John Culberson: “If I could point out, the gentleman from Washington is correct; on this vote, they're not required to unionize, but…”

“If I could point out, the gentleman from Washington is correct; on this vote, they're not required to unionize, but they're required to adopt the higher prevailing wage. They're required to adopt all the other higher, more expensive standards that a union may require. That puts that contractor at an immediate competitive disadvantage with all of the other contractors out there. There are no unionized--or very few unionized contractors in Houston, Texas--throughout the whole State, and that's the problem. While perhaps in New York, while perhaps in New Jersey, while perhaps in Washington State PLAs may actually wind up saving you money--for reasons mysterious to me as a free market guy, but it may save you money. This language does not prohibit the use of a unionized contractor in New York. Let me repeat, in the brief time I've got left: none of the funds in this act can be used to discriminate against or give preference to a union shop, and the government cannot require a contractor to enter into an agreement. So, you see, the language, as written, we're all on the same page here, guys. This language does not require unionization. It doesn't force a non-union shop to adopt a prevailing wage, for example. And it enables everyone to bid without discrimination. Our concern is, with the President's executive order, which says that the President of the United States encourages the local VA to hire a contractor that follows union guidelines, they don't exist in Texas.…”