[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                 ______



 
                  CUTTING COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING:


                  THE ADMINISTRATION'S PRICEY PROJECT


                        LABOR AGREEMENT MANDATE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFORMATION
                 TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT INNOVATION

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                           AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 27, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-120

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
  
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                              ______
 
             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 56-321 PDF         WASHINGTON : 2024                           
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachesetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                      Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
                 Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
             Raj Bharwani, Senior Professional Staff Member
        Ellie McGowan, Staff Assistant and Administrative Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government 
                               Innovation

                 Nancy Mace, South Carolina, Chairwoman
William Timmons, South Carolina      Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 
Tim Burchett, Tennessee                  Ranking Minority Member
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Ro Khanna, California
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Nick Langworthy, New York            Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Eric Burlison, Missouri              Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Vacancy                              Ayanna Pressley, Massachesetts
Vacancy                              Vacancy
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on June 27, 2024....................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Mr. Ben Brubeck, Vice President of Regulatory, Labor and State 
  Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
Oral Statement...................................................     5
Mr. Glenn P. Ledet, Jr., P.E., Executive Director, Louisiana 
  Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority
Oral Statement...................................................     7
Mr. Aric Dreher, Vice President and General Manager, Cianbro
Oral Statement...................................................     8
Mr. Jacob Snyder (Minority Witness), Chief Operating Officer, 
  Enerfab
Oral Statement...................................................    10

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Letter, to SMACNA, re: Final Rule Endorsement; submitted by 
  Rep. Connolly.

  * Letter, to OMB, re: PLA Exec. Order; submitted by Rep. 
  Connolly.

  * Letter, to SMACNA, re: Support for E.O. 14063; submitted by 
  Rep. Connolly.

  * Letter, to TAUC, re: Support of PLAs; submitted by Rep. 
  Connolly.

  * Letter, to Construction Employers of America, re: Views on 
  PLA Hearing; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Memorandum, re: AGCA Lawsuit Ruling; submitted by Rep. 
  Connolly.

  * Letter, to Taxpayer Protection Groups, re: Coalition Support 
  for PLA Hearing; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Letter, to PCI and NPCA, re: FOCA Support; submitted by Rep. 
  Mace.

  * Letter, to Business Groups, re: Opposing Biden Project Labor 
  Agreement; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Letter, to USCC, re: Support of FOCA; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Statement, PLA Mandate and Hearing - IEC; submitted by Rep. 
  Mace.

  * Report, Green Justice and Community Labor United, ``Building 
  Strong Careers and Lasting Infrastructure''; submitted by Rep. 
  Pressley.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.


                  CUTTING COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING:



                  THE ADMINISTRATION'S PRICEY PROJECT



                        LABOR AGREEMENT MANDATE

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 27, 2024

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

 Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government 
                               Innovation

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy Mace 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Mace, Comer, Burlison, Connolly, 
and Pressley.
    Also present: Representatives Gosar, Foxx, Grothman, 
Higgins, Perry, Fitzgerald, and Allen.
    Ms. Mace. The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity Information, 
Technology, and Government Innovation will come to order. 
Welcome everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing. We are here 
today to expose the Biden Administration's Project Labor 
Agreement rule that took effect in January. This rule is 
nothing more than a scheme to funnel billions of dollars in 
Federal construction contracts to political allies. It is about 
ditching full and open competition. It is about ditching the 
free market and overriding the expertise of government 
acquisition professionals, wasting taxpayer dollars, delaying 
crucial projects, and discriminating against nearly 9 in 10 
construction workers who are not part of a union.
    Let us look at the facts. The rule mandates all contractors 
and subcontractors on large-scale Federal construction projects 
work under a single project labor agreement. Project labor 
agreements, or PLAs for short, are a type of pre-hire 
collective bargaining agreement with one or more unions that 
governs employer-employee relations on a construction project. 
But why insist that construction firms arrange project work 
through unions? After all, only 11 percent of the Nation's 
construction workforce is actually unionized. Marginalizing the 
other 89 percent undermines the pursuit of full and open 
competition. It undermines the free market, a core tenet of 
Federal procurement codified 40 years ago in the Competition 
and Contracting Act.
    Now, President Obama put a thumb on the scale back in 2009 
by encouraging agencies to require PLAs on large-scale Federal 
construction projects, but it was not a mandate. If agencies 
did not think requiring a PLA was in the best interest of 
taxpayers, they could opt not to use one, and guess what? They 
almost always opted not to. Contracting officers chose to 
require PLAs on only 1 out of every 167 large construction 
projects during the duration of the Obama and Trump 
Administrations, and it is no wonder. PLAs had their heyday 
before and during World War II when the Nation's construction 
workforce was mostly unionized. Today, it is overwhelmingly 
not. So, to impose PLAs today by fiat is intrusive and 
inefficient.
    That explains why research has shown that where politicians 
have required PLAs for state and locally funded public 
construction projects, they actually raise the cost of such 
projects by 12 to 20 percent by discouraging merit shop bidders 
and imposing inefficient union work rules. That means fewer 
public schools are renovated, and fewer public housing units 
are built. Even the Boston Globe Editorial Board last month 
concluded that project labor agreements are bad policy, and 
half of all states, including my home state of South Carolina, 
do not even permit PLA mandates on state-funded projects. Thank 
God we are a right-to-work state, but we are not here to second 
guess how states and localities spend their public funds. We 
are here to talk about a nationwide PLA mandate for big Federal 
construction projects and why.
    Since Federal procurement officers have not mandated PLAs, 
the Biden Administration decided to make that choice for them, 
favoring political expediency over professional judgment. This 
rule forces agencies to require PLAs unless they can jump 
through vague high bar hoops. Even showing that fewer 
contractors will bid on a PLA required project is not enough, 
according to OMB's memo.
    Let us be clear. I have no issues with the contractor 
working with unions or under PLAs. That is why I support the 
Fair and Open Competition Act, or FOCA, a bill that Chairman 
Comer introduced and that we voted out of the full Oversight 
Committee. FOCA says you cannot discriminate for or against 
contractors or grantees based on their use of PLAs, but the 
Biden Adminisntration is not interested in a level playing 
field. They want this mandate to funnel taxpayer dollars and 
non-union construction workers earnings into union coffers, 
into the back pockets of union bosses. I worry that in states 
like mine, the local construction workforce, which is 
overwhelmingly non-union, is going to find it hard to get work 
on Federal projects right in their own backyard. That is 
because PLA hiring is typically done through union hiring 
halls, and even if non-union workers do get hired, they often 
suffer wage theft because they are forced to pay into union 
pension funds they do not actually benefit from.
    The President is in the pocket of labor unions, plain and 
simple. The PLA rule is a blatant move to repay his union 
buddies by funneling billions of dollars in Federal contracts 
their way. This Administration is not interested in fair 
competition or relying on professional judgment. It is about 
political favoritism and keeping President Biden's union bosses 
happy--fat and happy, by the way. The American people deserve 
better than a President who prioritizes union coffers over the 
livelihoods of hardworking non-union construction workers 
across the country. I look forward to hearing from our 
witnesses today who will testify to the damage of this PLA 
mandate and the kind of damage it will inflict, but before I 
introduce them, I will first yield to Ranking Member Connolly 
for his opening statement.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here because 
somebody had active COVID, and I am not willing to expose 
myself or my spouse to it.
    I have seen firsthand in my district what happens when 
project labor agreements are excluded from construction 
projects because of unfounded scare tactics and attacks on 
labor unions. For more than 2 decades, I supported and helped 
advance the Silver Line extension of Metro to Dulles Airport 
here in the Nation's Capital. This construction project was 
vital to regional mobility and our local economy. Phase 2 of 
the Silver Line's construction, unlike Phase 1, was performed 
without a PLA because of the partisan anti-labor actions of 
Republicans in my state, and it suffered quality and safety 
setbacks that led to litigation, delays, and cost increases.
    There were scheduling problems from the start. More than 
400 concrete rail ties had flaws that could cause tracks to 
tilt outwards. More than 1,700 defective concrete panels were 
installed and accompanied falsified records after skirting 
quality control requirements, which resulted in the company 
being barred from working on Federal construction projects for 
3 years. None of those problems occurred in Phase 1, which had 
a PLA.
    The project directors blamed the contractors, the 
contractors blamed the subcontractors, but who should really be 
blamed were the Republican leaders in Virginia who prevented--
actively prevented--state agencies from requiring a PLA 
agreement on Phase 2. If a PLA had been in place for Phase 2 as 
it was for Phase 1, I do not think we would have had anywhere 
near the magnitude of problems we encountered and the huge 
delays that ensued.
    That is why I applaud the pro-work policies of the Biden 
Administration. Last week, the Administration issued a final 
rule to address the workforce skill shortages within the 
construction industry. The final rule requires that 
infrastructure projects funded to the Inflation Reduction Act 
pay prevailing wages to the workers on the projects. That means 
good-paying, high-quality jobs for local workers and 
communities across the Nation. President Biden's infrastructure 
investments are revitalizing and creating local jobs in every 
congressional district. Our Chairwoman, for example, praised 
the $26 million Federal grant her district received for public 
transportation investments from the Inflation Reduction Act, 
despite voting against that very bill.
    In December 2023, the Biden Administration finalized a rule 
to ensure that large-scale Federal construction projects have 
PLAs in place to make sure they are completed on time and on 
budget. That is because PLAs have a proven track record of 
success, which is why they were created during World War II. 
PLAs promote worker safety and guarantee a well-trained, 
highly-skilled workforce. PLAs can help prevent the kind of 
setbacks we incurred in Phase 2 of the Silver Line 
construction.
    Using PLAs can also attract new private sector businesses. 
Just ask Micron. Micron is using a PLA to construct a $15 
billion semiconductor manufacturing plan in Boise, Idaho, a 
right-to-work state, I believe, but had Idaho not built up its 
local construction workforce through decades of Federal 
investments from the Department of Energy in PLA constraining 
projects, Micron might not have been ready and had a ready-made 
workforce in which to invest, and the good-paying local jobs 
that come with Micron's construction project would not have 
materialized. These investments are how we rebuild communities 
and the middle class.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, 
including Mr. Jacob Snyder, Chief Operating Officer of Enerfab. 
Enerfab is a construction company that knows PLAs offer real 
investments into workers and communities while completing 
construction jobs to the highest quality. Enerfab uses PLAs on 
90 percent of its projects, both government and private sector 
contracts, and Mr. Snyder has the unique qualification of being 
the only witness here today who negotiates and uses PLAs. I 
look forward to hearing his insights.
    And, Madam Chairman, before I finish, I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a statement from SMACNA and 
from the Construction Employers of America, supporting PLAs.
    Ms. Mace. Without objection.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair, and I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. I ask unanimous consent for the following members 
to be waived onto the Subcommittee for today's hearing for the 
purpose of asking questions: Representative Gosar from Arizona, 
Representative Foxx from North Carolina, Representative 
Grothman from Wisconsin, Representative Higgins from Louisiana, 
Representative Perry from Pennsylvania, Representative Casar 
from Texas, Representative Allen from Georgia, Representative 
Fitzgerald from Wisconsin.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I am pleased to introduce our witnesses for today's 
hearing. Our first witness is Mr. Ben Brubeck, Vice President 
of Regulatory, Labor, and State Affairs with the Associated 
Builders and Contractors. Is Mr. Higgins here? He is not. OK. 
Our second witness is Mr. Glenn Ledet, Executive Director of 
the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Our 
third witness is Mr. Aric Dreher, Vice President and General 
Manager of Cianbro, and our fourth witness today is Mr. Jacob 
Snyder, Chief Operating Officer at Enerfab. We welcome 
everyone, and we are pleased to have you this afternoon.
    Pursuant to the Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will 
please stand and raise their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Ms. Mace. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative. We appreciate all of you being 
here today and look forward to your testimony. You can sit back 
down.
    I will remind the witnesses that we have read your written 
statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing record. 
Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes today. As a 
reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of 
you so that we can hear you, and when you begin to speak, the 
light in front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes, the 
light turns yellow. At 5, it turns red, and your time has 
expired and we would ask that you please wrap it up.
    I will first recognize Mr. Brubeck to please begin your 
opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF BEN BRUBECK

                             VICE PRESIDENT

                   REGULATORY LABOR AND STATE AFFAIRS

                ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC

    Mr. Brubeck. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this 
hearing.
    The American public deserves to know how the Biden 
Administration's policies requiring and promoting project labor 
agreements are undermining taxpayer investments in the 
construction of infrastructure, clean energy, and manufacturing 
facilities. They deserve to know that President Biden's pro-PLA 
policies will result in needless delays, project cancellations, 
and are likely to increase construction costs 12 percent to 20 
percent.
    They deserve to know that PLA mandates exacerbate the 
construction industry's skilled labor shortage of more than 
half a million people by locking out 90 percent of the U.S. 
construction workforce, those who are not members of labor 
unions, because their employers are unable to compete for 
contracts subject to PLA mandates. They deserve to know that 
the Biden Administration's pro-PLA schemes benefit special 
interests by steering taxpayer-funded construction contracts to 
unionized contractors and unionized labor, key political donors 
in a Presidential election year.
    My name is Ben Brubeck, and I am the Vice President of 
Regulatory Labor and State Affairs with Associated Builders and 
Contractors. ABC is a trade association whose 23,000-member 
companies and their millions of employees in the commercial/
industrial segments of the U.S. construction industry want 
nothing more than to compete on a level playing field to 
deliver to taxpayers the best possible construction product at 
the best possible price. For more than 20 years, I have fought 
for free enterprise and fair and open competition so ABC 
members, and the entire construction industry, have a real 
opportunity to build America. This Administration's new rule 
mandating PLAs on Federal construction projects of $35 million 
or more is devastating to the hardworking men and women who 
earn a living building their communities and are the backbone 
of America's economy.
    I have talked with many ABC members, small and minority-
owned businesses, who are worried they will have to lay off 
workers because they can no longer build projects at their 
local military bases unless they execute a PLA with unions. To 
ABC members, a PLA means they would not be able to use all or 
even most of their own employees on the job. Instead, these 
companies must hire unfamiliar workers from union halls and 
follow inefficient union work rules, and if any of their own 
employees are even allowed to work on the job, the employees 
must join a union or pay union dues or agency shop fees as a 
condition of working. Astonishingly, employee contributions 
made to union benefits plans will be forfeited, which subjects 
workers to wage staff of almost 34 percent of their total 
compensation unless they join a union and meet vesting 
requirements.
    In addition, I have received inquiries from Federal agency 
contracting officers and professional procurement folks in each 
agency about the status of the lawsuit ABC filed in March in a 
Federal court in Florida against the PLA rule. They are 
frustrated that the new policies reducing competition from 
qualified Federal contractors, like ABC members who have built 
more than half of the Federal Government's large-scale 
construction projects during the last 15 years, projects worth 
$240 billion in total. Contracting officers are concerned that 
because there is less competition under PLA mandates, bid 
prices will be higher, and that will force agency projects to 
be delayed, rescoped, or canceled until agencies can get more 
money from Congress or the PLA policy is defeated in Congress. 
They know firsthand that PLA mandates injure the economy and 
efficiency in government contracting.
    They had a chance to require PLAs on 3,200 projects built 
between fiscal years 2009 and 2024 under an Obama 
Administration policy that encouraged PLA use on an optional 
case-by-case basis. They did so just 12 times. Contracting 
officers say their hands are tied by this new rule's 
dysfunctional PLA exception process. They say this rule is 
actually an across-the-board PLA mandate right now. They hope 
ABC's lawsuit is successful.
    Everyone in the construction industry who is not 
compromised knows government-mandated PLAs are a political 
solution in search of a problem, yet the White House continues 
to expand their use. Just last week, they weaponized the IRS to 
coerce private developers to mandate PLAs on clean energy 
construction projects receiving Inflation Reduction Act tax 
credits. Independent of this rule, the Biden Administration is 
pushing, but not requiring, PLAs on billions of dollars' worth 
of federally assisted projects via Federal agency grant 
programs, which incentivize PLAs on infrastructure and 
microchip manufacturing facilities. So, why is this 
Administration pushing these anticompetitive, inflationary, 
union-only PLA policies? Perhaps it is because President Biden 
has repeatedly said that he wants to be the most pro-union 
President in history, and it is a shame this ambition comes at 
the expense of taxpayers, safe and experienced contractors, and 
the livelihoods of 9 out of 10 construction industry workers 
shut out from rebuilding America because they do not want to 
affiliate with unions.
    In closing, I have detailed concerns with the Biden 
Administration's PLA policies on Federal and federally assisted 
construction projects in my written testimony, in comments ABC 
submitted to the FAR Council during the rulemaking process, and 
in media coverage posted on the construction industry's 
coalition website, BuildAmericaLocal.com.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Ledet to begin his 
opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF GLENN P. LEDET, JR.

                           EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

         LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION AUTHORITY

    Mr. Ledet. Thank you. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member 
Connolly, and members of this Committee, thank you for the 
invitation to testify on Executive Order 14063 and the 
potential impacts to Louisiana's Coastal Program. My name is 
Glenn Ledet, and I am the Executive Director for the Coastal 
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, known as 
CPRA.
    Louisiana is in the midst of a land loss crisis that has 
claimed nearly 2,000 square miles of land since the 1930's. 
This is equivalent to the state of Delaware. We are responding 
to this coastal crisis by implementing a bold 50-year, $50 
billion coastal master plan to achieve a more sustainable 
coast. Since the founding of our agency in 2005, CPRA has 
overseen the investment of over $20 billion of coastal 
protection and restoration projects, including the construction 
improvement of hundreds of miles of levee systems, rebuilding 
of barrier islands, and restoring thousands of acres of coastal 
marsh and wetlands.
    To achieve this, we rely on our great partnership with the 
Federal Government through the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers. CPRA is proud to be one of the Corp's largest non-
Federal sponsors in the country with over $39 billion in 
authorized civil works projects in our coastal portfolio. As 
the non-Federal sponsor for these projects, we are typically 
committed to providing 35 percent of the total construction 
cost, with the Corps covering the remaining 65 percent.
    We are here today to discuss the Executive Order 14063 and 
the requirement of the signing of a PLA with at least one labor 
organization before starting a Federal construction contract of 
at least $35 million. This policy brings great uncertainty to 
the cost, schedule, and labor availability of Louisiana's 
Federal coastal projects. As the non-Federal sponsor of these 
projects, if the Federal cost increases, then our expenditures 
on these projects will increase as well. Our concerns are 
founded on the basis that Louisiana is a right-to-work state, 
and only three percent of our construction workforce is 
unionized. This means that this PLA mandate has the potential 
to discourage the participation of local businesses that employ 
the remaining 97 percent of our construction workforce.
    The stated benefits of this EO provide that PLAs can help 
in avoiding labor disruption and secure skilled labor. These 
are not problems for CPRA. To our knowledge, the Coastal 
Program has never had issues with lockouts or strikes on our 
projects. Additionally, counter to this goal, this EO will 
instead likely limit our contractor and labor options in 
Louisiana. We do not believe that this mandate is needed for 
our state.
    CPRA's top concern of this EO is the potential for cost 
increases on our large-scale Federal projects. As stated, any 
additional project cost affects our state's bottom line as we 
would have to increase our cost share. Studies on government-
mandated PLAs have found that costs can go up by 12 to 20 
percent. We simply cannot afford that.
    Take, for example, one of our ongoing hurricane protection 
projects known as West Shore Lake Pontchartrain. The project 
cost of this project is $3.7 billion. Using those estimates, 
PLAs could raise the cost of our project by $400 to $700 
million with CPRA having to contribute 35 percent of that 
increase. As you can imagine, we would rather put those dollars 
to use on implementation of other critical coastal projects.
    Additionally, we are concerned that this EO will reduce 
competition for construction contracts in our state. While non-
union firms can still participate, this PLA requirement will 
likely discourage local Louisiana companies from bidding. Any 
opt-outs make bidding less competitive leading to higher cost. 
As an example, on our first Federal contract with the PLA rule, 
the project only received a single bid. CPRA shares the goal of 
creating good jobs through infrastructure for our local 
workers. Our coastal program does just that. This year, CPRA's 
annual plan could result in over 10,000 construction jobs and 
$580 million in labor income. We can do this without PLA's 
mandates, utilizing our skilled local workforce that knows 
coastal Louisiana best.
    We have advocated for decades about Louisiana's coastal 
crisis, gaining buy-in for this mission from the Corps, 
Congress, and the Administration, and we are grateful for this 
support. So, it is concerning to see any policy changes like 
this PLA rule that slow down our shared momentum. Given this, 
CPRA supports repealing this policy such as through Chairman 
Comer or Chairman Higgins' legislation, or by exempting civil 
works projects that relate to reducing life and safety risks. 
Otherwise, our partnership with the Corps to protect our 
communities and restore coastal ecosystems could become more 
costly, slower to act, and, ultimately, less impactful. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. Mr. Dreher, you may begin your opening 
statement.

                        STATEMENT OF ARIC DREHER

                   VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER

                                CIANBRO

    Mr. Dreher. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly, and 
members of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information 
Technology, and Government Innovation, thank you for the 
invitation to testify this afternoon and for the opportunity to 
discuss the impact of the Biden Administration's policies 
promoting project labor agreements on Federal and federally 
assisted construction projects. My name is Aric Dreher, and I 
am Vice President and General Manager of Cianbro, a full-
service contractor that delivers industry-leading construction 
services for complex civil infrastructure projects throughout 
the country.
    Founded in 1949, Cianbro is one of America's largest 100 
percent employee-owned open shop construction and construction 
services companies, operating in more than 40 states and 
employing over 4,000 team members. Since Cianbro's humble 
beginnings, when four brothers returned home after serving our 
country in World War II to start what is today Cianbro, we have 
believed in and continue to fight for open, fair, and 
competitive bidding on public works projects.
    Our teams have completed some of the company's most 
innovative and challenging infrastructure projects, including 
the phase development of the District Wharf in Washington, DC, 
construction of the 175-foot-tall Capital Wheel at National 
Harbor, and the U.S. Air Force Memorial overlooking the 
Pentagon. We are proud to have projects underway right now 
supporting our national security with the construction of two 
new submarine dry docks at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and a new 
submarine refueling station at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Here in 
Washington, we are preparing to revitalize the National Mall 
with reconstruction of the sea walls at West Potomac Park and 
in the Tidal Basin.
    Cianbro employs multiskilled tradespeople that can perform 
work across many craft disciplines. The employment of versatile 
tradespeople is a win-win for Cianbro, our clients, and the 
taxpayers as it allows for enhanced labor productivity, 
continued skills development, and increased workforce 
retention. Cianbro hires and develops its own employees using 
government-registered apprenticeship programs as well as in-
house workforce development programs to meet the industry's 
ever-changing needs. In addition, Cianbro, like many other 
well-respected American open shop contractors, provides 
competitive compensation and benefits packages to its team 
members.
    As a merit shop contractor, Cianbro is genuinely concerned 
about President Joe Biden's rule directing Federal agencies to 
mandate PLAs on Federal construction projects that are $35 
million or more in total value. This mandate is overreaching 
and unfair. Provisions in PLA mandates are not in alignment 
with Cianbro's values, infringe our team members' freedom of 
association, and do not make sense for our efficient company 
operations. President Biden's PLA policies are already having a 
negative effect on our company. Due to the new rule, we have 
been unable to pursue opportunities to secure work on Federal 
projects, such as the recently advertised U.S. Navy Pier 31 
extension project at Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, 
Connecticut. Unfortunately, we expect this trend to continue 
due to the current PLA requirements.
    The U.S. construction industry needs policies that are 
inclusive and offer all qualified contractors and their skilled 
workforces the opportunity to pursue projects without dictating 
how the company must be run. Union and open shop contractors 
should have equal right to pursue these opportunities and 
perform the work the way that best suits their organizations. 
In the past, PLA mandate advocates have alleged that PLAs 
ensure safe workplaces, insinuating that open shop construction 
companies have less safe workplaces. This is not true. The 
truth is it takes leadership commitment and cultural 
transformation to achieve industry-leading safety results, not 
PLAs.
    The construction industry is faced with a massive skilled 
labor shortage of nearly a half a million people in 2024 alone. 
There is no need to mandate PLAs given that nearly 90 percent 
of the construction workforce does not belong to a union. The 
PLA mandate only exasperates this industry-wide workforce 
challenge, resulting in less competition on project bids and 
increased cost to taxpayers. We need Congress and the Biden 
Administration to champion policies that are inclusive and 
encourage all qualified contractors and their skilled 
workforces to compete to build long-lasting, quality projects 
throughout America.
    In closing, I ask all of you to consider the negative 
effects of the Biden Administration's PLA policies on our firm, 
our industry partners, and our skilled and qualified craft 
professionals.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Snyder for 5 
minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JACOB SNYDER

                        CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

                                ENERFAB

    Mr. Snyder. Thank you. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member 
Connolly, and distinguished members of the Committee, I 
appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am really here to 
share a little bit about my experience and our organization's 
experience with project labor agreements, project labor 
agreements that we use on a daily basis for the vast majority 
of our work.
    Enerfab has been around since 1901, headquartered in 
Cincinnati, Ohio. We work in most of the country, predominantly 
covering about the Eastern two-thirds of the U.S. with some 
density level there. We do work that is usually of pretty high 
complexity, more in the private industry than in public. We use 
project labor agreements on close to 90 percent of our work, 
whether that is a private industry or with the government.
    Some of our government contracting experience over the 
years includes at Johnson Space Center, the Piketon Department 
of Energy facility, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Lake 
City Ammunition Plant, Arnold Air Force Base, and the Tennessee 
Valley Authority, all of which are projects, whether they have 
been mandated or not, that Enerfab has performed under project 
labor agreements. So, we do do Federal work on some basis with 
project labor agreements, and we use those all across the 
country. One of the things that I think is important to note, 
too, as we go across the country, it does not matter to us 
which state the work occurs in. It does not matter if it is 
right to work or if it is not. We use project labor agreements 
on nearly all of our work with great success.
    One of the things that we think is important as we evaluate 
the policy is giving the Federal Government the tools that are 
available to private industry to allow and go make those smart 
purchasing decisions on all of our behalves in how we spend our 
money, and so we will talk a little bit about that as we go 
today. One of the things that I think we all agree on is there 
is a major shortage in the construction industry in skilled, 
qualified people, and as we continue to grow that, we agree the 
number is somewhere between 500,000 and 700,000 people short to 
fill the needs of the construction industry as it exists today.
    But I am happy to say that Enerfab on none of its projects, 
which we typically run between 50 and a hundred job sites on 
any given day, we have zero labor shortages on our projects at 
Enerfab. In fact, Independent Project Analysis did a study in 
2022, which we will talk more about in a minute, that says 
projects are 40 percent less likely to experience a shortage of 
skilled labor when union labor was sourced versus open shop 
labor. It is one of the most important things we do as we 
evaluate the projects we are taking on. We are going to have 
the skilled people to do it. We are not talking about small 
projects, and this executive order is not talking about small 
projects. We are talking about large, complex projects, and how 
we staff those and where we get the people to do them is 
paramount to how we complete those projects on time and on 
budget.
    Speaking of IPA, if you are not familiar, they have 23,000 
benchmark projects in their data base used by private industry 
and Fortune 500 companies every day. They do 600 projects a 
year. Seven hundred and fifty large companies subscribed to 
their services and they are used in more than a hundred 
countries, and all they do is study capital construction 
projects. I want to read an excerpt from their study that they 
completed in 2022. It says, ``This study expands on an earlier 
study that found that union labor is more productive than open 
shop labor, and projects that employed union labor cost less 
despite the higher average all-in wage rate paid to union 
labor.''
    Other studies have found that higher craft labor costs for 
union labor on prevailing wage projects do not result in higher 
project costs than non-union prevailing wage projects. The 
current study confirmed the findings from the earlier IPA study 
and examined some of the underlying differences in union labor 
versus open shop labor that may explain the differences in 
productivity as well as the overall effect on project outcomes. 
And it concludes with, ``The overall findings indicate the 
combination of better skills, more reliable sourcing of 
sufficient skilled labor, and better labor stability all 
contribute to better productivity and better project 
outcomes.''
    The study also goes on to find that, on average, union 
labor projects come in at four percent less cost than ones that 
are completed merit shop. I have looked at the studies that say 
12 to 20 percent. I think if you spend some time, you will find 
some significant bias there. As a businessperson, I am spending 
my time with IPA who uses industry-wide data all over the 
world, and we have found that to be the case. We have certainly 
found in our work that it is successful.
    And I think as we continue to talk today, it is important 
to know PLAs are a very flexible vehicle that can be tailored 
to the individual project needs and the individual contractor 
that is going to use them. And so, as we go to think about how 
we are doing that, they have the ability to go and look at 
local workforce, inclusivity, cost, all of those things that go 
into making a project. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Mace. And thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 
minutes of questioning. All right.
    I would like to start with you, Mr. Brubeck, today, this 
afternoon. Non-union construction workers who managed to get on 
a PLA project can lose one-third of their total compensation to 
wage theft. According to one study, it found the rule could 
result in a half billion dollars being stolen from non-union 
workers employed on Federal construction projects. Is it fair 
for non-union workers to be forced to pay union dues and 
contribute to union pension plans for which they do not 
benefit?
    Mr. Brubeck. Thank you for the question. I will say that it 
is rare for non-union construction workers to be allowed on PLA 
projects.
    Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Brubeck. They can be allowed on PLA projects, but 
typically what happens is that they have to pay fringe benefits 
into the union pension and benefits plans, and those are 
confiscated by the union unless they join a union and become 
vested in those programs. So, the net effect of that is that 
non-union contractors who want to use their own employees do 
not bid on PLA projects.
    Ms. Mace. Gotcha. Most of your members are small 
businesses. Under the PLA mandate, all subcontractors on a 
project must abide by the terms of the PLA, even if they had no 
role in negotiating the terms. How do small businesses feel 
about the PLA mandate?
    Mr. Brubeck. They are devastated by it.
    Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Brubeck. I have been getting calls every day from small 
businesses who are saying I cannot build Federal contracts in 
my own backyard. I get 80 percent of my revenue from these 
types of contracts. Once I work through my backlog, I do not 
know what I am going to do. I am going to have to lay off 
workers. There is no exemption in the rule for small businesses 
at all. The PLAs are very complicated to negotiate for small 
business direct contractors. A lot of the construction trade 
unions are going to have a hard time negotiating these 
contracts with small businesses because they have no 
familiarity with doing so.
    So, is a killer for small businesses, especially in a time 
when the Federal Government is begging for Federal contractors, 
especially small businesses, to compete for this work. We have 
seen a massive decline in small business participation in the 
construction industry for Federal contracts by more than 60 
percent. So, this is going to make it worse on top of all these 
other regulations that the industries are facing.
    Ms. Mace. A heck of a lot worse. Mr. Dreher, in the past, 
agency contracting officers, nonpartisan civil servants, 
entrusted to get the best value for the government, have chosen 
not to mandate PLAs even when encouraged to do so. Why do you 
think that is?
    Mr. Dreher. Fair and open competition, right? Getting more 
contractors, whether they are union or open shop, giving them 
the opportunity to bid the work and let the client decide what 
the best value is for the American taxpayer and not mandate 
that only union companies can bid the work, so.
    Ms. Mace. The Biden Administration says PLAs are necessary 
to ensure major projects are finished on time and without 
stoppages. Is that actually true?
    Mr. Dreher. No, absolutely not.
    Ms. Mace. The Administration says that merit shop companies 
and their employees can participate in PLA projects. However, 
these typically require union work rules be followed and that 
contributions to union pension plans be paid. Why is it a 
problem for your workforce to be restricted to operating under 
union work rules?
    Mr. Dreher. We are 100-percent employee owned. Every one of 
our team members, 4,000 strong, is an owner of a company, and 
to take union workforce, right, then we have to pay into their 
benefits and everything, that results in my team members not 
having a job, right? So, that is a major issue for us and 
certainly a challenge.
    Ms. Mace. They are going to employ a lot of people with 
this policy, are they not?
    Mr. Dreher. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Yes. Mr. Ledet, since 97 percent of construction 
workers in Louisiana are non-union, could this mandate result 
in fewer state residents getting work on projects that the 
state itself is helping to finance?
    Mr. Ledet. Yes, we believe so, that it discourages local 
businesses from competing in these large-scale projects.
    Ms. Mace. How has your agency been able to successfully 
contract out construction work without mandating PLAs?
    Mr. Ledet. Well, since 2005, working with the Corps of 
Engineers, we have built the largest hurricane protection 
system in the Nation without PLA mandates. That is the Greater 
New Orleans Hurricane Risk Storm Damage Reduction System. And 
so, we believe there is precedent there, and that was done on 
time and under budget.
    Ms. Mace. Are you concerned about the additional costs and 
budgetary risks the PLA mandate will create?
    Mr. Ledet. Yes, our state is concerned.
    Ms. Mace. Are you concerned that you will not be able to 
work with some of the contractors you have worked with in the 
past due to this mandate?
    Mr. Ledet. Yes. Our concern is that for those Federal 
projects, those contractors will be discouraged from 
competition there.
    Ms. Mace. This is a question for everyone on the panel. Mr. 
Brubeck, is this mandate going to cost American companies, 
private companies jobs? Are they going to have to lay people 
off?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes, absolutely. We have been talking to our 
membership about this, and they are very concerned once they 
burn through their backlog that they currently have. Normally 
they are earning work and winning work competitively in this 
timeframe, and once that is over, they are not sure what they 
are going to do. They got to make revenue somewhere else, and 
this may result in them having to lay off people or find other 
work elsewhere.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, and I have just run out of time, so I 
will yield back. OK. We have not called votes yet, so, Mr. 
Connolly, I would like to recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point 
out that Mr. Dreher and his company, Cianbro, belong to the 
Associated General Contractors of America, which actually filed 
a lawsuit to try to prevent this new rule from coming into 
effect. The judge presiding dismissed the case. He was 
appointed by none other than Donald J. Trump, and let me read 
what he said: ``None of the individual plaintiffs can specify 
what those projects are that might be harmed, where they would 
take place, or the basis for their certainty,'' which we have 
heard here today, ``that such projects will require PLA. 
Furthermore, the individual plaintiffs' declarations are belied 
by their histories of actual Federal contracting practices. And 
without such a showing,'' he said, ``there is no basis to 
believe the PLA rule would impact their businesses.'' That is 
the ruling of the judge under a lawsuit brought by that group. 
Well, your company, Mr. Dreher, is a member of that group.
    Mr. Snyder, you heard the gentleman next to you say with 
this rule in place, we are going to be prevented from actually 
bidding on Federal work, and we have got a long history of 
doing just that. Then I heard your testimony and you gave a 
long list of Federal work you have done, and you have done it 
with PLAs. How come you can make it work and others apparently 
speculate they cannot?
    Mr. Snyder. I certainly cannot speak for any other 
business, but we have found through the process of doing this 
that there is a step that goes into this collective process of 
finding out what works best for the project and working with 
partners that are going to be representing employees in the 
workforce to come in and weigh in on what those issues are that 
are going to make that successful. I am not sure why it would 
be more difficult for someone else to go and do the exact same 
thing. There are thousands of other employers that do what we 
do. I just happen to be the one sitting here talking with you 
today, and so I think the numbers of cost and scheduling and 
the ability to staff projects speak for itself.
    Mr. Connolly. And just to be clear about your testimony 
here today, it is your testimony that your company, going back 
to 1901, has, in fact, used PLAs as an effective tool 
successfully, and you have found it to be a felicitous 
relationship facilitating business. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Snyder. Sure. We compete on a daily basis with open 
shop contractors. That does not prevent us from bidding. We 
compete in right-to-work states and work in them every day. It 
is our preferred method of performing work. We have found it to 
be the most efficient and cost-effective way to do work.
    Mr. Connolly. And are you aware of the OMB letter for the 
record with respect to the implementation of this, that makes 
clear that union and non-union workers will be considered for 
and work on Federal PLA projects?
    Mr. Snyder. That is correct. Our understanding is that the 
Federal Government cannot exclude non-union workers from 
participation in the process. In fact, they are prohibited from 
doing so.
    Mr. Connolly. I ask unanimous consent to enter that letter 
into the record.
    Ms. Mace. Without objection.
    Mr. Connolly. And is it further your testimony, if I heard 
you correctly, independent of your own company, though your 
experience would mirror this, that there is actually compiled 
data empirically demonstrating that PLA projects actually tend 
to come in lower in the cost estimate than non-PLA projects in 
terms of labor especially. Is that correct?
    Mr. Snyder. There are studies that indicate that in the 
broadest, most widely recognized study was not specific to 
project labor agreements, but collective bargaining agreements 
in general. And that was commissioned by the Mechanical 
Contractors Association through IPA.
    Mr. Connolly. So, not just your company, but industry-wide, 
that is what they found.
    Mr. Snyder. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. And would you say that PLAs, in your 
experience, tend to smooth out both labor contracts and costs 
and come in a better timeframe? Certainly that was my 
experience. I mean, I literally had the experience of the 
Silver Line. It was bifurcated. We had Phase 1. We had Phase 2. 
Phase 1 was a PLA project, and it came in pretty much on budget 
and on time. Phase 2 was horribly delayed by years with lots of 
cost overruns, and it was a deliberate political decision, not 
an economic decision, to do that in Phase 2 because we had a 
change in the
    Governorship in Richmond, Virginia. Your comment.
    Mr. Snyder. That is our experience, and from the IPA study, 
projects that are short on skilled labor are twice as likely to 
have 10 percent or higher cost overrun and more likely to have 
schedule slip of 25 percent or more.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Madam Chair, I would ask in 
unanimous consent to enter into the record the U.S. District 
Court ruling from the Western District of Louisiana, to which I 
made reference earlier.
    Ms. Mace. Without objection.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And finally, I would ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter from the 
Association of Union Constructors and more than 1,700 members 
in support of project labor agreements.
    Ms. Mace. Without objection.
    Ms. Connolly. I thank the chair, and I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Votes have been called, and the Chair declares 
the Committee in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. We 
will plan to reconvene about 10 minutes after votes.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Mace. Good afternoon, and we are going to reconvene our 
hearing this afternoon.
    Before I recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, I 
want to submit into the hearing record several coalition 
letters we have received that oppose the PLA rule, support 
FOCA, and express appreciation for the hearing we are holding 
here today. This includes a letter from 21 business groups, 
including the Associated Builders and Contractors, the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses, and the National Black 
Chamber of Commerce; and a letter from a series of taxpayer 
protection groups, including, among others, Americans for 
Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, and the National 
Taxpayers Union.
    Finally, I want to submit a letter from the Independent 
Electrical Contractors that opposes the PLA rule, supports 
FOCA, and expresses appreciation for the hearing we are holding 
today.
    Without objection.
    Ms. Mace. And then I did want to make one comment before I 
recognize you, Mr. Chairman. I learned from multiple members of 
this Committee today that we had one of our colleagues show up 
with COVID this afternoon. In fact, staff was bleaching the 
chair he was sitting in after he departed. He was on the floor 
today voting. We do not want super spreaders in this hearing. I 
would ask the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin, not to spread COVID 
in this hearing room, not to spread COVID on the floor of the 
U.S. House of Representatives.
    There are members of this Committee and members of this 
body who are immunocompromised, who have spouses who are 
immunocompromised. People like myself, have had long COVID and 
have had devastating health consequences to getting COVID, and 
I would ask our colleagues not to spread COVID.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize you 
for 5 minutes.
    Chairman Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank 
you for holding this very important hearing.
    Mr. Dreher, your testimony states at your firm, which is 
employee owned, and I might add that is my favorite kind of 
ownership of any private business, just wants a fair 
opportunity to compete and win Federal awards. But you say the 
Administration's PLA mandates denies you and your employees 
that fair opportunity, and you are right. Even the Boston Globe 
Editorial Board last month wrote that, ``Although they do not 
say so explicitly, PLAs, in effect, limit public work only to 
firms whose workers belong to trade unions.''
    If your firm wants to continue to perform Federal awards, 
you need to convince a union, to which your employees do not 
belong, to agree to work with you. Your testimony says this 
gives the union maximum leverage to dictate the terms to you. 
Is it accurate to say the PLA rulemakes your firm hostage to 
outside labor union since you cannot perform Federal projects 
unless you agree to cater to their terms?
    Mr. Dreher. Absolutely.
    Chairman Comer. So, what sort of provisions, harmful to 
non-union contractors and their workforce, might a PLA include?
    Mr. Dreher. So, just taking a step back, looking at the 
whole picture here, all right, I think we can all agree that 
the industry is short over a half a million workers right now.
    Chairman Comer. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dreher. And from 2009 to 2023, 12 out of 3,210 
contracts had a PLA. We are not against PLAs. We do not want 
PLAs mandated. This industry needs fair and open competition. 
We have a lot of work to do rebuilding our bridges, our 
highways, our naval infrastructure, and adding another 
roadblock in like this mandating these requirements, it does 
not make sense. It does not help this country achieve its 
mission to improve our infrastructure.
    Chairman Comer. I agree completely. Mr. Brubeck, Federal 
contracting professionals seem to think the project labor 
agreement mandate is unwise since they choose to use them on 
only 12 out of more than 3,000 construction solicitations since 
2009, even when encouraged to use them by President Obama. So, 
do you think these contracting officers will try to obtain 
case-by-case waivers from the PLA rule?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes, they are going to try to do that, but the 
waiver process that has been constructed by the rule is 
actually a bad-faith waiver process. I was talking to an Army 
Corps of Engineers Executive Procurement Officer. They have to 
get a waiver by going all the way up to the Senior Procurement 
Officer of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is a gentleman who 
oversees all procurement of missiles, weapons, tanks, all that 
stuff. It is not even the head of the construction side of the 
Army Corps of Engineers. By the time that goes all the way up 
the chain of command and back down, that project solicitation 
is going to be delayed immensely. It is designed to make sure 
there are no exceptions. We have not heard of any exceptions to 
this policy despite the contracting officers asking for those 
or asking us to see if our litigation would be able to provide 
an exception to this.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Dreher testified that his firm, which 
has won many Federal construction awards, will not be able to 
bid on many projects due to the PLA mandate. If an agency can 
show a solicitation will get a lot fewer bids due to a PLA 
mandate, does that qualify them for a waiver?
    Mr. Brubeck. Apparently, the OMB memo says that if they get 
three or fewer bids, then they could qualify for a PLA 
exemption, but they have to go up to the Senior Contracting 
Procurement Officer and ask for that, and then they have to 
justify that in a written report. The Senior Procurement 
Officer's decision is going to be published on a public website 
for further scrutiny and perhaps intimidation.
    Chairman Comer. Have any waivers been issued since January?
    Mr. Brubeck. I am not aware of it. I am aware of about 50 
solicitations in the pre-solicitation or solicitation phase 
that have PLA language. I am not aware of one waiver being 
offered so far.
    Chairman Comer. OK. That is what we thought. Mr. Ledet, 
your testimony states that the Coastal Protection and 
Restoration Authority received only a single bid on the first 
Federal contract issued under the PLA rule. How many bids do 
you typically receive on projects?
    Mr. Ledet. Yes, that is correct. We received a single bid 
on the West Shore project that had the PLA. We typically 
receive anywhere from four to five to even 10 bids on large 
infrastructure projects.
    Chairman Comer. That does not sound like a very good deal 
for the taxpayers.
    Mr. Ledet. That is right.
    Chairman Comer. Will you have to re-bid the project?
    Mr. Ledet. At this time, we do not believe that the Corps 
will rebid the project, no.
    Chairman Comer. So, will the fact that you just got one 
bid, will that delay the timeline or any----
    Mr. Ledet. Right now, we are working through that process 
with the Corps, so there is uncertainty as to how it will move 
forward. They are trying to award that project, but as soon as 
we get more information----
    Chairman Comer. Well, the Corps works so quickly, I did not 
know if----
    Mr. Ledet. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mr. Ledet. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Well, I really, Madam Chair, appreciate you 
holding this hearing. This is a serious issue, and hopefully we 
can figure a better way out. So, with that, my time has 
expired. I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would now like to 
recognize Congresswoman Pressley for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you and thank you to our witnesses for 
being here today. I represent the Massachusetts 7th 
congressional District. It is a district that is vibrant, 
diverse, and also deeply inequitable. As we leverage Federal 
funding flowing from the Biden Harris Administration's historic 
investment in our Nation's infrastructure, we must do so in a 
way that addresses longstanding inequities. In my district, 
from Cambridge to Roxbury, household median income drops by 
$50,000. Project labor agreements, or PLAs, will help us to 
address these longstanding inequities, opening the doors for 
women, people of color, and veterans to enter the trades.
    Mr. Snyder, can you discuss how PLAs have been used 
successfully to increase the participation of women and workers 
of color in large-scale construction projects specifically?
    Mr. Snyder. Sure. So, again, the uniqueness of a PLA is it 
gives the ability to tailor that agreement for the community 
and area that is going to be entertaining that project and that 
investment, and so you will see lots of different vehicles to 
do that. Some of them may be around how subcontracts get let to 
different types of underrepresented businesses.
    One of the things that every PLA does is it sets a standard 
for classifications, whether that is a journey person, an 
apprentice, a foreman, et cetera. Whether they are a woman, a 
minority, any underrepresented population, if they are a 
journeyman, they make the same as every other journeyman on 
that job site makes. And so, from a pay equity standpoint, it 
is almost a perfect mechanism to address those issues.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. These opportunities hit close to 
home. Massachusetts is really leading the way in opening career 
paths for women in the trades with the Commonwealth achieving 
greater gender diversity and inclusion in the construction 
industry than anywhere else in the Nation. At the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103 in Dorchester, for 
example, 51 percent of apprentices are women and people of 
color. These achievements are no accident. They are the results 
of state and company officials, union leaders, contractors, and 
community organizers coming together to actively recruit women, 
veterans, and people of color.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this 
report titled, ``Building Strong Careers and Lasting 
Infrastructure,'' from Community Labor United and the Green 
Justice Coalition in Massachusetts.
    Ms. Mace. Without objection.
    Ms. Pressley. This report clearly outlines the 
transformative impact of essential community benefits, like 
childcare and training, in PLAs, and they have enabled 
Massachusetts to make strides in its equity goals. At the heart 
of this data, however, are people, lives that have been changed 
and families with a chance to finally build generational 
wealth.
    Mr. Snyder, how have PLAs helped ensure that your workers 
feel valued and productive?
    Mr. Snyder. So, workforce development is part of almost 
every PLA I have ever seen. A lot of times that includes things 
that are apprenticeship programs to bring folks in, but they 
also set the standards for wages that help build the middle 
class but also benefit packages that help to do that as well. 
Those are retirement vehicles, health and welfare 
contributions, that allow people to take care of their families 
and grow that wealth.
    There are also a number of vehicles that occur through that 
process that help those people get the skills necessary to 
advance through the classification system and the growth in the 
industry. We see many, many small businesses that are grown out 
of the trades that develop, as a result of PLAs, that bring 
underrepresented populations into the workforce, teach them how 
to do it, and then there are additional vehicles that help them 
even start businesses. And so, those opportunities are pretty 
significant in the workforce development front.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Valuing and affirming workers does 
not have to come at the expense of profits. In fact, a study 
found that projects with PLAs reduce costs compared to projects 
without such agreements. At the same time, these agreements can 
serve as economic justice documents, as gender equity 
documents, and racial equity documents by investing in our most 
valuable infrastructure, which is our people. Massachusetts is 
making it plain. PLAs are the mechanism for finishing projects 
on time and on budget while increasing diversity in the trades, 
and I look forward to continuing this progress. Thank you, and 
I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. I would now like to recognize 
Congressman Burlison for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for hosting 
this wonderful, very important Committee meeting. Mr. Brubeck, 
most construction workers do not belong to the union. I think 
the statistics are something in the area of only close to 11 
percent are members of a labor union.
    Mr. Brubeck. Right.
    Mr. Burlison. In fact, and it is only getting smaller. 
Fewer and fewer people are choosing to be members of a labor 
union. Could you expand on the requirement will pressure 
contractors to reverse course and then unionize despite the 
fact that their employees may not want to be a member of a 
union?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes. So, typical PLAs say that you have to get 
most or all of your employees from a union hiring hall, and 
follow union work rules, and paying into union pension and 
benefit programs. And so, what that does is that forces 
contractors to be unable to use their existing employees. Any 
of their own employees they are able to use, they have to send 
to the union hiring hall or if there is some sort of 
arrangement where they are allowed work on. In our industry, if 
you want to join a union, you can just go down to the local 
union hiring hall and join. The barriers to unionization are 
very low.
    What we have here is the government forcing this on 
contractors in order to get taxpayer-funded construction 
contracts, and that is a problem. We heard earlier about 
voluntary PLAs, contractors entering into them voluntarily 
without undue course of pressure, but we are talking about 
government-mandated PLAs. That is the issue here. That is what 
this executive order does. That is what all the Biden 
Administration policies do. They try to force contractors to 
bargain with unions and sign a union agreement as a condition 
of winning a taxpayer-funded construction contract that 
increases costs, that reduces competition, and that reduces the 
number of workers that are able to bid on these projects. We 
have a skilled labor shortage of half a million people.
    Mr. Burlison. And I am glad you said that it increases 
costs and it reduces competition. I cannot see how anyone with 
a straight face can say that requiring a project labor 
agreement is somehow going to reduce costs and give more 
options.
    Mr. Brubeck. Well, in theory, it might reduce costs when 
your only option is a unionized contractor base, but that is 
not the case anywhere in this country. There is plenty of 
competition from non-union contractors. In my experience, PLAs 
are voluntarily entered into by contractors without government 
coercion because it provides them some sort of exemptions from 
problematic terms and collective bargaining agreements that 
make them less efficient and more expensive. So, we are talking 
about government-mandated PLAs, not voluntary PLAs.
    Mr. Burlison. Let us also talk about the supposed 
exemptions to the PLA requirements. The OMB memo implementing 
the new rule mentions a process for Federal agencies to follow 
in order to secure an exemption or exception to the Biden 
Administration's new blanket PLA policy. Are you aware of any 
Federal agencies who have successfully sought an exemption or 
an exception?
    Mr. Brubeck. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. Burlison. There are no reports. In fact, and I think 
you have from your own personal observation, and also when you 
go to the Federal Government's own website, it does not list 
any agencies receiving an exception, so clearly the exception 
policy is a joke. Would it be safe to say that the new rule is 
reducing competition, that it is reducing the number of 
applicants for these jobs?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes, absolutely. I hear both from contracting 
officers and Federal agencies and our own members who say they 
would want to pursue these contracts, but they cannot because 
of the PLA requirement on there. I am aware of a number of 
projects where they have already had a reduction in bidders who 
are prequalified for Phase 1 of the solicitation, and they 
dropped out the minute the PLA was added during Phase 2 of the 
solicitation. So, there are going to be real-world examples 
coming out, and projects are going to have to be re-bid and 
that is going to delay more construction projects that we all 
need.
    Mr. Burlison. I also think that there is another aspect to 
it. Just this week in a hearing, we learned that the United 
Auto Workers Union was protesting on a college campus to make 
sure that they had the rights to be basically antisemitic in 
their protests. I cannot imagine how someone who just wants to 
work, just wants to be employed is now going to have to pay 
dues to something that is getting politically involved in 
something they may totally disagree with.
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes. That is certainly one of the reasons why 
a lot of construction workers and contractors decide not to 
affiliate with unions, and that is their choice. They want to 
make sure that they can deliver projects on time and on budget.
    Mr. Brubeck. And before my time expires, I just want to ask 
what can Congress do? I know that we have Resolution 132 
sponsored by Higgins from Louisiana. What bills are on your 
radar that would help remedy this?
    Mr. Brubeck. Chairman Comer has got an excellent bill 
called the Fair and Open Competition Act that restricts 
government-mandated PLAs on Federal and federally assisted 
projects, and Congressman Higgins has a CRA resolution striking 
down the Biden Administration policy.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. All right. I would like to recognize Mr. Gosar 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since January 2021, the 
Biden Administration has implemented an executive order that 
works to pay special interest at the cost of the American 
taxpayer. The FAR Council rule mandating PLAs, which is the 
subject of today's hearing, is another example of the Biden's 
prioritizing special interests. This inflationary policy will 
increase costs for all Americans, providing them less in 
return. Mr. Brubeck, can you tell me what this could cost the 
American taxpayer if it was enforced for every project over $35 
million?
    Mr. Brubeck. The FAR Council final rule suggests it could 
be $14 to $16 billion worth of construction contracts subject 
to this rule. We think it is probably going to be a little bit 
more than that. The question then becomes how many of these 
projects have PLAs required on them. It seems like all of them 
will, unless the exception process changes. And then the next 
question is, what is the cost increase as a result of the 
project labor agreement reducing competition. Research suggests 
it is 12 percent to 18 percent, but it might be much greater or 
much less depending on the marketplace and a variety of 
factors. So, we do not really know yet, but it is going to be a 
lot.
    Mr. Gosar. Now, ABC members have built 50 percent of the 
value of large-scale Federal construction contracts over the 
last 15 years. Will Federal agencies be able to rely on ABC 
members to support the warfighter to defend our borders and 
improve our infrastructure if this costly rule remains in 
effect?
    Mr. Brubeck. I do not believe so. I have been hearing from 
both procurement officers and our own members saying they are 
going to not work on Federal contracts anymore. I do not know 
where those Federal contractors or the labor is going to come 
from to be able to deliver those services that our government 
and our warfighters need.
    Mr. Gosar. Now, are the manufacturers of the fab chips--
this is really important to Arizona and other states
    --but funded by the $50 billion in CHIPS and Science Act, 
required to mandate PLAs, or are they being strongly pushed to 
require them?
    Mr. Brubeck. They are not being required to do so, but our 
understanding after talking to a number of the CHIPS 
manufacturers, construction folks, is that the Biden 
Administration is really doing some arm twisting behind the 
scenes to push them to sign PLAs. So far, some of the awardees 
of the CHIPS money have signed PLAs. Some have resisted, and 
some who have resisted have been the subject of pretty intense 
campaigns from union organizers trying to make sure that they 
sign a PLA on future of work.
    Mr. Gosar. So, how is that going to affect the 
semiconductor business?
    Mr. Brubeck. Well, the good news is that it is not a 
requirement. The bad news is that there is a lot of coercion 
behind the scenes, and if you look at foreign investment in 
this country related to CHIPS fabs, I think they are having a 
hard time understanding how to operate under these types of 
environments.
    Mr. Gosar. Now, the Obama Administration did not mandate 
these, right?
    Mr. Brubeck. They had an executive order in place that 
strongly encouraged on a case-by-case project labor agreements, 
but they were not mandatory across the board like this policy. 
There is a big distinction between the two.
    Mr. Gosar. So, let us walk back through this. I thought I 
heard the comment that some of these PLAs are actually more 
cost effective, so being in the construction industry prior to 
this, I do not see how that works. Can you walk me through it 
where a PLA will actually be more cost effective than what you 
do?
    Mr. Brubeck. So, we have seen examples of projects bid with 
and without PLAs, Federal contracts under the Obama 
Administration. There was a great example in New Hampshire 
where a project was initially bid with a PLA requirement and 
then it was bid without, and we saw the bid numbers, and what 
we found was that there were nine bidders instead of three when 
the PLA was removed, and the costs were 16 percent less. And 
so, what you got there was less competition in that situation, 
and that is because contractors are limited on the number of 
bids that they can submit on this issue. They have fewer 
subcontractors that can participate that might be willing to 
sign the PLA. They have got union work rules that increase the 
cost of construction, make them less efficient. They got to pay 
in the pension of union benefit plans, a lot of reasons why 
these increase the cost of construction, especially when they 
are mandated.
    In a voluntary nature where you might enter into one 
because it might streamline your collective bargaining 
agreements, there may be some cost savings related to overtime 
or holidays, but that is not what we are talking about today. 
We are talking about when the government is requiring project 
labor agreements in that case.
    Mr. Gosar. So, let me ask you another question. Do you 
coerce your employees as to who to vote for in an election?
    Mr. Brubeck. No.
    Mr. Gosar. Hmm. Would you see that as a complication of 
this PLA?
    Mr. Brubeck. I am not sure.
    Mr. Gosar. Could it be?
    Mr. Brubeck. It could be.
    Mr. Gosar. When you join a union, do you turn over your 
rights in many cases? I will retract that because there is a 
better way to ask that. Are there other influencing factors in 
regard to joining a union and involving a PLA?
    Mr. Brubeck. Well, there are a number of situations where 
private developers cannot get permits. Like, for example, in 
California there is something called green mail where the 
construction trade unions are seeking a PLA on a project. They 
will file a number of frivolous environmental complaints to 
stop a project from moving forward without a project labor 
agreement. There are a number of tactics that are used to 
extract PLAs from the private sector, and then, of course, we 
are seeing the government side as well.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. I would now like to recognize Mr. 
Grothman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Sure. Thank you. I would like to apologize. 
Sometimes members of the other party, they get so used to 
talking about union jobs, it implies nobody in Congress cares 
about non-union jobs. I have a lot of good friends in the 
unions, but I think it is embarrassing that we are getting to 
the point. The hatred of diversity is so intense that they 
cannot say we want to expand the government by all jobs. They 
just, you are not a union, you do not count, but I got a 
question here for you.
    A new Biden Administration--and this is for Mr. Brubeck--a 
new Biden Administration rule mandates that contractors and 
subcontractors sign onto a project labor agreement to be 
eligible to perform work on large-scale Federal projects $35 
million and up. This discriminates against merit shop 
contractors. In what ways do PLAs potentially infringe on the 
freedom of choice for workers who may prefer not to join a 
union?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes. Like I mentioned before, typical PLAs 
will force contractors to hire most or all of their labor from 
union hiring halls and leave their own employees, who are non-
union workers, on the sidelines and they cannot work on those 
projects. They have to follow union work rules, and they have 
to pay into union pension and benefits programs. So, it is 
effectively telling non-union workers you cannot participate on 
the projects, and if there is an exception that allows them to 
participate, the non-union workers have to pay into these 
pension and benefit plans, and they will never receive the 
benefits that they pay into those plans unless they join a 
union and become vested in those programs. Some of these PLAs 
are in non-right-to-work states. They may require union 
membership, but ones in right-to-work states typically do not 
require union membership, but they do require the payment of 
agency shop fees and other support of the union programs that 
they may disagree with as a condition of working on a taxpayer-
funded project.
    Mr. Grothman. You talk about work rules. This is kind of 
going off script here a little, but you talk about work rules, 
and I think there is a perception that the only difference 
between union and non-union is maybe how much people are paid. 
Could you elaborate on how work rules may raise the cost of a 
project or make it more inefficient?
    Mr. Brubeck. Sure. A number of contractors that are union 
are a signatory to their collective bargaining agreements with 
specific unions. What that means is that they have to follow 
the work rules outlined in those collective bargaining 
agreements for any of the work they perform. For example, if 
they are building a sidewalk, they have to hire a carpenter to 
do the carpentry forms around the sidewalk. They will have to 
bring in someone from a different trade to do other aspects of 
that sidewalk. On the non-union side, a lot of contractors are 
able to do something called multiskilling where they are able 
to bring in one or two people who can do the job tasks across 
multiple trades, and that will allow them to be more efficient 
and have more skills overall in the life of the project and for 
the careers of the actual construction workers, too.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Mr. Dreher, since 2009, under a policy 
initiated by the Obama Administration, Federal agencies have 
been encouraged to consider mandating PLAs on Federal 
construction projects, but they have rarely done it. Why do you 
think that is so?
    Mr. Dreher. Because it was the contractor's choice, right? 
Twelve out of 3,210 contracts had PLAs, so I think that that 
tells us that there was not a lot of interest during that----
    Mr. Grothman. Left to their own devices----
    Mr. Dreher. Correct.
    Mr. Grothman [continuing]. People would not do them.
    Mr. Dreher. Let the people decide. Let the contractor 
decide. Create fair and open competition.
    Mr. Grothman. Any studies indicating PLAs increase the 
overall cost of public construction projects?
    Mr. Dreher. Yes. Yes. The overall costs increase 12 to 20 
percent, I think the statistics say.
    Mr. Grothman. And the result then, of course, is more 
infrastructure undone, not as good infrastructure.
    Mr. Dreher. Yes. Yes, we are we are slowing up projects, 
and right now the industry is so saturated. We are short 
workers, there are a lot of projects to do, and this is just 
adding, again, another hurdle that is going to prevent us from 
achieving that mission.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Final question for Mr. Brubeck. The IRS 
and Treasury Department have finalized prevailing wage and 
apprenticeship requirements for certain incentives contained in 
the Inflation Reduction Act, which is a big climate bill that 
President Biden signed into law in 2022. While the 
Administration characterizes the rule as a win for labor 
unions, for blue-collar workers, they will most likely give a 
significant advantage to labor unions. Can you explain to me 
this weaponization of the IRS to push labor policies and 
project labor agreements on the Inflation Reduction Act clean 
energy tax credits? Is this in the statute?
    Mr. Brubeck. The prevailing wage and registered 
apprenticeship requirements on these clean energy projects 
seeking enhanced tax credits, that is in the statute. What is 
not in the statute is a new provision by the IRS that says 
developers would be exempt or get-out-free jail card for the 
willful and extreme penalties in the new statute if they sign a 
project labor agreement, if they require all the contractors to 
sign a PLA. So, they are getting an exemption through 
regulation to the actual statute if they sign a PLA, and this 
is going to create a lot of problems.
    A lot of developers and a lot of people seeking these tax 
credits are trying to understand the confusing rules behind 
prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship requirements, and 
so they are going to be basically pushed and coerced into 
requiring project labor agreements. So, they are weaponizing 
the IRS and the tax system to develop more union jobs and 
unionized contractors getting----
    Mr. Grothman. Hatred of non-union jobs. Maybe ``hatred'' is 
too strong, but they do not want people having non-union jobs.
    Mr. Brubeck. We are not welcome.
    Mr. Grothman. Yep. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. All right. I would now like to recognize Mr. 
Fitzgerald for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I want to thank the Chairwoman for allowing 
me to waive on to the Committee. It is an important topic, and 
when I saw it was coming up in the Subcommittee, definitely 
wanted to participate. As my many years in the Wisconsin State 
Senate, along with Congressman Grothman, by the way, we did do 
some PLA reforms. And I think one of the things that was always 
missed, and I am glad you are reiterating again and again, that 
what you are talking about is if two organizations want to get 
involved in a PLA, that is not what we are worried about. We 
are worried about the mandate part. And there were significant 
buildings. There is Lambeau Field in Wisconsin that was part of 
a PLA agreement. We had the Fiserv Forum, which we are holding 
the Republican National Committee Convention at, which there 
was a PLA in place. That was fine. That is not what we are 
talking about. We are talking about mandating it.
    So, Mr. Brubeck, I wanted to just get your take on the 
higher costs because that is what we saw. Even on those where 
there was agreement, if you match that up with what the 
construction costs might be on the front end compared to where 
you end up, it is still a significant increase in the costs of 
a project, right?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes. Typically, the costs are between 12 
percent and 20 percent. At least that is what the research has 
said on a number of school construction projects. There was an 
independent study done out in California on a number of Los 
Angeles affordable housing projects. What that study found was 
that the PLA mandate actually added 14 percent of the cost of 
affordable housing projects that resulted in 800 fewer 
affordable housing units being built out there. They could have 
had 11 percent more, 800 more units for affordable housing if 
not for this requirement. So, it is certainly there. There is a 
lot of research on this topic. I know there is other research 
saying the opposite, but it is just basic common sense. You 
reduce competition, you put new rules, you cannot use your own 
employees, of course costs are going to go up for these 
contractors.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Right, and I think that is something that 
is being missed on it is because I am also a member of 
Financial Services right now, so we will have the Fed in and 
they will tell us, we will have the FDIC in, and we will grill 
them about where we are in some of this financing stuff. And 
right now it means that there is less projects being built, 
right? I mean, we know there is a labor shortage, but along 
with that, if there are less projects, if there is less work, 
that is not good for anybody, right?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes. Stakeholders are worried that if their 
costs go over their allotted budget, they are going to have to 
find money elsewhere. They are going to have to get money from 
Congress, or they are going to have to re-scope their existing 
budgets or other projects, and that creates a lot of delays and 
that adds more cost, too. So, yes, that means fewer 
construction jobs created, fewer improvements to our roads, 
bridges, and other types of infrastructure, and fewer clean 
energy projects. I mean, the list goes on. This is a serious 
issue.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. And it is because federally assisted 
construction is a much larger market of construction spending 
than direct Federal contracts. I mean, that is the way it 
works.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. I do not know if I clarified. So, we 
have got the Biden executive order on direct Federal contracts 
of $35 million or more, but outside of that, we actually have 
other policies independent of the executive order that push PLA 
requirements on federally assisted projects. And that is being 
done through Federal agency grant programs that Federal 
agencies are asking state and local governments to compete for, 
and what they are saying is, you are more likely to get this 
funding if you require PLA. It is coercion. They are trying to 
get them to require PLAs.
    And fortunately, in states like yours, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
there has been legislation passed that restricts government-
mandated PLAs on federally assisted projects. That is not 
helpful on direct Federal contracts like at Fort McCoy----
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Right.
    Mr. Brubeck [continuing]. Where I got a call the other day 
from a small contractor saying, I do 90 percent of my revenue 
at Fort McCoy. Once I am done with this project, I have no 
other work. I have got to fire my people or close my business 
or find another work. This was all sprung on me so fast, so 
yes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. This all adds insult to injury----
    Mr. Brubeck. Exactly.
    Mr. Fitzgerald [continuing]. Because on top of that, now 
you have the interest issue that is starting to creep up on the 
financing of many of these projects as well, so very good. 
Thank you very much.
    Mr. Brubeck. Thank you.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. All right. I would now like to recognize Mr. 
Higgins for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 
holding this hearing. Gentlemen, I appreciate you being here. 
Just to clarify for the American people, what we are dealing 
with is an executive order from the President, which has 
resulted in rules being written and mandated through government 
projects, major government projects that impact every state, 
and have forced contractors to submit bids with union workforce 
as their primary workforce. And many states do not have that 
workforce infrastructure, including the state of Louisiana that 
I represent. So, according to the January 2024 Bureau of Labor 
statistics, only about 10 percent of the workforce is 
unionized, so it is quite an unrighteous move by the executive 
of our country.
    The President of the United States issued an executive 
order saying 90 percent of the workforce of American people 
does not qualify for these government bids. It is quite 
unrighteous. Twenty-four sovereign states have right-to-work 
laws, including Louisiana. We offer fair and open competition 
for all companies, including union labor, to bid on contracts, 
but it should not be mandated either way. I am quite sure that 
my colleagues that represent union districts, which I respect. 
I do not have a problem with that. I do not oppose unions. I 
support freedom. I do not oppose our President. I oppose 
oppressive actions out of our executive branch. And I am quite 
certain that my colleagues that represent union districts would 
have an issue with the President reversing an order saying you 
cannot allow union workforce to bid on these projects.
    Mr. Ledet, congratulations. We have arrived at the point 
where someone can pronounce your name.
    (Laughter.)
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Ledet, would this violate Louisiana law, 
in your assessment, and disadvantage Louisiana-owned and 
operated non-union companies that you have historically 
partnered with to rebuild Louisiana coasts and protect 
Louisiana communities from flooding?
    Mr. Ledet. Thank you, Congressman. As you indicated, we 
think it violates the spirit of the law. As you said, we have a 
right-to-work state. Only three percent of Louisiana workforce 
is union labor. The other 97 percent is non-union labor, and so 
this mandate discourages them from being able to work on these 
major infrastructure projects to protect our citizens.
    Mr. Higgins. In your experience, Mr. Ledet, again, to 
clarify for Americans witnessing this hearing, is there any law 
in Louisiana that denies unionization?
    Mr. Ledet. No, there is not.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much. So, our free citizens, by 
a ratio of 97 percent, choose to work for companies that are 
not involved with union labor. They have the right to unionize. 
We certainly would not stop that. Go ahead. That is called 
freedom. Once again, we do not oppose unions. We support 
freedom. We oppose oppression of rights and individual 
liberties. Mr. Ledet, again, what would be the real-world 
implications of this rule on CPRA and the Army Corps projects 
in South Louisiana? Would you address that? Please bring it 
home.
    Mr. Ledet. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. In my remaining minute here----
    Mr. Ledet. Yes, it is----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. What is the real-world impact of 
projects that we have ongoing in Louisiana with CPRA through 
the Corps of Engineers for coastal reconstruction and flood 
mitigation?
    Mr. Ledet. Yes. As a great example, if we are talking about 
cost increases, we have the $3.7 billion ongoing West Shore 
Lake Pontchartrain project that could result in cost increases 
of anywhere from $400 to $700 million, if those statistics are 
correct, and then the state of Louisiana has to pay 35 percent 
of that cost share.
    Mr. Higgins. Could you even bid it out? I mean, can you get 
a workforce? Is there a Louisiana workforce, a contractor that 
could even effectively respond to that bid, the contractors 
that you have historically successfully done business with?
    Mr. Ledet. Yes, there is uncertainty there. The first 
project that we have encountered, which after this mandate has 
been put in place, is we only received one bid.
    Mr. Higgins. One bid. Well, gentlemen, and Mr. Snyder, this 
includes you, good, sir. I thank you for being here. I respect 
your representation. We just disagree in principle on 
government mandates that oppress the freedoms of Americans' 
right to work, so I do appreciate you being here. We have some 
questions to submit to you in writing, good sir, and the other 
panelists as well. Madam Speaker--Madam Chair--I apologize--
thank you for holding this hearing. It is very important.
    Ms. Mace. I spoke Louisiana good today. I said ``Ledet.'' I 
did a good job. I think I got it mostly right. I would like to 
recognize Ms. Foxx, the queen, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Foxx. And you do not have to stay, but I know how to 
pronounce it, too.
    (Laughter.)
    Ms. Foxx. But I will start with Mr. Brubeck, and I thank 
the Chairwoman for holding this hearing today, also, and thank 
our witnesses for being here. Mr. Brubeck, your written 
testimony mentioned that the limited number of non-union 
contractor employees who are possibly allowed to work on a PLA 
project would be subjected to wage theft. Can you explain how 
that works in practice?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes. So, typical PLAs, and they can vary from 
job to job, but what I have seen typically is they force 
contractors to pay their fringe benefits into the union pension 
and benefits plans as a condition of winning the contract. And 
if you are a non-union worker, you are allowed to work on a PLA 
project, which may be in limited numbers. Let us say you can. 
You would have all that money paid into those plans on your 
behalf, but you would forfeit that unless you joined the union 
and became vested in those plans. Where I come from and what I 
hear from our contractors, that is wage theft.
    A lot of contractors will actually make sure that those 
employees come back and work with them after the project is 
done. And what they will do is they will actually pay for those 
additional benefit costs that they are going to lose, gets 
stolen from them. They will pay into their existing plans the 
company has, but what happens is that puts that contractor to a 
severe competitive disadvantage. They have to have double 
benefit payment costs, which is yet another reason why these 
contractors will not pursue these PLA projects.
    Ms. Foxx. And so, what you are describing is that the 
employer then is also exposed to multi-employer pension plans, 
correct?
    Mr. Brubeck. That is right. So, the employer is making the 
contributions to the union pension plans as required by the PLA 
as a condition of performing the project, and a number of these 
multi-employer pension plans are extremely underfunded. And 
what happens for the contractors that pay into these plans is 
they can become liable for future liabilities of the pension 
plans when they can no longer make the promises that they have 
made to the union workers that deserve benefits from these 
plans. And so, when that happens, they get a bill for their 
liability and that can be extreme. That can prevent them from 
getting bonding. That can prevent them from qualifying from 
future contracts. So, they do not want to be on the hook just 
for one project.
    Ms. Foxx. Right.
    Mr. Brubeck. And PLA advocates will say, well, you can be 
exempt from that type of pension withdrawal liability. There 
have actually been legal cases where they have signed the 
exemption, and the judges come back and said, no, it still 
applies to you, sorry, and these companies either go bankrupt 
or have to completely reduce their operation as a result of 
this.
    Ms. Foxx. Right. As I have railed against many times, the 
American Rescue Plan contained a provision providing over $90 
billion for the PBGC bailing out these poorly performing multi-
employer pension plans that were unable to pay the defined 
benefit pension promises that were made to worker 
beneficiaries, many of which were plans in the construction 
industry. Why would anyone think that forcing workers to pay 
into these poorly performing plans is a good idea and in the 
best interest of the construction workers? Mr. Brubeck? Sorry.
    Mr. Brubeck. No, it is a great question. I know a number of 
our employees are taken care of by 401(k) or profit sharing or 
all kinds of great programs that transfer with them, and they 
have certainty in that. And a lot of the folks getting into the 
industry are not sure about whether the pensions will be 
available. I understand that is why the bailout was made for 
some of these programs and plans, but it is certainly something 
that we are concerned about, and workers are concerned about 
their future retirements----
    Ms. Foxx. Sure.
    Mr. Brubeck [continuing]. And not knowing if it is there or 
not and not knowing if the government is going to have to bail 
them out another time.
    Ms. Foxx. Right. I think, Mr. Ledet, that I walked in as 
Mr. Brubeck was talking about how much PLAs increase costs for 
Federal construction projects. So, I will not ask you that 
question, but how does this increase in cost impact your 
ability to budget and your ability to use the limited resources 
available to complete much-needed construction projects?
    Mr. Ledet. Yes, thank you. CPRA is the non-Federal sponsor 
on major infrastructure in our state to protect our citizens 
from flooding. And so, any time the cost goes up for the 
Federal Government, it also goes up for us, the non-Federal. 
And so, those cost increases that we referenced, if it is $400 
million, we pay 35 percent of that, and then if there are 
schedule delays, that is just prolonged time that our citizens 
are at risk.
    Ms. Foxx. Right, and I think you all have alluded, you 
particularly, I think, earlier to PLA mandates creating new 
workforce shortages if contractors refuse to bid for work under 
a PLA. I think all of you have probably talked about that. So, 
we all know that there is a huge worker shortage. I am the 
Chairwoman of the Education and Workforce Committee. We are 
dealing with this every day. I meet with employers every day 
who tell me they cannot find skilled workers, and construction 
is one of the main areas.
    And so, I just want to thank you all for what you are doing 
and for the work that you are doing to try to protect workers 
in this country. As my colleague Mr. Higgins said, people who 
choose not to join unions, he is right, this is about freedom. 
This is all about freedom in our country. If they want to join 
the union, they can, but nobody is holding a gun to their head 
to do it, and nobody should be holding a gun to the heads of 
contractors to have a PLA, and what this is all about is 
freedom in our country. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. To recognize Mr. Allen for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairwoman, for allowing me to waive 
on to your Committee.
    Ms. Mace. Saved the best for last.
    Mr. Allen. Well, you are also my neighbor, so, but anyway, 
my home state is Georgia, and I can pronounce your name, Mr. 
Ledet. And what is unique about Georgia is we have a right-to-
work law, which many states have across the country, and all 
that simply means is that you do not have to pay union dues to 
keep your job. And Georgia has been the best state to do 
business, been named the best state to do business in over 10 
years in a row, and we have great leadership, and our economy 
is growing. We just recently finished two nuclear power plants, 
which now is the largest clean energy power plant structure 
with four units in the country, and it was union. But the 
problem is we could not get the workers, and when I talked to 
the head of the Building and Trades Union, he said that they 
are having a hard time recruiting people to join the union.
    And I have had 40 years of experience starting and 
operating a construction business. The workforce is a new 
modern workforce, very entrepreneurial. When I started out, we 
would call the union hall. We self-performed a lot of our work. 
But now these union members all own the concrete companies, the 
roofing companies, the framing companies, and the steel 
erection companies, and we are subcontracting almost 90 percent 
of our work. And I am all too familiar with the heavy-handed, 
top-down regulations that this government is imposing on us, 
which is why we never did any Federal Government work. It was a 
different animal altogether.
    And this rule is another example of the Biden 
Administration using taxpayer dollars to push their pro-union 
agenda. It bestows favors on political allies and intervene in 
employee relations at private firms, and I have heard the 
frustration of other construction companies in our district. 
ACC Construction Company is a locally owned and operated 
company out of Augusta, Georgia, and it has a stellar 
reputation working on many federally contracted construction 
projects, and I share their concern. This rule will drive up 
cost, reduce competition, and result in jobs taking much longer 
than they should.
    Mr. Brubeck, my understanding is to be a signatory to a 
project labor agreement, a contractor must negotiate with the 
union. Is that correct?
    Mr. Brubeck. Yes. Under the FAR Council rule, you have to 
have one labor union or more to execute the project labor 
agreement. And what is happening is that our understanding is 
contractors are going to unions and saying would you be willing 
to negotiate a PLA with me. They have to meet these terms that 
are outlined in the PLA rule but also other terms that the 
unions suggest. And they are having either a hard time finding 
agreement with the unions, or the unions are slow walking that 
negotiation, or giving better terms to other contractors.
    Mr. Allen. Right.
    Mr. Brubeck. So, they are preselecting who can win the 
contract or not, and that is really problematic.
    Mr. Allen. There has got to be case law somewhere because 
this is----
    Mr. Brubeck. We filed a lawsuit----
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Mr. Brubeck [continuing]. Which we have not really talked 
much about today.
    Mr. Allen. Right.
    Mr. Brubeck. But it is in Florida.
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Mr. Brubeck. It is before the judge, and we are hoping for 
an outcome that is good on the merits of the case, unlike the 
case earlier discussed, the AGC case, which was dismissed on 
basically technicalities.
    Mr. Allen. Right. Tell me what you have heard about how 
unions are negotiating in circumstances where their 
participation is required for a contractor to complete the 
project.
    Mr. Brubeck. We have heard varying stories. Some have been 
attempting to cooperate and trying to understand the needs of 
the contractor. Other unions have not been participating in 
good faith at all, and they have been slowing down 
negotiations. They have been effectively making sure that that 
contractor who is not already signatory to the union cannot 
proceed with the contract award or even a contract bid, which 
is required to have an executed PLA submitted with it. So, 
effectively, they are acting as a prequalifier for the Federal 
Government. This is not how the Competition in Contracting Act 
works. We need full and open competition. We do not need 
middlemen in this, and that is what our litigation is all 
about.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, and what I recommended to the head of the 
Building and Trades Union is they need to work on recruitment 
and provide a product, and then figure out how to sell that 
product rather than these heavy-handed techniques that they are 
using. And it is very concerning that the Biden Administration 
provided unions all of this leverage at the negotiating table 
and left contractors no choices but to cave to union demands. 
It is directly contrary to America's free market. And of 
course, we have seen that in every area of the country. We have 
a huge workforce problem.
    I have a contractor friend who does work all over the 
world, and he says the only place he has a problem getting 
labor working on Federal projects is in the United States. He 
said, everywhere else in the world because I asked him where do 
you get these people. He says, it is no problem. Everywhere 
else in the world, the Nation will allow me to use people to 
bring workmen in to get the job done.
    But anyway, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. In closing today, I want to thank our 
panelists once again for their testimony.
    With that and without objection, all members will have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Ms. Mace. So, if there is no further business, without 
objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]