[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4144-S4148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT EFFICIENCY AND STREAMLINING ACT OF 2011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 679, which the clerk will report by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 679) to reduce the number of executive positions
subject to Senate confirmation.
Pending:
DeMint amendment No. 501, to repeal the authority to
provide certain loans to the International Monetary Fund, the
increase in the United States quota to the Fund, and certain
other related authorities, and rescind related appropriated
amounts.
DeMint amendment No. 511, to enhance accountability and
transparency among various Executive agencies.
Portman amendment No. 509, to provide that the provisions
relating to the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the
Navy, the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the Army, and
the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the Air Force, the
chief financial officer positions, and the Controller of the
Office of Management and Budget shall not take effect.
[[Page S4145]]
Cornyn amendment No. 504, to strike the provisions relating
to the Comptroller of the Army, the Comptroller of the Navy,
and the Comptroller of the Air Force.
Toomey/Vitter amendment No. 514, to strike the provision
relating to the Governors and alternate governors of the
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development.
Carper amendment No. 517, to provide that the Government
Accountability Office shall conduct a study and submit a
report on presidentially appointed positions to Congress and
the President.
Kirk (for McCain) amendment No. 493, to preserve
congressional oversight into the budget overruns of the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation.
Sanders (for Akaka) amendment No. 512, to preserve Senate
confirmation of the Commissioner of the Administration for
Native Americans.
Sessions (for Paul) amendment No. 502, to strike the
provision relating to the Treasurer of the United States.
Sessions (for Paul) amendment No. 503, to strike the
provision relating to the Director of the Mint.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will be happy to be interrupted by the
managers of the bill if they decide to come.
imf bailout
Madam President, there have been several recent warnings of large and
growing risks in global markets from the European debt crisis.
If Greece defaults, which investors see as likely, and European
officials are unable to agree on how to restructure Greece's debt, lack
of confidence in sovereign debt could spread.
Investors could run away from liabilities issued by other highly
indebted Eurozone countries or even the debt of the United States.
Unfortunately, the President continues his disengagement in our debt
problems.
The administration continues to advocate more runaway deficit
spending, continuing down the path toward European-style big
government.
Our debt-financed unsustainable debt is pushing us toward our own
fiscal crisis. Yet the President has failed to lead us to a sound
fiscal solution.
My concern about the European debt crisis is about the possible
exposure of the U.S. to a European-led contagion that could lead to
catastrophe in the global market for U.S. Treasury securities.
The U.S. financial system has exposures to liabilities of the public
sectors, the banks, and the private sectors of Greece, Portugal,
Ireland, and Spain, four highly indebted Eurozone countries.
The extent of the exposure is unclear but is potentially greater than
half a trillion dollars. Given the interconnectedness in global
financial markets, ultimate risk exposure is difficult to disentangle.
Most importantly, I am concerned about what all of this means for
American taxpayers. Americans have made it crystal clear, they do not
want more bailouts.
Let me remind everyone of President Obama's pledge when he signed the
Dodd-Frank banking act into law last year, an act which, by the way, is
turning out to be a job-killer and is itself a threat to our financial
markets. The President clearly stated, ``[t]here will be no more tax-
funded bailouts--period.''
Unfortunately, that promise has proven hollow. Recall that a
Democrat-led Congress, urged on by President Obama, upped the U.S. ante
with the International Monetary Fund in 2009. Additional funding of up
to $108 billion was provided to the IMF which can now be used to bail
out profligate European governments. Make no mistake, bailouts are
continuing and there are threats of even more on the horizon.
Let me be clear now, before any crisis hits. There can be no further
bailouts, of banks or foreign countries or private companies or unions
or states that are funded by innocent American taxpayers.
The people of Utah, whom I represent, and the vast majority of
Americans want to hold the President to his promise. They are done with
taxpayer-funded bailouts.
The administration and the agencies responsible for oversight of our
financial system need to bring some sunshine to this situation, and
make clear to the American people just what the bailout risk is from
the Eurozone or anywhere else.
I am proud to cosponsor with Senator DeMint and several of my
colleagues an amendment that will roll back the funding provided to the
IMF in 2009. To make the President's pledge of no more tax-funded
bailouts meaningful, and to do what the American people are clearly
demanding of Congress, it is imperative to protect taxpayers from
bailouts of profligate European countries through the IMF.
American taxpayers deserve assurance now that they will not be again
forced to assume risks and losses that they did not create. Taxpayers
deserve to know that they will be protected from future bailouts.
That is precisely what the amendment that I am cosponsoring will do.
It is a simple amendment and its message is clear.
No more taxpayer bailouts.
If the President is unwilling to fulfill his pledge on his own, there
are those of us in Congress who are happy to hold him to his word.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for taxpayers and vote for this
critical amendment.
So far I have been speaking about this administration's abuse of
power with regard to the IMF. I would like to switch gears for a few
minutes and talk about another series of abuses that are no less
outrageous. I am speaking about the Obama administration's labor
agenda.
Over the last month or so, many in this Chamber have expressed
concern about the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against
Boeing. That complaint has been almost universally criticized, if not
outright condemned, from all corners of the country. Just last week,
the Washington Post, not exactly known for having an anti-union bias,
had some harsh words for the board's case against Boeing. I ask
unanimous consent to have the Post's editorial printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 19, 2011]
Flight Risk for Boeing
The opening of a manufacturing plant with nearly 1,000 jobs
should be cause for celebration. But Boeing Co.'s $1 billion
facility in South Carolina has met a different, less welcome
response.
The National Labor Relations Board, spurred by the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, hit Boeing with a complaint of unfair labor
practices. The board charges that Boeing illegally shipped
jobs to South Carolina from the company's Washington state
facility in retaliation for past strikes by unionized workers
in Puget Sound. Both facilities will have a hand in building
the company's new and mammoth 787 Dreamliner.
The NLRB pegged its case to ``coercive'' threats by Boeing
executives who told the media that disruptions caused by the
strikes played a role in deciding to build in South Carolina.
They also spoke of the need to ``geographically diversify''
to avoid shutdowns caused by natural or man-made disasters
and to control costs, which would be easier to do in a
``right-to-work'' state through lower labor costs.
As punishment, the NLRB is seeking to compel Boeing to move
the Dreamliner jobs in South Carolina to Washington state--
which the company says would essentially force it to shut the
plant. Boeing calls the proposed punishment ``indisputably
the most consequential--and destructive--remedy ever sought
by an officer of the NLRB.''
The law forbids employers from discriminating or
retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To
prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the
retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage
reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case,
these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its
collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and
exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.
The allegation that the company ``transferred'' jobs out of
state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are
new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it
demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has
added about 3,000--albeit temporary--jobs in Washington since
it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely
to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial
airliners.
Employers who engage in unfair labor practices should be
penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would
undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate
factors--including potential work disruptions--when making
plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that
of the company. This is neither good law nor good business.
Mr. HATCH. Also last week, the NLRB released a notice of proposed
rulemaking, aiming to drastically reduce the time between the filing of
a union election petition and the vote to
[[Page S4146]]
certify the union. The motivation behind this proposal is simple, the
less notice the employers have regarding a union election, the less
time they will have to make their case to the workforce.
Unions and their democratic allies have sought these kinds of so-
called reforms for decades. I want to be clear. For all of their talk
about representing the little guy, and standing for the people, these
reforms are an affront to the spirit of democracy. They show disrespect
for employees by attempting to deny them critical information that
could inform their choices in these elections. Their genesis is not in
a concern for the common man but in the unholy alliance between union
apparatchiks who want to grow their power and union dues, and the latte
left that depend on those dues to elect representatives who have little
in common with the workers whose paychecks get docked to elect them.
Unfortunately, now that President Obama has packed the NLRB with
former union lawyers, they look poised to get these rules. Let us be
clear. This is a win for union bosses. But it is a big loss for the
workers they purport to represent.
I will have much more to say about the NLRB in the coming days. But,
today, I want to focus on another runaway Obama agency that is setting
aside established rules and procedures in order to pay back the
President's union supporters.
The National Mediation Board, which has jurisdiction over labor
relations in the railroad and airline industries, has, like the NLRB,
aggressively pursued a unionization-at-all-costs agenda. While the
NMB's activities have not received the same attention as those of the
NLRB, their actions are every bit as egregious.
Last summer, the NMB, at the behest of big labor, changed the voting
procedures for all union elections under its jurisdiction. For 75
years, an airline or railroad union had to win the support of a
majority of the entire workforce in order to be certified as the
representative. Under that system, workers who did not vote in an
election were counted as no votes.
The logic of this rule was sound. Unions do not seek to represent
just the workers that vote in an election. A union claims to represent
the entire workforce. The established rule ensured that the results of
an election accurately reflected the will of a true majority of a given
workforce.
Unfortunately, logic and common sense often stand in the way of the
big labor agenda.
So in 2010 the NMB unilaterally changed the rule to lower the bar.
Now these elections are decided by a majority of those voting in an
election, regardless of how many workers actually voted. In other
words, under the new rule a union could be certified even if a majority
of the workers did not support it.
Given the timing of this decision, one can only conclude that the
pro-union appointees on the NMB were specifically targeting Delta
Airlines for unionization after its merger with Northwest Airlines. I
think it would be naive to assume otherwise.
But here is the remarkable thing.
The stage was set for a union cakewalk. Shortly after the NMB fixed
the rules to secure a pro-union outcome, there was an election among
Delta's flight attendants to determine if they wanted to be represented
by the Association of Flight Attendants or AFA.
All the rails were greased for the union.
And the union still lost.
The result was a triumph of employees over the union bosses.
The employees had three options.
One, voting yes to certify AFA representation; two, voting no to
reject certification or, three, writing in an alternative choice for
representation.
The NMB did its best to fix this for the union. They counted the
write-in votes, votes clearly supporting an option other than the AFA,
as votes in favor of the union.
But when the dust settled, with 94 percent of Delta's flight
attendants voting in the election, the union still lost. Of course, the
unions cried foul and have challenged those results. The NMB, which has
shown little desire thus far to vindicate the rights of non-union
workers, let alone those of employers, is currently investigating the
AFA's claims that Delta interfered in the vote.
I think we can guess how this investigation will turn out.
This recent election was not the only setback the unions have
received at the hands of Delta employees. Last fall, three other Delta
workforces, the ticket agents, the bagging agents, and the reservation
agents, all held separate union elections, all of which ended with
similar results. The NMB is also investigating claims of interference
in those elections, even though no substantive evidence has been
presented.
With these latter three elections, the union suitor was the
International Association of Machinists, the same union whose interests
the NLRB is serving with its absurd complaint against Boeing. If the
Obama administration's commitment to serving IAM is consistent between
agencies, and there is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise, I
think we can predict just how those investigations will turn out.
There is no time limit on the NMB's investigations. Delta has no way
of knowing whether it is in the clear or whether it needs to prepare
for more elections. More importantly, Delta's workers, who have
repeatedly rejected unionization, will likely see no end to the
bothersome pressure that comes with a union election campaigns.
I think it is safe to say that, with the Obama NMB in charge, the
number of union elections among Delta employees will be limited only by
the time it takes for the unions to finally win one.
The NMB is behaving like the bureaucratic equivalent of the scorer's
table at the 1972 men's basketball gold medal game.
They are going to give the unions as many chances as they need to win
this fight.
Labor law and policy plays an important role in our economy. In many
respects, it determines which businesses will succeed and which will
fail. It plays a significant role in decisions as to whether companies
should invest in the U.S. or somewhere else.
Sadly, it has become customary to expect pendulum swings in labor law
each time the White House changes hands and appoints new government
officials to lead the Federal executive branch and independent
agencies. While this should not be the case, I do not think we've ever
seen the pendulum swing as far as it has under the Obama
administration.
Unions represent less than 8 percent of the private sector workforce.
Yet with President Obama in office, the union influence has been
virtually immeasurable. This should not be surprising. During the 2008
campaign, President Obama addressed a gathering of the SEIU, probably
the most politically powerful union in the country. During his speech,
the President told the crowd if he were elected, ``we are going to
paint the Nation purple with SEIU.''
Apparently, Madam President, this is the one campaign promise
President Obama intends to keep.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
A Broken Wasington
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I have been here for
almost 6 months now, but I have been carefully watching Washington for
the last 32 years while I have been running my manufacturing business
in Oshkosh, WI--watching how increasingly broken Washington has become
over the years. Nothing I have seen in the last 6 months has changed
that evaluation.
Washington is broken and America is going broke. Our economy is in a
coma and people are suffering. America hungers for leadership, and it
is not getting any--not from President Obama and not from the Senate.
We can't afford to have a broken political process--not now, not while
America is hurtling toward a financial crisis.
Under Democratic leadership, it has been over 2 years since the
Senate passed a budget, and there is currently no markup going on in
the Budget Committee to produce one. America is going bankrupt. Yet the
Senate refuses to pass a budget.
The President's budget that he presented several months ago to great
fanfare--remember that--4\1/4\ inches thick,
[[Page S4147]]
2,400 pages long, and who knows how many thousands of man hours that
document took to produce--was going to be the solution to our fiscal
problems. But it was so unserious it would have added over $12 trillion
to our Nation's debt. It was so unserious that when it was voted on in
the Senate, it lost by a vote of 0 to 97. It was so unserious that not
a single member of the President's own party voted for it.
Instead of rolling up his shirt sleeves and personally tackling the
No. 1 problem facing this Nation right from the beginning, President
Obama delegated his role in sporadic negotiations to Vice President
Biden. Now that those talks have broken down, the President is finally
getting personally involved in this process.
But what kind of process is this? A few people talking behind closed
doors, far from the view of the American public, is that the process
that is going to decide the fate of America's financial situation, of
our financial future? Is this how the U.S. Government is supposed to
work? I don't think so. Of course not.
Unfortunately, this has become business as usual in Washington. As a
manufacturer, I know if the process is bad the product will be bad.
Business as usual in Washington is a bad process. Business as usual is
bankrupting America. It must stop. America is simply too precious to
subject our financial future to Washington's business as usual.
I am pretty new here. I don't pretend to understand everything that
makes the Senate work, or maybe more accurately what doesn't allow the
Senate to work. But I do know the Senate runs on something called
unanimous consent. So unless we receive some assurance from the
Democratic leadership that we will actually start addressing our budget
out in the open, in the bright light of day, I will begin to object. I
will begin to withhold my consent.
The Senate needs to pass a budget. It shouldn't be that difficult.
Families do it every day. A husband earns $40,000; a wife earns
$40,000. The total family income is $80,000. That is their budget. That
is what they can afford to spend. American families figure out how to
live within their means. The Federal Government should be no different.
A budget is a number. We should first pick one number and then a set of
numbers that will not let America go bankrupt.
Let me start the process by throwing out a number--$2.6 trillion.
That is $800 billion more than we spent just 10 years ago. The $2.6
trillion is the amount President Obama, in his budget, said the Federal
Government would receive in revenue next year. If we only spent that
amount of money we would be living within our means. What a concept.
If we want to spend more than $2.6 trillion, Members of Congress,
members of this administration, should go before congressional
committees and openly justify what they want to spend, how much they
want to borrow, and how much debt they are willing to pile on the backs
of our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. They
should explain just how much of our children's future they are willing
to mortgage.
The American people deserve to be told the truth. Unless that
happens, I will begin to withhold my consent. Unless there is some
assurance the Senate will take up its budget responsibilities in an
open process, I will begin to object.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Objection is heard.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
The assistant bill clerk continued with the call of the roll, and the
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:
[Quorum No. 2]
Alexander
Begich
Bennet
Casey
Collins
Johnson (WI)
Reid
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is not present. The clerk
will call the names of absent Senators.
The bill clerk resumed the call of the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be
instructed to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada.
The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Webb), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--40
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--16
Blunt
Chambliss
Coburn
Durbin
Feinstein
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kirk
Kohl
Kyl
McCaskill
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Rockefeller
Udall (NM)
Webb
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With the addition of Senators voting who did
not answer the quorum call, a quorum is present.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
pending amendments be agreed to: Akaka No. 512, as modified with the
changes at the desk, Carper No. 517, and Paul No. 503; that a managers'
amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; that at 11 a.m. on
Wednesday, June 29, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the
remaining amendments to S. 679 in the following order: DeMint No. 501,
Portman-Udall of New Mexico-Cornyn--that is three Senators--No. 509, as
modified, with the changes that are at the desk, DeMint No. 511, and
Toomey No. 514; further, that the Cornyn amendment No. 504, McCain
amendment No. 493, and Paul amendment No. 502 be withdrawn; that no
amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes;
that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time
and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that
there be no motions or points of order in order to the bill or any of
the amendments other than budget points of order and the applicable
motions to waive; finally, that all other provisions of previous orders
with respect to S. 679 remain in effect.
[[Page S4148]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, reserving my right to
object, I may not object to this request. It certainly is not
addressing the primary problem facing our Nation; that is, the fact
that we are bankrupting this Nation. We need to start actually
addressing that in the Senate. But I realize the managers worked hard
on this bill. I realize there are some good amendments the Senate
really needs to debate and we should vote on. That is the way the
Senate should work.
I also ask that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes following the
agreement here.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I accept the modification of the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 503 and 517) were agreed to.
The amendment (No. 512), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
On page 48, strike lines 4 through 8.
The amendment (No. 520) was agreed to.
(The text of the amendment (No. 520) is printed in today's Record
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The amendment (No. 509), as modified, is as follows:
On page 38, line 19, strike all through page 45, line 16.
On page 59, strike lines 11 through 15.
On page 66, strike lines 1 through 16.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank everybody for their cooperation.
We worked long and hard on this bill. I thank the Senator from
Wisconsin. He raises an excellent point. I thank the majority leader. I
thank Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, who are the chief sponsors
of this bill, and Senator Lieberman. I am very glad we were able to
work out this agreement and that we will be able to have final votes on
the amendments and final passage tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request, as modified, is agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for vote
No. 98, a motion to instruct the Sergeant At Arms to request the
attendance of absent Senators. Had I been present, I would have voted
in favor of the motion. It is important for the Senate to respect
bipartisan agreements and work towards completion of its legislative
business.
____________________