[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3409-S3410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me briefly address these project labor 
agreements. Again, this is maybe confusing to some people because it 
sounds rather esoteric: Project labor agreement. There is nothing new 
about project labor agreements. They go back to the 1930's. They have 
been a very effective means by which governing bodies, States, cities 
and the Federal Government, where there have been major public works 
projects, have been able to bring people together to try to work out 
arrangements, in terms of wages, benefits, hours and so forth, in 
return for which there would be no work stoppages, strikes and the 
like.
  I note Governor Pataki of New York has very effectively used project 
labor agreements on projects in the State of New York. Christine Todd 
Whitman, the Governor of New Jersey, has used project labor agreements 
on major public works projects in the State of New Jersey. There are 
numerous projects around the country, Federal projects--the Boston 
Harbor is the one I am most familiar with in New England--where there 
is a project labor agreement there.
  I might point out it was noted by our colleague from Texas that these 
project labor agreements result in tremendous cost overruns. It is 
estimated right now, and the project is not complete--the estimated 
cost of the Boston Harbor project was $6.1 or $6.3 billion. It is 
estimated now, in no small measure because of the project labor 
agreement, that project may be completed for about $3.4 billion, 
substantially under the original estimates. So there is nothing 
inherent in this that says it is going to increase costs. In fact, it 
has worked very, very well.
  The suggestion was also that nonunion businesses would be prohibited 
from bidding. Nothing could be further

[[Page S3410]]

from the truth. That would be against the law. In fact, I think, as 
someone pointed out, in one of the Boston projects--102 of the 257 
subcontractors were nonunion firms; 102 of the 257. So the notion that 
nonunion firms would be prohibited from being a part of these projects 
is unfounded.
  As I noted earlier, in October of 1992, President Bush issued an 
Executive order which prohibited Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors from entering into these project labor agreements. So the 
outrage that is being expressed because an Executive order has been 
issued to reinstate them--as I said, I would be sympathetic if the 
outrage had been focused equally vociferously when President Bush 
banned these project labor agreements--as we now hear with this 
President's decision to issue or allow these project labor agreements 
to be used on Federal projects.
  So, again on the Alexis Herman issue I hope she will go forward.
  On these project labor agreements, I think it is important we utilize 
what has been a very effective tool for being able to complete very, 
very important public works projects. As I said earlier, these are not 
just used by the executive branch at the national level, they have been 
used by Governors all across the country.

                          ____________________