Opportunistic as hell considering the general GOP opposition to such PLAs, but a nicely cynical "wedge" attack on the labor-environmental alliance. Too bad for them the bill is dead, but hopefully the GOP hypocrisy on the issue will make it harder for them to resist insertion of mandates for similar PLAs in other legislation.
-- Nathan Newman =====
GOP drilling plan has a role for labor Source: Boston Globe Published: July 15, 2001 Author: Robert Schlesinger
ASHINGTON - In the House Republican plan to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, a provision that would benefit labor unions has escaped widespread notice.
Republicans typically oppose provisions like the one that would require energy developers in the Alaska refuge to negotiate labor deals that guarantee union jobs. And President Bush has banned so-called project labor agreements on federal contracts, saying they hinder free market competition.
But many Republicans seem willing to accept the provision as a price they are willing to pay to enlist some unlikely allies in the push to pass Bush's energy plan that would allow private companies to lease drilling rights.
Taking advantage of the opening, several prominent unions are throwing grass-roots muscle into the effort to drill in the refuge. Their fervor on an issue seen by many lawmakers and analysts as a political dry well has surprised environmental activists, who in recent years have sided with unions on trade and other political issues.
Opening part of the refuge to oil exploration is one of the most controversial proposals in the Bush energy package. Proponents say that it could be done without harming the environment, while opponents say it would despoil a pristine wilderness.
Although many unions remain neutral, the Teamsters, maritime, and construction unions argue that hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, a figure that opponents say is inflated.
The labor-friendly provision in the House version of the drilling legislation was inserted by Alaska Republican Don Young, vice chairman of the Resources Committee.
''Congressman Young's goal is to promote project stability and a highly skilled and safe work force'' in the remote region, said Amy Inaba, his press secretary.
The provision runs counter to the spirit of an executive order Bush issued in February repealing rules that required federal projects to operate under union-only labor deals. The order threatened to upset union deals for Boston's Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. But in April, after political wrangling in Washington and Boston, the administration issued a waiver for the $14.2 billion project.
Asked at a hearing last week whether the administration still objected to such agreements, Interior Secretary Gale Norton replied: ''We don't object to this one,'' according to witnesses.
US Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat who sits on the Resources Committee, called the provision cynical.
''I get whiplash trying to follow them on some of these issues,'' McGovern said.
Environmental activists are distressed by the unions' stance.
''It is a concern ... because labor and environmentalists quite often are on the same side, and when there's a division between labor and the environmentalists, it puts our allies on the Hill in a difficult place,'' said Melinda Pierce of the Sierra Club.
Some opponents of drilling in the refuge wonder why the unions have chosen this fight. The odds of passing the measure remain long, especially with Democratic control of the Senate. The Democratic energy bill will not include a drilling provision, meaning that to insert it Republicans will have to overcome a promised filibuster by Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and other senators.
''We don't think there's a snowball's chance that'' the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is ''going to be opened up,'' said John Howley, director of public policy at the Service Employees International Union, which opposes drilling.
''It puts the labor movement in opposition to the environmental movement, which is part of what we see as a progressive coalition in this country.''
But the unions that support drilling in the Alaska refuge insist that their economic arguments will outweigh the environmental ones.
''There are a lot of members who haven't heard the jobs argument yet,'' said Terry Turner, legislative and political director for the Seafarers International Union. ''They've heard all the environmental arguments because the environmentalists do a great job of getting the message out. ... It's their bread-and-butter issue because it's an issue that they can raise a lot of money on.''
Teamsters president James P. Hoffa, who spoke alongside Norton in favor of the provision at a news conference Wednesday, called opposition by environmentalists a ''visceral reaction'' that fails to address America's dependence on foreign oil.
''I asked these people, `What's your answer as to where we're going to get more petroleum in the future?''' Hoffa said later. ''The answer is they don't have an answer.''
A dozen union chiefs have signed a letter endorsing the provision, which they say could create up to 750,000 jobs nationwide. The AFL-CIO has not taken a position.
The pro-drilling union effort has ranged from mundane - sending lawmakers computer mouse pads with maps of the refuge and a small dot showing the area to be drilled - to more personal grass-roots appeals, including phone calls, letters, and e-mails to members and lawmakers.
''It's getting members involved in the campaign, talking to their folks in Congress from their districts,'' said Jerry Hood, the head of the Teamsters in Alaska and a special adviser to Hoffa on energy issues.
The issue poses a challenge for moderate legislators. Friendly to both environmental and labor causes, they find themselves having to choose sides.
''Whenever you have a situation that splits a constituency ... it causes some heartburn for the members; there's no question about that,'' said Representative Jack Quinn, a New York Republican with ties to labor. He said he hasn't made up his mind yet.
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org http://www.nathannewman.org