[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 7495]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  NLRB

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise today to voice my concerns about a great deal of controversy 
surrounding a complaint issued under the National Labor Relations Act 
against the Boeing Company. Boeing recently decided to open a new plant 
in South Carolina. The National Labor Relations Board's acting general 
counsel issued a complaint because of evidence that this decision was 
made in retaliation for recent strikes at the Boeing plant in the Puget 
Sound area.
  I hope there is no dispute about a couple of points. First, Boeing is 
a highly reputable company that produces great products valued around 
the world, and great jobs. Not just jobs but good jobs. There should be 
no doubt also about the importance of public debate, robust criticism 
of government agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, 
when it makes decisions that spark disagreement. I have the greatest of 
respect for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who may have been 
critical of NLRB decisions in the past and of this action in the 
present. There should be no doubt also about the importance of the 
integrity of the NLRB process which begins with a complaint, which is 
all we have here against Boeing, and then has a procedure for 
consideration by an administrative law judge of the facts and the law, 
then to the full board of the NLRB, and a right of appeal to the Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.
  Here, in this instance, there has been a series of attacks on the 
complaint and the acting general counsel that involve apparent efforts 
to impede or derail that process and to prejudge and even preempt that 
process. The effect is to politicize and potentially stop what should 
be a legal proceeding handled under the appropriate rules and laws and 
statutes by an independent government agency. This issue is about the 
integrity of the process.
  At this point there is only a complaint against Boeing. This 
complaint was issued on the basis of statements and documents and 
actions by the company itself. There is certainly evidence, including 
at least one Boeing executive's statements, that the company may have 
retaliated against workers. The NLRB and Lafe Solomon, the acting 
general counsel, have not only the right but the responsibility to 
investigate and act where the facts and the law establish a right and 
obligation to do so. So no one should be trying to prejudge this case 
before it goes before the administrative judge, and no one should be 
seeking a pass from the appropriate process, and no one should be 
seeking to intimidate or to interfere with this lawful proceeding. I 
come to the floor today because of the prospect of exactly that danger 
occurring.
  On May 12, Chairman Darrell Issa, representing the House Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to the acting general 
counsel of the NLRB requesting that it produce virtually all internal 
documents relating to this case. Indeed, the letter has a number of 
specific paragraphs that are sweeping in their scope, requesting, for 
example--demanding--that all documents and communications referring or 
relating to the Office of General Counsel's investigation of Boeing, 
including but not limited to all communications between the Office of 
General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board. The House 
committee, with all due respect, is not a court. It is not the 
administrative judge. It is not a proper party to be demanding these 
documents in the course of a lawful judicial proceeding. The chairman's 
attempt to insert the committee into this case by conducting its own 
round of discovery at this point would interfere with the NLRB's 
ability to prepare and present its case before a real judicial officer.
  These actions and some others are an attack on the integrity of the 
NLRB, an attack on its ability to make decisions and enforce the law as 
the Congress has instructed it and required it to do based on decisions 
involving the facts and the law alone. The NLRB is part of our justice 
system, and it should be given the opportunity to do justice in this 
instance. It should be given the opportunity to protect fairness and 
peace at the workplace, which is ultimately its mandate and its very 
solemn responsibility, and its tradition. Its mandate from the Congress 
is to protect jobs and foster economic growth by maintaining peace and 
fairness at the workplace. These priorities should be shared by all of 
the country. I certainly believe and hope that the people of 
Connecticut want fairness and peace in the workplace, as we do in our 
workplaces.
  The NLRB, very simply, should be given that opportunity to do justice 
without improper or inappropriate interference by Members of the 
Congress or anyone else. My hope is that it will be vindicated and the 
attacks will cease, and that it will be given the opportunity to go 
forward lawfully and appropriately and properly.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.

                          ____________________