[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 4706]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS PORTEND GREAT COST TO ANGELENOS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I wear on my lapel just above the pin 
signifying that this is the 106th Congress a pair of black horn-rimmed 
glasses representing the memory of the late great Arizona Senator Barry 
Goldwater. Goldwater brought a simple, plain-spoken candor to public 
life, and, Mr. Speaker, I think it was typified by his straightforward 
declaration that as an American, people should have the right to join a 
union but they should likewise have the right not to join a union if 
they so desire. And mindful of some perilous trends in public policy, I 
rise on this occasion this afternoon.
  California is the next-door neighbor of Arizona, and the Los Angeles 
Unified School District is contemplating a move that portends great 
cost to the citizens of Los Angeles and portends a trend that should be 
fought by all means at the Federal level. I speak of project labor 
agreements. This is what is being proposed in Los Angeles. This comes 
to school construction. ``The contractor recognizes the council and its 
affiliated unions as the exclusive bargaining representatives for the 
employees engaged in project work covered by this agreement.''
  Mr. Speaker, in the LA Daily News on the editorial page, it is noted 
that ``even a school board member who often sides with the teachers 
union can't turn a blind eye to this outrage.'' What is outrageous? 
Well, quite simply this fact, Mr. Speaker: The estimates are that this 
plan could increase construction costs by 10 to 15 percent in the 
district.
  Now, lest you think this is only something that Los Angelenos should 
be concerned about, Mr. Speaker, I would commend to your attention 
something this House once saw in April of 1998, the Vice President of 
the United States, he who last week claimed that he was the father of 
the Internet, he who infamously claimed 2 years ago that there was no 
controlling legal authority given the outrage of alleged campaign 
donations to the Clinton-Gore team from foreign governments including 
the People's Republic of China, well, this selfsame Vice President 
announced that the Clinton-Gore team would aggressively pursue linking 
Federal projects to union construction firms.
  Now, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that everyone should have the 
right to apply to do work and if a union shop is the bidder that is 
accepted based on its quality of work, that is well and good. But here 
is the problem with union-only agreements as the Vice President 
promised to Boss Sweeney and others: Not only is the blatant payoff, 
Mr. Speaker, but in fact it will end up costing the American taxpayer 
across the width and breadth of our annual budget an additional $5 
billion a year.
  Now, mindful of the florid rhetoric and the feel-good attitude that 
the President brings when he steps to this podium annually to offer his 
State of the Union message and mindful that sadly his rhetoric does not 
always square to reality, I would invite the President and the Vice 
President and others who claim that project work, or union-only 
agreements, would somehow be beneficial to step up and defend spending 
an additional $5 billion of taxpayers money. Because, you see, Mr. 
Speaker, there is a better way, indeed to use the President's term, 
there is a third way, but that would involve truth and merit rewards.
  And again I say, lest there are those who misunderstand, if it is a 
union shop that steps forward with the best ability to do the work, 
well, then God bless them and they should be awarded a contract on 
their merits. But to restrict or to claim that this government or 
indeed any other governmental entity will deal only with union shops is 
to circumvent freedom of choice, freedom of association and fiscal 
responsibility. For to paraphrase Goldwater and perhaps change his 
phraseology, I believe that union firms have a right to bid on a 
contract but I also believe that open shop firms should have that same 
right. And if an open shop can do the work better, then they should be 
selected.

                          ____________________