[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8926-8927]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, next Tuesday, the Nation's largest 
exporter and employer of more than 150,000 Americans will be appearing 
before an administrative judge in Seattle to defend itself against a 
claim brought by the acting general counsel of the National Labor 
Relations Board, NLRB. The claim is that a corporate decision to expand 
production of its next generation airliner in South Carolina, a right-
to-work State, was a violation of Federal labor law.
  Since 1947, Federal law has affirmed the right of States to enact 
what we call right-to-work laws, which prevent unions and employers 
from requiring employees to join a union, as well as pay dues or fees, 
in order to obtain or keep their job.
  In Tennessee, for example, manufacturers such as Nissan, Volkswagen, 
and General Motors have built factories and increased their production 
of cars made and sold in the United States, in large part due to the 
environment offered by Tennessee's right-to-work law.
  The President recently visited a Chrysler plant in Toledo, OH, where 
he stated that the auto bailout helped to restore the American 
automobile industry. I respectfully disagree. I think that what 
restored the American automobile industry was the right-to-work laws in 
22 States, by creating a more competitive environment in those 22 
States, as well as in the Midwest and other States where the laws don't 
exist, and permitting manufacturers to be able to make the cars and 
trucks in the United States that they sell in the United States.
  Unfortunately, American companies and our 22 right-to-work States are 
under assault from a government agency that is driven by an 
antibusiness, antigrowth, and antijobs agenda. This may be the most 
important battle over labor laws in the United States today. That is 
why Senator Graham, Senator DeMint, and I--actually, we have 35 
Senators cosponsoring the bill--introduced legislation to preserve the 
law's current protection of state right-to-work laws and prevent the 
NLRB from moving forward in their case against this company and others.
  The Job Protection Act will prevent the NLRB from ordering a company 
to relocate jobs, will guarantee employer rights to decide where to do 
business, and will protect employer free speech associated with the 
costs and benefits of a unionized workforce.
  The company that will be tried on Tuesday is Boeing--a solid and 
upstanding American success story. Over the last century, Boeing has 
built the passenger planes that allow Americans to travel the world; 
built the warplanes and weaponry that enable our soldiers, sailors, 
marines, and airmen to defend freedom; built the spacecrafts that send 
our astronauts into orbit and to the Moon; and built the satellites 
that deliver communications around the globe.
  Boeing's newest commercial passenger airliner is the 787 Dreamliner. 
It is a shining example of American innovation and entrepreneurship. It 
has been designed with a paramount focus on efficiency and performance, 
to allow a mid-sized aircraft to travel as far as a jumbo jet, while 
using 20 percent less fuel and producing 20 percent less emissions than 
today's similarly sized aircraft, and while traveling at roughly the 
same speed as a 747 or 777.
  It has also been a tremendous commercial success despite these 
difficult economic times. Since 2004, 56 customers, spanning 6 
continents, have placed orders for 835 Dreamliners, valued at $162 
billion.
  President Obama has recognized the leadership of this company. He 
named the chief executive officer of Boeing, Mr. Jim McNerney, as 
cochairman of the President's Export Council. And more recently, he 
nominated Mr. John Bryson, who serves on the Boeing Board of Directors, 
to be the Nation's Commerce Secretary.
  The Dreamliner's success prompted Boeing to decide in 2009--2 years 
ago--to establish a second assembly line for the airliner in South 
Carolina. This is in addition to its current assembly line in 
Washington State. South Carolina is a right-to-work State and 
Washington is not.
  On Tuesday, the NLRB acting general counsel will ask an 
administrative judge in Seattle to stop Boeing from expanding 
production in South Carolina, arguing that the decision was made in 
retaliation for past strikes by union employees in Washington. That 
claim ignores these facts: No union jobs are being lost here; nobody is 
being demoted; no personnel are being moved; and no benefits, salaries, 
or work hours are being cut back as a result of this expansion. It 
further ignores the fact that Boeing's decision was announced, as I 
have said, nearly 2 years ago.
  Down in South Carolina, 1,200 construction jobs have been created and 
over 500 new workers have been hired by Boeing to work at this assembly 
plant, which is supposed to open next month, in July. At the same time, 
Boeing has actually added 2,000 new jobs in Washington State since the 
announced

[[Page 8927]]

expansion in South Carolina. That is 2,000 new union jobs in Washington 
State.
  South Carolina, of course, is a right-to-work State, where employees 
may choose to join or not join the union. Suspending Boeing's expansion 
will result in billions of dollars of lost economic development and 
jobs to that State. But, the NLRB's acting general counsel doesn't seem 
to care about these facts, or the impact of this case on those jobs. 
Recently, several Boeing employees in South Carolina, whose jobs are 
hanging in the balance, asked to intervene in the case. The acting 
general counsel opposed the request, stating that ``these Boeing 
employees in South Carolina have no cognizable interest in 
participating in the proceeding sufficient to justify their 
intervention.''
  It is hard to imagine anybody with a more direct interest in this 
than the Boeing workers in South Carolina.
  Facts like these don't seem to matter when you have an agenda. This 
case is about more than airplanes, more than Boeing, and more than 
South Carolina. This case is about the future of our economy and our 
competitiveness as a nation. It is the latest attempt by this 
administration to chip away at right-to-work laws, to change the rules 
and give unions more leverage over employers, and to allow politically 
influenced bureaucrats in Washington determine the means of production 
for private industry in the United States.
  If the acting general counsel's request is affirmed following next 
week's hearing, it will be prima facie illegal for a company that has 
experienced repeated strikes to move production to a State with a 
right-to-work law. The CEO of Boeing pointed out that this will not 
only hurt the 22 right-to-work States. It will also hurt States that do 
not have right-to-work laws. Those non-right-to-work States will suffer 
because a company that operates in their State and is unionized will 
effectively be prevented from growing or expanding to a right-to-work 
State, therefore hindering the ability of any State to attract new 
manufacturers and create new jobs.
  So, instead of making it easier and cheaper to create jobs in the 
United States, manufacturers will be further incentivized to expand or 
open new facilities in Mexico, China, or India to meet their growing 
needs. Boeing and its 787 Dreamliner are shining examples of what is 
right in America and what is necessary to rebuild and grow our 
country's economy.
  This new jetliner assembly plant in South Carolina is the first one 
to be built in the U.S. in 40 years. We need to remember that Boeing 
sells airplanes everywhere in the world and it can make airplanes 
anywhere in the world. But, we would like for Boeing and other 
manufacturers to make in the United States what they sell in the United 
States, so that jobs can stay and grow in this country, instead of 
moving overseas.
  As this Administration's Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, correctly 
observed in his March testimony before the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

       Manufacturing is essential to America's economic 
     competitiveness. . . . [it] is a vital source of good middle-
     class jobs. It is a key driver of innovation.

  With 9.1 percent unemployment, with a soft economy, government and 
Washington must allow manufacturers such as Boeing to prosper, 
innovate, and create jobs. We need to make it easier and cheaper for 
those manufacturers to make in the United States what they sell in the 
United States.
  Expanding new production lines in South Carolina was a business 
decision made by Boeing's executives and board members, on behalf of 
their shareholders, who believed it was in the company's best 
interests. As I mentioned, those board members and executives are well 
respected, including by the President of the United States, who has 
invited many them to be a part of his Administration.
  But under this Administration, the NLRB Acting General Counsel seems 
only concerned about the interests and agenda of organized labor--an 
agenda that has been soundly rejected by the vast majority of private 
sector workers in both right-to-work and non-right-to-work States 
across the country in recent years.
  All eyes will be on Seattle next Tuesday, when one of our Nation's 
greatest assets and contributors to our economic future will be put on 
trial for investing, creating, and innovating at a time when we are in 
the middle of an economic recession. This will be a true test of 
whether manufacturers are able to make in the United States what they 
sell in the United States, or whether they will be encouraged to make 
overseas what they sell in the United States. It will test whether they 
put jobs over there, instead of creating them here. And it will test 
whether the Administration's economic policy is exporting airplanes or 
exporting jobs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________