Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I think this amendment is very, very ill advised. Storage and handling fees are an integral part of the peanut program and the cotton program. Removal of these fees will strike against the growers, the farmers' bottom line. The current marketing loan rate is $355 per ton. There has been no increase in the peanut loan rate, which is the safety net, since the 2002 farm bill. With the new farm bill expected to take place next year, it's unfair for the program to change dramatically in this final year of the 2008 farm bill. Peanut growers changed their program from a supply-management program, in 2002, to a marketing loan program. We eliminated the old quota system. This included a price reduction from $610 per ton to $355 per ton marketing loan. The growers will lose even more if the program suffers another $50 per ton reduction due to the elimination of the storage and handling fees. Peanuts are a semiperishable commodity. This is different from corn, from wheat and other commodities. It is economically unfeasible for producers to store their peanuts on the farm like other commodities such as corn and wheat. Peanuts need a secure and an atmospheric- controlled environment. Peanuts require intense and constant management in the warehouse storage, which a farmer does not have the skills to do. Without proper management, a farmer's peanuts could go from what is known as a Seg 1 loan price, which is the best, to a Seg 3 loan price, which is contamination due to aflatoxin. Elimination of the storage and handling program could certainly impact food safety, the safety of the product. Shellers basically control over 75 percent of the peanuts after the peanuts leave the farmer's control. Since peanuts are semi-perishable and due to the highly concentrated shelling industry, farmers are at the mercy of the shellers in terms of pricing. Shellers could possibly force the farmer to accept a lower price that would cover the storage and handling cost. Farmers then have no alternative in selling their peanuts. That eliminates the competitive edge. This could effectively lower the loan rate to producers, as I said, by $50 a ton. The storage and handling program has effectively been a no-net-cost program to the government. Thus, the elimination of it will not help to reduce the Federal deficit. Again, we are here about to pull the rug out from under farmers who have relied upon what this Congress and what this government has done in setting farm policy starting from 2008 to 2012. Why would we come at this point and pull the rug out from under them and upset all of their plans? Many times they have made loans, they've had to purchase equipment, and particularly throughout the Southeast, the equipment that is required for southeastern peanut growers and southeastern farmers is varied. We've got a broad portfolio, unlike the Midwest. We grow multiple crops. In the Southeast, from Virginia all the way to Texas, you will find that farmers will grow corn; they will grow grain, of course; they'll grow peanuts; they'll grow soybeans; and they'll grow cotton. Each of those commodities at least will require three different kinds of equipment, and the combines and the equipment for cotton costs anywhere from $250,000 to $350,000. Other equipment for peanuts, for grain, $150,000, $500,000. This is going to undermine the bottom line, it's going to remove the competitive edge that American peanut growers have, and it's going to devastate our ability to maintain the highest quality, the safest, and the most economical peanuts anywhere in the world. I think this is very, very ill-advised. I think it will undermine American agriculture. It will lessen our food security, and certainly that is the last thing that we need to do because we are already energy insecure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Again, I think that this is an amendment that is ill-conceived. I think it will do great harm, and I think it is not timely. I agree with the gentleman that the authorizing committee has great expertise. We have taken a lot of time to vet this program, and I think for us to come tonight willy-nilly and do it is very, very ill advised. Nineteen years ago when I came to this body I was on the authorizing committee, on the Agriculture Committee, and the chairman of the committee at that time was a gentleman by the name of Kika de la Garza. Mr. de la Garza was fond of telling us one of his life experiences, and that was his submarine story. He said that all of his life, from the time he was a little boy, even though he grew up in the rural areas in Texas on the farm, that he wanted to ride on a submarine. He always was just enamored with submarines. Finally, after he came to Congress and after he became the chairman of a committee, he had an opportunity to go out on one of our nuclear submarines. Of course, as the guest, he was allowed to take the wheel and to submerge the submarine, to get it up, to play with the periscope, and he was just really, really amazed at how impressive that nuclear submarine was. So he turned to the captain and he asked the captain, he said, Captain, how long can this nuclear submarine stay underwater without coming up? It is so fine, we have spent so much money and it is an excellent machine. The captain looked at him and said, Mr. Chairman, how long would you guess? And Mr. de la Garza said he thought for a while, and he said, Well, maybe a year? And the captain chuckled and said, Mr. Chairman, we can stay underwater for as long as we have food for the crew. We in this country will be able to defend ourselves and we will be able to have a strong country as long as we have food, and right now we are headed to getting imported food for the majority of our people. If we continue with the route that we are going, if we impose these limitations, if we limit the ability of our farmers to compete on a level playing field with our global competitors, all of our food will be coming from Mexico and South America and China. We cannot afford for that to happen. America cannot stay strong. Our people cannot be healthy. We cannot get safe food if we don't allow our farmers to have the capacity to earn a living and to produce the highest quality, the safest and most economical food and fiber anywhere in the industrialized world. We have to defeat these amendments. We have to studiously and assiduously study the way to reform these programs and to get cost- effectiveness. But tonight in this bill is not the place to do it. The time to do it is when we take up the farm bill in 2012 with the authorizing committee and all others having the opportunity to take our time and to thoughtfully craft a new farm policy. With that, I urge the defeat of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Let me just say this: Georgia is the second- largest cotton-producing State. It accounts for approximately 10 percent of the U.S. cotton production. In 2011, Georgia farmers intend to plant almost 1.5 million acres of cotton. The average farm-gate value is more than $600 million. There are approximately 2,800 businesses directly involved in the production, processing, and distribution of cotton. Accounting for the broader economic effects, the Georgia cotton industry supports more than 46,000 jobs, and it generates economic activity of approximately $11 billion. Now, the proponents of these amendments target provisions in the cotton programs that are at the center of a WTO trade case which Brazil has against the United States. The U.S. and the Brazilian Governments have scheduled a series of consultations designed to identify the modifications in policy that will resolve the case. The intention is to reach agreement on carefully thought-out provisions that can be included in the 2012 farm bill. These hastily drafted amendments are not guaranteed to resolve the dispute, 1, since the U.S.-Brazil consultations have not resulted in any specific agreement and, 2, since these approaches will certainly undermine the future discussions as the two countries attempt to reach a final resolution that's fair and that is reasonable. The amendments target cotton farmers in an effort to reduce government spending. The 2008 farm bill, including the cotton provisions, was fully paid for, offset, and did not add one single dime to the deficit. They cite the years in which the government's support for cotton was historically high, but they ignore the years when the support actually is at historic lows. We need to maintain the safety net so that it's there when it's needed but not utilized, as it hasn't been recently, when it's not needed. Farmers understand the current budget pressures. They understand that very well. But they expect to be a part of a debate involving all of the agricultural stakeholders, and not be singled out for ad hoc budget reductions with hasty policy decisions. These proposed amendments would nullify the basic component of cotton policy. If these amendments are enacted, they would take effect October 1, and, as a result, USDA would have to change the cotton program rules in the middle of the marketing year and change them back effective October 1, 2012. This would undermine the confidence in commodity programs, especially among agricultural lenders. This would compromise our agriculture policy, a policy that has been vetted very carefully by our authorizing committees and relied upon by our growers and our lenders in making their business decisions going into 2012. The reauthorization of the farm bill in 2012 is the proper forum to debate the cotton agriculture policy, not here on this appropriations bill. We have got to do what is right in regular order. This is not the time. It's not the place. And what we're doing tonight, if they go forward with this, is pulling the rug out from under our cotton farmers and our agriculture when they have made financial plans through 2012. It is unfair; it's not right, and we should not do it. I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments. They are ill- advised. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great educator and woman of tremendous class and grace, Dr. Robbie Latimore. Dr. Latimore will retire on June 30, 2011, after more than 30 years of service at South Georgia Technical College in Americus, Georgia. She has played a tremendous role in the development of South Georgia Tech into one of the best technical colleges in Georgia and our Nation. Dr. Latimore was born in Dublin, Georgia, to the union of the late Mark Smith, Sr. and Katie Smith. She graduated from Northwest Laurens High School in Dublin, received her B.S. degree in Business Education from Fort Valley State College in Fort Valley, Georgia, and her Master's Degree in Business Education from Georgia Southwestern University in Americus, Georgia. And finally, she received her Doctorate of Education in Adult Education from the University of Georgia. Since joining the faculty in 1981 as a Business Education professor, she has worked tirelessly to make South Georgia Technical College a dynamic institution of higher learning. Throughout her tenure, Dr. Latimore has held several leadership positions, including Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Student Services, Director of Instruction, Chair of the Business Education Department and Instructor. The great author Zora Neale Hurston once said that, ``There is nothing to make you like other human beings as much as doing things for them.'' Dr. Latimore has learned this lesson and dedicated her life to helping others to reach their full potential. She is involved with many organizations that aim to make the world a better place for all. Some of her community organizations include the Fort Valley State University National Alumni Association, Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc., Phoebe Sumter Medical Center Board of Directors, the American Technical Education Association, and Education Committee Member for the Americus- Sumter County Chamber of Commerce, to name a few. Dr. Latimore has also been married to her husband, Mr. Frank A. Latimore, for over 34 years. They have raised a daughter, Kourtney, and two sons, Brandon and Keiva, who are well on their way to making their own mark on society. And they have one grandchild, Bryce Alexander Latimore. And lastly, Dr. Latimore is committed to her God. A dedicated member of the Bethesda Missionary Baptist Church in Americus, Georgia, Dr. Latimore believes that the Lord has ordered all of her steps and she gives Him all the glory for her successes in life and the ability to raise a productive family. South Georgia Technical College should consider itself blessed for having a woman with the strength and character of Dr. Robbie Latimore, who gave her all to make the college a success. On behalf of the constituents of the Second Congressional District, I thank her for her service and wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decrease the NATO Security Investment Program by $25 million and increase the Army National Guard account by $25 million. We support the Guard and our Reserves wholeheartedly, but I want to join Chairman Culberson in some concerns that I have about the amendment. The MilCon portion of this bill for the most part is flat-funded, and the resources provided in this title were distributed, we believe, in a very judicious manner. The bill funds the Guard account at the budget request level, which makes the needed investments in Guard facilities. In addition, I am concerned that the offset that the gentleman has chosen could cause shortfalls in the NATO Security Investment Program, which in turn could cause further delays in the NATO Security Construction Program. The Security Investment Program provides support for many of the important operations that we are involved in, including our current operations in Afghanistan. I believe that we have to get the NATO program back on track because it will ultimately save us money in the long run. While I agree with the spirit of the amendment, I do have some concerns about the gentleman's amendment. I won't oppose it at this time, but I hope that we will be able to work through those concerns as we work through this process and as the bill goes to the Senate and it comes back and we can deal with these concerns in conference. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the Davis- Bacon Act prevents competition for construction contracts from artificially depressing local labor standards. The Davis-Bacon Act will prevent subverting the prevailing wage laws, which will lead to shoddy construction and substantial cost overruns. Under the prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete on the basis of who can best train, best equip, and best manage a construction crew, not on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, most exploitable workforce, either locally or through importing labor from outside. The Davis-Bacon Act does not require a union wage; it requires prevailing wage based upon surveys of wages and benefits that are actually paid to various job classifications of construction workers, such as iron workers in a community, without regard to whether they belong to a union or not. According to the Department of Labor, a whopping 72 percent of prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage rates. A union wage prevails only if the Department of Labor survey determines that the local union wage is paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in that job classification. Now higher wages and skills result in greater productivity and lower cost. It's so much greater among high-wage, high-skill workers that projects that use high-skilled workers and high-paid workers often cost less than those that use the low-wage, low-skilled workers due to repairs, revisions, and lengthy delays. The opponents who claim that the government could save billions by eliminating the Davis-Bacon protections ignore the productivity, quality, safety, community development and other economic benefits which contribute to the real cost effectiveness of Davis-Bacon. A study of 10 States where nearly half of all of the highway and bridge work is done in the United States showed that when high-wage workers were paid double the wage of low-wage workers, they built 74.4 more miles of roadbed and 32.8 more miles of bridges for $557 million less. Driving wages down will not help balance the budget. The Davis-Bacon Act will improve our local economies and it will result in increased productivity. I am convinced that, again, we have people with good intentions that want to save us money, but if you pay cheaper wages, you will have to employ less skilled workers. If you hire less skilled workers, they will, in all likelihood, have to have work redone that will have to be repaired. It will extend the cost, it will extend the time, and ultimately it will cost our taxpayers more money, and we will not get the efficiencies that each and every tax dollar should have because they are hard-earned tax dollars, and our taxpayers don't give them up lightly. But when we do pay our taxes, everybody in this body and across this country wants to make sure that we get the best bang for the buck. Davis-Bacon would give us that result. It has proven that. The studies show that. I would submit that this amendment is ill-advised and should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Davis-Bacon Act is a pretty simple concept, and it's a fair concept. What it does is to protect the government as well as the workers in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages for government contracts. I noticed that the previous speaker was really concerned about the possibility that Davis-Bacon would raise the cost of the performance of these contracts, but it only requires that prevailing wages in the area where the contract is going to be performed is maintained. For example, if in some of the urban areas where labor costs are very, very high and the prevailing wages are there, the standard of living and the wage payment for that area would be consistent. If it was in a lower wage area, then Davis-Bacon wages would be the wages that were paid in that market. So basically it just allows the workers to be paid at a rate consistent with where the project is being conducted. The act requires that every construction contract that the Federal Government participates in in excess of $2,000 has to have this provision defining the minimum wage. It was taken up by this House just a few days ago, and, of course, three times this House has defeated attempts to repeal this Davis-Bacon requirement. It would appear to me that this House has exercised great wisdom three times in this session in preserving the right of workers to earn the wages that are paid in the area where the project is being constructed. That just makes sense. We want our workers to be paid fairly. We don't want the government to overpay. So we won't pay higher wages in an area where prevailing wages are lower. We won't pay lower wages in an area where the prevailing wages are higher, where the cost of living is higher, where the cost of doing business is higher, where the cost of doing the construction would be higher. We want the government to get the best bang for the buck. These amendments are probably very well-intentioned. We want to save the taxpayers' dollars, but we cannot and we should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The repeal of Davis-Bacon, I think, and I think that this House has stated on at least three occasions on this floor during this session of Congress, would be pound-foolish. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly can appreciate the concerns that the gentleman raises that have caused him to offer the amendment. Yet I want to remind the gentleman of the awful incident that occurred at Fort Hood in Texas. There were a lot of our servicemembers who were present who experienced that awful, awful situation. Under this amendment, it would prevent the veterans and servicemembers, once they're discharged, from being able to take advantage of the benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs because they were at Fort Hood as opposed to Afghanistan or Iraq or in some other place of hostility. Also, I would remind the gentleman that the servicemembers who operate our unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the Predator, which has great capability for causing destruction in war--it's one of our great weapons--actually can see on video, in realtime, the death and the destruction and the dismemberment that is caused by the utilization of that, although they're in Nevada and the weapon is actually making its impact in Afghanistan. Of course, because of that, they would be disqualified. Under this amendment, I think the gentleman's point is well taken in wanting to make sure that only those people who are entitled to veterans benefits in fact get them, but I think that perhaps there are some problems in the artful drafting of the amendment, which should be clarified. Because of that, I am reluctant to support it, and of course must oppose this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Let me just say that the gentleman's amendment is very, very well taken. I fully support it; and it works in tandem with some other legislation, some authorizing legislation that I think the chairman, Mr. Culberson, and I, along with Mr. Dicks and Mr. Young and many, many others, on a bipartisan basis, have often called the Hiring Heroes Act, which basically supports our veterans as they come back to make sure that they can be gainfully employed and that they are duly allowed to participate in the economy, to work and to engage in gainful employment. I think that this amendment, as far as small businesses go, as far as veterans preferences, is very well taken, and I think that we ought to do that, as well as everything else we can possibly do, to make sure that the transition from full-time active service to the civilian population of our country on the part of our veterans is fully supported by this Congress and by the people of the United States. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) brought a matter to our attention that is very, very important and significant, and I think it's appropriate that we ought to at least examine that in the form of a colloquy here on the floor as we consider this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, many veterans have returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe disabilities; and when their service results in a disability, we have a duty to help them. And one way that veterans receive this help is through the use of guide dogs. Now, the way the process works, veterans are assessed and they're trained for orientation and mobility. If a veteran needs a guide dog, information on how to contact guide dog schools is provided. Essentially, the veteran is referred to a nonprofit. There's no funding provided directly from the VA to these nonprofits; and with the costs associated with training these dogs, it takes time to raise the money which, in turn, causes a backlog for veterans, as well as for nonveterans. We have to look at this issue and see what it is that the Veterans Administration can do to help because these dogs mean so much to those who need them.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Fattah and other Members will be very, very appreciative of you. We thank you for your comments, and we look forward to working with all of our colleagues to support our veterans and their families.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Thank you very much for your comments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as much as I agree with many of the objectives expressed by the chairman in his discussion just a few moments ago, particularly that we want to make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, I think the very arguments that he makes support why we need to have project labor agreements. This has nothing to do with union or nonunion workforce standards. The project labor agreements do not mandate or predetermine that a workforce has to be union or nonunion. It allows for the project owner, such as the government or a private sector entity, to establish workforce standards that both union and nonunion workers have to meet in order to be hired by contractors and subcontractors under the project labor agreements. This is a model that increases the efficiency and the quality of construction projects. Of course the ultimate objective is that we will have a workforce that will ensure construction projects are built correctly the first time so that we won't have cost overruns, so that they are built on time, so that we won't have to extend the contracts, and so that we won't have safety problems because of having unskilled workers. Basically, in the awarding of these contracts, these project labor agreements will make sure that the government's money is spent well. We want to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks. We want to make sure we make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. There has been study after study after study that illustrates how the use of these project labor agreements does not extend costs to the taxpayers or to other projects--rather, that they often save money. In fact, in most cases, they do save money because, as a result of having a higher skilled workforce, they don't have to worry about equipment being broken; they don't have to worry about the waste of resources and materials; they don't have to worry about the contracts not being performed on time. It's to the contrary. If you're worried about protections, project labor agreements will prohibit strikes or work stoppages by any kind of construction workers on the project. They will establish a single procedure for handling workforce disputes. It is a tool for ensuring that large and complex projects, as many of our government projects are, are completed on time. It allows for the employment of local citizens. And right now, with the unemployment rate as it is and with so many of our skilled workers out of work, it allows for flexibility. The Executive order, which seems to be the source of the complaint, really does not require that they be used. It gives the government the option of making a decision that is in the best interest of the American taxpayers. Certainly, we want to do everything that we can possibly do to make sure that we come in on budget or under budget, with the highest quality, with the safest work environment, and that we are able to employ the people in our communities to get the job done. As much as we need to improve employment, to increase the number of people who are working, these project labor agreements just add another tool to allow, in the awarding of taxpayer funded contracts, the most efficient use of those dollars. So I join the gentleman in support of this amendment. I think it is well thought out and that it's a benefit to the taxpayers. With all due respect to my colleague on the other side who is opposed to this amendment, I think, when it is all said and done, the bottom line is these project labor agreements in this Executive order, while not requiring the use of project labor agreements, will be an added tool in our arsenal to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks to enhance what we do for our country, for our citizens whom we put to work, and to make sure that the conditions and terms of their employment and the work that they do is done with appropriate standards. I yield back the balance of my time.