America’s Business rings in the New Year with several timely and interesting interviews.  Agriculture Secretary and former North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer joins host Mike Hambrick to talk about renewable fuels and alternative energy and what an important role they will play in the future.

“Well, I’m excited about alternative fuels,” Secretary Schafer says. “The bio-fuels, the bio-mass –  that is very important for us and it increases economic activity in rural areas like you can’t imagine.  And again, moves us towards that energy independence and it’s better for the environment.”

Atlantic Monthly international correspondent James Fallows, a frequent guest of the program, returns to talk about his most recent article, “Be Nice to the Countries That Lend You Money.” He’s referring to China, which holds $1.4 billion dollars of the U.S. debt.  This has invariably linked these two countries financially in more ways than expected.

Despite the tough recession, many American manufacturers are finding ways to survive and prosper. One such company is Ariens Corporation. Dan Ariens, President and CEO, is on the program this week to explain how they have been able to move ahead.

In October, President Bush signed the PRO-IP bill into law, a comprehensive intellectually property rights laws.  Passage was a big victory for the NAM, which led the charge to make intellectual property rights more secure for America’s innovators.  This week one of the bill’s fathers, Rick Cotton, General Counsel at NBC, is here to explain why this bill was a success and where improvements can still be made.

In our regular segments, Renee Giachino of American Justice Partnership gives us the latest on tort reform and commentator Hank Cox recalls “The Way It Was.” And the National Association of Manufacturers President Gov. John Engler will close the program with “The Last Word.”

Guess we’re not the only ones who saw it this way. From the Los Angeles Times, “Hilda Solis deflects Republican questions over union issues“:

Reporting from Washington — Senate Republicans spent much of this morning trying to draw Barack Obama’s choice for Labor secretary, Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-El Monte), into a fight over union issues.

But she gave them little ammunition, repeatedly refusing to express her opinion on hotly contested issues such as organizing rights. And at the end of her relatively brief confirmation hearing, Solis’ nomination did not appear to be endangered.

Pretty good account. Meanwhile, the New York Times’ version is amusingly, uh, nuanced; see “Republicans Criticize Solis’s Support for Union Bill”:

At her confirmation hearing for labor secretary on Friday, Representative Hilda Solis was challenged by several Republican senators for supporting a bitterly contested bill that would make it easier for workers to join unions.

But Ms. Solis calmly deflected those jabs and declined to discuss the bill by saying that she has not yet talked about it with President-elect Barack Obama, who co-sponsored the bill when he was in the Senate.

“Jabs?” We heard questions being asked about important matters of public policy. “Calmly deflected?” Do you mean, “Did not answer?”

So much for the media demanding accountability and transparency.

As said earlier, this kind of deflection dance is standard operating procedure. The transition team’s murder board undoubtedly prepped Rep. Solis to avoid controversy by not answering questions, offering generalities and pleasantries instead. We would have done the exact same thing in her place. The goal of the President-elect’s nominees is to be confirmed with a minimum of fuss, preventing any controversy that reflects poorly on the incoming Obama Administration. Rep. Solis did a very good job in that regard today, deflection and all.

UPDATE (4:50 p.m.): Should have also cited this passage from NYT account:

While Republicans sought to trip her up over the Employee Free Choice Act, three Democratic Senators — Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Bernie Sanders of Vermont — invited her to praise labor unions for how they have helped lift wages and preserve the middle class.

“Sought to trip her up?” C’mon. Asked guestions. They asked questions.

See also this well-done account at Workforce Management, “DOL Nominee Solis Dodges Questions on Unionization Bill at Senate Hearing.”

The House just passed H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, by a vote of 256-163. Speaker Pelosi is in the chair, providing symbolic, political oomph to passage.

Now for the vote on H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…

We’ll post the roll calls when they’re available.

UPDATE (1:29 p.m.): Houses passes H.R. 11 by a vote of 247-171. Rep. DeLauro now in the chair.

UPDATE (2:22 p.m.)

Roll Call No. 8, H.R. 12, Paycheck Fairness Act, 256-163. Ten Repubicans yea, three Democrats nay.

Roll Call No. 9, H.R. 11, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 247-171. Three Republicans yea, five Democrats nay.

The two Democrats who voted no both times were Rep. Bobby Bright and Rep. Parker Griffith, both freshmen from Alabama.

The most direct exchange on the Employee Free Choice Act we’ve heard in the confirmation hearing of Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) for Secretary of Labor. Senator Orrin Hatch, following his opening, asked an excellent question challenging organized labor’s premise for the anti-democratic card check bill:

HATCH: Labor advocates claim that the Employee Free Choice Act-type bill is necessary because unions and employees who want unions cannot get a fair election because employers in a large number of instances engage in unlawful activity during that union’s election campaign, which results in unions losing elections. However, the National labor Relations Board data indicates that in 2007 unions won over 60 percent of contested elections held. Further, based on recently released NLRB data on elections held during the first half of 2008, unions have been winning 66.8 percent of elections. Now, if employer interference is so prevalent, how can unions win such a high percentage of elections? And it’s pretty well been 60 percent or more for as long as I can remember.

Rep. Solis responded with praise of Sen. Hatch’s leadership on education issues and then addressed the Employee Free Choice Act generally, not answering the Senator’s question.

SOLIS: With respect to the Employee Free Choice Act, as you know I have been a sponsor, a cosponsor of that legislation in the House and President-elect Obama has also been supportive. But my priorities if I am confirmed will be first and foremost will be to make sure that we attend to the goals of the Department of Labor, to see that we have fair wages, that there is safety and protection, and hopefully people can aspire to have a good paying job in this country. So that’s the first principle.

The second principle would be that I would like to talk to members of the Senate, because I think that the House of Representatives may either be taking up this bill sooner than perhaps might be cause here, in this house. So I know there’s going to be a lot of discussion and debate, and I look forward to that discussion with you. I have not spoken with the President-elect about this, and I am prepared to work with everyone. But I know that first and foremost if I am confirmed that my priority will be to uphold the goals of the Department of Labor and get this economy going, make sure we have jobs and people trained to fulfill those jobs.

SOP for confirmation hearings. Senator Hatch praised her nomination and said he would be voting for her.

UPDATE Here’s an .mp3 clip of the exchange.

The NAM sent the following Key Vote letter to the House of Representatives yesterday expressing opposition to H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Key Votes are used in the NAM’s ranking of Congressional members’ voting record on manufacturing issues.

Dear Representatives:The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation’s largest industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to oppose H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, because this legislation could be harmful to the economy and jobs.

Manufacturers are strongly committed to equal employment opportunity and support vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. As employers, we are dedicated to fairness in hiring, compensation and job advancement for all employees. Unfortunately, these bills will do little to prevent unlawful discrimination but would invite unwarranted and costly litigation against employers at a time when businesses are struggling.

From Bloomberg, “House to Vote on Employment Bills; Business Says Costs to Rise “:

Business groups say the measures, if enacted, would increase costs and expose companies to more lawsuits.

“This scares the heck out of me,” said Drew Greenblatt, owner of Marlin Steel Wire Products LLC in Baltimore. The privately held company makes wire baskets for manufacturers such as Toyota Motor Corp. and drugmaker Roche Holding AG.

Greenblatt, who has testified to Congress about small- business issues, said he expects the wage legislation to lead to higher premiums for his insurance protecting against lawsuits. His premium costs about 2 percent of his total payroll, he said.

“I have my health insurance going up and all these other costs going up,” Greenblatt said. “I just want to make wire baskets.”

Senator Majority Leader Reid has indicated that the Senate may vote next week on the bills, or at least H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. If passed, that means the first major bills of the 111th Congress will be those that discourage hiring by raising the marginal costs of labor, as Drew’s statement demonstrates. Odd priorities at a time of rising unemployment.

Andrew M. Grossman at the Heritage Foundation has written an excellent piece explaining the legal issues involved in the Ledbetter legislation, that is, how the bill would end statutes of limitations in filing wage claims. He makes the critical point that, contrary to the claims of the sponsors, the Ledbetter legislation goes far beyond merely reversing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber.

From “The Ledbetter Act: Sacrificing Justice for ‘Fair” Pay’“:

It was a surprise to many legal observers a year and a half ago that the Ledbetter case–an unremarkable application of a rule settled 20 years prior–would attract any interest at all. But on closer examination, the course of events leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, and the reaction since, have not been by chance but by design, part of a “perfect storm” orchestrated by trial lawyers, wrongheaded civil rights organizations, and labor groups to achieve a radical shift in employment law.[29] These special interests have an extensive agenda planned for the current Congress. Yet Members should consider each plank of it on the merits.

Far beyond reversing the result of a single Supreme Court decision–one that, viewed fairly, was consistent with precedent and fairly represented Congress’s intentions–the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would open the door to a flood of lawsuits, some frivolous, that employers would find difficult or impossible to defend against, no matter their ultimate merit. Rather than help employees, the bill could end up hurting them by reducing wages and job opportunities–at a time when unemployment is rising and many are nervous about their job prospects. Instead, Congress should recognize that statutes of limitations serve many important and legitimate purposes and reject proposals that would allow litigants to evade them.

Earlier posts this week:

• Unemployment Up, and the House Responds Bizarrely
• The NAM’s Opposition to Ledbetter, Fair Pay Act
• Leading Off Congress with Labor, Trial Lawyer Legislation

Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) has just given her opening statement at her Senate HELP Committee confirmation hearing (which is being broadcast online). A good statement, uncontroversial, a typical expression of principles and good will that you hear at confirmation hearings.

Senator Isakson (R-GA) raised the Employee Free Choice Act in his opening statement, and we expect card check to be a major issue during the questioning. Solis has been a cosponsor and strong supporter, so this editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal is well worth noting, “Secrets of Solis“:

Before she was elected to Congress in 2000, Ms. Solis was a member of the California legislature. In the late 1990s, she led a fight on behalf of organized labor to retain overtime for more than eight hours of work a day. As part of that tussle, Ms. Solis wrote legislation that set out the procedures by which companies and employees could agree to “alternative workweek schedules” that might avoid overtime pay. (As an example, a worker might choose to do his 40 hours by putting in four, 10-hour days.) The bill also set out procedures by which workers might repeal an existing alternative workweek schedule.

The details are complex, but on one point Ms. Solis’s bill is very clear: “Only secret ballots may be cast by affected employees at any election held pursuant” to these procedures. Now, this is interesting. Why secret ballots in this instance? Presumably because she didn’t want workers to feel intimidated by management into agreeing to a flexible work arrangement without overtime pay, or to be worried about retribution should they opt out of such an arrangement. Unless we’re missing something, these are the same workers who would be subject to the tender public persuasion and potential retribution of union organizers or colleagues under “card check.”

UPDATE: (10:50 a.m.): As is often the case  in confirmation hearings for potentially controversial nominees or positions,  Rep. Solis is not providing any substantive answers to probing questions. On card check and right to work she has deflected, offering the typical, “I look forward to discussing this issue with your further.” To be expected, completely understandable from the soon-to-be Obama Administration, but frustrating.

And now, Senator Barbara Milkuski (D-MD) just praised Solis’ for her restraint in answering questions.

The bad news just came out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as reported by AFP, “US sheds 524,000 jobs; unemployment hits 7.2%”:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US economy shed 524,000 jobs in December, sending the unemployment rate to 7.2 percent, according to official data published Friday.

The recession-ravaged economy lost 2.6 million jobs over the course of 2008, the most since 1945, the Labor Department said. Of those, 1.9 million were lost in the past four months.

The jobless rate, which is calculated on a separate household survey, climbed to 7.2 percent from 6.8 percent a month earlier, hitting the highest level since January 1993, the report showed.

And what is on the floor agenda of the U.S. House of Representatives today? Two measures that will raise the costs of hiring new employees: H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The measures will not worsen unemployment, but they will certainly discourage employers from doing anything to reduce joblessness.

Very short versions: The Ledbetter Act removes statutes of limitations on filing wage complaints, and the Paycheck Fairness Act expands the grounds on which disgruntled employees can sue for gender discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. Advocates sell the bills as “restoring fairness” to the workplace, even though employment discrimination is already against the law.

They’ve done a remarkable job of keeping their fingerprints off the measures, but the major beneficiaries of the legislation are the trial lawyers, who will file many more lawsuits in the hopes of a big payoff or, more likely, a big-enough settlement from a company that finds it problematic to fight a lawsuit through the courts. Meanwhile, disgruntled employees will find it easier to tie their employers into knots.

No doubt there will be sincere unhappiness as well as political anguish expressed on the floor today about the unemployment rate (and anguish is a fair response). But then House members will give speeches about malicious employers and terrible treatment of employees.

We wish someone were frank enough to say: “Today, in the face of this horrible unemployment rate, I strongly support these bills to raise the marginal costs of labor. Each new hire will now bring with it greater legal liability and add costs to a company’s operations. In a time of severe recession, I believe this is the right thing to do, but, ahem, mostly for political reasons.”

From today’s front page, Washington Post, “Virginians See Bridge Closings As Dose of Northern Hospitality“:

“First was the hysteria of announcing over 4 million people might be flooding the Mall. Later, they amend that number by half. Then they announce there will be no parking, few toilets and that everyone will be standing and waiting for hours. Then they tell people not to bring children and, finally, they close all the bridges,” fumed Virginian Holly Kenney. “Do they think we’re dense? Clearly, the public is no longer welcome.”

But to some business and political leaders in the region, the plan represents more than a snub. They are concerned that the unprecedented closings and restrictions will turn away visitors, hurt businesses and employees, and tip the balance too far toward security over access.

The plan unveiled by the Secret Service and area transportation officials Wednesday closes all Virginia bridges across the Potomac and interstates 395 and 66 inside the Beltway to personal vehicles. It also cordons off a large section of downtown Washington to help manage the unprecedented crowds expected. Maryland, in contrast, has no planned road closures.

Guess asking too much to expect the re-opening of Pennsylvania Avenue between 15th and 17th.

If crowds are the big threat, seems like the easier approach would be to have a massive, systemwide failure of public transit. Sort of like today’s Metro snafus on the Red Line — “an emergency situation,” i.e., mechanical failure, that lead to such comments from the announcements as, “Customers on the platforms, this train is crowded.” Customers? Metro should follow the example of the coffee chains around here and refer to the masses as “guests.” We used to be called “passengers,” but apparently that’s too theoretical.

If people complain at the delays, well, Metro can just claim it’s the fault of the cheap federal and local governments. More from the Post, “Metro Facing Layoffs, Cutbacks“:

Metro faces a 13 percent shortfall in its $1.3 billion operating budget for next year, and officials have suggested cutting almost 900 positions and enacting the largest-ever cuts in train, bus and paratransit service, even as transit ridership in the region and across the country is soaring.

Agency officials said the budget difficulties reflect the grim economic reality facing local and state governments, which provide a substantial portion of Metro’s funds. Transit agencies across the country also are facing service cuts.

Add it to the economic stimulus.

Forced humor aside, Metro plans to beef up for the inaugural events, “Bus Service to Grow For Jan. 20 Crowds“:

Metro is running 23 special bus corridors on Inauguration Day to carry 300,000 people in and out of downtown Washington who might not be able to get onto jammed Metro trains or live too far to walk to inaugural events, officials said yesterday.

We’ll take that under advisement.

Finally, the Post is doing a bang-up job of covering the inauguration, packaging coverage at Inauguration Central.

A combination follies and tribute this week, commemorating the death of Ron Asheton, lead guitarist of Iggy and the Stooges.

The video is from a 1970 concert in Cincinnati, and the humor comes in the clash of cultures: Iggy and the Stooges doing “TV Eye” in typically hyperkinetic fashion, and the play-by-play TV commentary from an announcer from the previous generation. “That’s peanut butter!”

And that’s Ron Asheton on guitar, playing the speedy sonic assault that helped make the Stooges the progenitors of punk rock. You can’t imagine most of modern alternative rock without him.

Asheton was found in his Ann Arbor home this week, dead of an apparent heart attack. Mike Watt pays tribute. So glad to have been able to see the reformed Stooges in D.C. back in 2007. Great solo.