[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7617-7622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        THE GREAT STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BOEING, AND THE NLRB

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from South

[[Page 7618]]

Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the majority leader.
  Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, last week, of course, we were in our 
respective districts, which means I was home in my beloved State of 
South Carolina. And while the bulk of that time was spent in the 
upstate, in Greenville, Spartanburg, and Union Counties, South Carolina 
is such a small State with a deep and rich tie throughout the various 
regions of the State that, even in a course of 1 week, Mr. Speaker, I 
was able to go to all six congressional districts in South Carolina at 
one point or another.
  South Carolina is full of natural beauty, from the mountains of the 
upstate to the beaches of our coastal region. South Carolina is home to 
hardworking, loyal, kindhearted and resilient people. We have wonderful 
schools, a world-class port, vibrant research universities, and highly 
regarded hospitals and medical centers. We have a depth and breadth of 
assets throughout the State of South Carolina, as well as the small 
businesses that are the backbone of this country and this economy.
  Mr. Speaker, South Carolina is among the first States to help other 
States when calamity strikes. We have a rich history of fighting and 
sacrificing, indeed, dying for this country. We are proud and brave, 
and we are not easily intimidated, which brings me to the National 
Labor Relations Board and its recent interactions with the State of 
South Carolina.
  At a time when union membership is at a historic low, unions seek to 
influence this administration in a historically high fashion. At a time 
when this Nation needs to come together and face the great challenges 
of our time, there are those in this administration who seek to benefit 
from the politics of class, generational and, now, regional conflict: 
from a Secretary of Health and Human Services who claims that our 
colleague's, Paul Ryan's, efforts to reform Medicare would cause 
seniors to die sooner when it is a demonstrably false statement, 
indeed, an abomination to say something so overtly political about a 
courageous colleague who has the foresight to try to save Medicare, 
from that to the NLRB and its general counsel and their efforts to 
intimidate the State of South Carolina, not once, but twice, with 
threatened lawsuits and now a complaint when a company decides to put 
an additional line of work in the great State of South Carolina.
  Boeing decided to build some of its new 787 Dreamliners in South 
Carolina. And nearly a year, Mr. Speaker, after the decision was made 
and construction had begun and, in some instances, been completed, 
after South Carolina workers received the good news that jobs were 
finally headed our way, the National Labor Relations Board decided to 
file a complaint. And it's important to keep in mind what is not at 
issue. There is no merit to the contention that Boeing did not 
negotiate in good faith with the union over the placement of a second 
line of work in South Carolina. No one seriously contends that. And, 
incredibly, there is no evidence that existing jobs will move from 
Washington State to South Carolina.
  Instead, the NLRB seeks to tell companies where it can and cannot 
build additional lines of work. Let that sink in for a moment. The 
National Labor Relations Board seeks to tell a company where it can and 
cannot build additional lines of work. So be forewarned: If you build a 
plant or a facility in a union State, there is the prospect that you 
will never be able to leave again if the NLRB has its way. And the law 
was clear, indeed, it is crystal clear: Employers are permitted to make 
predictions on future economic circumstances so long as the 
circumstances are demonstrably predictable.
  So is it predictable that there would be labor shortages and 
stoppages in Washington State? Well, Mr. Speaker, there have been four 
strikes since 1989 in the Washington State facility for Boeing, all of 
which support the movement of the entire 787 production line to South 
Carolina. But that's not what Boeing is doing. And I would commend, Mr. 
Speaker, the reading of the comments by a Boeing customer who said that 
the continued threatened work stoppages are causing it to reconsider 
whether or not it wants to do business with Boeing, and yet Boeing is 
not supposed to consider that when they decide where to build 
additional lines of work.
  Indeed, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, there will be two planes made 
in Washington State for every one plane made in South Carolina. But 
that is not enough for this administration. They want to control where 
businesses can locate, what they can make, and how much of it they can 
make.
  I want you to consider, Mr. Speaker, the comments of the NLRB 
spokesperson, and I quote: We are not telling Boeing they cannot make 
planes in South Carolina. We are talking about one specific line of 
work, three planes a month. If they keep three planes a month in 
Washington, there is no problem.
  Really? The National Labor Relations Board is going to tell Boeing 
how many planes it can make and in what State and what constitutes a 
problem and what doesn't constitute a problem? To my colleagues from 
the South Carolina delegation who have labeled this an unprecedented 
act, they are entirely correct.
  So what it appears now, Mr. Speaker, is that this administration and 
the National Labor Relations Board will elevate the unions to the same 
status as the employer; that all future decisions have to be made in 
concert; and if the unions object to a line of work that is separate 
and distinct, they can move to a right-to-work State like South 
Carolina, it cannot be done.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by my distinguished colleague from 
the Fifth Congressional District, Mr. Mulvaney, and I would seek to 
yield such time as my colleague may consume.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague, Mr. Gowdy. His words are well 
considered and well made and I think bear out the decision of the 
people of his district to send him to Washington. This is perhaps the 
first real challenge we have faced together as a team here in 
Washington, and I'm proud to be a member of this team as we take on 
perhaps the critical issue of our day and our State when it comes to 
economic development and job growth.
  I want to do something that we are not very good at in South Carolina 
when it comes to these types of issues. I want to speak bluntly. 
Ordinarily, we don't talk about uncomfortable things in our State very 
bluntly. We are more southerly and gentlemanly about it than I'm going 
to be for the next few minutes. But I feel compelled to do that by the 
circumstances that face us. I want to talk very briefly about what this 
says about the current administration's attitude towards business. And 
then I want to talk very briefly about why people, not only in South 
Carolina, but people all over this country, should be concerned with 
this lawsuit against Boeing by the NLRB.
  Regarding the administration's attitude towards business, I talked 
several times when I was running for this office with folks in my 
district about another issue at that time. It was cap-and-trade. And I 
remember coming across an employer in my district who I never thought 
would be in favor of that particular piece of legislation but who had 
signed on and actually contributed financially toward advancing that 
particular initiative. I remember talking to them and asking them why 
this was, why were they doing something that was so clearly against 
their self-interest. And they told me that it had been made very plain 
to them that if they did not get on board that they would have a visit 
from the EPA, and wasn't it much better for them to participate in the 
cap-and-trade legislation than it was to get run over and visited by 
the EPA, to have someone come down and bring down the full regulatory 
authority of the government on you without any recourse whatsoever. 
Wouldn't you rather be sitting at the table to design part of your own 
demise rather than having it dealt fully in your face by the regulatory 
arm of the administration?

[[Page 7619]]



                              {time}  2010

  It frightened me to death. It frightened me to death that that is 
what we had come to in this Nation. I call, and I still do, I call it 
to this day, and I know this frustrates people and bothers people when 
I call it this, it is government by Mafia. It really is. It is like 
walking into an office going: Wow, it would be a real shame if this 
place burned down tomorrow. Why don't you give us a little money to 
help us in our cause, and we will make sure nothing happens to you. It 
frightens me and it disgusts me that this is the way the government 
treats its own people.
  I can't help but think of that example as I sit here and look at what 
the NRLB is doing these days. To come to the Boeing company and admit, 
and you can go and read what the NRLB says, admit that they have done 
nothing wrong, admit that Boeing has done nothing wrong in any of its 
statements, but still taking the position that they have the basis for 
bringing a lawsuit against this company in order to do nothing else but 
to shake it down.
  My colleague, Mr. Speaker, mentioned the other shoe to drop when the 
NLRB came forward through its spokesman and said: Listen, you know, 
this whole thing could just go away if Boeing would agree to build 
three more airplanes every single month in Washington State.
  That is what this is about. It is about using leverage. It is about 
using muscle. It is about pushing around a private business simply 
because you can, and it is absolutely and positively wrong for our 
government to be doing this to its own citizens. That is exactly what 
is happening. They are walking into Boeing and saying: Boy, it would be 
a real shame if we shut you down in South Carolina; wouldn't it? You 
can make that not happen. You have it in your ability to make sure that 
this terrible thing doesn't happen to you. All you have to do is agree 
to produce an additional three planes in Washington State. What a 
travesty. What a complete insult to what this Nation stands for.
  That brings me to my second point, which is why should ordinary 
people care about this. Is this just an issue that the State of South 
Carolina cares about? Is it just an issue that the Boeing Corporation 
should care about? Is it just an issue that businesses should care 
about? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. This is an issue that every 
single working person in this country should be scared to death of 
because the day that the government can tell business where it can 
operate, which is what the NLRB is trying to do in this lawsuit, the 
day that the government can tell businesses where they can operate is 
the day before it can tell you where you can go to work.
  And if Boeing is not free to leave Seattle, Washington, and move to 
North Charleston in South Carolina, then the next day, you might not be 
free to do the same thing. It violates everything that we stand for. It 
violates everything that makes this country exceptional. It brings up 
frightening thoughts of what has happened in other countries in the 
past. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It must stop now. We will do everything 
that we can in this delegation to prevent it from happening. And, more 
importantly, we will be ever diligent to make sure that after this one 
is put to bed, and after this NLRB lawsuit is exposed for the fraud 
that it is, we will be ever diligent to make sure that it never happens 
again in this country.
  Mr. GOWDY. While my colleague was talking so eloquently in defense of 
freedom, not in defense of South Carolina, but in defense of freedom 
and the freedom to pursue the free market, something as fundamental as 
that, we have been joined by our colleague from South Carolina, 
Congressman Jeff Duncan, and I would yield him such time as he may 
consume on this issue and any other issue on his heart.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. First, I thank my colleagues for taking 
this time to talk about an issue that--I cannot believe we are even 
having this discussion. We have seen a lot since we have been here in 
Washington on January 5, but I never thought that I would see the day 
when the NLRB and our government would sue a company over creating jobs 
in South Carolina. I may have experienced that in another country, say 
the Soviet Union back in the eighties, but to think that we have got a 
government here in America that is suing a company for making a 
business decision, a decision that would affect their bottom line, to 
go where their labor costs are cheaper, to come to a great State like 
South Carolina and locate in a wonderful city like North Charleston 
where they were already operating an operation that made the fuselages. 
This was a decision not to locate a whole other operation, but to bring 
the rest of the components to South Carolina, to assemble the complete 
aircraft there. And since they made that decision to come to South 
Carolina, they have added an additional 2,000 jobs in the State of 
Washington. And so for the NLRB to say that Boeing made a decision to 
punish a union in Washington is ludicrous. It is ludicrous.
  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said that NLRB's action 
against Boeing is a threat to every right-to-work State. And I agree 
with him because if this suit is successful against Boeing, we are not 
going to have the conversation in this country about whether a business 
is going to locate in a right-to-work State or a union State. The 
conversation is going to turn, Mr. Gowdy, to a conversation about 
whether to locate in America or to locate that operation overseas. That 
ought to scare every one of us, not just those in the right-to-work 
State, but every American who understands capitalism, who understands 
that government doesn't create jobs, businesses do.
  Looking at the NLRB's decision and examining the recent electoral 
map, it is not difficult to see a policy that clearly rewards blue 
States while severely punishing red ones. South Carolina is a red 
State, and we are proud of that fact. We shouldn't be punished for 
Boeing locating in South Carolina. And this is the second attempt by 
NLRB to punish South Carolina.
  Right before this, they decided to sue South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Arizona, and Utah over the right to a secret ballot. Back in November, 
Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of South Carolinians voted in a referendum that 
we liked the right to a secret ballot when it comes to union elections, 
that we don't want card check, a method where union bosses can come to 
employees and say: You know, we really want to unionize here, and we 
would love to have your name, and through fear and intimidation get 
them to agree to go along and unionize after a majority of those people 
in that business have said, under intimidation usually, that they would 
go along with the union. We like the right to a secret ballot, that 
free Americans can go into the voting booth, whether it is at a union 
or anywhere else, and cast a ballot in secret without fear of 
intimidation, go in there and cast a vote on how they feel on whether 
they want to collectively bargain, whether they want to unionize, or 
whether they like the right to come to work and negotiate with their 
employer for their best interest and for the best interest of the 
company, for the best interest of the company.
  And so NLRB said nope, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona; 
we determine how you are going to unionize. We determine what methods 
you are going to use. And if we say that you have to use card check as 
a method of unionization, that is what you have to use. And just 
because you in South Carolina, just because 80 percent of your voters 
like the right to a secret ballot, that doesn't matter. That is off the 
table because NLRB is saying they have the last word, they are the only 
voice. And you know what? That is wrong, because it is a States' rights 
issue. The Constitution I carry says Congress--and I am going to get a 
little passionate on this issue because I feel NLRB has overstepped its 
bounds on this--it says that no power not specifically outlined in that 
document as belonging to the Federal Government, nor prohibited by that 
document to the States, is reserved for the States or the people. It 
doesn't say that the NLRB has the right to determine how we can 
unionize in South Carolina or any other right-to-work State.

[[Page 7620]]

  I think States do have rights. And I think we have to stand up, and I 
applaud my colleagues tonight for standing on this floor and 
championing States' rights, championing the Constitution of the United 
States, championing the 10th Amendment, and pointing out the rightful 
place of the States in this country that freely joined the Republic.
  So after the NLRB decided to sue these four States, they came in and 
decided to sue a private business, to sue a business that made a 
business decision to affect the bottom line, shareholder value, looking 
after profit, which others want to demonize in this country but which 
made this country great, capitalists going out and investing their 
hard-earned dollars, convincing others to invest their money in their 
stock, to grow a business, create a product that folks around the world 
would want to buy. And folks like buying Boeing products.
  I applaud Boeing for wanting to come to South Carolina, to invest 
their billions of dollars in our State, their idea of staying there for 
100 years, their love for South Carolina workers, the climate and the 
pro-business climate we have in our State, the pro-business climate 
they have in North Charleston, the effort that South Carolina had to 
step up to the plate to help Boeing in the deal to come to South 
Carolina.

                              {time}  2020

  I look forward to flying on the Boeing manufactured aircraft the 
Dreamliner. What a great name. We're talking about the shattering of 
American dreams by the NLRB suing Boeing, which is chasing the American 
Dream. Yet they're chasing it to form an airliner called the 
Dreamliner. Is that not irony? I can't believe we're having this 
discussion, but I'll tell you what. We're doing the right thing, and 
this Congress needs to get behind defunding the NLRB's ability to sue 
South Carolina, to sue Boeing. We need to get behind that.
  Mr. Gowdy, thank you for having this.
  Mr. GOWDY. My colleague from South Carolina raises the second issue, 
doesn't he? It wasn't just the complaint against Boeing. It was also 
the threatened litigation over South Carolina having the unmitigated 
temerity to want to memorialize the right to a secret ballot in the 
constitution of our State. Our voters voted to do that, to memorialize 
something as sacred in this country as the right to a secret ballot, 
and the reward for memorializing that in our constitution was 
threatened litigation by the NLRB. When our attorney general, Alan 
Wilson, fought back, the response was, Well, let's see if we can settle 
it. I think that's instructive because no sooner had the threatened 
litigation against Boeing been announced that there was another effort 
to want to settle it as if these are two private companies which are 
negotiating over an easement.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. They said they'd talk with Attorney 
General Wilson and the other attorneys general, but they said, We're 
going to do it in secret. We're going to do it in secret. They demanded 
secret meetings, made threats, and they attacked the right to the 
secret ballot. That doesn't exactly look like a good track record.
  Have you heard about that?
  Mr. GOWDY. Not only, Congressman, had I heard about that, but I read 
a quote attributed to the NLRB just this week where they were advising 
Boeing and its counsel not to litigate this in the media. Imagine the 
arrogance of telling a company not to litigate something in the media. 
These are not two private parties. This is a government agency taking 
legal action against a private company, and then they advise not to 
discuss this in the media.
  Then the second thing--and I'd love to ask Congressman Mulvaney his 
thoughts on this--is that there was a quote attributed to a Senator who 
was advising the NLRB, Do not share your legal strategy publicly. Do 
not tell the other side what your legal strategy is.
  This is not a criminal case. This is not a civil case between two 
private companies. This is a government agency that is seeking to 
influence the business decisions of a private company, and they're 
getting legal advice from a Senator not to share their strategy with 
the other side.
  Mr. MULVANEY. My question to you, Mr. Gowdy, and to you, Mr. Speaker, 
would be this:
  Why would there even be a strategy? What is this talk of strategy 
that the NLRB is charged with enforcing the law? There should be no 
strategy involved with that. Either it violates the law or it does not. 
The NLRB, itself, has already said on more than one occasion that the 
statements that Boeing made do not rise to the level that's required 
for this litigation to proceed. They've already admitted that this is 
an expansion of a new business, that this is a new business line. It is 
not the moving of a business from one place to the other, and the NLRB 
has already admitted that that is protected activity under the National 
Labor Relations Act. So you wonder: What is the strategy?
  It raises a really good point: Why are we here? Why is the NLRB doing 
this?
  Mr. Gowdy, perhaps this is a rhetorical question; but what does it 
say, for example, about the lawsuit that Mr. Duncan mentioned before 
regarding the right to a secret ballot? What does it say about an 
administration in this day and age that specifically attacks not only 
one State but several States for granting additional freedoms to its 
citizens? Think about that. That's what we've done. That's what Arizona 
has done. That's what several other States have done. We have simply 
memorialized in our constitution the right that we have to a secret 
ballot. This is the granting of a right.
  Ordinarily, this would be cause for great celebration; but for some 
reason, with this administration, it is not cause for celebration; it 
is cause for the bringing of lawsuits and litigation, and I cannot help 
but wonder what that says about where we stand as a Nation.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You have to wonder why the NLRB is 
doing this. What is their ultimate gain? I think it's to force a 
private industry to make a decision that the government tells it to. 
That's like a government takeover, a government's telling a private 
business what to do or not to do.
  The American people are tired of the spending and the borrowing and 
the bailouts and the takeovers. We saw it with General Motors. We've 
seen it with other businesses. We've seen the government takeover of 
health care. Now we're seeing the government sue a private business for 
making a business decision to locate in South Carolina.
  Because we come from the great Palmetto State, we know why they 
wanted to locate in South Carolina. We know about the work ethic. We 
know about the wonderful business climate, and we know about the 
wonderful climate, period. I know why they chose Charleston. What a 
great location. It's not just because the airbase is there; that it's 
close to the port is probably one of the biggest reasons. It's the 
wonderful port that we've got in Charleston. The reason South Carolina 
is great is because of the Port of Charleston.
  While I'm on that, let me just applaud my colleagues across the 
building there for their help in securing the money that was necessary 
for deepening and widening the Port of Charleston. It was the right 
decision for the Corps of Engineers to make. It's the right decision 
for the business climate in South Carolina, and it's the right decision 
for our State. It's going to be a perfect business example for South 
Carolina and for the east coast.
  Mr. GOWDY. To echo what both of my colleagues have already said, I 
would say this:
  Not only is there a tremendous natural climate and business climate 
in the State of South Carolina, but you will not find a group of people 
more appreciative for the right to work than our fellow citizens in 
South Carolina, who desperately need the work. ``Thank you'' to Boeing 
and to every other company that has been willing to take a chance on 
the people of South Carolina. We are not easily intimidated.
  One of my colleagues asked, What is the NLRB doing? Why now? I think 
we touched on it earlier. Union membership is at an historic low. At 
the same

[[Page 7621]]

time, they seek to have an historically high level of influence with 
this administration.
  Mr. Mulvaney, there is no legal analysis by which the NLRB can hope 
to prevail in this case. This is a political calculus, so I would like 
in the few minutes we have remaining to discuss with both of my 
colleagues the remedy that the NLRB seeks; and it's instructive, I 
think, to set the chronology one more time.
  Boeing has been manufacturing airplanes in Washington State for at 
least two decades, and since 1989, there have been four work stoppages. 
I read a partial quote by a customer of Boeing's, saying, If the unions 
and the employers and management do not get together and stop the 
strikes, we are going to look somewhere else for our airplanes.
  So you're in a leadership position at a company, and you're being 
advised that the work stoppages--and there have been four of them--are 
going to impact your ability to get future business. You negotiate in 
good faith, and there has been not one scintilla of evidence to suggest 
that Boeing did not negotiate in good faith in Washington State. As our 
colleague Mr. Mulvaney pointed out, there is no allegation of bad 
faith. There is no allegation that Boeing did anything wrong other than 
seek to move to a right-to-work State. When they had planted a flag in 
a union State, they wanted to move a separate, distinct line of work to 
a right-to-work State in South Carolina.
  There are 2,000 more jobs in Washington State than there were, and 
the comments of the spokesperson for the NLRB are so terribly 
instructive: If you'll just build more planes in Washington State, 
we'll shut up about what you did in South Carolina.
  Can you imagine that? As a 16-year prosecutor, can you imagine my 
saying, ``Well, I'll excuse what you did here, if it were wrong, if 
you'll just do this instead''? If what Boeing had done were really 
wrong, the NLRB would not be seeking to settle this and negotiate out 
more work for the State of Washington, which is exactly what they're 
trying to do.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. The gentleman from Georgia just a few 
minutes ago in the last hour was over there talking about us not 
manufacturing anything in this country anymore, talking about bringing 
manufacturing back. I don't know if y'all heard that.
  I sat there and listened, and I thought about the irony there, that 
here we are, we have the NLRB that's suing a business who is operating 
in this country, who has numerous manufacturing facilities, not just in 
Washington and South Carolina, who's creating a wonderful product 
that's sought all around the world. They're manufacturing it here in 
this country. They're creating jobs in South Carolina. We are 
manufacturing here. And so to that gentleman, Mr. Scott from Georgia, 
the message is clear: They are, and they'll continue to do so as long 
as we have a pro-business economy, as long as we have a pro-business 
climate.
  Like I said earlier, if NLRB wins this suit, we're going to see 
decisions made about not whether to locate in a right-to-work State 
like South Carolina or Utah or Arizona or South Dakota or even Virginia 
or many, many others in this country, we're not going to see that 
argument about whether to locate in a right-to-work State or a union 
State, we're going to see truly what he was talking about, the decision 
being made about whether to locate in the United States of America and 
put Americans to work or locate in another country. That's the question 
that's going to be asked.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to realize in this 
discussion that this is not just an attack on one company, nor is it 
just an attack more broadly at some of the principles that we hold to 
be so dear. This is a specific attack on the people of South Carolina. 
It is. It's a specific attack on the people that we represent.
  We live in a State that has chosen to be a right-to-work State. By 
the way, it's important to know, that doesn't mean that unions are 
against the law in South Carolina. It doesn't mean that they are 
banned. It doesn't mean it's any more difficult to form. It simply 
means you don't have to work in a union in order to work in South 
Carolina. We have chosen to do that. We have come together as a State 
and said, This is the kind of State that we want to be. We want to be a 
State that balances the needs of business and the needs of workers. We 
want to be fair to both sides. We don't want to make you do something 
that you don't want to do just to get a job. That's what we stand for, 
and this administration in this lawsuit is attacking that.
  We also chose as a State to give Boeing incentives to come to South 
Carolina. It was a difficult decision for us to make. I was in the 
State legislature when we did that. But we said to ourselves as a 
State, this is such an opportunity, and it is one of those true rare 
times when it's an investment. This was such a rare opportunity for us 
as a State, not only for this generation but for several generations. 
The Boeing company has been making airplanes since there have been 
airplanes, and they're going to be making them for another hundred 
years after this and we wanted them in our State, so we gave them the 
incentives. This administration is attacking that. Nowhere does the 
NLRB say what might happen, if they were to succeed, to the money that 
the State of South Carolina has given to Boeing. It's a slap in the 
face to the people of South Carolina.
  Finally, you can't have a discussion up here, or you shouldn't have a 
discussion up here without talking about jobs. Our people want to work. 
Our people need to work. It's one of the most hardworking, well-
educated, honest and ethical group of working people that you're going 
to find in this country. The Boeing Corporation was going to give them 
the chance to do that, in areas that provide tremendous opportunities 
for us to grow as a State, to grow our wage base, to grow our skill 
base.
  Think about what this meant to the technical college system in our 
State. Think about what this means to the other opportunities in the 
aerospace industry alone, never mind the other industries that feed it. 
We want to work, and this administration is going out of its way to 
prevent that from happening. Unforgivable. Unforgivable. Unemployment 
in my district is over 15 percent, and I have to fight with my own 
administration as to whether or not these people can go to work? This 
is absolutely wrong. It is unforgivable that this is what it's come to 
in our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I commend the rest of my 
delegation. It is a true honor to be amongst these gentlemen tonight as 
we sit here and try and come to our State's defense against what is 
clearly an unjustified attack.
  Mr. GOWDY. We saw firsthand when the automotive manufacturing 
company, BMW, decided to come to the upstate of South Carolina. I tell 
my colleagues, it transformed the upstate of South Carolina. Every now 
and again, you have an opportunity to have a company like a BMW or a 
Boeing or a Michelin or a Milliken or a GE that cannot just transform a 
community but, even more importantly, transform individual family lives 
by giving them the greatest of all family values--a job.
  Mr. Mulvaney is exactly right. We come from a State that has a rich 
and, in some instances, provocative history, but one thing that we all 
agree on, and it is every Member of this delegation, we represent 
people who want to work, and when you consider the consequences of this 
complaint, what are the remedies? Are they really going to ask Boeing 
to dismantle the plant that is under construction in North Charleston? 
Are they really going to tell Boeing, you cannot manufacture this line 
in this State? Or are they going to do what we really suspect that this 
is all about, which is negotiating strength so they can force Boeing to 
do more work in Washington State? ``We'll let you slide in South 
Carolina, but you've got to make it up to us in Washington State.''
  That is not the business of this administration, and I applaud my 
colleagues, those that are here and those

[[Page 7622]]

that were not able to join us tonight, because we are in one accord 
when it comes to standing up for the people and the workers and the 
State of South Carolina.
  I would yield to my colleague, Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just have to ask myself, 
listening to my colleagues here, thinking about this issue, since when 
did America stop becoming and being the land of the free? The land of 
the free that we sing about all the time? Do we just want to say that 
we're a free Nation, or do we want to be a free Nation?
  Our freedom is under attack, guys. Our freedom is under attack across 
this Nation, through suits like the NLRB suing the States, NLRB suing a 
private business for making a business decision. But in America? I 
can't believe we're witnessing this. It's not just NLRB, it's the EPA. 
When they deny an air quality permit for a drilling platform in the 
Alaskan Sea, where the closest impacted town is over 70 miles away, 
with only 250 indigenous people there.
  I've been out to a deepwater drilling platform. I've been to a 
production platform. The only air impact that I've seen was the flare 
gas, where they flare off and burn off the gas that comes through the 
natural drilling activities. Usually it's natural gas. Some proponents 
of that side of the debate think that natural gas is and say--and I 
believe that, too--it's probably cleaner burning. But we've got the EPA 
denying an air quality permit, not a drilling permit this time, so 
we're not able to meet America's energy needs by domestic production.
  We've got NLRB suing the State of South Carolina, the State of Utah, 
the State of Arizona, and the State of South Dakota. Then we've got 
them suing a fine American company named Boeing. We've got the EPA 
going after drilling, denying to issue air quality permits. We've got 
them changing the air quality standards that will affect economic 
development in my district and around the State of South Carolina.
  This is a power grab. This is a power grab by this administration to 
keep us from being free people, to keep us from being able to make 
business decisions and creating jobs, putting America back to work.

                              {time}  2040

  America needs to wake up and see that your freedoms are being eroded 
day by day.
  It's hard to believe that January 5 we were elected into Congress and 
had high optimism for changing the way Washington does business, and 
then we see this continuation of these policies, which I labeled on the 
campaign ``POR policies.'' I called it Pelosi, Obama and Reid policies 
that were bankrupting this country, and they're continuing today. 
They're continuing today because they are affecting private businesses 
that are out creating jobs in States like South Carolina.
  So I applaud my colleagues and, like you said, those that aren't 
here, those that may be taking the floor on the other side of the 
Chamber in the United States Senate, those that had obligations, other 
places tonight that feel the way we do, that South Carolina is a great 
State to do business.
  Boeing made the decision to come there. They made the decision about 
their bottom line, about profitability, shareholder value, about 
creating something great, creating American jobs, manufacturing in this 
country that the gentleman from Georgia talked about. Well, they're 
doing it. And they're going to do it in South Carolina because I 
believe they're going to win this lawsuit. I believe they are going to 
win because it's the right thing, it's the American way, it's 
unconstitutional, un-American for the NLRB to be suing Boeing.
  I believe with my heart that they are going to win. They're going to 
put those thousands of workers to work in South Carolina, they're going 
to invest their money, and they're going to be there 100 years from 
now.
  Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________