By Keith Laing
Solomon said he was not refusing to cooperate with Issa's committee's investigation. He just could only provide documents as the ongoing case moved along, he said.
"To be clear, allowing us to produce documents to the committee consistent with your June 17 ruling does not mean the committee will not have access to the documents it seeks," he wrote. "Rather, it means that the committee will have access to the requested information contemporaneously with its availability to the parities in the pending litigation."
In a July 12 letter to Solomon, Issa argued there was “no legal authority to support your position that the transmission of documents or information to this committee violates these rights.”
“In order to fulfill the committee's constitutional obligations to conduct oversight to determine whether the NLRB is properly carrying out its mandate under the [National Labor Relations Act] and, in turn, using taxpayer dollars appropriately, the committee needs all the documents requested," Issa wrote.
Solomon disagreed, writing "the issuance of a subpoena in an attempt to obtain the request documents of an often and ongoing enforcement proceeding would severely undermine the integrity of the ongoing legal proceeding and cause serious damage to the due process rights of the parties to that proceeding."
Democrats on Issa's committee called this week for him to hold a vote before issuing subpoenas for the NLRB documents.
A spokesman for the Issa did not mention the Democrat's request, but he maintained the possibility that Issa would issue subpoenas.
“Every day the NLRB delays in providing information to Congress is a day that jobs in South Carolina are in jeopardy and when job creators will wonder if they will be free to respond to market needs or beholden to the will of unelected bureaucrats," Oversight Committee spokesman Jeffrey Solsby said in a statement
“Chairman Issa takes seriously NLRB’s obligation to respond to the Committee and is reviewing this latest letter and considering all options including compulsory processes," Solsby continued. “The fundamental question in this case remains unanswered: what triggered NLRB’s decisions to file suit and what are the potential impacts on businesses around the country.”