WHY?
BECAUSE A SPEECH IS MORE
GENERALIZED, IT'S HARDER TO
SCORE, HARD TO ANALYZE.
AND WHEN YOU PUT IT IN ACTUAL
PRINT, IT CAN BE ANALYZED.
THE NUMBERS CAN BE TOTALED, THE
DEFICITS CAN BE CALCULATED, AND
YOU FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT IT
ACTUALLY DOES ANYTHING
WORTHWHILE.
THEY REFUSE TO DO IT.
SO AS IT STANDS NOW, WE HAVE NO
PLAN TO HAVE ANY REAL REDUCTION
OF THE DEFICIT THAT WE'RE FACE
TPR-G THIS ADMINISTRATION --
THAT WE'RE FACING FROM THIS
ADMINISTRATION OR THE DEMOCRATIC
SENATE, LET ALONE A FRAMEWORK TO
REDUCE IT BY $4 TRILLION.
BUT THEY PRETEND IT'S SO, AND
THAT'S OFFENSIVE, AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY
ABOUT IT, AND THEY KNOW THAT
THIS SENATE AND THIS CONGRESS
HAS A RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE
LAW AND UNDER ANY MORALITY AND
DECENCY TO PRODUCE A BUDGET THAT
SAYS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH
THEIR MONEY THE NEXT YEAR AND
HOW MUCH DEFICIT WE'RE GOING TO
INCUR, HOW MUCH DEBT WE'RE GOING
TO INCREASE.
AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE
THAT.
AND ALL WE'VE SEEN IS A PUSH
BACK AND TALK OF THAT KIND.
SO WE'RE HEADING TO IT.
WE'RE HEADING TO A BUDGET
SITUATION IN THE COMMITTEE NEXT
WEEK, I HOPE THAT WE WILL.
AND I THINK SENATOR CONRAD, OUR
DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN, WILL SPH-T
A BUDGET -- WILL SUBMIT A BUDGET
BETTER THAN THE PRESIDENT'S
BUDGET.
SURELY IT WILL BE.
I CAN'T IMAGINE IT WON'T BE
SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER THAN THE
BUDGET THE PRESIDENT HAS
SUBMITTED.
BUT THE QUESTION IS WILL IT BE
ENOUGH?
THEY'VE ALREADY BLAMED PAUL RYAN
IN THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE AS
BEING DRACONIAN, IDEOLOGICAL AND
UNREASONABLE WITH THEIR BUDGET,
WHICH WOULD REDUCE SPENDING $6.2
TRILLION IN HONEST NUMBERS THAT
THEY'VE LAID OUT AND DEFENDED
PUBLICLY, THAT ACTUALLY
CONFRONTS SOME OF OUR LONG-TERM
SPENDING ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS
AND TRIES TO GET THEM ON A RATE
OF GROWTH NOT QUITE AS HIGH AS
IT CURRENTLY IS.
TRY TO BRING THIS COUNTRY INTO A
FINANCIAL SOUND POSITION.
I DON'T THINK THE HOUSE BUDGET
PROBABLY GOES FAR ENOUGH IN THE
FIRST TEN YEARS TO BRING OUR
DEBT UNDER CONTROL.
BUT IT'S AN HONEST, RESPECTED
DOCUMENT THAT EVERY OBJECTIVE
COMMENTATOR HAS PRAISED.
AND MR. BOWLES HIMSELF SAID,
WELL, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH
MR. RYAN'S BUDGET, AT LEAST IT
WAS HONEST, AND YOU NEED TO PUT
YOUR OWN OUT THERE WITH THE SAME
DEGREE OF HONESTY AS HE DID.
MR. BOWLES WAS PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S CHIEF OF STAFF, THE
MAN CHOSEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO
HEAD HIS FISCAL COMMISSION.
THIS WILL BE REALLY PERHAPS THE
MOST IMPORTANT BUDGET IN
DECADES, MAYBE EVER, BECAUSE OUR
DEBT SITUATION IS DEEP.
IT'S NOT EASY TO GET OUT OF THE
FIX WE'RE IN.
A LOT OF IT IS DRIVEN BY
LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS THAT WE
MADE THAT ARE UNSUSTAINABLE.
AND WE'VE GOT TO CONFRONT THAT
HONESTLY AND FIND OUT HOW TO
DEAL WITH IT IN A WAY THAT'S
FAIR AND JUST.
SPENDING.
WELL, THEY SAY WE CAN'T CUT
WE NEED MORE MONEY FOR
EDUCATION, 10.5%.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT NEEDS MORE
MONEY, 10.5%.
THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT NEEDS MORE
MONEY, 9.5% INCREASE.
THIS YEAR THEY ARE PROPOSING
COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2012
BUDGET, THAT'S THE NUMBER THE
PRESIDENT HAS SUBMITTED TO IT.
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE IT.
I WOULD ASK SOME OF THE MEMBERS
OF THIS BODY MAYBE TO CALL
GOVERNOR CUOMO IN NEW YORK OR
GOVERNOR CHRISTIE IN NEW JERSEY
OR TKPWO FT BENTLEY IN -- OR
GOVERNOR BENTLEY IN ALABAMA.
ANNOUNCED HE'S HAVING TO
REDUCE SPENDING BY 15%,
REDUCE -- PRORATE THE SPENDING
FOR THE REST OF THIS FISCAL YEAR
BY 15%.
AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S A
MESSAGE THAT'S BEEN LOST IN THIS
BODY.
I SEE MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR
KLOBUCHAR, HERE, MR. PRESIDENT.
I WANTED TO SHARE THESE REMARKS
THIS MORNING.
THE VICE PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE,
IS MEETING WITH SOME PEOPLE,
HOUSE AND SENATE REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS TODAY.
MAYBE IT WILL BE BUDGET NUMBER
THREE.
AND MAYBE THE VICE PRESIDENT CAN
FIX SOMETHING HERE.
I HOPE THEY GAVE HIM THE
RESPONSIBILITY AND THE FREEDOM
TO MAKE A DECISION, OR HAVE THEY
TOLD HIM HE CAN'T CUT SPENDING
REALLY IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL TELL
THE VICE PRESIDENT, BUT
HOPEFULLY SOMETHING WILL COME
OUT OF THAT.
AND MAYBE WE CAN GET ON A BETTER
PROCEDURE.
BUT AT THIS RATE, AT THIS POINT
IN OUR PROCESS, WE'RE NOT IN A
GOOD POSITION.
AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT IT AND
HOPEFULLY WE CAN REACH SOME
AGREEMENT.
AND IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT
IT OUT ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE, OF THE HOUSE, IN
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, AND WE'RE
GOING TO CHANGE THE DEBT COURSE
OF THIS NATION BECAUSE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO
DEMAND IT.
I THANK THE CHAIR AND WOULD
YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENIOR SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE
DISPENSED WITH.
WE'RE NOT