In Speech, Hatch Criticizes Taxpayer Bailouts to Foreign Countries; Obama Administration Labor Agenda

WASHINGTON – In a speech on the Senate floor, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today criticized the Obama Administration’s policies involving taxpayer bailouts to foreign countries and its pro-union agenda.

Below are excerpts of Hatch’s speech:

On President’s Promise of “no more tax-funded bailouts”:
“Let me remind you 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. [L]et 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.”

On Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars:
“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 [DeMint #501] that I am co-sponsoring 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.”

On NLRB Proposed Changes to Union Election Rules:
“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.”

On NMB’s Changes to Union Voting Procedures:
“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 shouldn’t be the case, I don’t think we’ve ever seen the pendulum swing as far as it has under the Obama administration.

Below is the text of Hatch’s full speech delivered on the Senate floor this afternoon:

Mr. 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.

Mr. President, let me remind you 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.

Mr. President, 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 co-sponsor 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 co-sponsoring 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.

Now, Mr. President, so far I have been speaking about this administration’s abuse of power with regard to the IMF. I’d like to switch gears for a few minutes and talk about another series of abuses that are no less outrageous. I’m 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’d like unanimous consent to have the Post’s editorial entered into the record.

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 certify the union. The motivation behind this proposal is simple — the less notice the employers have regarding a union election, the less time they’ll 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’s be clear. This is a win for union bosses. But it is a big loss for the workers they purport to represent.

I’ll 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 don’t 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 didn’t 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 naïve to assume otherwise.

But here’s 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’s 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’s 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 shouldn’t be the case, I don’t think we’ve ever seen the pendulum swing as far as it has under the Obama administration.

Unions represent less than eight percent of the private sector workforce. Yet with President Obama in office, the unions’ influence has been virtually immeasurable.

This should not be surprising. During the 2008 campaign, President Obama addressed a gathering of members of the SEIU, probably the most politically powerful union in the country. During his speech, the President told the crowd that if he were elected, “we are going to paint the nation purple with SEIU.”

Apparently, Mr. President, this is the one campaign promise President Obama intends to keep.
I yield the floor.

###

Next Article Previous Article