[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3343-S3344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      OPEN COMPETITION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 606, the so-
called Open Competition Act of 1997, introduced this afternoon by 
Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas. As I understand the proposal, it 
would forbid the Federal Government from entering into so-called 
project labor agreements on any Federal construction project. What 
prompted the bill is a proposed Executive order under consideration by 
the administration.
  That Executive order would permit Federal agencies to consider 
requiring contractors on certain large Federal construction projects to 
comply with labor contracts for the duration of the project. The 
Executive order would not mandate this procedure for any contract. It 
would simply direct the agencies to consider such agreements in 
appropriate circumstances.
  These so-called project labor agreements have been used with great 
success on numerous large-scale construction projects in the past. They 
were used on large flood control and hydroelectric projects in the 
1930's. They

[[Page S3344]]

were used when Disney World was being built in the 1970's. They were 
used on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System in the 1970's and 1980's.
  These agreements have also been used on Federal projects for decades. 
In the late 1940's, the agreements were used regularly for construction 
at atomic energy facilities.
  And the agreements continued to be used today. Across the country, 
nuclear sites are being decontaminated and decommissioned. The 
Department of Energy has entered into project labor agreements at the 
Oak Ridge facility in Tennessee; the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory in Idaho; the Savannah River site in South Carolina; the 
Fernald facility in Ohio; the Hanford/Richland site in Washington 
State; and the Lawrence Livermore facility in California--just to name 
a few.
  The agreements are also being used by State governments. In the 
Boston Harbor cleanup, for example, the State of Massachusetts required 
contractors to comply with such labor agreements for the duration of 
the work. That was a very large project, which is taking years to 
complete. The labor agreement is helping to ensure that the project is 
carried out efficiently and safely.
  According to an October 4, 1996, letter from the manager of 
industrial relations on that project, the Boston Harbor cleanup was 
originally projected to cost $6.1 billion. Now, the estimated total 
cost of the project is $3.4 billion. Accident rates are significantly 
lower than for projects of similar size and duration. And, during the 
nearly 7\1/2\ years that the project has been underway, ``there have 
been approximately 20 million craft hours worked without lost time due 
to strike or lock-out.'' Anti-union contractors challenged the 
requirement in the Boston Harbor case, and in 1993 the U.S. Supreme 
Court unanimously upheld the State's ability to issue the requirement.
  Other States have taken the same approach. In January 1997, Governor 
Pataki of New York issued an Executive order strikingly similar to that 
under consideration by the President. Governor Pataki's order directed 
that ``Each state agency shall establish procedures to consider, in its 
proprietary capacity, the utilization of one or more project labor 
agreements with respect to individual public construction projects.'' 
The Governors of New Jersey and Nevada have recently issued similar 
orders.
  Despite the very clear advantages that such agreements can provide, 
the proponents of this bill that has been introduced this afternoon, 
contend that Government agencies should not enter into them because 
they deny nonunion contractors and workers the opportunity to bid and 
work on federally funded projects. This is false. Nonunion contractors 
are completely free to bid on projects subject to project labor 
agreements--and many do. In the Boston Harbor cleanup, for example, 40 
percent of the subcontractors are nonunion firms.
  Nor is it true that project labor agreements restrict jobs only to 
labor union members. No such agreement requires that an individual join 
the union to be referred for a job. In fact, the National Labor 
Relations Act forbids unions from discriminating against nonmembers 
when making job referrals.
  Obviously, some of our Republican colleagues disagree strongly with 
such labor agreements. Many of us support them as sensible Federal 
contracting policy and needed protection for working families.
  At the very least, the Federal Government should not be denied the 
opportunity to gain the substantial benefits and savings that such 
agreements can supply, and that is why I hope that legislation 
introduced to prohibit those agreements will not be favorably 
considered by the Senate.

                          ____________________