Democrats Block Cassidy Amendments To Protect Taxpayers, Bolster Rural Communities

Press Release

Congressman Bill Cassidy (R-Baton Rouge), a member of the House Agriculture Committee, introduced two amendments to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which were summarily blocked from consideration on the House floor in a straight party-line vote in the House Rules Committee.

Cassidy's first amendment would allow private companies to continue to compete with government employees to perform commercial services for federal agencies, as is currently the law. These competitions improve government efficiency and save taxpayers billions of dollars. The practice, know as Competitive Sourcing, has saved taxpayers $7.2 billion over the past five years, generating an average return for the taxpayers of $31 saved for every $1 spent on competition. Typical examples of commercial services are building maintenance and custodial services.

Despite Competitive Sourcing's undeniable ability to improve government efficiency and save taxpayer dollars, House Democrats inserted a provision in the bill to ban it. Cassidy's amendment would simply strike that provision.

"Congress has an obligation to ensure every taxpayer dollar is spent efficiently and effectively, especially in the face of multi-trillion dollar deficits," said Cassidy. "Competitive Sourcing streamlines government operations, holds bureaucracies accountable by forcing them to compete, creates private sector jobs, and saves the taxpayers billions of dollars. How is this not good public policy?"

His second amendment would bolster cash-strapped rural communities by striking burdensome Davis-Bacon regulations that inhibit rural communities' ability to pursue federal assistance for economic development projects.

According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), "The Davis-Bacon Act, a Depression-era wage subsidy law, requires that each public works contract over $2,000 contain a clause that establishes the minimum wages to be paid. Contractors and subcontractors are to pay workers a minimum wage based on the local ‘prevailing wage.' However, these wages rarely resemble local market conditions. Davis-Bacon has overwhelmingly favored large, urban and unionized contractors. Small and minority-owned businesses are discouraged from bidding on public projects by the complex and archaic rules set forth by the act."

In response to a question submitted by Cassidy in an Agriculture Committee hearing, the Obama Administration admitted, "We do anticipate that implementing Davis Bacon will likely result in higher project costs for construction funded through the [Stimulus]. Early estimates are that impacted projects could experience costs that are 10-20% higher than under our existing programs. This will impact the number of projects that we will ultimately be able to fund."

"Inclusion of Davis-Bacon regulations in the bill would effectively price rural communities and small, independent contractors out of the market for federal assistance for rural development projects because they can't afford to pay artificially inflated wages," said Cassidy. "Congress should encourage, not discourage, development opportunities for rural communities."

Source