Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the Sherman amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's position and against this amendment. By the way, Davis and Bacon were two Republicans. So they knew what they were doing.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield? Can I get the address of merit- based construction?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I think it's fairly clear that the gentleman knows that the executive order is only to promote efficiency in Federal procurement. A project labor agreement is a pre-hire agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project. There is, and the gentleman is part of this, a PLA mandate myth that has been floating around since the executive order was issued that the Federal Government mandates project labor agreements. Actual language from the executive order says, and I quote: ``This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project.'' I am sure the gentleman will be pleased to hear that. Let me explain what the executive order does do. It asks the Federal agencies to submit a quarterly report identifying all contracts awarded for large-scale construction projects and whether or not a PLA was used on the project; allows all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts; contains guarantees against strikes, lockouts in similar job disruptions and provides binding procedures for solving labor disputes that may arise during the terms of the project labor agreement; provides mechanism for labor and management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern such as productivity, quality of work, safety and health; and includes any additional requirements that an agency deems necessary. Including this language would be a mistake since this executive order ensures construction projects are built correctly first time, on time and, as a result, on a budget for the end user. In addition, this executive order prevents costly delays that usually result from an unskilled workforce's lack of knowledge regarding the use of building materials or tools, as well as job site safety measures. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I will yield to the gentleman if he wants to make a comment as I mentioned him directly.

Mr. DICKS. Well, let me just say something to the gentleman. I had an example in my own State, a very significant project. I urged the project labor agreement, and they turned me down. This is not the kind of project that we do project labor agreements on it. I was impressed that they made a decision, you know, and I didn't like the answer; but they said we have discretion to either do this or not do this, which is what I think we would want them to do because there are some situations where these agreements do add for stability between management and labor if you have things like, I think, the cleanup site down at Hanford in Doc Hastings' district has a project labor agreement. There was no strike so we could move forward and do this waste cleanup work that's so important. So I just say to the gentleman, I will hope that in the future he will recognize that there is no legal requirement, and they are not requiring people to do it and agencies are saying ``no'' when they think it's inappropriate. I don't think the gentleman's amendment is necessary and I hope that it will be defeated.

Mr. DICKS. Did I hear ``consider''?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. The Executive order requires all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts. And also, the quid pro quo here for the government is they get a guarantee against strikes, lockouts and similar job disruptions, and provides binding procedures for resolving labor disputes that may arise during the term of the PLA. So as long as there's no mandatory requirement, sometimes a project labor agreement is a positive thing.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it violates clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI. The amendment prohibits the use of funds for implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is, thus, proposing a limitation on funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff in violation of the rule.

Mr. DICKS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. We cannot function if the majority is not going to give the minority a copy of these amendments. I would think the process here should stop until we have a copy of the amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I just want to commend the chairman for the way the two staffs have worked together, and the leadership of Bill Inglee and David Pomerantz and all the staff members. They have really done a phenomenal job under very difficult circumstances, and we applaud all of them. And I appreciate the chairman mentioning this.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), ranking member of the Appropriations Labor- HHS Subcommittee.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to Congressman Mike Ross, a distinguished leader here in the House from Arkansas.

Mr. DICKS. If you would yield just for a brief second.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, Congresswoman Kaptur, who is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and the senior woman in the House.

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.