If we put in the prevailing wage provision without the people here in Washington determining the wages, we will lose, I say to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], anywhere from 10 to 20 percent, maybe more of the purchasing power. So this $5 billion, and it is going--I mean we will lose more than that because this is just a partial contribution to these projects, but the whole project will then be subject to Davis or to the prevailing wage law.
Pete Hoekstra: “If we put in the prevailing wage provision without the people here in Washington determining the wages, we will lose, I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of prevailing wage provisions on purchasing power during a debate.
Share
More from Pete Hoekstra
I thought the Ontario ad campaign was outrageous, calling it the first time in the U.S.’s 250-year history that a foreign government has tried to influence the outcome of upcoming elections.
Probably the region that can make the most compelling case for supplying more oil to the United States would be Saskatchewan and Alberta.
If (the referendum) is going to be influenced by governments, it’s going to be influenced by the government of Alberta and by the federal government, and maybe the other provinces, but not by the United States government.
We're monitoring it, we're evaluating it and if some of it becomes election interference then America will respond to it.





