Sanford Bishop: “This is a very ill-conceived amendment, and I must stand in opposition to it. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers…”

“This is a very ill-conceived amendment, and I must stand in opposition to it. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. It requires that every contract for construction of which the Federal Government is a party in excess of $2,000 contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics. This is a pretty simple concept, and it is a fair one. What the Davis-Bacon Act does is protect the government, as well as the workers, in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages on government contracts. I would like to just mention quickly that Davis-Bacon has no effect on the total cost of construction. Study after study reveals productivity makes up for any additional labor costs, essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law were repealed. But this amendment seeks to prevent Federal agencies from administering these requirements in statute. Let me give you a few examples of how this poorly thought-out proposal could actually play out in the real world if it's enacted into law. The amendment, as is written, could prevent Federal agencies that use funds through this legislation from monitoring, investigating, transmitting conformances, and providing compliance assistance to existing Davis-Bacon covered contracts that were awarded prior to this funding legislation.…”