• With: Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C.

    NEIL CAVUTO, HOST OF “YOUR WORLD”: Well, we got some new evidence today that the White House may be backing the National Labor Relations Board in its fight against that non-union Boeing plant in South Carolina after all.

    Reports out say that it just took an official position against the bill that would ban the NLRB from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down or transfer jobs under any circumstance.

    To Tim Scott, the South Carolina congressman who sponsored that bill.

    Boy, this is getting stranger and stranger, Congressman.

    REP. TIM SCOTT, R-S.C.: By the minute.

    I’ll tell you what, the first thing, I had a conversation with President Obama a few weeks ago and he simply said that he was staying out of this situation, out of this case. And now you see that, of course, we’re seeing a reversal of fortune.

    It’s unfortunate because this is not simply a parochial issue for South Carolina workers. This is an issue for all American workers and for the job creators of America. It is safer to be a company that has your headquarters in a different nation now than to deal with the NLRB.

    And the unfortunate part is, with a $14 trillion debt, we’re using taxpayer dollars to take jobs away from everyday hardworking Americans. It is wrong. It is not right.

    CAVUTO: But, Congressman, what is the NLRB doing exactly here, as they’re raising separately litigation on the wisdom of Boeing going from Washington State to hire these 1,000 folks for a new plane-making facility in South Carolina?

    SCOTT: Mr. Solomon has been the lead guy simply saying to Boeing that they were working against union workers in Washington State when they made the decision to land their new line in South Carolina.

    And that is an absolute false statement. They said during the field hearing in Charleston that their contention, the bone of contention was the loss of jobs. I asked a very simple question: How many jobs have been lost in Washington State? The answer was zero, but, hypothetically, they could have lost jobs.

    The bottom line is we don’t deal with hypotheticals. There have been zero jobs lost in Washington State and 1,000 created in North Charleston, South Carolina. The second question was a transfer of assets. Simply put, the definition of transfer seems to indicate that it once was someplace and now it’s somewhere else.

    Well, the fact is when asked a question; the answer was there have been no transfers of assets. The brand-new facility in North Charleston, South Carolina, transferred very -- zero assets from Washington State. So, we have no jobs lost, no assets that were transferred. So we should simply have no case.

    CAVUTO: So, where does this go now? Is the goal here just to sort of drag this out for so long that Boeing just quits it? Or what?

    SCOTT: It appears that Mr. Solomon spoke the truth when he said that his preference was for Boeing to get with the unions and to settle this case outside of the legal process.

    (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: But what does settle mean?

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: What does settle mean? I mean, he obviously wants those 1,000 folks unionized. Of this particular plant in question before it was grown and expanded, they didn’t -- they rejected unionization. So, it looks like those 1,000 jobs if he had his way would be gone if they’re not unionized workers.

    SCOTT: Absolutely. The unfortunate reality is before they had no union, they had a union.

    And one of the persons who has testified at the field hearing was the former president of the union at the Boeing plant. And she said without any question that the plant was better off having had the relationship with the unions. They felt -- the employees felt that the plant was better off without the presence. They had no real conversations, no assistance and they decided to disband their union with no effort put in by the Boeing -- the corporation.

    The employees decided what was in their best interest and that’s what we are about here in America. Let the employees decide.

    CAVUTO: It’s going to be up to you to decide later on today how you’re going to vote on this Boehner debt plan, if you don’t mind switching gears, Congressman.

    SCOTT: Certainly.

    CAVUTO: Will you vote for it?

    SCOTT: It doesn’t look like it. I’ll tell ya I’ve been studying this plan for a very long time, and I’m looking for what the best thing is to do for the long-term viability of our economy. And I simply don’t see it at this point.

    CAVUTO: OK. So, as things stand right now, a couple hours away from this, not even, you would not vote for this?

    SCOTT: That is accurate.

    CAVUTO: All right. Now, if it is a given that all Democrats, if Nancy Pelosi could be taken at her word, do not vote for this, they’re all going to have to be Republican votes.

    Do you know from some your colleagues, particularly the Tea Party ones, particularly the 87 freshmen, that they’re all dead-set against, only a couple of dozen are for? Do you know how it breaks down?

    SCOTT: There’s no question that Boehner -- Speaker Boehner has done a very good job of articulating the position of our conference.

    I would say that the majority of the freshman class will be voting with the speaker on this bill. I think that there will be a lot of folks in the freshman class, at least the majority, if not two-thirds, that will end up voting with the speaker on the plan.

    CAVUTO: Oh, you think two-thirds would do it, think two-thirds would vote for it?

    SCOTT: I think it’s pretty close to two-thirds of the freshman class right now...

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: What changed then? He apparently said yesterday, "Get your ass in line." Did that scare people?

    SCOTT: I missed the question.

    CAVUTO: He said apparently yesterday on this issue of rallying support, "Get your ass in line," in other words, support this, get on board.

    SCOTT: Yes.

    (CROSSTALK)