[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3344-S3345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FAIRNESS IN FEDERAL CONTRACTING

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very real 
threat to the economic well being of our Nation. I speak, of course, of 
the anticipated issuance by President Clinton, of an Executive order 
that would likely lead to the exclusion of nonunion contractors from 
Federal construction. I also wish to express my strong support for S. 
606,

[[Page S3345]]

introduced today by Senator Hutchinson, which I have cosponsored.
  The strength and prosperity of this great Nation are in large part a 
result of the industrial peace between labor and management, that has 
been the norm since the passage, in 1935, of the Wagner Act. That act, 
and its progeny, form the keystone of our national labor relations 
policy. The bedrock belief supporting this policy has been to recognize 
that the parties--workers, employers, and unions--are in the best 
position to resolve their differences and to set and to achieve their 
goals. To this end, Congress has maintained a basic hands-off policy, 
preferring to set only the broadest boundaries, beyond which the 
conduct of the parties must not stray. I have to say that our 
congressional predecessors legislated wisely, for this policy of 
Federal Government neutrality has allowed the United States to become 
the envy of the industrialized world.
  This is not to say that there have not been bumps in the road to 
labor-management harmony. Congress has amended the Federal labor laws, 
and also has considered, and rejected, amendments to the Federal labor 
laws. Attempts by Congress to smooth the bumps, however, have been 
subjected to one overriding process--any changes to the laws that 
nurture the balance between the parties in the industrial arena will 
have been forged in the heat of legislative debate and advocacy.
  Today, sadly, the Clinton administration considers an action that 
would displace Federal neutrality, thereby renouncing over 60 years of 
national labor policy, and ignoring 60 years of fine tuning of that 
policy by Congress and the courts. Simply put, the Executive order 
being considered by the Clinton administration would result in most, if 
not all, Federal construction being performed by union shop 
contractors. This would give a whole new meaning to the term top down 
organizing. It would represent union organizing from the very top--the 
Presidency of the United States.
  Further, this Clinton initiative would occur without benefit of the 
legislative process, the process which in my opinion is mandated by the 
Constitution of the United States. And I find it even more 
disheartening that this end run by the administration, of the policy 
setting role of the Congress, seems less designed to serve the public 
interest than to advance political interests.
  Now, I understand that the administration will probably argue that 
the proposed order does not mandate the adoption of a project labor 
agreement, and therefore does not inescapably lead to union-only 
contractors on Federal construction projects. The administration would 
go on to argue that since the order requires the Federal agencies to 
make a finding that use of a project labor agreement would advance the 
Government's procurement interest, only where that finding is made 
would union agreements be required. This argument, however, is suspect. 
The introductory paragraphs of the draft order clearly indicate the 
President's preferences as to use of a project labor agreement. Since 
the boss thinks it is such a good idea, it is not likely that persons 
that the President selected to head the executive branch agencies would 
think otherwise.
  There is one other factor that is very important, and must be noted. 
Employment in the construction industry, particularly where union 
agreements are in place, is done through hiring hall referrals. If a 
nonunion contractor is forced, because of a project labor agreement, to 
become a party to a union agreement, it is not hard to picture what 
would happen to that contractor's employees. They would be at the back 
of the line when it comes to hiring hall referrals. This is despite the 
fact that the overwhelming majority of construction workers have not 
chosen to belong to a union.
  I, and my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources, have written to the President, asking him not to issue this 
or any similar Executive order. We noted that if the proposed order 
were adopted, it would undermine the benefits derived from a 
nondiscriminatory competitive bidding process, likely resulting in 
substantially higher Federal construction costs to the American 
taxpayer. We further pointed out that, if adopted, the order would 
cause harm to the important principle of employee freedom of choice to 
select or reject representation by a union. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following 
my remarks.
  Finally, I congratulate Senator Hutchinson on introducing S. 606, and 
offer my full support in gaining its passage. The bill would prevent a 
Federal agency from requiring a bidder on a Federal contract to be a 
union contractor. Frankly, it is unfortunate that we need to legislate 
open competition, and outlaw this type of anticompetitive restriction, 
in the Federal procurement process. The Clinton initiative, however, 
demonstrates the need for S. 606. I further note, that no matter what 
one thinks of any specific provision of S. 606, my colleagues, from 
both sides of the aisle, must be comforted to know, that before any 
changes are made by S. 606 to Federal labor policy, those proposals 
will be subjected to the debate, opinion gathering, and fact finding, 
that is the hallmark of the legislative process. And whatever comes out 
of that process will be better, for this Nation, because of that 
process.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                    Labor and Human resources,

                                   Washington, DC, April 16, 1997.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: It has been widely reported that the 
     Administration is preparing to issue an Executive Order 
     promoting the use of ``project labor agreements'' on federal 
     and federally funded construction projects. We have reviewed 
     a published draft of this proposed order and are writing to 
     you to express our grave concerns regarding this initiative.
       The proposal would require executive branch agencies, which 
     are preparing to implement or fund a construction project, to 
     determine whether the use of a project labor agreement on 
     that project would ``advance the government's procurement 
     interest in economical, efficient, and timely high quality 
     project performance by promoting labor-management stability 
     and project compliance with applicable legal requirements 
     governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, 
     labor standards and other matters . . .'' While these are 
     laudable objectives, we note that federal law already 
     requires that they be met.
       Under the proposal after an agency has made the requisite 
     determination, the ensuing construction project could be 
     performed only pursuant to an agreement with a union. We note 
     that any agency would be hard pressed not to answer this 
     determination in the positive, given that in the introduction 
     of the proposal, you extol the use of project labor 
     agreements. The bottom line of this proposal Executive Order 
     is that most, if not all, federal construction would be 
     performed by union shop contractors.
       If the proposed order is issued, union status might well 
     trump savings to the taxpayers. Even if a qualified non-union 
     contractor might be able to bid the project at a substantial 
     savings to the American taxpayer, a higher-priced union 
     bidder would be awarded the contract under your proposal. 
     Even though the overwhelming majority of construction workers 
     have not chosen to belong to a union, they would be 
     effectively barred from federal construction work. It comes 
     as no surprise that the head of AFL-CIO Building and 
     Constructions Trades Department is reported to have 
     participated in the drafting of this proposal.
       We believe that this proposed order threatens to undermine 
     the benefits derived from a nondiscriminatory competitive 
     bidding process, likely resulting in substantially higher 
     federal construction costs to the American taxpayer. Further, 
     the order would reverse the over sixty years of neutrality in 
     matters of labor-management relations by the federal 
     government. It also would injure an overreaching principle of 
     our nation's labor relations policy, that of employee freedom 
     of choice to select or reject representation by a union.
       We urge you in the strongest terms to reconsider this 
     initiative, and not promulgate this or any similar Executive 
     Order giving greater encouragement to project labor 
     agreements for federal and federally assisted construction.
           Sincerely,
     James M. Jeffords,
     Judd Gregg,
     Mike DeWine,
     Tim Hutchinson,
     John W. Warner,
     Dan Coats,
     Bill Frist,
     Michael B. Enzi,
     Susan M. Collins,
     Mitch McConnell,
       U.S. Senators.

                          ____________________