What: All Issues : Labor Rights : General Union Rights : (H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of “project labor agreements” (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.)
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of “project labor agreements” (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.)
house Roll Call 396     Jun 02, 2011
Y = Conservative
N = Progressive
Winning Side:
Progressive

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of “project labor agreements” (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Scalise urged support for his amendment: “…What we are trying to do is prevent the Department from implementing or using taxpayer money to implement Executive Order No. 13502. And the effect of that executive order has been to mandate project labor agreements on projects that are worth $25 million or more….If you look at The Wall Street Journal, they specifically address the executive order that we are trying to prevent funds from being spent to carry out. The Wall Street Journal actually criticized the executive order and called these handouts `a raw display of political favoritism at the expense of an industry experiencing 27 percent unemployment,' and they also called this a rotten deal for taxpayers. We should be trying to save every dollar we can. We should be trying to promote fair and open competition. That's why the Associated Builders and Contractors support this amendment.”

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed the amendment: “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.”
 
The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 207-213. Voting “yea” were 206 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 185 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of project labor agreements for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name