Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
It is policymakers--not outside organizations, it is not political strategists, it is not anti-union activists, and it is not pro-union advocates--who are making this decision. It is policymakers--100 Members of the Senate who are asked to confirm the nomination of Craig Becker to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB.
It is something we have done in this country since Franklin Roosevelt, in the 1930s, when the National Labor Relations Board was formed. Decade after decade, this body has voted for National Labor Relations Board nominees who are philosophically pro-union, philosophically anti-union or promanagement and not so promanagement. Yet, with Craig Becker, the Republicans have drawn a line in the sand--something that simply didn't used to happen around here. When I hear my colleagues say we can't rush this through, only in the Senate, when somebody is nominated by the President in April--how many months ago is that--8 or 9 months ago--would anybody say we are rushing it through by doing it in February. I guess it is 10 months ago. It doesn't make sense to me.
Since its creation 75 years ago, the NLRB has served a critical and independent function: Protecting workers against unfair labor practices and protecting businesses against unfair allegations. They struck a balance because both sides have been represented. Those with a strong management philosophy and those with a strong union philosophy have worked together on the NLRB.
I have listened to Craig Becker in front of our Committee that Chairman HARKIN chairs and of which Senator ENZI is the ranking member. I have listened to Mr. Becker sit there and tell us when he is in negotiations with management--yes, he did represent labor unions. But we are not allowed to have them on the NLRB? Is that the new idea--that Republicans don't want anybody with that philosophy, anybody who might have worked for a labor union? Do we not want them on the Board because they actually believe workers should have more rights rather than less rights--the way it was during the Bush administration, when the Department of Labor did everything they could to weaken labor rights, when we saw the middle class in these last 10 years shrink because workers were denied the rights to fight back when they wanted to join a union or when workers simply wanted to get backpay or when workers were mistreated and earned their pay but weren't getting it. We needed somebody in that administration to fight for them, but they didn't have that at the Department of Labor. I guess those are the good old days we should return to.
Even though we have done it this way for decades, people with promanagement philosophies and pro-union philosophies getting on this Board--and as Mr. Becker said in his testimony, when he is part of a union-management negotiation, when he is representing a union, he understands what both sides need to understand. He tries to put himself in the shoes of the other side. If you are a union representative, you know management has interests that are legitimate and they have goals they want; and you know management, generally, is going to play straight. If you are on the management side, you look at the union the same way.
That is how Mr. Becker has been trained and how he thinks. That is why I know, even though he has a pro-union philosophy, he will be fair-minded. I know he will serve in the tradition of NLRB appointees from both parties for decades. He will serve in the tradition of other NLRB appointees--some pro-union and some promanagement. Yet Republicans, since April--Mr. Becker was nominated in April--have tried every trick in the book to keep him off the NLRB. So that is April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January, and now it is mid-February. The Republicans are saying: Why are we rushing this through? Are they so confident they are going to defeat President Barack Obama in the next election that they don't want to put anybody with his philosophy on the NLRB, and do they think they can stall until January 2013? Is that the way they want to run the government?
Unfortunately, when nominee after nominee--we saw it last week with Patricia Smith. If they have anything to do with siding with workers and with being proworker or promiddle class, then we cannot rush. We have to keep asking questions.
The fact is, you know, Madam President, representing the State of New York, what this has meant. What we are seeing is, they asked dozens of questions. In fact, there have been more questions asked of Craig Becker for the NLRB than of Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. Craig Becker's isn't a lifetime appointment. It is an important job, but it is not as important as the Supreme Court, which is a lifetime appointment. Yet they have gone after him with more viciousness, questions, and suspicions--and I might add more cynicism--than perhaps any nominee since I have been in the Senate.
The NLRB matters to workers and to businesses. They simply cannot do their jobs unless we fill these appointments. That is what the Republicans are blocking. I would say it isn't good for business to keep these jobs open. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle, on the health care bill, protected the insurance companies and the drug companies, and on the trade bills, they protect the companies that outsource jobs overseas. I know they like to do that. They are not protecting business when they keep Craig Becker off the NLRB. What they are doing is continuing the dysfunction of the NLRB because too many of those jobs are vacant.
That is why it is important the NLRB protects the rights of workers to organize into unions and, equally important, it protects the rights of businesses to air their grievances. I simply don't understand why most of my colleagues on the other side are opposed to giving working Americans fair treatment. Unions exist in this country and businesses exist. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather only one of those groups existed, but our economy works best when they work together and get along. If they want to take these labor-management fights, as they have, to the floor of the Senate, what does that mean for our future and for the middle class?
The Chair knows, whether it is in Albany or Buffalo or Schenectady, NY, or whether it is Toledo or Youngstown or Mansfield, OH, a union working well with businesses--when labor and management work together--strengthens the middle class. When we have this kind of class warfare on the floor of the Senate, when my friends on the other side of the aisle will do anything to keep someone who has a pro-union philosophy out of an appointed position--again, in April the President nominated Mr. Becker, so that is May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January and now it is February and they say we are rushing it. I don't think anybody in America--even the most lethargic, slow-moving, half-dead operation in the country--thinks it is rushing it when it takes us 10 months to get somebody through.
We know what they did on the health care bill--delay, delay, delay, delay.
That is arguable and that is a difficult and complex issue. But on this? Just to be clear, there is no doubt about the qualifications of Craig Becker.
He earned his bachelor and law degrees from Yale University. He served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for 30 years. This is not some ``newbie'' labor pawn nobody knows anything about who does not have experience. For almost 30 years he has practiced labor and employment law with the highest skill and fairness in front of nearly every U.S. Court of Appeals and in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has been professor at some of the Nation's premier law schools. He has earned the trust and admiration of students, faculty, and opponents of labor-management kinds of discussions. His scholarly works have been published in the Nation's leading law journals and periodicals. His scholarly works are also mandatory reading for law students taking labor and employment courses, whether they are prolabor or promanagement. He is often cited by fellow lawyers and scholars. In fact, 66 professors of labor and employment law from our Nation's premier law schools have described Becker as a nominee with ``unparalleled qualifications ..... whose scholarship reflects great respect for and deep knowledge of the law. He weighs and considers all arguments in a fair and honest manner.''
That sounds like the kind of nominee we want on the National Labor Relations Board. I would add, most importantly, I said a moment ago to serve the interests of the middle class, to serve the interests of this country, we need to fill these jobs with qualified people. It is bad for labor not to have Craig Becker on that Board. It is bad for management not to have Craig Becker on that Board. That is clear by what respected management lawyers have said. They have urged the Senate to quickly confirm Mr. Becker--these are management lawyers--because of his fairness and his sound judgment.
He has answered, as I said, in writing, more than 300 questions from the Republicans on the Senate HELP Committee.
This is not very entertaining. I was almost entertained when my friends--and I have heard at least three Senators on the other side of the aisle do this with Craig Becker's appointment. They brought up ACORN. When Republicans cannot think of anything else to say, when they cannot think of any arguments that work, they throw in ACORN: He knew somebody at ACORN; he must have had something to do with ACORN. If no arguments work, it is time to try ACORN out and tie Craig Becker right to ACORN, whatever ACORN is. It would be amusing if they did not use it time after time. He must be a bad nominee because he worked with somebody from ACORN or he worked with somebody from the Service Employees International Union or he worked with Governor Blagojevich in Illinois.
That is the kind of guilt by association that I thought this institution stopped doing 55 years ago when Joe McCarthy was censured, that we were not going to continue to use guilt by association.
It might be ACORN, the SEIU--and I apologize; I need to say this, Madam President. My daughter works for the SEIU. So before somebody points out his daughter works for SEIU, that is why he is doing it--the fact is, Craig Becker served honorably, he served very appropriately, and he is very qualified. It is about time we do this. It has been 10 months. We have waited too long. I ask my colleagues to put aside some of their biases. He has answered 300 questions. Vote to confirm Craig Becker.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source