Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[Chairman Issa] [Presiding] Can I ask everyone to please be seated? This committee will come
Before we begin, I know a lot of people out there came from far and wide to be here. The
only thing I would ask is that you respect that there are no winners, no losers, no right
side, and no wrong side in a congressional hearing. So I hope you will understand that
we don't want to hear boos. We don't want to hear applause. If you will do that for
us, we would sure appreciate it.
Additionally, it is a normal rule of this committee that there is only an opening statement
for the chairman and ranking member, and that is tradition. What we are going to do, though,
is do an opening statement for chairman and ranking member, and then I am asking unanimous
consent for additional 2 minutes for each Member that wants to make an opening statement.
Without objection, so ordered. And we will begin.
The Oversight Committee mission is to secure fundamental principles. First, Americans have
a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second,
Americans deserve an efficient, effective Government that works for them. Our duty on
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers
have a right to know what they get from their Government. We will work tirelessly, in partnership
with citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform
I would ask unanimous consent that two colleagues from South Carolina, Mr. Joe Wilson and Mr.
Tim Scott, who are not members of the committee, be allowed to participate fully today.
I want to begin by thanking the Charleston County Council, whose facilities are being
so generously provided today, for their help in making this hearing possible.
And Mr. Scott, I want to thank you for the use of your chair, which you once filled here
I also want to recognize Mr. Gowdy, an active member of this committee and someone who has
spotlighted this behavior and this issue from the time AmericanJobCreators.com became directly
aware of it.
Today's hearing is about the effect that NLRB's acting general counsel's decision to bring
suit against the Boeing Company is having on thousands of jobs in South Carolina. It
is the fundamental responsibility of the National Labor Relations Board to protect the rights
of employees and employers and to prevent practices that will harm the general welfare
of workers, businesses, and the U.S. economy.
It is this chair's opinion that on all of these points, NLRB action may have failed.
The jobs of thousands of workers at what is today a nonunion worksite in South Carolina
are at risk.
The investment Boeing put into the South Carolina facility, valued at more than $1 billion,
is now in jeopardy, and production of portions of 835 planes, most of which will be exported,
that have already been ordered is now in jeopardy. Timely delivery is essential, and without
this facility, it is unlikely commitments will be met.
And finally, Mr. Solomon's decision, which has been described in ways that I am going
to leave out of my opening statement, could, in fact, lead to repercussions in America's
competitiveness and in decisions by other businesses to locate in right-to-work States
or, in fact, foreign companies to locate in America at all.
Often, when you believe that you are helping one party, you may be hurting the party you
intend to help. Seattle's economy, which is very good in aerospace, may be hurt by decisions
not to allow new facilities be put there in the future for fear that they could not be
expanded on in the future in other areas.
As an entrepreneur and business owner myself, I know well the decision-making process that
goes into decisions about where to locate a plant, warehouse; when to hire employees;
and what to invest to grow your company and jobs.
Evidence suggests Boeing's decision to build the new assembly plant in South Carolina was
simply an act of managerial discretion and not an effort to discourage employees from
engaging in protected activities under the National Labor Relations Act. If Boeing's
actions were lawful and proper and made on the basis of multiple factors and in the best
interest of the company, its workers, and the people of South Carolina, then why has
the NLRB acting general counsel sued them?
Moreover, how can the President expect the private sector to create jobs and put Americans
back to work if his appointees continue to use the regulatory process to keep putting
impediments in their path? Why would the administration stand in the way of reindustrialization of
the American workforce and strengthening one of the major industries where we still have
a competitive global advantage?
Any appearance that Mr. Solomon's decision was tailored to reward the President's powerful
financial and political supporters -- big labor -- would be disturbing. The American
people deserve to know if so-called independent regulatory agencies are exceeding their legal
authority to pursue a partisan agenda.
And finally, I want to make the point about the difficulty the committee had in securing
Mr. Solomon as a witness. Fortunately, he is here today. And for that, I thank you.
But he is here because of a compulsory process, and I am increasingly concerned that the use
of subpoena, which has not been historically needed, may be a sign that there is a constitutional
challenge forming between the Congress's legitimate oversight and the executive branch, including
their quasi-independent agencies.
And with that, I recognize the gentlelady from New York for her opening statement.
[Mrs. Maloney] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank all my colleagues for being here. It is wonderful to be in South Carolina, in
Charleston. And welcome to all of our witnesses.
We are gathered here today at a time when employment is the most crucial issue facing
our country. Roughly 13.5 million Americans are unemployed. The labor force participation
rate is still at a low not seen in over a generation.
The focus of our inquiry today should be how Republicans and Democrats can work together
to encourage businesses to invest and put Americans back to work in South Carolina and
elsewhere in this country.
This case is not about creating jobs in South Carolina. This case is not about Everett,
Washington, workers against Charleston workers. This case is about a company thinking it is
above the law because it is a multibillion dollar, multinational corporation.
If Boeing moved jobs into a nonunion factory 10 miles down the road from its Everett plant
because workers have protested working conditions, its decision would be just as illegal. But
that is not why we are here. Instead, this hearing actually concerns the economic consequences
of a potential illegal act allegedly committed by the Boeing Company and the legitimate law
enforcement action taken this week by the National Labor Relations Board to sanction
it.
At issue in the Boeing case is whether Boeing illegally retaliated against American workers
for engaging in activity that Congress has chosen to protect since 1935 and FDR, the
right to protest. No worker benefits for allowing a company to explicitly break the law.
Just as it is illegal to discriminate against workers based on their race or gender, it
is also illegal to make business decisions that discriminate against workers for exercising
their legal rights. The protected rights at stake in the Boeing case apply to workers
regardless of whether or not they are unionized, whether or not they live in South Carolina
or anywhere in our great Nation, and, of course, regardless of politics.
Boeing is a very important company to our country. With its workers, they make outstanding
products. They export. They are our biggest exporter.
I support creating great jobs and reducing unemployment across the United States, but
I also believe that Boeing is not above the law. And as Members of Congress, we should
not set aside the law to give preferred treatment to any one company.
The NLRB is part of our justice system, and it should be given the opportunity to do justice
in the Boeing case. That is the only way to ensure that all workers, even those here working
for Boeing in South Carolina, are protected.
That is why I am very concerned about the timing of this hearing and the chairman's
insistence on it and his insistence that Mr. Lafe Solomon, the general counsel and chief
prosecutor of the case, testify while the Boeing hearing is currently underway. His
testimony today raises serious concerns about the due process rights of litigants and the
integrity of the Boeing proceeding.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am a strong believer in the importance of congressional oversight.
But I do not believe that we should interfere with active prosecutions under the guise of
oversight. We must act prudently and respect the judicial process. I hope that you will
exercise your discretion as chair of the committee and direct the Members today to avoid asking
questions of Mr. Solomon which could, in any way, put a fair trial and due process at risk.
If you do not, I believe you may, intentionally or not, permit the legal process to be tainted
by political interference. This simply does not serve any legitimate goal of this committee
or the United States Congress.
If, however, you take steps to protect the integrity of the legal process and prevent
an appearance, then I am confident that today's hearing can shed some light on how to ensure
that all workers, whether in South Carolina or anywhere else in our great country, can
find employment and continue to have the ability to bargain for rights and engage in protected
activity.
Today, the middle class is in serious decline with wages for the majority of workers stagnant
and increasing numbers of workers without access to health insurance and pension benefits.
There is no question that unions have contributed to building the middle class in our country.
For instance, according to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, union workers are more
likely than nonunion workers to be covered for health insurance and receive pension benefits
and paid sick leave. We cannot ignore the critical role that unions have played in building
America by helping improve the wages and working conditions of union and nonunion jobs alike.
In closing, I want to emphasize again that this hearing puts at risk trying to use politics
to influence the work of an independent Federal agency. To intimidate is to affect the outcome
of a judicial proceeding. This is very dangerous to our democracy. If we believe in the rules
of law, we have to be governed by due process institutions have created to resolve these
issues in a fair manner.
Again, I thank you for yielding to me and for calling this hearing.
[Chairman Issa] I thank the gentlelady.
We now recognize a local hero, Mr. Gowdy.
[Mr. Gowdy] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in this area.
I also want to thank my colleagues, those that are in the audience -- our colleagues
from State Government; speaker of our house; Attorney General Henry Brown, who served so
ably in Congress for many years; my two colleagues who are on the dais with me, Representative
Wilson, Representative Scott; and we speak on behalf of those of our colleagues who are
not here.
With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to place two letters from
our Senators -- Senator Graham and Senator DeMint -- into the record.
[Chairman Issa] I have them. Without objection, so ordered.
[ Mr. Gowdy] Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is to promote
the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers
in their relations affecting commerce, and to protect the rights of the public in connection
with labor disputes affecting commerce.
In other words, the NLRA is supposed to strike a proper balance between the rights of employees,
employers, and the public. But you would never know that for the actions of the NLRB. Under
the guise of enforcing the NLRA, the NLRB has essentially become a sycophant for labor
unions.
At a time when union membership is at a historic low, the NLRB seeks to give unions a historically
unprecedented level of influence. Exhibit A is the NLRB's recent interaction with the
State of South Carolina.
Not only did the NLRB threaten to sue the State of South Carolina for seeking to memorialize
in our constitution something as revolutionary as the right to a secret ballot, this administration
-- not content with class warfare, not content with generational warfare -- now seeks to
engage in regional warfare, pitting workers in Washington State against those who seek
jobs in South Carolina.
Boeing has made airplanes in Washington for several decades. And during the course of
that time, there have been at least four work stoppages which threatened Boeing's ability
to deliver airplanes to customers in a timely fashion. So Boeing did what any responsible
company would do. It looked to see where best to start a new, separate, distinct line of
work on the 787 Dreamliner.
The union didn't like that, and they found a willing ally in the NLRB. The NLRB filed
a complaint against Boeing. And lay aside the demonstrably false allegations of the
complaint, lay aside the unprecedented legal analysis, the NLRB wants to make Boeing shut
down its South Carolina facility, get rid of the 1,000 employees that have been hired,
and return the work to Washington State.
The spokesperson for the NLRB is quoted as saying this. "We are not telling Boeing they
can't build planes in South Carolina. We are talking about one specific plane, three planes
a month. If they keep those planes, those three planes a month in Washington State,
there is no problem."
Let that sink in for a second. An unelected executive branch entity spokesperson is telling
a private company what it can make, where it can make it, and how much of it it can
make. According to the reasoning of the NLRB, it is fine for a new company to consider wage
rates, work stoppages, and take the full panoply of factors into consideration in deciding
whether to pick a union State or a right-to-work State. But a company who has already planted
a flag in a union State cannot dare consider starting a new line of work in a right-to-work
State.
And make no mistake, this is a new line of work. Not one single employee has lost a job
in Washington State. Not one single employee has suffered an adverse consequence as a result
of Boeing's decision to start a separate, distinct line of work in South Carolina.
Despite congressional intent and clear Supreme Court jurisprudence, union leadership and
unelected NLRB attorneys are now seeking to become managing partners in the business affairs
of American companies. South Carolina is confident Boeing will be vindicated in a court of law.
However, the NLRB's jurisdictional overreach, coupled with its brazen activism, threatens
the future allocation of work by American companies.
South Carolinians want to work, Mr. Chairman. We need the jobs. We want to meet our familial
and societal obligations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Chairman Issa] I thank you.
We now recognize the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for her opening statement.
[Ms. Norton] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wish I could say to my good friend, the chairman, that I am pleased that he has called
today's hearing.
[Chairman Issa] I am pleased to have you here.
[Laughter.]
[Ms. Norton] But, Mr. Chairman, today's hearing makes unfortunate history with an unprecedented
appearance of an abuse of the rule of law and constitutional due process. Congress has
obligatory oversight responsibilities over the National Labor Relations Board and the
National Labor Relations Act. But when it threatens to issue a compulsory subpoena of
decision-making counsel in the middle of a legal proceeding, it lends an appearance of
intimidation.
Among other subjects, I have taught labor law as a tenured professor of law at Georgetown
University Law School and know of the difficulty and close calls of these fact-laden cases
and of the pains Congress took to create an independent general counsel and an independent
board to avoid the appearance of seeking to influence the outcome of a legal proceeding
while it is in progress and before any decision on the merits has been made.
How else to interpret actions by Members of the House and Senate, including threatening
subpoenas, demanding the privileged work product of counsel, and threatening to defund the
essential court here, the National Labor Relations Board, before it has made a decision or even
heard the case.
I may be a Member of Congress, but I am still a member in good standing of the bar and an
officer of the court. I have no basis for a judgment on the merits of the ongoing proceeding
in my role as a Member of Congress, and I will not use this hearing to try to influence
the outcome.
I hope that following this hearing, this committee may once again embrace the long tradition
of Republican and Democratic chairmen alike to avoid the possibility of appearing to taint
a legal proceeding by engaging in a hearing while the proceeding is ongoing.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Chairman Issa] I thank the gentlelady.
We now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for his opening statement.
[Mr. Farenthold] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to be in South Carolina. I am here as a member of the Government Oversight and
Reform Committee and also as a concerned Texan, a State that, like South Carolina, has worked
hard to create a business-friendly environment with low taxes, reasonable regulations, and
a great workforce and a great place to live.
Governor Perry and the legislature in the State of Texas have worked hard to create
much the same environment, and these issues that affect South Carolina affect a whole
lot of other States as well. In fact, the State of Texas Attorney General Abbott, along
with 16 other attorney generals, have filed an amicus brief in this proceeding.
And we have got States like Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. And they were also joined by non
right-to-work States like Colorado and Michigan. I think this is a telling feature because
this decision could have huge potential impact on economic development.
In right-to-work States, it would create an environment where companies are afraid to
create new lines of business and expand into those States. And in States that are non right-to-work
States, it creates the impression that, well, we don't want to start up in those States
because as we grow, we are stuck in those kind of States. And that is absolutely the
wrong thing for the Federal Government to be doing, telling private businesses where
they can and cannot locate, where they can and cannot grow their business.
We are in a climate right now in this Government where regulatory and quasi-regulatory agencies
are out really trying to stop growth. I am deeply concerned that there is a concerted
effort on the part of this administration and its regulatory agencies to punish States
that have different philosophies than they do, that believe in balanced budgets, that
believe in lower taxes and believe businesses are the place to create jobs for people.
And this is a dangerous precedent that is being set, and that is one of the reasons
we are here today. It is not trying to influence the outcome of something. It is trying to
say it never should have been started in the first place.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
[Chairman Issa] I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, for his opening statement.
[Mr. Kucinich] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of Eleanor Holmes Norton with respect to this
procedure. I trust the chair will take into account our concerns and will conduct himself
accordingly.
But I am concerned that the workers' rights, which the NLRB decided have been violated
by Boeing, would be further violated through any infringement on right to due process,
equal protection of the law, right to fair trial through these proceedings. But again,
that is in the hands of the chair.
The question that faces us at its core -- did Boeing unlawfully retaliate against its Washington
State workers, who were lawfully exercising their right to strike? Boeing's executive
vice president Jim Albaugh told the Seattle Times, when speaking of a move, "The overriding
factor was not the business climate, and it was not the wages we are paying people today.
It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every 3 years."
Boeing planned to transfer jobs away from Washington State and a unionized workforce
in the Seattle area to a nonunion facility in South Carolina. The National Labor Relations
Board found that Boeing violated the National Labor Relations Act when it made coercive
statements and it threatened its employees for engaging in legally protected activity,
strikes, and for transferring work from the same workforce in order to avoid the possibility
of those workers engaging in protected activity in the future.
There are 3,300 people currently working on the 787 Dreamliner in Everett. This operation
is supposed to scale down as the South Carolina plant is fully operational. But the scaling
down is, in effect, a transfer of work, which has been correctly identified as retaliatory
in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
I would say that it is not the NLRB, but it is Boeing that has pitted one State against
the other. It is Boeing that is pitting one group of workers against another at a time
of great economic uncertainty and at a time when corporate profits generally are rising
during a jobless recovery.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
who are here fighting for their constituents. I respect that. That is what you are supposed
to do.
But we have a deeper question here, and that is did Boeing violate the law? And if it did,
are there remedies available to the workers under that law?
And if the answer comes to be that it did, then the remedies that are put to Boeing,
it would be unfortunate if the people in South Carolina would have to suffer. But Boeing
is going to have to have that on their account because this is something that really relates
to what the law is.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, Boeing -- I think we ought to be concerned about keeping jobs
in this country. And it is inevitable that Boeing is going to have to consider calling
work back from overseas when they outsource it and increase the production curve and the
delivery curve of their Dreamliner. So we want the work to come back, and we want to
make sure that workers everywhere have a chance to participate in a renewed American manufacturing
climate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Chairman Issa] I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to our rules, we will next go to Mr. Braley, as a member of the committee.
[Mr. Braley] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like you all to look at the seal behind the chairman because it has what the people
of the County of Charleston felt were important principles to promote when they formed this
government. And you will see up there "pro bono public" -- "for the public good."
And unfortunately, this hearing misses the point that the purpose of a National Labor
Relations Board investigation is to determine what is in the public good when the NLRB exercises
its constitutional responsibility to investigate whether labor laws have been violated, in
this case by Boeing, and, if so, what a proper remedy for those violations should be.
And if you remember only one thing, you need to think about not just what due process means
to the parties to this complaint, but what it means to you and your families and your
friends and your neighbors. Because this goes much deeper than an NLRB hearing, and the
problem with this hearing is it involves an unprecedented improper interference by Congress
with a pending adjudicative proceeding as defined by the Federal statute and based on
years of precedent.
So what we should be talking about is not what the person who is in charge of prosecuting
that case is doing, but whether, in fact, Boeing broke the law and what should be an
appropriate remedy.
One of the things that you learn in your first days of class in administrative law is that
administrative agencies act in one of two ways. One is by rulemaking, where there is
an opportunity for expansive public input and congressional input, and all of us engage
in that on a constant basis.
But the other type of action by agencies is called adjudication, and it is just like a
judicial proceeding. And just as you aren't supposed to tamper with juries who are deciding
the facts in a case in a court, you aren't supposed to tamper with witnesses who appear
in front of that court, even though they aren't involved in the process of deciding the outcome
of that case.
So what we should be talking about is things that are the basis of our Constitution and
how this country was founded. Let me read this to you.
"He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing
judicial powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their
offices and the amount and payment of their salaries."
That is in our Declaration of Independence because our Founding Fathers didn't want people
interfering with judicial processes, which is what was happening in England. And that
is why, when we are talking and the chairman mentions the threat to reindustrialization
of the American workforce, folks, we are involved in the race to the bottom right now.
We had 397,000 factories in this country at the beginning of the last decade. We only
have 343,000 now. That is a closure of 54,000 factories, a loss of 5 million jobs. That
means every day 15 factories are shutting down. That is what we should be talking about
today.
[Chairman Issa] I thank the gentleman.
We now go to another favored son here, Mr. Joe Wilson.
[Mr. Joe Wilson] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this North Charleston
hearing.
Indeed, this is unprecedented. What we are talking about is an unprecedented expansion
of big Government determining where companies can locate their operations and employ citizens.
But more importantly, right here, what we have is an assault on Boeing which kills jobs
in South Carolina.
And this is an issue very important, obviously, to the families of South Carolina, but it
is important to all the people of the United States. I am really grateful to be here in
that this is my birthplace -- Charleston, America's historic city. I am very grateful
that the people who will be working with Boeing are going to be working in a world-class community.
That is why they have come here.
And to be here with Congressman Tim Scott, who is the resident Member of Congress. We
have our workhorse former Member of Congress, Henry Brown. Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
is here. The leadership of this community has just been so proactive, creating jobs.
Charleston is such a fitting location for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, in that this is
the home of Governor Jim Edwards. It was his leadership that recruited Michelin to South
Carolina. We now have the North American headquarters in Greenville here in South Carolina. We have
seven plants across South Carolina.
In fact, in the district I represent in Lexington, over $1 billion has been invested since 1979,
creating thousands of jobs. So we have a record of recruiting industry.
And of course, to be here at the Port of Charleston, this is a tribute to former Governor Carroll
Campbell. He recruited BMW. And right here from Charleston, over 1 million BMWs have
been exported around the world. And so, it is a real tribute.
The reason that people and companies locate in South Carolina is that we have a capable,
productive workforce. We have a world-class technical college system. We have a welcoming
climate. It is a meteorological climate that is mild. You can do business year round, and
the people are warm.
We are a right-to-work State that protects the rights of workers. And we have pro-business
leadership in government with Speaker Harrell, with the senate president Glen McConnell,
Democrats, Republicans working together, supportive of this expansion of Boeing to South Carolina.
We welcome this, and I look forward to the testimony today. But the people of South Carolina
are so supportive of creating jobs and creating opportunity for the families of South Carolina.
Thank you.
[Chairman Issa] Mr. Scott, we now ask you to top all of those openings.
[Laughter.]
[Chairman Issa] Since this is your town. You are recognized.
[Mr. Scott] Thank you, sir.
I would like to start off by simply saying thank God for South Carolina, the home of
common sense and the permanent home of the Boeing Corporation, number one.
Number two, it is obvious that the campaign season has begun. There is no question that
we are in the process of seeing the beginning of a presidential reelection campaign, as
we find ways to fill the coffers in an attempt to use union workers and their dues as a way
to create a winning combination for a presidential campaign.
Number three, on the issue of politics of intimidation, think of this, if you will.
America's greatest exporter being brought to task not for the elimination of a single
union job in Washington State, but for the addition, the increase, the creation of jobs,
1,000 jobs in South Carolina.
Think of this for just a minute. The definition of intimidation is having the NLRB require
the Boeing Corporation to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars defending
a baseless lawsuit, a baseless complaint.
Imagine, if you will, the workers in Washington State as they see 2,000 new employees since
the announcement of the North Charleston plant, 2,000 new employees show up for work. That
does not sound like retaliation.
Think, if you will, that here in Charleston, North Charleston, we have had a $1 billion
investment by the Boeing Corporation, and now -- and now we find ourselves having a
complaint to be issued to solve a problem that simply does not exist.
Why are we here today? How did we get here? In America's fragile recovery, during the
midst of one of the most amazing recessions, at the verge of a double dip in the recession,
we find ourselves telling the Boeing Corporation that they ought to figure out how to take
these jobs to another country. Because make no mistake that the beginning of an interstate
war, interstate war between Washington and South Carolina, between right-to-work States
and union presence States, we find ourselves having a really important conversation.
And the conversation is not about right-to-work versus not the right-to-work. It is not about
Washington State or South Carolina, as it has been teed up. It is truly about whether
or not we want American corporations doing business in America, or -- or do we want to
send more jobs to China?
Do we, in fact, want the laws of our country to dictate the success of America's greatest
corporations, or do we want other nations to decide and to determine the workforce of
America? This entire process is baseless. We find ourselves in the midst of a hearing
that should not be. I do agree with that.
Because if there was something warranted in this process, we should have addressed it.
But simply said, this is a baseless complaint. We find ourselves in the midst of the campaign
season. Using your tax dollars, using your tax dollars in an unprecedented way, to tell
private companies where and how to create jobs.
It is interesting that the seven planes that they are producing in Washington State, none
of those jobs are moving. Those seven planes will be coming out. They have decided that
they want an additional three planes a month. They looked far and wide, and they decided
that the greatest workforce in all of America here in North Charleston would be the place
to have it.
Thank you.
[Chairman Issa] I thank the gentleman. Albeit a little long, you did top everyone else.
[Laughter.]
[Chairman Issa] I would now ask unanimous consent that the statements of Meredith Going
Sr. and Dennis Murray II of the South Carolinian-based Boeing employees, who sought to intervene
in this case involving Boeing Company, the International Association of Machinists, and
the NLRB, be entered into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[ Chairman Issa] I will now introduce our panel of witnesses. Oh, additionally, I would
ask unanimous consent that all Members, both present and those who may join us, would have
7 business days in order to put additional statements and extraneous material into the
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[ Chairman Issa] We now recognize our first panel of witnesses.
[Mrs. Maloney] Mr. Chairman?
[Chairman Issa] Would you let me get them through before any points of order? I won't
start without it.
[Mrs. Maloney] Thank you.
[Chairman Issa] Mr. Philip Miscimarra is a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius?
[Mr. Miscimarra] Bockius.
[Chairman Issa] Bockius LLP. And you specialize in labor and employment practices in Chicago,
Illinois.
Mr. Neil Whitman is president of Dunhill Staffing Systems in Charleston, South Carolina, specializing
in staffing.
Mr. Julius G. Getman is the regent chair at the University of Texas at Austin School of
Law.
Ms. Cynthia Ramaker is an employee of the Boeing Company in North Charleston but is
testifying today as an individual and not on behalf of the company.
And Mr. Lafe Solomon is the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.
And I didn't miss anyone. So before we have anything else, pursuant to the rules, I would
ask all witnesses to rise to take the oath.
Raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about
to give in this case, in this hearing, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
[All witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
[Chairman Issa] Let the record reflect that all answered in the affirmative. Please have
a seat.
Does the gentlelady have a point of order?
[Mrs. Maloney] Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[Chairman Issa] Please state your point of order.
[Mrs. Maloney] I do have a parliamentary inquiry.
[Chairman Issa] Please state your inquiry.
[Mrs. Maloney] And I would like to articulate a concern that I expressed in my opening statement
as to Ms. Norton and Mr. Kucinich about the potential damage this hearing could have on
the National Labor Relations Board action against Boeing, which is currently being heard
by a judge as we sit here today.
My concern echoed a letter that the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Cummings,
and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Miller, sent
you yesterday. And I would like unanimous consent to place it in the record.
[Chairman Issa] It will be placed in the record. I have a copy.
[ Chairman Issa] I thank you for your inquiry.
[Mrs. Maloney] And I am hoping that you can inform us how you intend to proceed with the
hearing today. Specifically, do you intend to protect the NLRB legal proceedings from
political interference today by directing committee members to limit all questions to
Mr. Solomon to general questions about the NLRB and its processes and not ask questions
directly related to the NLRB proceedings?
[Chairman Issa] I will try to answer the gentlelady's questions, the ranking members' questions,
the letters, coming both from the White House and multiple committees, and I will do it
in the following fashion.
Mr. Solomon, I would like to ask you a few questions related specifically to your role
here today to make clear what is in and not in bounds. Hopefully, we can do that on the
record.
First of all, is it correct that you are here not pursuant to a subpoena but, in fact, voluntarily.
After the subpoena was issued, there was an acquiescence of your being here. Is that roughly
the truth?
[Mr. Solomon] Sir, the subpoena was not issued.
[Chairman Issa] Oh, it was issued. It was signed. But our understanding is when the
staff informed that a subpoena would compel, that there was an agreement outside of subpoena
for your appearance voluntarily?
[Mr. Solomon] I didn't know there was a signed subpoena. I -- I --
[Chairman Issa] So, therefore, you are here voluntarily?
[Mr. Solomon] I am here voluntarily.
[Chairman Issa] Okay. That is even better. So you are here voluntarily. Do you feel intimidated
by us asking you questions related to decisions you have already made?
[Mr. Solomon] I am here reluctantly. Not because I have anything to hide, but because I have
a lot to protect. I need to protect the independence of the Office of General Counsel. I need to
protect the due process rights of the litigants, and I need to ensure that there is a fair
[Chairman Issa] Now you are not the administrative law judge?
[Mr. Solomon] Correct.
[Chairman Issa] And you have already made your mind up in this case or you wouldn't
have brought the case. Is that correct?
[Mr. Solomon] I certainly issued the complaint. However, I am still actively involved in making
strategic decisions about the litigation as it continues.
[Chairman Issa] It is our intent not to ask you as to your strategy of pursuit in this
case against Boeing in which it is our belief -- correct me if I am outright wrong -- you
have already made your decision they are guilty, or you wouldn't have brought this. Your strategy
may change, but you made, you alone were the one person that made the decision to put this
before an administrative law judge. And therefore, you had made a decision. Is that correct?
This isn't a fact-finding, go fishing. You have made a decision, and you are prosecuting
a case?
[Mr. Solomon] I made a decision that there was reasonable cause to believe that the National
[Chairman Issa] Yes, if you could -- I apologize. Perhaps because of the nature of these mikes,
I think they are picking up okay, but if you would speak up just a little whenever possible.
[Mr. Solomon] Certainly, sir.
I believed, after a thorough investigation, that there was reasonable cause to believe
that the National Labor Relations Act had been violated. I authorized the issuance of
a complaint. But you know, as I said, I am actively involved in going forward and determining
the strategy of our litigation.
[Chairman Issa] Okay. And you are aware of precedent in which Congress has independently
made decisions about all activities of the executive branch, whether direct or through
a quasi-independent agency. Is that correct?
[Mr. Solomon] Yes, sir. I am unaware of any time a general counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board has been called before Congress in a pending litigation.
[Chairman Issa] You are aware that the Congress has, from time to time, convened, offered
laws restraining even the Federal court and certainly the executive branch from certain
actions which they disagreed with. Is that correct?
[Mr. Solomon] I am no legal scholar in this regard --
[Chairman Issa] Fortunately, we have one here. I am sure he will pipe in at the appropriate
time.
Okay. Then I will issue guidance pursuant to the gentlelady's request. We believe -- the
chair believes and will rule that questions related to that which you have already decided,
but not related to the strategy you will pursue in the pending case are inbounds.
Facts which are entitled to be received by the defendant and others will be considered
reasonable to ask for. Any item which is not discoverable by the defendant will be considered
out of bounds for any question.
The clock will stop if at any time individuals on either side ask a question in which you
wish to seek or believe you need to seek your counsel. Unless your counsel is sworn, he
won't be able to answer for you, but he will be available to you, and you will have whatever
time you want or whatever time you need.
Additionally, it is not our intent to interfere with the process ongoing. Congress has an
independent right to make a decision to change the outcome.
We could eliminate the NLRB. We could choose to take your premise and statutorily change
it. That is part of the consideration that Congress has to make, and we have to make
it in real time. This is not something we can wait until 3 years from now. Plus, we
have amicus possibilities at any appropriate time.
We will limit our questions to that decision which you have made and that which would be
otherwise discoverable and nothing beyond that. Is that understood, and do you agree?
[Mr. Solomon] Yes. I think we might need to play it out a bit before I understand it.
[Chairman Issa] They give me a gavel so that I can make additional statements and rulings
as appropriate.
Is the gentlelady satisfied that at least to begin --
[Mrs. Maloney] I would like to thank the chairman. Congress historically has treaded very carefully
before choosing to interfere in the legitimate law enforcement activities, and the timing
of this hearing is unfortunate in that the proceedings have started. And I am confident
that the committee's oversight responsibility can be fulfilled today without compromising
the integrity of the NLRB's proceedings or the due process rights of private parties.
So thank you for clarifying that, and let's go forward.
[Chairman Issa] I think we have gotten to the starting point. And again, we will pause
the clock if you need to consult on any question, and I will consider changes as necessary.
With that, I am wrung out from asking questions. So before I take my round -- I already did
that. I did that. I am going to say that. Okay. We will now begin, and we will go right
down the row with opening statements.
Unlike us, where we hopefully suspended a little bit of what otherwise would have been
the long opening statements, you will have up to a full 5 minutes. When you see, if you
can see the lights go from green to yellow to red, please try to wrap it up.
Understand your entire opening statement, no matter how long, will be included in the
record of this hearing, in addition to extraneous material or additional comments you may choose
to add later.
With that, Ms. Ramaker?
[Ms. Ramaker] Oh, wow.
[Chairman Issa] If you would like to pass, we will come back to you.
[Ms. Ramaker] No, I'm fine.
[Chairman Issa] Thank you very much for being here. I realize that you are not accustomed
to this kind of procedure, and we didn't help with our opening start. But please understand
we know you are here as an individual and just be comfortable and say what you feel
from your heart.
[Ms. Ramaker] Okay, if you hear this noise, it's my knees knocking. So I'm sorry.
[Chairman Issa] Could you pull the microphone a little closer?
[Ms. Ramaker] All right. My name is Cynthia Ramaker. I'm an employee -- my name is Cynthia
Ramaker. I'm an employee of Boeing based in North Charleston, South Carolina.
I am one of the employees who is attempting to intervene in the case involving the Boeing
Company, the International Association of Machinists, and the NLRB regarding Boeing's
South Carolina operation.
In April 2006, I was in the first group to be hired by Vought Aircraft, the manufacturer
with the Charleston facility that assemble the two aft sections of large Boeing aircraft.
When I went to work for Vought in '06, the IAM had not made contact with employees.
In '07, IAM organizers began soliciting Vought employees with a door-to-door campaign. The
union was eventually voted in in the spring of 2008, and after the union got in, it began
contract negotiations with Vought. The IAM did not inform employees the importance of
issues that were negotiated -- being negotiated with Vought.
At some point, the IAM must have known the contract it was negotiating was likely to
be rejected because the meeting in November of '08, at which the contract was to be ratified,
was billed as a normal union meeting with no mention of a ratification vote. I recall
the IAM assuring employees that any bad things in the contract would later be improved.
Of all the union members in the unit, only 13 attended the contract meeting -- ratification
meeting. Those few in attendance ratified the IAM's contract by a vote of 12 to 1. All
of the provisions of the new IAM contract were worse than what we had as Vought employees.
We lost medical, dental, short-term disability.
The Vought employees' dissatisfaction with the IAM's action surrounding the contract
only increased when the workers were laid off in the following weeks. After the contract
ratification, employees attempted to contact IAM officials, leadership. The IAM grand lodge
representatives held one meeting, and then we had no contact from them for 4 months during
the layoff. Nobody was even able to make contact with them.
Around this time, I was voted as the local president and continued in that position until
September of '09, when the union was decertified. There was nothing I could do with respect
to influencing the union leadership or reassuring the employees about our future under the new
contract with the union.
I was not surprised by the unfair labor practice filed by the IAM in Seattle or Everett against
Boeing. To me, they are violating my right to work with a choice. Isn't that what -- my
hands are shaking. Isn't that what being an American is all about, a choice? That's my
right.
They made it perfectly clear to us that they did not want the 787 built here in South Carolina.
After Boeing bought the facility, I was aware of a petition being organized to decertify
the union, and I had no role in that signature gathering for the decertification petition.
The decertification election was held in September of '09, and the IAM was voted out by a tally
of 199 to 69.
Recently, the IAM has begun contacting employees again at their home, trying to get them to
join. This campaign was very poor in comparison to the one several years ago.
The Boeing campus in North Charleston is divided into three different production buildings.
Building 8819 is currently staffed by 1,200 employees. Building 8820 is currently staffed
with about the same. When it is fully staffed, the FAD building -- F, A, and D -- will employ
some 3,800 employees.
Thousands of people will be unemployed if the NLRB complaint is successful. Losing my
job will be catastrophic to myself and the workers at the North Charleston Boeing facility.
We are homeowners. We have families that will be affected.
And I understand that the NLRB general counsel's remedy in this case will force Boeing to discontinue
the final assembly and delivery work in Charleston and transfer it to Seattle, and this would
devastate -- totally devastate our families and the community. It is absolute certainty
that many Charleston-based employees, including me, will lose our jobs with Boeing in South
Carolina if the general counsel's proposed remedy is adopted.
Boeing is one of the best employers in the area, and I would like to continue working
for them. But if the 787 program is moved to Washington, I will not accept a relocation
offer. I have chosen to exercise my rights as a citizen of the United States to live
Our personal experience with IAM has been very bad. Although I have nothing against
unions in principle, I strongly believe that membership in a union and representation by
a union should not be compulsory.
We had a union in our plant. The majority of the employees did not want to be represented
by that union. So it got voted out. Now it seems we are being punished for that choice.
I strongly believe that employers should not be told by the Federal Government or a union
where they can establish their operations, and if Boeing thinks it can get the job done
more profitably and successfully in South Carolina, then that's Boeing's decision to
make.
And I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
[ Chairman Issa] Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Ms. Ramaker] You're welcome.
[Chairman Issa] Mr. Whitman?
[Mr. Whitman] Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, distinguished visitors, I want to thank you for allowing
me the opportunity to discuss the various positive impact that Boeing has had both on
my small business and the Charleston community.
My name is Neil Whitman. My wife, Melinda; my daughter, Katie; and I own and operate
Dunhill Staffing Systems based here in Charleston.
In 2000, Melinda and I relocated to the Charleston community with the idea of starting our own
business. Like many Americans, we dreamed of owning a business. On August 15, 2001,
We are a provider of fee-paid recruiting for technical and sales professionals throughout
the Southeast, with a special emphasis on our local market. Some would call us headhunters.
We prefer to be called executive search consultants.
Our plans for a grand opening on September 17th changed abruptly when our Nation was
attacked on September the 11th. Despite the shock this had on our Nation's economy, my
business persevered and was profitable in its first year of operation.
As our business grew, I hired more consultants, eventually employing seven full-time staff
members. They were well paid and received benefits. We became involved in our local
community, including our Chamber of Commerce; SCAPS, our State personnel association; the
local school district; our churches; and donated time and money to numerous nonprofits throughout
the Charleston area.
My business plan called for the launching of an hourly staffing division, which we did
in 2005. Good fortune smiled on us again, and this sector was profitable in one year.
The announcement made in 2004 that Vought Aircraft and Global Aeronautica were coming
to Charleston was, indeed, good news. Aircraft manufacturing represented an important new
business sector for our region.
Soon after this announcement, my company was contacted about providing services to these
companies. Our business volume grew, particularly with Global Aeronautica. And it grew at a
steady pace, and they eventually became our largest customer.
My decision to launch our hourly division as a hedge against an economic downturn was
validated when our search business took a dramatic downturn in the fall of 2008. The
market plunge combined to virtually kill our most profitable sector.
I don't mind telling you I was scared that our business wouldn't make it. Thankfully,
companies supporting Boeing's 787 program here in Charleston continued to grow, and
this sustained our business through 2009. We placed dozens of individuals with Global
Aeronautica in good-paying jobs that offered benefits and the opportunity for many of our
contractors to become full-time staff.
Many of the people we placed were unemployed at the time with dim prospects for the future.
I know they were all glad to have good-paying jobs in a tough economic time.
The announcement on October 28, 2009, that Boeing had picked Charleston for their new
assembly plant was the best economic news in a long while. I knew immediately this was
a game-changer for our area and offered great potential for my small business.
I learned that Boeing was committed to utilizing local resources and that it gave generously
to the communities where they were located. All of this proved to be true.
After numerous meetings and intense negotiation, my company was added to Boeing's list of national
contract labor suppliers, and now we get to compete for their business every single day.
To handle this additional volume of work, I've added a full-time account manager who
focuses exclusively on their needs.
The jobs we fill all pay well above the local average and provide an entry point for people
to join Boeing as regular full-time employees. My business has grown. We've added over 100
employees, and I've seen my revenue grow by 295 percent. And this is counter to the current
job market, which, as recent news indicates, continues to be very difficult.
Once again, if not for Boeing business, my small business would be very different. Mine
is not the only small business that's felt the positive impact of Boeing's presence in
Charleston. Recently, I had a conversation with an engineer from a local engineering
company who told me that without Boeing they'd be out of business. I have no doubt there
are many such stories to be told here in Charleston.
If Boeing is forced to shut down their Charleston operations, it would mean the loss of thousands
of direct and indirect jobs in an economy that is just barely recovering from the recession.
Again, I don't know if we'd survive.
Boeing has proven, as promised, to be a good corporate citizen. Boeing executives and employees
are buying houses, attending our churches, participating in our Chambers of Commerce,
and are actively involved in several nonprofits in our area. They've given over $1 million
to local charities and I believe will only continue to make Charleston a better community
for all of us to live, learn, work, and play. Losing Boeing as a result of this lawsuit
would cost thousands of jobs and set our community back for years.
When I first heard of this lawsuit, I was more than a little concerned. Many of my friends
and business colleagues wondered why and how our Government would consider such an action,
which appears to be an assault on our free enterprise system.
Each and every day, businesses large and small must make decisions about where to invest
their limited resources. That's what I did 11 years ago when I decided to start my own
small business in Charleston. I did so after my research showed Charleston to be a good
market, and that decision proved to be a good one.
Boeing did the same thing and decided to invest several hundred million, now a billion, in
our community. I believe they did so after carefully considering a multitude of factors,
including the positive labor climate in our State.
This lawsuit by an agency of our Federal Government is, in my opinion, against all that makes
our economic system special. It will have negative consequences for future generations
of entrepreneurs and business leaders who must be able to locate their businesses without
the threat of Government intervention. The freedom to make these kind of decisions must
be preserved.
Thank you.
[Chairman Issa] Thank you very much.
Mr. Solomon?
[Mr. Solomon] Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I appear before
you today as the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, having
been appointed to this position by President Obama on June 21, 2010.
I would like to start by acknowledging that workers in North Charleston are feeling vulnerable
I personally met with the parties, and I tried for 3 months to facilitate a settlement of
this case. I remain open to playing a constructive role in assisting the parties to settle this
dispute without the costs and uncertainties associated with extended litigation.
I believe that, given the parties' longstanding bargaining relationship, a settlement would
All charges filed with our regional offices are carefully and impartially investigated
to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that under the board's precedents
an unfair labor practice has been committed. Fairness to the parties and sound development
of the law weighs in favor of presenting these types of cases to the board for decision,
subject to review by the courts.
I would not be fulfilling my responsibilities if I turned a blind eye to evidence that an
unfair labor practice may have occurred. I took an oath to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act and to protect workers from unlawful conduct.
The general counsel's concern with fairness to the parties does not end with the issuance
of the complaint. Throughout the proceeding, the general counsel remains master of the
complaint and is responsible to ensure that the prosecution of a case is justified by
the facts and law.
As such, it remains open to the general counsel to make concessions on issues of fact or law
and to pursue settlement discussions with the charged party, even over the objections
of the charging party.
For all these reasons, the actual fairness of the proceedings before the board and, equally
important, the perception that the board's administrative processes are fair vitally
depends on the public and the parties retaining the confidence that the general counsel is
carrying out his prosecutorial responsibilities on the basis of fact and law in the case and
is not making decisions on the basis of political or other matters not properly before the board.
As you know, the Boeing hearing began on Tuesday of this week before an administrative law
judge in Seattle, Washington. I am actively involved in overseeing the Boeing litigation
and in strategic decisions necessary for the prosecution of this case.
My obligation to protect the independence of the Office of the General Counsel and the
integrity of the enforcement process restricts my ability to offer insight into the decision-making
here. I hope you will share my commitment that these proceedings not be construed as
Thank you.
Mr. Miscimarra? Was that closer?
[Mr. Miscimarra] Much closer, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa, Representative Maloney, and committee members, thank you for the invitation
PAGE 1