[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1513, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1513) entitled ``Improving America's Schools Act 
     of 1993.''

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Smith amendment No. 2433, to prohibit the use of 
     instructional materials, instruction, counseling, or other 
     services on school grounds, from being used for the promotion 
     of homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.
       Kennedy amendment No. 2436 (to amendment No. 2433), to 
     prohibit the use of funds to make condoms available in a 
     public school unless the program under which such condoms are 
     distributed meets certain local control criteria.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


         Amendment No. 2436, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2433

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has a right to modify 
his amendment. It is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2436), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the pending amendment, insert the following:

     SEC.   . LIMITATION.

       None of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     Act may be used to make condoms available in a public school.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see our friend and colleague from Idaho 
is on the floor. As we had briefly outlined last evening, we will go to 
the Senator's amendment. Just for the awareness of our Members, we have 
agreed to a time limit of 1 hour; 45 minutes under the control of the 
Senator from Idaho and 15 under the control of myself and Senator 
Jeffords. That is, we will ask consent to formalize that, but that is 
our understanding at the present time. We will proceed on our side as 
if that agreement is in effect. We will formalize it in just a few 
moments.
  I thank the Senator for his cooperation and look forward to the 
debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to setting aside 
the two pending amendments? If not, it is so ordered. The Senator from 
Idaho [Mr. Craig] is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2437

             (Purpose: To modify the fair wages provisions)

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2437.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 1244, line 10, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``if the Federal share of the financing of such a 
     repair, renovations, alteration, or construction project is 
     greater than 25 percent of the total cost of the project.''

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I allowed the full reading of the amendment 
this morning because I think it speaks so clearly for itself.
  As we attempt to deal with S. 1513 and as this Congress struggles to 
find dollars to assist States and local units of government in funding 
education, our number one priority ought to be to make sure that those 
dollars go just as far as they possibly can go. This is, of course, not 
just educational facilities of the kind that we would think about--by 
that I mean schools and school-associated facilities--it is also 
libraries and other things within our communities across this country 
that serve in the expanding and the broadening of the human mind. It is 
something our country has always done so well.
  So, as we struggle with the $200-plus billion deficit and a $4 
trillion debt, should we not as a Congress be working to make sure the 
money we provide to assist States goes just as far as it possibly can? 
The amendment today addresses that most important issue. The amendment 
amends section 1501(o) of title XV, which applies the Davis-Bacon Act 
to new programs of educational infrastructure grants. I repeat, ``new 
programs of educational infrastructure grants.''
  Title XV grants are for repairs, renovation, alteration and 
construction of public, elementary and secondary school libraries, 
media centers and facilities used by academic and vocational 
instruction.
  The title XV grant program is authorized at $400 million, and that is 
this year as it relates to S. 1513, and $200 million is already 
included in the fiscal year 1995 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
bill about to come to the floor.
  So we are talking about approximately half a billion dollars that we 
will spread across 50 States. A local elementary agency, or an LEA, as 
we call them, is eligible for a grant of the dollars we are talking 
about if they submit an application showing urgent need, and that, of 
course, is what is important in these dollars.
  These are not within the normal flow of the educational or the HHS 
dollars we are talking about, but those who express an urgent need 
because they have an inadequate facility as it deals with the media 
centers, the secondary school libraries or the academic and vocational 
instruction facilities.
  The local education agency can also apply for a grant if it serves 
large numbers of disadvantaged children. It can also apply for a grant 
to address conditions that compromise learning, health and safety. So, 
in other words, over the last good number of years, as we have been 
renovating our school facilities to get rid of asbestos, one of the 
ways this grant could be applied is to assist in providing a few 
dollars to mix with the local county or school district dollar and the 
State dollar to assist in renovating and making an educational facility 
more healthy and safe for the students involved. And if the facility 
lacks capacity, including the ability to raise funds to undertake the 
project without some Federal assistance, and they can display need, 
that is what this section of this bill and this section of the Federal 
law is all about.
  So my amendment states that Davis-Bacon applies to title XV grants 
that finance the local education agency project in whole or in part. 
Education groups who have worked for creation of the grant program 
anticipate that, in many cases, the Federal share of the project will 
be very small, but it is that extra bump, it is that extra boost that 
the local and the State cannot come up with.
  As we know, in working with our States and local governments, in many 
of these programs where there is a Federal mandate or where there is a 
Federal law to be addressed to bring about adequate education based on 
Federal standards, or safety in facilities based on Federal standards, 
that our local units of government bring together a combination of 
dollars. It is not a single fund or a single source. It is a little bit 
of a grant here and a little bit of a grant here in some of our more 
impoverished communities, both urban and rural, to make sure that they 
can comply and meet the standards of the Federal law.
  While implementing regulations for title XV grants are far in the 
future, the likelihood certainly exists that small amounts of Federal 
funding will be used to leverage significant larger amounts of State 
and local funds. And that is exactly what I was talking about. The 
total pool of primary and secondary school spending for new 
construction, additions and modernizations in 1993 was about $10 
billion, according to the American School and University Magazine of 
May 1994.

  So this simple amendment, when you look at that kind of impact, if a 
local education agency finances more than 75 percent of the total cost 
of a project and a Federal infrastructure grant contributes less than 
25 percent, Davis-Bacon will not apply. If the Federal Government makes 
only a minimal contribution to a construction or a repair project, it 
is not a Federal project, and we should not mandate all the same labor 
regulations that apply to Federal projects.
  I think this Congress clearly understands the significance of that 
difference. If it is not a Federal project, if it is truly a local 
project, why then, because of a small amount of Federal money being 
involved, should we force a local education agency into a substantial 
greater amount of funding that has to come from the taxpayers of the 
local unit just to meet these Federal standards?
  I believe that this is a reasonable and very modest amendment. I 
would have preferred to simply exempt the new grants from the outright 
impact of Davis-Bacon, but I realize that many of my colleagues want 
Davis-Bacon to apply where there is a significant Federal spending of a 
construction or repair dollar. So I am not going to argue that today. 
We are not talking significant amounts of money in the sense of the 
project itself.
  The ranking member, Nancy Kassebaum, did offer a strike amendment in 
the committee for Davis-Bacon, and it was defeated 12 to 5. I can 
count. I know the numbers. But I do believe this Congress needs to be 
rational and responsible in the expense of Federal dollars, and what we 
are saying here is that where Federal dollars are not the primary 
source, where it is simply the impetus to get the local community and 
the State dollar over the hump, if you will, in the ability to multiply 
the combination of dollars to bring about the requirement of the need 
for an educational facility.
  So rather than prolonging the debate or diverting it to a long 
discussion about Davis-Bacon, this is a very simple approach.
  Last week, I went before Chairman Simon's subcommittee and debated 
Davis-Bacon. We want reform of Davis-Bacon. This is not the place to 
debate that reform. By that, I mean we need broad, sweeping, 
significant reform to bring this very old and antiquated law into the 
21st century, but of course, this Congress, by phenomenal pressure, has 
been unwilling to do so.
  This 25-percent-matching-funds trigger is a modest part of my 
comprehensive reform bill, S. 916. So what I am suggesting to the 
Senate today is that if we cannot accept or look at the whole of the 
reform, let us not penalize local communities, let us not penalize 
local taxpayers who want to do the very best for their children, by 
saying you are going to have to spend an extra 3 to 15 percent of the 
cost of construction merely to comply with a 1930's Federal law that 
does not make any sense today.
  The type of modest reform that belongs on grant programs that will 
finance essential local products is what we are talking about. I do not 
even think it is a Davis-Bacon issue. It should not be thought of in 
that context. But because the law is pervasive, this bill is not 
specific in its exemption, that is what I am talking about today. If 
less than 25 percent of the money is Federal money, it just is not 
reasonable to apply the labor regulations designed for Federal 
procurement contracts.
  We are trying to prevent simply the tail from wagging the whole dog, 
in this instance; trying to protect needy school districts from an 
expensive Federal mandate on how they use their money, not public money 
in the national sense, but public money in the sense of a small 
community of 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 people. Or the inner city where we 
know city fathers and school districts are doing their very best to 
provide an educational opportunity for the young people of that area 
and struggling every day to meet the unique demands of that particular 
locale.
  Some colleagues may argue that a large Federal contribution justifies 
attaching costly strings. I will let them argue that because that is 
not what I am arguing. I am talking about a small Federal contribution 
of, it could be, a few thousand dollars, and yet it would shove the 
whole process to cost substantially more. But it is certainly, I think, 
reasonable to talk about this and to bring it once again before this 
Congress for the kind of contribution that they ought to make in the 
consideration of this issue.
  The same point, excessive strings tied to a minimal contribution 
which oftentimes can amount to the project not going forward, I think 
that is significant to bring up.
  Several years ago, I was involved in a water treatment program in the 
north end of my State. Because there was a small Federal grant involved 
and the city, in this instance, had failed to calculate Davis-Bacon 
into it, that water treatment project simply did not go forward. As 
they were ready to let the bids out, they realized they had calculated 
improperly and they had to back away. There would have been hundreds of 
thousands of dollars spent, jobs created and a cleaner source of 
discharge water flowing into the Spokane River and, yet, because of a 
1930's obsolete law, that project did not go forward.
  Now, that happens every day across America, and it ought to be 
changed. I am proposing a change in S. 916. But today, when we struggle 
to educate our children, to provide the facilities and the 
opportunities, why cannot this Congress just back away a little bit, 
just blink on the few thousands of dollars that would be spread project 
by project across this country and say the prevailing wage in the sense 
of Davis-Bacon simply would not have to apply.
  Now, nationally, on average, Davis-Bacon adds about 3.1 percent of 
the total of a construction cost, according to CBO. And including the 
effects of a ban on the use of helpers inserted every year in the 
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations, which is already there, 
coincidentally, the $400 million that I mentioned authorized for title 
XV grants in S. 1513 amounts to about 3.7 percent of the $10.778 
billion totally spent on education and secondary school construction, 
additions, and modernizations.
  The exact Davis-Bacon cost premium CBO found in 1983, before several 
Reagan Department of Labor regulations started saving taxpayers money, 
that premium cost was about 3.1 percent. That is what I am talking 
about here, in very clear, simple, straightforward terms, less than 3.1 
percent of the total amount of money that will be spent across this 
country this year to construct, to modernize, or to add to educational 
facilities. And yet the failure of this Senate to pass this amendment 
and put this issue into the education conference may deny small school 
districts in my State and your State, Mr. President, the opportunity to 
go forward with that one addition, that expansion of the vocational 
education shop, the buying of additional equipment in their media 
centers. All of that is what I am talking about, and it is a very 
straightforward approach.
  Costs vary widely from community to community. In some, Davis-Bacon 
seems to have no impact simply because they are a wealthy district, but 
not all school districts are wealthy. And in others, it could mean a 
lot. It is reported to add up in some areas to over 50 percent of the 
total construction cost to ultimately end up denying the ability to 
construct. The General Accounting Office found that when Davis-Bacon 
does increase the cost, the typical range of inflation runs from about 
5 to 15 percent.
  Past a certain point, even supporters of Davis-Bacon I hope will 
realize that applying it to financially strapped schools is 
counterproductive. A University of Oregon study found that Davis-Bacon 
typically increases total construction cost in rural areas by 26 to 38 
percent. Why? Because the wage is less in rural areas in part, and that 
is the opportunity, that is the advantage that a rural school district 
sometimes has, to be able to build a better program, to be able to 
expand the school, to be able to offer rural children a similar 
opportunity that urban children have and that more wealthy school 
districts have. Obviously, in many rural areas, a 25 percent Federal 
contribution will do nothing more than pay for Davis-Bacon 
requirements, if the University of Oregon study is accurate.
  I believe it is unfair--I have expressed that, I hope, clearly this 
morning--to impose that heavy a burden, much less a heavier one than 
can be handled.
  In Philomath, OR, a community that several years ago was strapped 
because of a decision on the part of the Endangered Species Act to 
disallow the cutting of old growth timber that put a lot of our loggers 
out of work--and everyone in the West knows what I am talking about; it 
was called the spotted owl crisis--that community, in an effort to pull 
itself up by its bootstraps, said they were going to do something for 
themselves. The local sawmill donated the lumber and the local labor 
force wanted to donate their time but because the library district, in 
its effort to put money together in a tax-strapped, poor district, now 
got a little Federal grant, they could not do it. In other words, the 
employees could not volunteer their time.
  It took that library district 2 years of fighting and the efforts of 
Senator Hatfield and Senator Packwood personally taking their time with 
the Bush administration to find a little loophole in the law to squeeze 
through so that this poor district, strapped by a Federal law that put 
thousands of its people out of work, could make an effort to pull 
itself up by its bootstraps and construct a library and say to the 
country around it: Look what we are doing for ourselves. And because 
our infrastructure is now stronger and because we have a better public 
library, why not come and bring your employment and bring your jobs and 
put our people back to work.
  What am I talking about? I am talking about a misdirected, obsolete 
law in this country called Davis-Bacon that caused that very thing to 
happen. So when we are talking title XV infrastructure grants to do the 
simple little things like building libraries in our schools, expanding 
libraries in our schools, how can we, straight faced, stand on the 
floor of this Senate and uniquely, by failure to pass this amendment, 
deny these school districts that opportunity?
  Some years ago, the Loudon County, VA, school board--right here in 
this immediate area--was ready to build a vocational education 
facility, until they realized that Davis-Bacon strings were attached to 
the Federal contribution and that actually made the project so much 
less viable that the board decided to drop the project. And sure 
enough, title XV infrastructure grants are supposed to help construct 
and repair vocational education facilities. Loudon County, VA, had to 
say no. The young people of that county had less opportunity because of 
the very law we are talking about.
  Mr. President, could I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 20 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. An important precedence for this 25 percent matching fund 
trigger, the same 25 percent matching fund trigger is in the conference 
report on the crime bill. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, please 
listen. By midweek this week, we will be debating the crime bill 
conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] to 
please listen. The very provision I am asking today to be put in the 
education bill the Senate has just now put in the crime bill because as 
we are concerned about education, but we are also concerned about our 
communities' and our States' abilities to expand and improve their 
criminal detention facilities. We were wise enough, in the crime 
report, to put in the identical amendment. So that is now in there.
  We are going to use absolutely the same language and the same 
guidelines for that very finite amount of money that we are going to 
try to put into crime control in our country to expand the ability of 
our local and State law enforcement facilities to do the same thing 
that we want done here. But in this case, we are not taking criminals 
off the street. We are hopefully putting educated young citizens on the 
street with a better opportunity.
  That is why I had hoped maybe the ranking member and the chairman 
would just accept this amendment. We would not have to go to a full 
debate. We would not have to bring it up for a vote. But, of course, 
that is not the case. I am saddened by that because I think that what 
we are offering here just makes an awful lot of sense for America and 
for the taxpayers of this country who continually argue with us and 
demand of us that we be more prudent and efficient with the dollars 
that we ask from them to provide for the greater good of this country.
  In the old General Revenue Sharing Act, Congress explicitly 
recognized exactly the principle underlying in this amendment and, of 
course, that was money going out to the States and to the counties.
  I come from a big rural county, and I know how that revenue sharing 
got spent and how it gets spent today. It does all kinds of things for 
people, as a general tax dollar would be used in a very rural county 
where there are 7,000 or 8,000 people in a county that is almost the 
size of the State of Connecticut. There are no people there to speak 
of. Seventy percent of the land is public land. And as a result of 
that, the tax base is very limited.

  So we were smart enough when we created the General Revenue Sharing 
Act to provide this kind of an exemption because we said once that 
dollar is out there blending with the State and local money, it really 
becomes part of the local base. Why, therefore, then should we force 
that community to comply with a much broader Federal base? Eighteen 
States either have neither enacted nor have repealed what is known as 
the ``little Davis-Bacon.''
  My State of Idaho once had a little Davis-Bacon. We simply are not 
wealthy enough to extend that much of the largess to expand the cost of 
our construction program beyond what is the normal charge for labor in 
a community of, say, 25 or 30 percent. We are simply not that wealthy. 
Idaho knows that.
  Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, George, my State of Idaho, Iowa, 
Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia have now all 
recognized this and have either not passed or repealed little Davis-
Bacon for all the reasons I have just given.
  So what we are asking here is straightforward: To give these States 
the chance, and to expand that Federal dollar, and to make it wiser. 
Three States completely exempt school construction from little Davis-
Bacon State prevailing wage laws: Arkansas, Kentucky, and New Mexico, 
once again State legislatures that were faced with the reality that 
there just is not that much money out there to do all we want to do, 
and we have to make it stretch just a little further.
  Maryland exempts school construction from little Davis-Bacon law 
unless the State's share of the project is more than the whole of 75 
percent. So that is the reality. That is the substance of the debate.
  Let me ask unanimous consent at this moment that I be allowed to 
enter into the Record a letter to Senator Bennett Johnston from the 
Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana asking the Senator to 
support this amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           Associated Professional


                                       Educators of Louisiana,

                                   Baton Rouge, LA, July 27, 1994.
     Senator J. Bennett Johnston,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston, The Associated Professional 
     Educators of Louisiana (A&PEL) opposes provisions in the 
     ``Improving America's Schools Act,'' S. 1513 by Senator 
     Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which extends coverage of 
     the federal Davis-Bacon Act to school ``repair, renovation, 
     alteration or construction, including painting and decorating 
     any building or work that is financed in whole or in part by 
     a grant under this title . . .''.
       This would represent a massive expansion of the coverage of 
     the Davis-Bacon Act and would be a major federal intrusion 
     into state activity. Furthermore, this provision could 
     increase the cost of school construction to state and local 
     taxpayers of Louisiana at a time when educational dollars are 
     scarce and taxpayers are begrudging any added costs for 
     public schooling.
       As an organization of 5,000 Louisiana teachers, we ask that 
     you support amendments that will be offered on the Senate 
     floor to strike this provision or to alter the language to 
     make it less intrusive.
       Your support in this action will be most appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ruth Petry,
                                                  State President.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me also ask unanimous consent that the 
letter to Senator Paul Coverdell from the Professional Association of 
Georgia Educators be entered into the Record--same argument, same 
concern.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Professional Association of


                                            Georgia Educators,

                                     Clarkston, GA, July 28, 1994.
     Senator Paul Coverdell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: The Professional Association of Georgia 
     Educators (PAGE) urges you to vote against the bill, 
     ``Improving America's Schools Act'' (S. 1513). The bill 
     contains unneeded provisions which would improperly extend 
     the Davis-Bacon Act regarding ``repair, renovation, 
     alteration or construction, including painting and decorating 
     any building or work that is financed in whole or in part by 
     a grant under this title. . . .''
       The proposed expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act would give 
     the federal government incrusive power to involve itself in 
     state responsibilities. But, most damaging of all, the 
     extension would further inflate the cost of school 
     construction projects in Georgia. Since recent flood damage 
     to our schools is massive, much reconstruction must take 
     place. The bill, sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy (S. 
     1513), would trigger higher wages where the Davis-Bacon Act 
     applies. This would cause a heavier tax burden for all 
     taxpayers in Georgia.
       We urge you to support amendments that would strike the S. 
     1513 provision or alter it in ways that would make it 
     inoperative with respect to the repair, renovation, 
     alteration or construction, including painting and decorating 
     any building or work that is financed in whole or in part by 
     a grant from the federal government.
       Thank you for your prompt consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ellen Coody,
                                  Acting Executive Vice President.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me also, Mr. President, ask unanimous consent that a 
letter from the Coalition to Reform of Davis-Bacon--that is a huge 
cross-section of the American small business and large business 
infrastructure, from air conditioning contractors to the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, all the way down through the system of those people who 
provide the services that build the facilities for these small 
communities--become part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              The Coalition to Reform the Davis-Bacon Act

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
       American Concrete Pipe Association.
       American Farm Bureau.
       American Portland Cement Alliance.
       American Public Transit Association.
       American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Associated General Contractors.
       Brick Institute.
       Citizens Against Government Waste.
       Contract Services Association.
       Council of State Community Development Agencies.
       Fluor Corporation.
       Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.
       Institute for Justice.
       Labor Policy Association.
       National Aggregates Association.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Dredging Contractors.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Minority Contractors.
       National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.
       National Federation of Independent Business.
       National Industrial Sand Association.
       National League of Cities.
       National Terrazzo & Mosaic Association.
       National School Boards Association.
       National Slag Association.
       National Stone Association.
       National Tax Limitation Committee.
       National Taxpayers Union.
       Printing Industries of America.
       Public Service Research Council.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                               Coalition To Reform


                                          the Davis-Bacon Act,

                                       Rosslyn, VA, July 26, 1994.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: S. 1513, the Improving America's 
     Schools Act, is expected to be voted on in the near future. 
     One section of this bill would provide funds for the 
     renovation and construction of public elementary and 
     secondary school facilities used for academic or vocational 
     instruction--including libraries and media centers. This 
     section would also mandate that Davis-Bacon wages rates be 
     paid on this construction. Because the inflated costs and 
     other problems associated with Davis-Bacon would be imposed 
     primarily on states and localities, the Coalition to Reform 
     the Davis-Bacon Act urges you to support any amendment which 
     would eliminate or narrow the scope of the Davis-Bacon 
     application to this section.
       The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 has been estimated to raise the 
     cost of federal construction by an average of 5-15%. This 
     outdated law will needlessly waste more than $3 billion in 
     federal taxpayers' dollars over the next five years. Clearly, 
     if Davis-Bacon is not applied to projects funded under S. 
     1513, a greater number of schools could be built or improved.
       Under S. 1513, the federal government would give grants to 
     local educational agencies to improve their school 
     facilities. However, in many cases the state or locality 
     would pay for the bulk of the project and the federal 
     contribution would be nominal. Regardless of the amount the 
     federal government contributes, all laborers and mechanics 
     performing the construction would have to be paid the 
     inflated Davis-Bacon wage. This often would virtually nullify 
     the federal contribution.
       Requiring that the inflated Davis-Bacon wage rate be paid 
     on projects funded in whole or in part under S. 1513 is in 
     effect an unfunded federal mandate on states and localities. 
     Davis-Bacon is a federal law which was meant to apply to 
     federal construction projects; school construction is clearly 
     under the states' domain. Eighteen states have seen fit to 
     either repeal or never have a state prevailing wage statute 
     and several others have specifically exempted school 
     construction from their law; however, this bill would require 
     the federal prevailing wage law to apply to primarily state 
     and locally funded school construction.
       Because the application of Davis-Bacon would further limit 
     the number of projects which could be performed under this 
     bill and would burden financially-strapped states and 
     localities, we strongly urge you to support any amendment to 
     either strike or limit this language in S. 1513.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Associated Building Contractors has 
submitted information, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed 
in the Record, along with the repeal and modification of the Davis-
Bacon Act work schedules, labor cost schedules, and budget outlays, 
which have been examined in the consideration of S. 916 and that will 
be before the subcommittee in its consideration of reform.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Davis-Bacon and S. 1513, the Improving America's Schools Act

       The Senate has begun consideration of S. 1513, the 
     Improving America's Schools Act. One section of this bill 
     would provide funds for the renovation and construction of 
     public elementary and secondary school facilities used for 
     academic or vocational instruction--including libraries and 
     media centers. This section would also mandate that Davis-
     Bacon wage rates be paid on this construction. Because the 
     inflated costs and other problems associated with Davis-Bacon 
     would be imposed primarily on states and localities, 
     Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) urges you to 
     support any amendment which would eliminate or narrow the 
     scope of Davis-Bacon application to this section.
       The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 has been estimated to raise the 
     cost of federal construction by an average of 5-15%. This 
     outdated law will needlessly waste more than $3 billion in 
     federal taxpayers' dollars over the next five years. Clearly, 
     if Davis-Bacon is not applied to projects funded under S. 
     1513, a greater number of schools could be built or improved.
       Under S. 1513, the federal government would give grants to 
     local educational agencies to improve their school 
     facilities. However, in many cases the state or locality 
     would pay for the bulk of the project and the federal 
     contribution would be nominal. Regardless of the amount the 
     federal government contributes, all laborers and mechanics 
     performing the construction would have to be paid the 
     inflated Davis-Bacon wage. This often would virtually nullify 
     the federal contribution.
       Requiring that the inflated Davis-Bacon wage rate be paid 
     on projects funded in whole or in part under S. 1513 is in 
     effect an unfunded federal mandate on states and localities. 
     Davis-Bacon is a federal law which was meant to apply to 
     federal construction projects; school construction is clearly 
     under the states' domain.
       Eighteen states--including Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, 
     Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
     South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and Virginia--
     have seen fit either to repeal or never have a state 
     prevailing wage statute. Arkansas, Kentucky and New Mexico 
     have specifically exempted school construction from their law 
     and Maryland requires that the project be at least 75% state-
     funded for prevailing wage to apply to school construction. 
     Despite these states' clear choice on this issue, S. 1513 
     would require the federal prevailing wage law to apply to 
     primarily state and locally funded school construction.
       Because the application of Davis-Bacon would further limit 
     the number of projects which could be performed under this 
     bill and would burden financially-strapped states and 
     localities, we strongly urge you to support any amendment to 
     either strike or limit this language in S. 1513.

                  REPEAL OR MODIFY THE DAVIS-BACON ACT                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Annual savings (millions of               
Savings from CBO baseline              dollars)               Cumulative
                          -----------------------------------   5-year  
                           1995   1996   1997   1998   1999    savings  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal the Davis-Bacon                                                  
 Act:                                                                   
    Budget authority.....    500    510    520    540    550      2,620 
    Outlays..............    160    500    700    810    910      3,080 
Raise the threshold to $1                                               
 million:                                                               
    Budget authority.....    160    170    170    180    180        860 
    Outlays..............     40    130    180    220    240        810 
Raise the threshold to                                                  
 $250,000:                                                              
    Budget authority.....     70     70     70     70     80        360 
    Outlays..............     20     50     70     80     90        310 
Change from weekly to                                                   
 monthly wage reporting:                                                
    Budget authority.....     70     70     80     80     80        380 
    Outlays..............     10     50     60     70     70       260  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The conference report on the 1994 appropriation for the          
  Department of Labor prohibits the department from implementing certain
  changes in the ``helper'' regulations during 1994. The estimates      
  presented here are based on the assumption that this prohibition will 
  not be extended. If it was extended, savings from either repealing the
  Davis-Bacon Act or raising the threshold would be greater.            

       Since 1935, the Davis-Bacon Act has required that 
     ``prevailing wages'' be paid on all federally funded or 
     federally assisted construction projects with contracts of 
     $2,000 or more. The procedures for determining prevailing 
     wages in the area of a construction project, as well as the 
     classifications of workers who receive them, favor union wage 
     rates in some cases.
       The federal government could reduce outlays for 
     construction by repealing the Davis-Bacon Act or by modifying 
     it. Repealing the act would reduce outlays by about $160 
     million in 1995 and by about $3.1 billion over the 1995-1999 
     period. Raising the threshold for determining which projects 
     are to be covered by Davis-Bacon from $2,000 to $1 million 
     would exclude about 27 percent of the value of all contracts 
     currently covered by the act. Savings in that case would 
     total about $40 million in 1995 and about $810 million over 
     the five-year period. Raising the threshold to $250,000 would 
     exclude about 11 percent of the value of all contracts and 
     save about $310 million over the five-year period. Changing 
     the requirements for wage-and-hour reporting for contracts 
     covered by Davis-Bacon from a weekly to a monthly basis would 
     reduce compliance costs for contractors by about $260 million 
     over the five years. Each of these estimates assumes that the 
     Congress would reduce federal appropriations for agencies to 
     reflect the anticipated reduction in costs.
       Repealing Davis-Bacon or raising the threshold for projects 
     that it covers would reduce the cost of federal construction. 
     In addition, either action would probably increase the 
     opportunities for employment that federal projects might 
     offer to less skilled workers. Such changes would, however, 
     lower the earnings of some construction workers. Opponents of 
     these options also argue that eliminating or relaxing Davis-
     Bacon requirements could jeopardize the quality of federally 
     funded or federally assisted construction projects. Reducing 
     the requirements for wage-and-hour reporting would lessen the 
     paperwork required of employers, but at the same time it 
     might diminish the effectiveness of the Davis-Bacon Act by 
     reducing the government's ability to detect noncompliance.
       Craig office note, based on conversations with CBO:
       The above ``Budget Authority'' figures do not include non-
     BA spending authority from certain trust funds; the full 
     amount of savings for all such authority would be called the 
     ``Authorization Level''; savings for repeal would range from 
     about $800 million to $900 million a year, for a 5-year total 
     above $4 billion.
       If the currently-legislated ``helper'' ban were assumed to 
     extend permanently, savings from repeal would be 
     approximately doubled. The above CBO figures are based on the 
     ``current law'' assumption that the ban on 1992 DOL 
     ``helper'' regulations will expire, on schedule, on September 
     30, 1994. The regulation provides for a semi-skilled 
     ``helper'' classification in areas where the use of such a 
     classification is locally prevailing. Congress has enacted 
     annual helper bans in Labor/HHS/Education appropriations and 
     the same ban is included in both the House-passed and Senate-
     Committee-reported versions for FY 1995.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me also ask unanimous consent that 
additional cosponsors, Senator Simpson of Wyoming, Senator Nickles of 
Oklahoma, Senator Thurmond of South Carolina, Senator Brown of 
Colorado, and Senator Kempthorne of Idaho be added to the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the ranking member 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Vermont for five minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have been involved over the years of 
my public life with the Davis-Bacon Act. I would just mention that the 
Davis-Bacon Act was actually a Republican proposal which was made back 
in the early thirties by two Republican men, Davis and Bacon, who were 
deeply concerned about what was happening in this Nation at that time, 
which, of course, was the beginning of the Great Depression. At that 
time, we were beginning to see the incredible difficulties being 
brought upon our local communities in the fight for jobs, and bands of 
organized groups of workers would be going from one area to the other 
undercutting whatever bids would occur at the local level, thus 
disrupting the ability of people in those local areas to be able to 
survive.
  After it was originally put in, then we had the huge influx of money 
coming in from the Federal Government to take in, to try to create 
jobs, and at the same time these jobs were being taken by people who 
were coming in the other areas.
  The sound basis for law was there during the Great Depression, and it 
worked very well. It has worked well since then. However, there is no 
question but that after time moves on things change, and we should 
change the law. I think this is one of the areas that we are in where 
there should be a change.
  But I would also point out that few subjects generate more 
controversy than the proposals to change the Davis-Bacon Act. That 
statute which we just discussed is some 60 years old but has been 
largely unchanged since the time it was written.
  There are three schools of thought on Davis-Bacon; repeal it, leave 
it alone or reform it.
  I count myself as one who sees the need for reform.
  I support the Davis-Bacon Act, and its basic purpose--that the 
Federal Government should not undercut local wages and working 
conditions.
  Today, however, there are times when the act turns that purpose on 
its head by preventing the prevailing local wage rates and wage 
structures from being employed on federally funded construction 
projects.
  The primary example of this is the ongoing battle over the helper 
regulations, which has been going on for the last decade.
  Because of my views on what the Davis-Bacon Act is and should be, I 
am not inclined to vote for the repeal of Davis-Bacon or a blanket 
waiver of that act under ESEA.
  However, it is consistent with my views on the need for a greater 
Federal stake in school funding to support measures which encourage 
that funding.
  Here, if the Federal Government wants to mandate Davis-Bacon 
standards for school construction, I think it quite fair to require 
Federal funds to comprise a substantial percentage of funding for that 
construction.
  The 25 percent proposal made by this amendment seems fair and is 
consistent with the standard reportedly included in the crime bill 
conference report with regard to prison construction.
  Therefore, I will support that amendment.
  Further, the amendment granting authority for the Secretary to waive 
Davis-Bacon requirements in the event that it will create undue 
hardship or lead to discrimination on racial or other grounds also 
presents a valid point for consideration.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I intend to support the Senator's 
amendment, and I yield whatever time I have not used.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho [Mr. Craig]. I was pleased to join him as a cosponsor on this 
bill.
  Mr. President, this amendment is designed to help our States lower 
construction costs when they identify the need to build or repair a 
school facility. This amendment will simply allow the States to be 
exempt from Federal Davis-Bacon laws if the State funds 75 percent of 
an education construction project.
  As you know, the Davis-Bacon Act requires the Secretary of Labor to 
set wage rates and prescribe work rules for every category of worker 
employed on Federal and federally assisted construction, alteration, 
and repair projects. The wage rates are supposed to be based on the 
locally prevailing wages. Often these rates are significantly higher 
than the actual averages for the locality.
  The result of applying the Davis-Bacon Act is to discourage poor 
rural and urban schools from building or contracting for much-needed 
repair or construction because they have to pay the ``prevailing 
wage,'' which is the same as the union wage.
  Mr. President, Wednesday, July 27, 1994, the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing on Davis-
Bacon reform. We were fortunate to have Ms. Cindy Athey, president of 
Precision Wall Tech, Inc., testify on the effects of Davis-Bacon laws 
on her business. I ask unanimous consent that her statement be included 
in the Record following my remarks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THURMOND. I would like to highlight a few parts of her statement. 
First, Ms. Athey testified that she pays her painters an average rate 
of $14 an hour, 40 hours a week. With a 2-week vacation, that is 
approximately $28,000 a year. However, painters on Federal projects is 
$21.24 per hour. With a 2-week vacation, this is approximately $42,000 
a year. That means that a painter earns about $14,000 a year more if 
they simply work on a Federal construction project. This is outrageous.
  Ms. Athey also testified that:

       A task requiring 5,000 hours to complete now takes the 
     employee, who is earning more because of the inflated Davis-
     Bacon wage rate, approximately 6,000 hours to complete. This 
     makes sense--why would anyone want to complete a project that 
     is almost doubling their paycheck?

  I believe Ms. Athey's testimony is representative of much of the 
waste of taxpayer's dollars due to the requirements of Davis-Bacon 
laws.
  Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed before most of the 
basic worker protection laws in effect today, including the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. 
Another protection exists in the elaborate Federal procurement process 
which requires a contractor to meet a number of 
prequalification requirements as well as meet a 
determination of contractor responsibility in order to bid on 
Government contracts.
  With these worker protection laws in place, the Davis-Bacon Act is 
antiquated and costly. Davis-Bacon laws discourage small and minority-
owned businesses from bidding on Federal projects. This results in a 
loss of competition and increased construction costs.
  With its application to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act it 
will now discourage our local education agencies from providing 
education infrastructure.
  This amendment will allow our States a little more freedom over what 
is predominantly their spending money. This amendment confronts what is 
another underfunded Federal mandate.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote to allow their States to 
have more control over their spending. Therefore, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

                        Testimony of Cindy Athey

       Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My 
     name is Cindy Athey and I am President of Precision Wall 
     Tech, Inc., a painting and wallcovering contractor. Precision 
     Wall Tech, Inc. has been performing work in the D.C. 
     Metropolitan area for over 11 years and is classified as a 
     small business woman-owned, open shop company. Precision Wall 
     Tech, Inc. is also a member of the Associated Builders and 
     Contractors, who I am here representing today.
       My experiences, as well as my beliefs, about the Davis-
     Bacon Act are that the Act discriminates against small 
     companies by limiting their ability to compete on an even 
     plain with larger companies. The Davis-Bacon Act hinders and 
     restricts all phases of performing a government contract with 
     the wage regulation. It begins with the actual bidding 
     process.
       Bid price increases due to the increase in the required 
     wage. My painters average at least 40 hours per week at a 
     rate of $14.00 an hour. Scale for painters on federal 
     projects (i.e. NIH, NASA, Navy Yard, etc.) is $21.24 per 
     hour. My labor cost on a federal project is 50 percent higher 
     than a non-regulated scale project. In addition to the 
     increase in labor costs, the labor burden (workers' comp, 
     unemployment, liability insurance, etc.) also increases.
       If a small company is awarded a government contract of 
     substantial size which will extend over a period of months, 
     the additional capital required to carry the increased 
     payroll and taxes limits their ability to solicit other 
     contracts. The majority of small companies are not 
     financially able to meet the additional costs of doing 
     government contract work, therefore, the Davis-Bacon wage 
     scale discourages small companies from participating in 
     government contracts. Regardless of the prompt pay 
     regulation, most government agencies DO NOT pay within 30 
     days.
       Precision Wall Tech, Inc. invests time and money into 
     training and educating its employees. Our painters are paid 
     well above the private industry's prevailing wage rate and 
     have the ability to perform all projects in an efficient and 
     professional manner. This enables us to complete work on 
     schedule and within the budget of our clients. However, the 
     Davis-Bacon Act reduces productivity, thus exposing the small 
     contractor to still more additional costs.
       A task requiring 5,000 hours to complete now takes the 
     employee, who is earning more because of the inflated Davis-
     Bacon wage rate, approximately 6,000 hours to complete. This 
     makes sense--why would anyone want to complete a project that 
     is almost doubling their paycheck? The Davis-Bacon wage scale 
     is a deterrent for workers to be productive and efficient. It 
     also creates a problem when these workers go back to 
     performing private work and I am forced to lower their wages 
     back to the true market rate.
       Employees often require retraining once they complete a 
     government project. My once motivated employees are now 
     earning the same weekly pay by working on a scale job 26 
     hours per week instead of the normal 40 hours. This tends 
     to lead to absenteeism.
       The administrative costs to conform to the Davis-Bacon Act 
     regulations are also increased. Certified payrolls are time 
     consuming, as well as confusing. I have performed numerous 
     scale regulated contracts at the same time and depending on 
     the location, I will have to pay different wage rates. For 
     example, the scale for a painter in Washington, D.C. is 
     different than the scale for a painter in Maryland or 
     Virginia. Different counties within a state also require 
     different wages.
       Classifications within a trade create many restrictions. 
     The Davis-Bacon Act requires that any person who holds a tool 
     of the trade be paid at that trade classification. There are 
     many individuals who are able to hold a paint brush or a pipe 
     wrench, but could not be classified as a painter or even a 
     plumber. However, these individuals are required to be paid 
     the rate of a painter or plumber by the Davis-Bacon Act. This 
     Davis-Bacon classification requires companies to use either 
     over qualified employees for menial tasks or overpay 
     inexperienced employees. This inequity creates tremendous 
     friction among employees working on a scale regulated 
     project. For example, a qualified painter who has worked many 
     years in the trade is not happy to be earning the same as an 
     employee who just entered the trade one month ago with 
     limited knowledge, but is able to hold a tool of the trade.
       The Davis-Bacon Act was intended to protect employees from 
     discriminating employers. However, the Davis-Bacon Act today 
     is discriminating against small employers and their 
     employees, who are trying to compete for federal contracts. 
     The Act requires small companies, such as mine, to incur 
     additional costs, many of which are passed on to the 
     government, but many of which we must bear ourselves. This 
     often results in small companies deciding federal work is 
     just not worth trouble.
       When I learned about the provisions in S. 627, I was 
     gravely concerned that Congress would even consider expanding 
     this burdensome, costly law. The expansion of the law to off-
     site suppliers and manufacturers, lease agreements and 
     independent contractors will dramatically add to the 
     confusion, litigation and costs which are associated with 
     Davis-Bacon. Any small benefit which would be gained from the 
     increased threshold and reduced paperwork would be nullified 
     by these expansion provisions. I may also point out that 
     these benefits would indeed be small, particularly because 
     the threshold would be different for new construction and for 
     alteration or repair work.
       The fact that S. 627 would virtually abolish the ``helper'' 
     classification is also of chief concern. This relates to 
     having to pay lesser skilled workers the high journey-level 
     wage rate. Without the helper classification, my choice is 
     between causing resentment among my higher skilled workers or 
     not hiring lesser skilled workers for jobs they clearly could 
     perform in a safe and efficient manner. While the helper 
     classification has not yet been implemented on Davis-Bacon 
     projects due to a ban on funding contained in the FY94 Labor, 
     HHS, Education Appropriations bill, we hope that the 
     Department of Labor will move forward with that process when 
     that legislation expires. Helpers are widely used in the 
     private sector.
       If Congress wants to reform the Davis-Bacon Act in a 
     positive manner, I suggest they adopt legislation such as S. 
     916 offered by Senator Larry Craig. S. 916 would raise the 
     threshold to $500,000 for all types of construction, reduce 
     paperwork from weekly to quarterly, and allow the unlimited 
     use of helpers.
       I thank the Labor and Human Resources Committee for this 
     opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions 
     you may have.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we were attempting to follow what 
had been agreed on and that was the time limit for an hour. We were 
supposed to have the 15 minutes. I would yield myself now 7 minutes of 
that time.
  Mr. President, we have heard a good deal about the history of the 
Davis-Bacon Act, the circumstances that led to the enactment of that 
statute in 1931, and the continuing need for the act's protections 
coming through the Depression and into modern times. I think we can add 
to that history with some evidence of what is occurring in the 
construction industry right now.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record an 
excellent article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal that 
describes the devastating effect that more than a decade of wage-
cutting in the construction industry has had on wages and benefits in 
the industry and the supply of skilled craft workers.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27, 1994]

     With Housing Strong, Builders Often Find Skilled Help Lacking


   contractors compete Keenly for available tradesmen in places like 
                  phoenix--a problem for los angeles?

                           (By Robert Tomsho)

       Phoenix.--These should be the best of times for Gilbert 
     Plumbing Co.
       With home building booming here, the company expects to 
     install plumbing in about 3,000 homes this year--far more 
     than the 500 homes a year it did in 1988 and 1989, the trough 
     of the recent recession here. In the company's back lot on a 
     recent afternoon, dozens of plumbers scrambled to load trucks 
     with faucets, toilets and pipes for the next day's work.
       Yet, as he paced the bustling yard, C.A. Gilbert, the 
     company's 64-year-old founder, wore the steely grimace of a 
     besieged general. With his 96 employees already working six-
     day, dawn-to-dusk weeks to keep up with demand, Mr. Gilbert 
     is struggling to recruit 30 more plumbers by, among other 
     things, advertising in newspapers as far away as New York, 
     Minneapolis and Bismarck, N.D.


                            unproductive Ads

       He isn't very hopeful. A blitz of help wanted ads in major 
     California newspapers last fall drew only 20 phone calls, and 
     just one plumber was hired. Meanwhile, local competitors, 
     offering an extra dollar or two an hour, recruit Gilbert 
     plumbers as they leave the company lot at night.
       ``It's just a nightmare,'' Mr. Gilbert laments. ``We can't 
     get people.''
       Many contractors around the country have the same problem. 
     ``There is a critical need for skilled workers,'' says Rick 
     Harris, a spokesman for the Home Builders Institute, an 
     industry research group. ``It's a national problem.''
       As the industry rebounds from a withering downturn, the 
     problem has so far been most acute in residential 
     construction, where the recovery has outpaced the commercial 
     and industrial sectors. With low interest rates and 
     moderating prices unleashing pent-up demand for homes, 
     contractors in dozens of markets are having trouble finding 
     skilled carpenters, plumbers and electricians. The shortage 
     also is spawning concern about work quality as desperate 
     contractors settle for less-reliable help. Meanwhile, 
     projects are delayed and costs increased as workers demand 
     higher wages.
       In Kansas City, Mo., a shortage of skilled workers has 
     added as much as two months to the time required to build a 
     home. Oklahoma City bricklayers are charging as much as 50% 
     more than a year ago for their services. Frustrated Denver 
     home builders are preparing to hold a series of ``job fairs'' 
     in other cities.
       And with the prime summer building season approaching, the 
     massive effort to rebuild Los Angeles is likely to aggravate 
     the problem. ``The earthquake is going to further put a 
     squeeze on the manpower situation nationwide,'' says Peter 
     Cockshaw, publisher of an industry newsletter. ``And I don't 
     know that they are going to get all of the skilled people 
     that are needed.''
       Construction has always gone through boom-and-bust cycles 
     that drove workers from region to region in search of jobs. 
     As the demand for skilled labor revived in an area, pay rates 
     rose and the workers returned. But that isn't happening now. 
     Instead, regional building booms are exposing long-festering 
     industry problems.


                             losing ground

       Between 1983 and 1992, the nation's work force increased 
     about 17%, to 103.7 million workers, but the number of 
     construction workers rose only about 10%, to 4.5 million. 
     Moreover, industry executives say fewer and fewer of those 
     workers are the well-trained journeymen of a generation ago. 
     ``We can always find enough people to slam together some 
     forms and do the grunt work,'' says Dan Bennett, executive 
     vice president of Associated Builders and Contractors, a 
     trade group based in Rosslyn, Va. ``It's the skills where we 
     are going to have a problem and already do.''
       Those growing shortages are the culmination of more than a 
     decade of turmoil within the industry. In some families, 
     generation once followed generation into the construction 
     trades. Such jobs usually paid better and were more 
     challenging than manufacturing work, and they offered broad 
     opportunities for people to start up their own businesses.
       But during the 1970s and 1980s, those traditions began 
     eroding as major corporations and other customers, in a quest 
     for lower building costs, awarded more jobs to nonunion 
     contractors. As unions' market share dwindled, cutthroat 
     competition among such firms drove down wages.
       By 1988, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     manufacturing workers were earning more--about $16.26 an hour 
     in total compensation, compared with $16.23 for construction 
     workers. By 1993, the gap had increased, with manufacturing 
     workers pulling down $20.09 an hour total compensation, 
     compared with $19.71 in construction. In some regions, 
     especially the right-to-work Southwest, construction wages 
     fell even further for experienced workers, into the $12-to-
     $15-an-hour range with no benefits.
       Older craft workers retired, and many younger journeymen 
     left the industry. ``And we can't rely on the people we have 
     lost coming back,'' says John Heffner, training director for 
     the Associated General Contractors of America, which 
     represents many large commercial and industrial contractors. 
     ``I think they have just had it with a lack of benefits and 
     guaranteed hours; they have just had it with being treated as 
     a cost rather than an asset.''
       For a time, nonunion contractors still could find enough 
     skilled help from the ranks of former union members, but they 
     weren't replenishing the supply by recruiting and training 
     young workers.
       But while experienced people might still earn $12 to $15 an 
     hour, potential recruits from the baby-bust generation began 
     finding that starting wages for new trainees had slid as low 
     as $5 an hour in some trades and that they could earn nearly 
     as much manning a fast-food counter or stocking store 
     shelves. And the difference wasn't enough to make up for 
     construction's dirt, danger and few benefits, plus the 
     uncertainty of an unemployment rate that regularly was double 
     the national average.
       By last year, even the Associated Builders and Contractors, 
     whose members are primarily nonunion, was sounding the alarm. 
     In one newsletter, Mr. Bennet, the trade-group executive, 
     wrote that many construction workers could no longer afford 
     homes or health insurance. He added that according to one 
     survey, young people considered a career in construction only 
     slightly more appealing than migrant farm work. ``When you 
     squash down, year after year, on wages, you don't attract a 
     good person into the industry,'' he observes.
       Stephen Gubin, chief executive of Phoenix-based Wilson 
     Electric Co., which has 400 employees, couldn't even persuade 
     his own son to learn the trade. ``The labor supply isn't 
     there because the kids haven't accepted this industry as a 
     viable place to go for their careers,'' he says.
       Those who have find training in short supply. Hundreds of 
     vocational schools have abandoned construction programs in 
     favor of high-tech fields. One 1990 study by the Construction 
     Labor Research Council estimated that the industry was 
     training only about two-thirds the number of workers it would 
     need in the 1990s.
       Union apprenticeship programs, long the industry's primary 
     training and recruiting ground, have shriveled as the unions 
     themselves have lost work. ``The employers demand a skilled 
     work force, and that is our product,'' says Ray Robertson, 
     who oversees apprenticeship programs for the AFL-CIO's 
     Building Trades Council. But while the unions' training 
     apparatus remains in place, the system took on only about 
     170,000 new trainees last year, down from some 200,000 
     annually in the early 1980s. Says Bill Muns, director of 
     training for Ironworkers Local 75 in Phoenix: ``It does no 
     good to train people if you don't have the jobs.''
       Moreover, most contractors provide only minimal on-the-job 
     training. To speed up production, many have broken down the 
     crafts into dozens of repetitive tasks and teach a worker 
     only to install toilets, hang doors or build chimneys.
       ``In many cases, you are no longer a carpenter, you are a 
     `cutter'; you cut boards all day,'' says David Wilkinson, 
     executive director of the Phoenix ABC office, who has been 
     struggling to persuade local nonunion contractors to fund a 
     better training program. Most have balked, fearing that 
     competitors won't contribute and thus will gain a cost 
     advantage in bidding. ``If you throw two contractors off a 
     bridge, they will scratch, kick and gouge each other all the 
     way to impact, even though they know they are going to die at 
     the bottom,'' he says.
       The Phoenix market strikingly illustrates the fruits of 
     such ruthless competition. Strewn across a vast desert 
     valley, Arizona's largest city is virtually exploding with 
     construction activity around its edges. Home builders' 
     billboards line the highways, and acre after acre of former 
     cotton fields and desert has come alive with bulldozers 
     grading lots and construction crews wrestling up the frames 
     of new homes. A near-record 22,652 new-home construction 
     permits were issued in the Phoenix market last year, up 23% 
     from 1992 and nearly double the 1990 total. ``And had it not 
     been for a shortage of construction labor, we would have 
     exceeded that,'' says R.L. Brown, a local industry analyst.
       That shortage is pushing the building time for the average 
     Phoenix home toward 180 days from the traditional 75 to 90 
     days. Amid fluctuating lumber prices and interest rates, such 
     delays have made it difficult for builders to estimate prices 
     and for home buyers to lock in loans.
       Schuck & Sons Construction Co., which specializes in 
     putting up house frames for other contractors, has been 
     trying to add about 150 framing carpenters to the 535 it 
     already employs. The company keeps running newspaper ads as 
     far away as Seattle, Salt Lake City and Denver, but so far 
     the response has been sparse.
       Last summer, a series of ads in the Los Angeles area drew 
     300 calls, but only 12 people showed up to work in Schuck's 
     Phoenix operations and, after a week of raids by labor-hungry 
     competitors, only two were still on the job. ``Their choice, 
     not ours,'' grumbles Craig Steele, Schuck's executive vice 
     president, who is still advertising in the local paper though 
     admitting that ``it's just to let the builders know that we 
     are still trying.''
       Growing desperate, contractors are advertising full health 
     benefits, paid vacations and profit-sharing plans. A few have 
     offered employees $50 for every new hire they bring in. For a 
     time last year, Del Webb Corp., a major home builder here, 
     ran ads on a local rock station offering to top any framing 
     carpenter's last pay stub by $2 an hour.
       Meanwhile, recruiters turn up on construction sites, hiring 
     away tradesmen. ``Guy are jumping ship left and right for 50 
     cents an hour,'' the local ABC's Mr. Wilkinson says. ``You 
     don't know who's going to show up on the job from one day to 
     the next.''
       Or how good they will be. While there have been no scandals 
     or major accidents, complaints about building quality and 
     timeliness to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, a state 
     consumer agency, have risen by 3% to 4% in each of the past 
     five years. Area contractors admit that they have to redo a 
     lot of their crews' work and that concern about their 
     workers' skills has spurred them to hire more superintendents 
     and internal inspectors. ``They are just not up to the 
     caliber that they used to be,'' says Kim Bannister, a Del 
     Webb executive.
       Asked to move a gas line that he had mis-installed, one 
     recent hire at Gilbert Plumbing simply revved up his chain 
     saw and cut a broad gash into the drywall and studs of a 
     newly built home. ``You hire them and take your chances.'' 
     says Mr. Gilbert, a blunt-spoken man who is struggling to 
     reconcile the current turmoil with a work ethic forged long 
     ago on his parent's North Dakota wheat farm.
       Since arriving in Phoenix in 1969 with enough money to buy 
     two second-hand trucks, he has built a booming plumbing 
     business with 66 trucks, a computerized business office and 
     revenue of about $9 million last year. All three of his adult 
     children have joined him at Gilbert Plumbing; a daughter does 
     the billing, one son is a superintendent, and another 
     oversees the business operation. Mr. Gilbert still knows the 
     vintage and mileage of all his trucks, which are washed 
     weekly. His backlot is a sprawling but immaculate collection 
     of bins filled with plumbing fixtures.
       Although Mr. Gilbert's pay of $10 to $14 an hour for 
     experienced plumbers isn't the most generous in the market, 
     he proudly notes that he kept his core group of some 30 
     plumbers employed during the recession. Nevertheless, some of 
     his most loyal employees say the business has changed. 
     Journeymen plumbers such as Karen Schweigart, whose husband 
     is a company superintendent, say the quality of the work 
     force has dropped, health benefits and paid vacations are 
     still hard to come by, and wages haven't kept pace with 
     inflation. ``There's nothing at the end of the rainbow in 
     construction anymore,'' she says, adding that she has 
     discouraged her children from entering the business.
       Meanwhile, the relatively low pay and a lack of benefits 
     have driven away plumbers such as Louis Leyba, who quit 
     Gilbert Plumbing five months ago. ``I worked for a few shops, 
     and they are all the same,'' grumbles the 48-year-old Mr. 
     Leyba, who says his current job as a groundskeeper for a 
     suburban government offers better benefits than any he ever 
     got in plumbing.
       Another former Gilbert plumber, Ralph Naylor, says no 
     amount of money could persuade him to pick up his wrenches 
     again. ``I had to borrow money to make house payments,'' says 
     Mr. Naylor, who became a building appraiser. Construction 
     companies ``are saying that they want skilled labor, but they 
     don't want to pay for it.''
       Oddly enough, Mr. Gilbert acknowledges that navigating 
     through the downturn wasn't nearly as hard as dealing with a 
     market where some general contractors, desperate for his 
     services, have told him to name his price. Tripling his work 
     force to handle the load has been a nightmare. Many plumbers, 
     hired in the afternoon, continue to shop for better-paying 
     jobs and never punch in the following morning. On any given 
     day, a dozen or so of his workers don't show up, and most 
     don't call in. Eight quit for other jobs one recent week. One 
     asked for--and got--a $450 advance the day before he 
     disappeared.
       ``We've had some employees whose fathers have died three 
     times,'' grumbles Mr. Gilbert, who hesitates to criticize, 
     punish or fire workers, knowing they can get another job in 
     half an hour. ``You got to be careful how you talk to them.''
       Desperate for help, Mr. Gilbert allows his secretaries to 
     make hiring decisions if company executives aren't available 
     to interview walk-ins. He even has taken on plumbers who, 
     having lost their drivers' licenses because of speeding or 
     drunken-driving convictions, need a driver to ferry them from 
     job to job.
       Recruiting is never far from Mr. Gilbert's mind. As he and 
     one of his sons were driving back to the office one recent 
     afternoon, Mr. Gilbert suddenly perked up. ``Steve, there are 
     two plumbers' trucks up ahead of you,'' he said. ``Speed up 
     and see if you can catch 'em.''
  Mr. KENNEDY. The article shows that because of the decline in wages 
and benefits in the industry, builders are no longer able to find 
skilled workers. Experienced workers are leaving the industry, young 
people no longer want to enter the industry, and apprenticeship 
programs capable of providing workers with high level skills are 
disappearing. And with that deterioration of skills has come a 
deterioriation in quality.
  The Wall Street Journal's findings are similar to the findings in a 
study done by three economists at the University of Utah, who looked at 
what has occurred in the construction industry in Utah since the State 
repealed its State prevailing wage law in 1981. The researchers found 
that competition in wages occuring as result of the repeal of the 
prevailing wage law drove down average wages in the industry, caused 
experienced workers to leave the industry, and led to a severe decline 
in the number of apprentices being trained through union apprenticeship 
programs--which had traditionally been the primary source of skilled 
workers for the industry. The decline in union-sponsored apprenticeship 
programs has not been offset by increased training efforts in either 
the public sector or the non-union sector.
  If the State of Utah wants to repeal its prevailing wage law as it 
applies to projects funded with State dollars, that's the State's 
prerogative. But we are talking here about Federal taxpayers' dollars, 
and making sure that those funds are not utilized to drive down 
community wage standards for construction workers.
  What wages does the Davis-Bacon Act require to be paid to 
construction workers? All that the act requires is that workers be paid 
the wage that is prevailing in the locality in which the work is being 
performed. And if there is no single wage that is being paid to 50 
percent or more of the workers in that area performing that type of 
work, then the prevailing wage is computed as the average of the wages 
paid in that community for that type of work.
  If the majority of work in that community is under union contracts, 
then the prevailing rate may turn out to be the union rate. But if the 
majority of work is nonunion, then the prevailing rate is going to be 
the nonunion rate or an average rate.
  So if you have construction in northern Idaho, and the majority of 
workers in that area are being paid a lower wage than what would be 
considered to be the union wage, then the lower rate is what Davis-
Bacon says must be paid. So the suggestion that the Davis-Bacon Act 
somehow requires contractors on Federal construction projects in remote 
areas where wages are typically low to pay a higher wage, or the union 
wage, just does not hold water. That is not an accurate reflection of 
how the act's prevailing wage requirement works.
  Just last week, the Labor and Human Resources Committee had a hearing 
on the issue of Davis-Bacon reform, and we were happy to welcome 
Senator Craig, who came over and gave testimony at that hearing. The 
administration has endorsed a very reasonable package of Davis-Bacon 
reforms, which we are considering in the committee, which would raise 
the threshold for Davis-Bacon coverage to $100,000 on contracts for new 
construction and to $50,000 on contracts for repair and maintenance of 
existing structures. This legislation would also substantially simplify 
the paperwork and the reporting procedures as they apply not just to 
federally funded construction under the Davis-Bacon Act, but also to 
federally assisted construction performed under the more than 50 
different statutes--that are currently on the books which require 
Davis-Bacon protections on federally assisted construction projects.
  The way to deal with they many issues that have been raised over the 
years regarding Davis-Bacon is through comprehensive reform of the type 
we are considering now in the Labor Committee. That is the way we ought 
to deal with it. We are glad to try and accommodate and deal with the 
particular concerns raised by Senator Craig and others through the 
committee process.
  I say, finally, Mr. President, that I am really constantly surprised 
about what opponents of the Davis-Bacon Act have against hardworking 
men and women in the construction industry who are working hard to try 
to provide for their families. The average worker in the construction 
industry works about 1,400 to 1,600 hours a year. The rate of 
unemployment for the construction industry is double the national 
average. In many different areas, it is three or four times as much. 
What are we talking about in terms of average yearly income? We are 
talking about construction workers, in general, making between $20,000 
and $23,000 a year. You are talking about workers doing carpentry and 
floors making $20,000 to $23,000. Workers in plumbing, heating, and air 
conditioning, $21,000 to $24,000 a year. Electrical workers, $22,000 to 
$25,000 a year. Painting and paper hanging, $18,000 to $21,000 a year. 
These are the average annual wages for workers in the construction 
industry.
  What in the world do we have against these hardworking men and women? 
We are not talking about the CEO of Pizza Hut that is making more than 
$1 million a year. We are not talking about the top CEO's of the major 
companies with their golden parachutes to protect them if they make 
mistakes that cause their companies to do poorly. We are not talking 
about people with these kinds of privileges. We are talking about hard 
working people that are trying to make a living in the construction 
trades and are prepared to do the hard work. Many in the construction 
trades in my city of Boston drive all the way up to Alaska to look for 
work, and they are separated from their families. These are the people 
that supposedly are making too much money. That is unfair.
  Mr. President, we are committed to moving forward on the issue of 
Davis-Bacon reform, in the areas which have been outlined. We are 
serious about trying to accommodate the need to rationalize and 
streamline the Federal procurement process. But we must remember the 
men and women whom the Davis-Bacon Act is intended to protect. It is a 
tough economy out there. In many of the trades in my State--generally, 
throughout New England--you are talking about 50 or 60 percent 
unemployment that is still as high as 50 or 60 percent. So let's not 
talk about nickel and diming these people.
  If you are going to invest taxpayers' money in constructing public 
buildings, you want to have the best skilled men and women that are 
available to do it. As John Dunlop, the leading construction economist 
in the country and a former Republican Secretary of Labor has pointed 
out, lower wage costs do not necessarily translate into lower overall 
project costs, because higher paid, better trained workers may be 
significantly more efficient on the job and do higher quality work, 
which means lower maintenance and repair costs in the future. Maybe you 
pay $1 or $2 more in wages to the workers, but you save more in the 
long road savings because of the efficiency and skills of the workers 
and the quality of work they perform.
  So, Mr. President, I give the assurance to our friend and colleague 
that we are prepared to come to grips and deal with this issue. We have 
legislation before us. We have a very significant and major initiative 
by the administration in dealing with many of these provisions. We are 
committed to try to get that out, hopefully, perhaps before the end of 
the year. We are glad to do that. Hopefully, we will be able to get 
legislation out of our committee with support on different measures, 
and we would welcome the opportunity to do so.
  But it seems to me that this trying to effectively flyspeck a 
particular legislation on this that is dealing with a very, very small 
amount--I mean $100 million is a significant amount, but you are 
talking about schools across the country that it is going to. I want to 
make sure that when the funds are used in terms of trying to do 
something for the school facilities that it is going to be done well.
  You know, it is interesting that this is targeted on the 
rehabilitation of schools for the poorest children. This is wonderful, 
is it not? It is schools for the poorest children, and that has been in 
the crosshairs of this amendment. Why is not it on some other kind of a 
project? It is schools for the poorest children in America.
  We give the assurance that we will have legislation. We will get it 
out as early as possible. Then we will debate it, and I think we will 
be able to craft it in ways that will deal with some of the worthwhile 
points that have been raised, but do it in a responsible way.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. While there is not a unanimous-consent request, we are 
operating under a gentlemen's agreement at this time. I ask how much 
time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has approximately 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me respond only briefly to what the 
chairman of the committee has just said.
  First of all, we are not talking about history. I am not interested 
in history. I am interested in what one-half billion dollars today will 
do for poor kids. You are darn right this will go to the poorest kids 
in the poorest school districts, and it is the poorest school districts 
that cannot afford that extra 30 or 40 or 50 percent cost in wages that 
the chairman is talking about.
  If we are talking about education, let us spread that education 
dollar and build those facilities in the poorest districts instead of 
having school districts walk away because they cannot meet that 
standard. That is what we are talking about here.
  Now, the chairman said it was only a small amount of money. In my 
State, one-half billion dollars is half the State's budget for an 
entire year. I think to the average taxpayer listening one-half billion 
dollars is an awful lot of money.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, the provision is $100 million 
for construction.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is $100 million, plus $400 million out of the HHS 
budget. It is a combination of the total of the two that this provision 
applies to in the total grant program.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Some is out of Energy. I will put the exact figure in 
the Record.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CRAIG. Fine.
  Let me correct myself, because the chairman is right on the $100 
million. It is a $400 million total. It is a $400 million total that 
applies to this provision that we are talking about.
  I do not think anyone, Mr. President, is interested and wants to 
undercut the construction worker, but let me give you an example of 
what we are talking about.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    June 11, 1993.
     Re Davis-Bacon Act.
     Hon. Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: With the recent emphasis on spending 
     cuts, I would like to offer my opinion as to the easiest way 
     to save money; repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.
       This act sets a wage and befits rate for various 
     construction trades that must be paid on all public works 
     jobs. This rate is directly decided by trades national union. 
     It needlessly increases the cost of labor and gives an unfair 
     advantage to union shops.
       To show you just how much money is wasted, my father-in-law 
     is an electrical contractor in Los Angeles County, 
     California. In his office the highest paid electricians wage 
     is $15.00 per hour. This same employee is paid $33.38 (wage 
     plus benefits) when working on public jobs. That is over 200% 
     more per hour.
       I'm sure you are aware of the trade unions' opinions on 
     setting wage bases and standards, I just wanted you to know 
     how I feel.
       Please cut spending by repealing the Davis-Bacon Act.
       Thank you.
                                           Niccole Moyle Ferguson.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is a letter from a young lady in Star, 
ID. This does not appear to apply to Idaho, but she references her 
father-in-law who is an electrical contractor in Los Angeles County, 
CA. In his office the highest paid electrician's wage is between $15 
and $18 an hour. Now, on non-Federal jobs that is what the prevailing 
wage is. That is pretty good money. That means that those electricians 
can provide for themselves and their family. That is not a great 
living, but in today's effort where we are trying to get people to 
work, $15 to $18 an hour is pretty good money.
  If he works a private job on one side of the street that is what he 
gets paid. If he works a Federal job on the other side of the street 
the prevailing wage is $33.38 an hour, a 200 percent increase.
  In this particular area, Mr. President, we are talking about local 
school districts. We are not talking about huge Federal construction 
projects. We are talking about blending small amounts of grant money, 
25 percent or less, to local units of school districts and a State's 
money, and that 25 percent or less should not be the tail that wags the 
dog.
  That is why I am not interested in the history of Davis-Bacon. I do 
not want to debate it here today. I want to talk about how we are going 
to spread our Federal tax dollars today in a responsible way, just like 
the majority of Congress decided they are going to do in the crime 
bill. It is identical to the provision now in the crime bill.
  If the chairman of the committee votes for the crime conference, he 
is going to vote for this provision. So I ask him to join me and join 
the rest of the Senators and spread this across educational dollars.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator does not state accurately 
whether or not it is in the crime bill. The provisions in the crime 
bill have absolutely no relationship to the construction of the 
prisons, absolutely none.
  The only provision where this was included is the Conyers amendment, 
which lists a range of different programs, in which there may or may 
not be construction, and if it is considered within those areas, then 
that provision will apply. But there should be no suggestion in this 
debate that the provision that the Senator has identified is going to 
be applicable to the building and construction of prisons.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I do not believe I mentioned construction 
of prisons. I said in construction programs in the crime bill.
  Now, the dollars in the Conyers amendment would go to enhance 
facilities for both criminal and noncriminal. We are talking about 
facilities in the neighborhoods for midnight basketball, and those kind 
of things. We are talking about that combination of expenditures.
  This amendment does apply, and I think the chairman recognizes that. 
I am not suggesting that in major Federal prison construction programs 
this would apply.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator clarified it 
because I think most Members would feel this applies to the crime bill, 
which has billions of dollars in there for prison construction. The 
provision that he has identified has absolutely nothing to do with 
that. He is correct on the Conyers basic preventive programs that talk 
about Head Start programs, that talk about education programs, 
continuing education programs. If there has to be some adjustment to 
existing facilities in a limited provision in terms of any kind of 
construction it would be applicable in those areas.
  I doubt if we will have the kind of even amount of construction that 
we have talked about in this bill that would be $100 million.
  Whatever time remains I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is recognized 
for the remaining time of 9 minutes.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for my friend 
from Idaho. But I have to tell him he is too late. We have had this 
amendment on the floor in various forms and fashions I do not know how 
many times, maybe 40, maybe 50, maybe 60 times. It is regularly voted 
down because the majority of the Members of this body recognize the 
legitimacy of the Davis-Bacon Act.
  When he says that he does not think anyone wants to undercut 
construction workers' wages, let me just say he may not think that 
anyone wants to undercut them, but the reality is that this amendment 
would undercut them. If you take away the Federal protection that is 
provided under the Davis-Bacon Act, then you are effectively slashing 
the wages of construction workers. Construction workers are not paid 
that well. Yes, they get a pretty fair hourly wage, and nobody will 
argue that. But they do not work a full 52 weeks, due to weather 
conditions and economic conditions. Sometimes you get a job and you 
work on it for 6 weeks and you do not get another job for a month's 
time.
  I have a man who helps us at our home who was a construction worker, 
but now there is no work for him, so he comes and does some handiwork 
around the house.
  That is the transient nature of construction work. You do not go into 
one plant and just work there day in and day out. You find the jobs as 
they move around, and if the contractor does not get the job, you do 
not have any work.
  So an average worker who does find 9 months of work during a given 
year makes maybe around $22,000 a year, hardly a high wage, certainly 
not one that we here in the Senate would want to cut.
  Let me make one other point. Construction work is one of the most 
dangerous occupations in this country, and construction workers 
regularly face substantial safety risks on the job. It really would not 
be right to take away from them the decent wages that they are 
presently making.

  Now let us take a look at our actual experience under this act. In 
1971, President Nixon suspended the Davis-Bacon Act during the wage and 
price freeze. Over 1,000 contracts that had already been put through 
the bidding process were rebid. Do you know how much they saved? Oh, it 
was magnificent. It was a great savings because the Davis-Bacon Act did 
not apply. On average, the rebid contracts cost only six-tenths of 1 
percent less than they had when they were bid under Davis-Bacon. And 
even that paltry difference may be due to factors other than the 
absence of Davis-Bacon protections.
  So I say that the evidence shows that exempting projects from the 
Davis-Bacon Act really does not save any money. The fact is that the 
cost-savings estimate underlying this amendment represents nothing more 
than wishful thinking. We here in the U.S. Senate should stand up and 
say we are not going to be a party to cutting the wages of decent men 
and women who are trying to earn a living in the construction trades. 
And, effectively, if the Craig amendment were to pass, that is exactly 
what we would be doing.
  I am confident the amendment will not pass. We have defeated it time 
and time and time again, and I believe we will defeat it again today.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I would like to add my support to the amendment that is before us. I 
would like to reference this idea that if we really want to help the 
poor areas, in this case with reference to poor schools, that we should 
reject this.
  Last year I went to Philadelphia. I went to meet with the mayor of 
Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, who is doing a tremendous job as mayor of 
Philadelphia, and who I consider a friend. I asked him to show me the 
neighborhoods in Philadelphia where they truly have problems of massive 
unemployment, security problems, where the kids are having a hard time.
  We went to some of these neighborhoods where there was graffiti 
everywhere, where there were bars on the windows of all the homes, the 
shops, churches. The churches and the hospitals in this particular 
neighborhood were also covered with graffiti--I could not believe that 
even churches were covered--and where it was a dangerous area.
  But in the center of this was a new housing unit that had been built 
by those people in that area. I met with the construction supervisor, 
whose name was Carlos. Carlos, in his discussion with me--in showing me 
the quality of the workmanship that they were so proud of, and the fact 
that this was one island in that neighborhood that was totally unmarked 
by graffiti, it did not have bars on the windows--he brought up and 
volunteered--I did not even bring up the topic--but he said, ``Please, 
do something about Davis-Bacon because, if we could remove Davis-Bacon 
provisions on these types of projects, we could build more of them and 
employ more people. It is what my people in this neighborhood of 
Philadelphia need to have happen so that we can bring about some better 
quality housing and bring about dignity into that area.''
  Carlos said to me, ``Please, do something about the Davis-Bacon 
Act.'' This is a first step.
  I would not say that my colleague from Idaho is late in bringing this 
up. Thank goodness, he is persistent, like a number of people are going 
to be persistent until finally we do something with the Davis-Bacon 
Act.
  Mr. President, I yield my time back to the senior Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. In keeping with the understanding I had with the chairman, 
I think I have about a minute remaining. I will make a few concluding 
statements, and then I will ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio said we were too late. You are 
never too late with a good idea. And, by the way, this amendment has 
never been offered on the floor of the Senate before. This is the first 
time we have attempted to take these small grants --in other words, 
that tail that wags the dog--and say it should not be doing this, and 
exempt that.
  Of course, my colleague from Idaho just gave a perfect example. When 
we are talking about minorities today, we are talking about locking 
them out of the process, locking them out of their ability to blend 
with Federal dollars, and do for themselves what they so desperately 
want to do.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from the 
National Association of Minority Contractors be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            The Davis-Bacon Act--Summary of NAMC's Position

       The National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC) 
     supports legislation to significantly reform the Davis-Bacon 
     Act of 1931. The Act seems benign in requiring contractors to 
     pay locally ``prevailing wages'' to their workers on 
     federally financed construction contracts exceeding $2,000. 
     However, it discriminates against small and small 
     disadvantaged construction firms, as well as lower skilled 
     construction workers, by effectively prohibiting wages 
     competing with union rates on federally financed projects.
       Minority-owned firms and minority construction workers are 
     particularly impacted by Davis-Bacon's onerousness due to 
     being disproportionately represented among smaller firms and 
     lower skilled workers, respectively. But Davis-Bacon's 
     onerous impact on small and minority firms and workers does 
     not end there. The Act also raises the costs of federally 
     financed construction by as much as $900 million annually, 
     and therefore makes little sense in light of President 
     Clinton's efforts to reduce the national deficit and 
     streamline the federal government.
       While commending Vice President Gore's National Performance 
     Review (NPR) in identifying recommendations for cutting costs 
     and streamlining the government, NAMC holds that the specific 
     NPR proposal to raise the current $2,000 Davis-Bacon 
     threshold to $100,000 will do little to lift the Act's unfair 
     burden on minority-owned firms and minority construction 
     workers. A $100,000 Davis-Bacon threshold would conform 
     cosmetically with the ``simplified acquisition threshold'' 
     currently under consideration by the Clinton administration, 
     but would nonetheless fall short of the urgent need for 
     fairer treatment of small business concerns, and the more 
     efficient use of taxpayers' dollars in the federal 
     procurement process.
       NAMC stands against the leading proposal for implementing 
     the NPR Davis-Bacon proposal, H.R. 1231/S. 627, and, instead, 
     advocates H.R. 2042/S. 916 which has been introduced by 
     Representatives Charles Stenholm (D-TX) and Harris Fawell (R-
     IL), and by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), respectively. The 
     Stenholm/Fawell/Craig ``Davis-Bacon Reform'' bill not only 
     raises the Davis-Bacon threshold to a realistic $500,000, but 
     also includes provisions going a lot further toward 
     correcting the onerousness of Davis/Bacon than H.R. 1231/S. 
     627.


               why the davis-bacon act should be reformed

       The Davis-Bacon Act poses an historical burden on 
     minorities in the construction industry which continues to 
     this day. The Act has not only kept minorities from advancing 
     as construction contractors and laborers, but has also cost 
     the government huge amounts in excessive federal spending on 
     construction for far too long. The reasons that merit 
     significantly reforming Davis-Bacon are long-standing and 
     agreed upon by most firms in the construction industry, 
     minority and white-owned alike.
       1. The Davis-Bacon Act is legally and morally obsolete. 
     Legislative history shows that the Davis-Bacon act was passed 
     during the Depression-era primarily to keep Southern black 
     construction workers from competing with white construction 
     unions on public works projects. The Act's discriminatory 
     origins have effectively blocked minority participation in 
     the construction industry for over 60 years.
       Today, Davis-Bacon has the effect of preventing small and 
     minority-owned firms from bidding on public works contracts 
     which comprise at least one-fifth of all construction in the 
     U.S. Davis-Bacon also has the effect of freezing out lower-
     skilled minority workers from job opportunities in the public 
     works arena, not only at the federal level, but also at the 
     state level, where many ``Little Davis-Bacon'' Acts are 
     currently in effect.
       The constitutionality of Davis-Bacon as it stands is 
     extremely doubtful at best. The Act's original discriminatory 
     intent, coupled with its continuing discriminatory impact, 
     merits repeal by Congress, if not significant anti-
     discriminatory reform.
       2. The Davis-Bacon Act curbs free market competition by 
     effectively eliminating small and disadvantaged firms from 
     bidding on federal construction work. Defenders of Davis-
     Bacon argue that the Act is necessary to protect local 
     contractors and local labor markets from unfair, itinerant 
     competition. However, the facts do not bear this out. Rather 
     than protecting local contractors from unfair competition, 
     Davis-Bacon has practically fostered a closed group of large 
     contractors who follow federal and federally financed 
     construction work around the country to the exclusion of 
     smaller, local contractors.
       Smaller, local contractors who typically cannot pay their 
     workers union-scale are discouraged from bidding on Davis-
     Bacon work for a number of reasons. First, being forced to 
     pay union-scale on Davis-Bacon work compels smaller 
     contractors to either maintain unreasonably high rates 
     when bidding on private work, or jump back and forth 
     between union and market wage rates, neither approach 
     making good sense in the running of a small business. 
     Second, small local contractors are discouraged from 
     employing lower-skilled workers (often young minorities) 
     for on-the-job training because they cannot justify the 
     rates which they must pay these workers. Third, small 
     local contractors are pressured to keep bidding on Davis-
     Bacon work to the exclusion of private contracting 
     opportunities because of the cycle of high operating costs 
     into which they are locked after getting into Davis-Bacon 
     work. In short, Davis-Bacon works against small local 
     contractors by effectively removing labor from the 
     competitive bidding process typical of most construction 
     projects. Davis-Bacon creates a two-tiered industry in 
     which small and minority-owned firms are forced to stay 
     away from bidding on federal contracts because of the 
     unnecessarily high business risk involved.
       Davis-Bacon not only fails in its claim of protecting local 
     contractors and workers, but also fails in its historical 
     justification of this claim. As mentioned earlier, the Act 
     should properly be recognized as curbing economic liberty for 
     reasons originally having less to do with economics than with 
     racial animus. Even today, minorities remain grossly 
     underrepresented in the unions protected by Davis-Bacon, a 
     fact which many attribute more to the legacy of racism than 
     to the inability of minorities to compete for union 
     positions. It is roughly estimated that the typical 
     construction union minority worker is lucky to be employed 
     more than five or six months out of the year.
       3. The Davis-Bacon Act fails to reflect the cross-
     disciplinary approach to work in today's construction 
     industry. Davis-Bacon requires work assignments and payroll 
     reporting along rigid craft-by-craft lines reminiscent of the 
     1930s. It fails to reflect industry practice in private 
     sector construction today. The only firms equipped to meet 
     Davis-Bacon's outdated ``work rules'' are typically large, 
     unionized contractors who, over time, have carved out special 
     departments within their operations specifically tailored for 
     Davis-Bacon work.
       Minority-owned firms are particularly affected by Davis-
     Bacon's outdated work rules because they are typically too 
     small in size and too limited in capital to adjust their 
     operations merely for compliance purposes. Lower skilled 
     minority construction workers also suffer because they are 
     prevented from advancing through on-the-job, learning since 
     they required to be rigidly locked into limited, inflexible 
     scopes of work at the bottom of the employment ladder.
       4. The Davis-Bacon Act overburdens the federal government 
     by requiring the Department of Labor to undertake the 
     impractical task of issuing and maintaining accurate wage 
     determinations in numerous localities nationwide. Davis-Bacon 
     has been described as a ``Prolific artificial numbers 
     factory.'' Objective observers, including the General 
     Accounting Office (1979 Study), have found that the sheer 
     volume of administrative work involved in pursuing wage 
     determinations creates an overwhelming burden on the 
     Department of Labor. It is widely assumed that DOL Analysts 
     use or approximate union rates in coming up with ten to 
     twenty thousand wage determinations annually, a significant 
     percentage of which fail to reflect actual prevailing market 
     conditions. Davis-Bacon should be reformed to allow wages to 
     reach equilibrium at realistic rates reflecting true market 
     conditions in the construction industry.
       5. The Davis-Bacon Act has an unwarranted negative impact 
     on the federal budget. The Congressional Budget Office 
     estimates that Davis-Bacon adds as much as $900 million a 
     year to federal construction costs. This level of federal 
     spending is an unjustifiable waste of taxpayers' dollars. 
     Davis-Bacon is a wasteful law which should be reformed to 
     save significant tax dollars and free up funding for other 
     pressing federal procurement needs.


             why namc supports the davis-bacon reform bill

       NAMC supports H.R. 2042/S. 916 which has been introduced in 
     the House by Representatives Charles Stenholm (D-TX) and 
     Harris Fawell (R-IL), and in the Senate by Senator Larry 
     Craig (R-ID), respectively. The result of a bi-partisan 
     effort, this ``Davis-Bacon Reform'' bill promises 
     modifications to the Davis-Bacon Act removing its most 
     onerous elements. While many of NAMC's members advocate the 
     outright repeal of Davis-Bacon, NAMC acknowledges that repeal 
     would be unnecessary if Congress would take the kinds of 
     corrective action so urgently needed. The following specific 
     items supported by NAMC are included in the Davis-Bacon 
     Reform bill.
       1. The Davis-Bacon Reform bill would increase the Davis-
     Bacon threshold to contracts involving more than $500,000. 
     The Davis-Bacon Reform bill exempts from Davis-Bacon federal 
     and federally assisted projects for construction, alteration 
     or repair valued at $500,000 or less. It also proposes a 
     prohibition on contract-splitting to safeguard against 
     potential abuse of this higher threshold.
       The $500,000 threshold is significantly better than the 
     bifurcated threshold proposed under H.R. 1231/
     S.627 (discussed further below). It is not only less 
     confusing, but would open up relevant numbers of small 
     contract opportunities for those small and minority-owned 
     businesses which have typically avoided Davis-Bacon 
     because of its costly and anti-competitive impact.
       2. The Davis-Bacon Reform bill would expand the use of 
     helpers in public works contracts. The Davis-Bacon Reform 
     bill opens the door for the expanded use of helpers in 
     federal and federally assisted construction work. The bill 
     defines ``helpers'' as a separate class of workers for whom 
     the DOL must make appropriate prevailing wage determinations. 
     The bill essentially codifies DOL regulations which have 
     withstood more than ten years of judicial and administrative 
     review. It potentially opens up entry-level opportunities at 
     competitive wage rates not only for minorities but for all 
     lower-skilled workers seeking jobs on federal and federally 
     assisted projects.
       3. The Davis-Bacon Reform bill would reduce burdensome 
     paperwork requirements by cutting back on Copeland Act 
     mandated weekly payroll reports. Under the Davis-Bacon bill, 
     current Davis-Bacon requirements for weekly submissions of 
     complete, certified payroll records would be significantly 
     reduced. The bill proposes amending the Copeland Act to 
     require contractors to submit payroll statements ``no less 
     often than every 3 months.''
       The Davis-Bacon Reform bill goes significantly further than 
     H.R. 1231/S. 627 in relieving small and minority-owned 
     businesses from the overwhelming burdens of excessive 
     paperwork.
       4. The Davis-Bacon Reform bill would allow for determining 
     ``prevailing wages'' more accurately to reflect private 
     sector wage rates. The Davis-Bacon Act currently does not 
     define ``prevailing wages,'' but the Davis-Bacon Reform bill 
     codifies a definition that would bring DOL wage 
     determinations more accurately in line with the private 
     sector wage levels of localities nationwide. By requiring the 
     Secretary of Labor to exclude wage rates under federal 
     contracts from its prevailing wage determinations, the Davis-
     Bacon Reform bill ensures that these determinations will 
     reflect real private sector market rates. Having wage 
     determinations that fall in line with real market rates would 
     allow nonunion and small contracting firms to bid for federal 
     contracts in fair competition with the large unionized 
     construction firms.
       5. The Davis-Bacon Reform bill exempts federal prevailing 
     wage requirements from primarily local projects. The Davis-
     Bacon Reform eases the burden of federal prevailing wage 
     requirements on state and local construction projects by 
     proposing a formula which would apply DOL wage determinations 
     only where federal funding covers at least 25% of a project's 
     cost. This addresses the problem of federal wage rate 
     interference in state and local projects involving low 
     amounts of federal funding.
       6. In addition to the above, the Davis-Bacon Reform bill 
     eliminates the current prohibition on the use of volunteers 
     on federally funded projects; reduces the disruptive impact 
     of prevailing wage determinations on contractors in rural 
     areas; and codifies regulations repealing the 30% rule 
     requiring contractors to pay wages at the same rate paid in 
     an area by large union contractors. The combined package 
     offered by the Davis-Bacon Reform bill is significantly more 
     responsive to the needs of small and minority-owned 
     businesses and minority workers than H.R. 1231/S. 627, 
     discussed below. At the same time, the Davis-Bacon Reform 
     bill shows promise of being more palatable to the large, 
     powerful union contractors than the outright repeal of Davis-
     Bacon.


                   why NAMC opposes H.R. 1231/S. 627

       H.R. 1231/S. 627 has been introduced by Representatives 
     Austin Murphy (D-PA) and Bill Ford (D-MI), and by Senator Ted 
     Kennedy (D-MA), in the House and Senate respectively. While 
     the bill appears on its surface to reduce the onerousness of 
     Davis-Bacon by raising the compliance threshold from $2,000 
     to $100,000, it in fact creates increased burdens on 
     minority-owned companies and workers by expanding the scope 
     of the Act. Following are specific reasons why NAMC opposes 
     H.R. 1231/S. 627.
       1. H.R. 1231 proposes a bifurcated increase in the Davis-
     Bacon threshold which would provide little relief from the 
     Act's currently unfair burden on small and minority-owned 
     businesses and minority workers. Section 2(b)(1) of H.R. 1231 
     proposes increasing the Davis-Bacon threshold from $2,000 to 
     $100,000 for new construction, and $15,000 for building 
     alternations, repairs, renovations, etc. The potentially 
     positive effect of this new, bifurcated threshold is 
     unfortunately lost on its problematic drawbacks.
       In the first place, the new threshold still falls far short 
     of what would be necessary to open up relevant opportunities 
     for market participation by small and minority businesses 
     and lower-skilled workers in government construction. A 
     more realistic, single threshold of $500,000 would allow 
     small businesses to sustain real growth without the 
     drawback of unfair prevailing wage and other burdensome 
     Davis-Bacon requirements. It would also create job 
     openings for lower-skilled workers on construction work 
     funded by the federal government. Such a threshold has 
     been introduced under H.R. 2042/S. 916 proposed by 
     Representatives Charles Stenholm (D-TX) and Harris Fawell 
     (R-ID), and by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), respectively.
       A second reason why the new threshold is a problem is that 
     bifurcation creates a likelihood of high administrative costs 
     both to the government and Davis-Bacon contractors, as well 
     as increased litigation and plain confusion regarding which 
     federal contracts will and will not be affected by Davis-
     Bacon. A single threshold set reasonably high (e.g. at 
     $500,000) would not only be less confusing than a bifurcated 
     threshold, but would also reduce administrative costs to the 
     government and small businesses along lines tying in to 
     recommendations currently under consideration by the Clinton 
     administration (in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
     of 1993) regarding contract cost principles and cost and 
     pricing data.
       A third reason why the new threshold is a problem is that 
     the ``contract bundling'' rules written into Section 2(b)(3) 
     of H.R. 1231 could be used by government departments and 
     agencies to combine federal contracts in ways that would make 
     the bifurcated threshold inapplicable. As a result of 
     contract bundling, many small and minority-owned firms could 
     continue to be blocked from taking on Davis-Bacon work 
     otherwise within their capabilities.
       A final reason why the new threshold is a problem is that 
     any minor gains by small and minority-owned firms and workers 
     through prevailing wage exemptions under the bifurcated 
     threshold would be practically negated by other, related 
     provisions of H.R. 1231 discussed in items 2 through 7 below.
       2. H.R. 1231 practically guarantees prohibitive minimum 
     wage requirements for small and minority-owned businesses by 
     excluding contracts under $100,000 from the Secretary of 
     Labor's prevailing wage determinations. Section 3(b)(1) of 
     H.R. 1231 requires the Secretary of Labor to consider private 
     and government construction contracts alike in making 
     prevailing wage determinations. It further requires the 
     Secretary to exclude contracts below the new bifurcated 
     threshold in its wage determinations. Since smaller, private 
     contracts tend to involve lower wage rates, Section 3(b)(1) 
     requirements would have the effect of driving up the wage 
     levels found to be ``prevailing'' in any given area.
       Small and minority-owned firms currently unable to afford 
     Davis-Bacon rates would continue to be frozen out of the 
     Davis-Bacon market because of unreasonably high DOL 
     prevailing wage rate determinations.
       3. H.R. 1231 curbs minority business development and raises 
     federal government costs by eliminating the ``site of work'' 
     restriction currently in effect under Davis-Bacon. The ``site 
     of work'' limitation in Davis-Bacon was recently upheld in 
     Building & Construction Trades Dept. v. Dept. of Labor 
     (Midway Excavators) 932 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1991). It ensures 
     that prevailing wage requirements apply only to onsite 
     construction within the geographical confines of a federally 
     financed project. It currently serves to hold back an 
     explosion of litigation regarding the extent to which a wide 
     range of off-site businesses are impacted by Davis-Bacon.
       By eliminating the ``site of work'' limitation, H.R. 1231 
     risks extending the burden of Davis-Bacon to all kinds of 
     off-site workers tangentially involved in federal 
     construction projects. Small and minority enterprises seeking 
     business opportunities in such areas as manufacturing, 
     material supplies and deliveries would effectively be 
     overwhelmed by the burdens and potential risks of being 
     deemed a falling under Davis-Bacon. The federal government 
     would also be forced to endure an unreasonable and 
     unjustifiable growth in construction costs as a result of 
     excessive prevailing wage requirements spreading to 
     industries (such as steel manufacturing or truck deliveries) 
     never intended by Congress to be covered by Davis-Bacon.
       4. H.R. 1231 unduly restricts the use of ``helpers'' on 
     Davis-Bacon work, thereby freezing lower-skilled workers out 
     of the public works job market. Under Section 2(c)(4), H.R. 
     1231 defines Davis-Bacon ``helpers'' as ``separate and 
     distinct'' from laborers and mechanics, and restricts their 
     use in such a way as to effectively prevent their ability to 
     get hired on Davis-Bacon work, or to advance through on-the-
     job training if hired.
       The effect of H.R. 1231 would be to discourage minority 
     workers, many of whom are unskilled and non-union, from 
     seeking entry level positions in federal construction work. 
     The lower-skilled minority worker unable to command union pay 
     (due to lack of apprenticeship training), and willing to 
     offer services at below-union rates, would be preempted from 
     seeking work altogether for two reasons. First, potential 
     employers would be hard-pressed to find a position for such 
     worker entailing duties completely ``separate and distinct'' 
     from duties traditionally undertaken by laborers and 
     mechanics. Second, even if such a worker could get hired, he 
     or she would soon be discouraged upon learning that the law 
     prohibited advancement through on-the-job learning. In the 
     long run H.R. 1231 would entrench unemployment at the 
     lowest rungs of the economic ladder by removing labor from 
     the competitive bidding process on public works contracts. 
     Helpers exist for a legitimate economic purpose well-
     recognized in the construction industry, and should not be 
     forced by Congress out of the competitive process merely 
     to protect unionized labor.
       Congress' recent action prohibiting the DOL from 
     implementing helper regulations promulgated under the Reagan 
     administration would seem to suggest a lack of sensitivity 
     to, or understanding or, the truly harmful effect which 
     Davis-Bacon has had and continues to have on minority 
     businesses and workers. NAMC urges Congress to rigorously 
     review the issue of helpers before taking further steps 
     entrenching Davis-Bacon's onerous effects on minorities and 
     the national economy as a whole.
       5. H.R. 1231 fails to rigorously address the paperwork 
     burden imposed by Davis-Bacon on small businesses. The 
     Copeland Anti-Kickback Act of 1934 requires employers on 
     Davis-Bacon contracts to submit complete, certified payroll 
     records to the Department of Labor or its contracting 
     agencies every week. Complying with this requirement mandates 
     significant adjustments for small firms which typically 
     operate on a two-week payroll cycle. The Davis-Bacon 
     paperwork requirement poses an especially harsh burden on 
     minority contractors lacking the required staff or capital 
     needed to ensure compliance.
       While H.R. 1231 attempts to alleviate the paperwork burden 
     by requiring monthly rather than weekly payroll reports, this 
     step falls far short of the kind of reform needed for genuine 
     paperwork reduction. The paperwork reduction proposal offered 
     under H.R. 2047 (mentioned earlier) requiring payroll 
     statements ``no loss than every three months'' would address 
     existing Davis-Bacon paperwork burdens more efficiently.
       6. H.R. 1231 unnecessarily expands the scope of Davis-Bacon 
     to contracts on leased government facilities, a step which 
     would deter small and minority contractors otherwise seeking 
     to compete for such contracts. Section 2(b)(4) of H.R. 1231 
     proposes expanding Davis-Bacon to cover construction, 
     renovation, alteration or other work on buildings leased by 
     the federal government under lease agreements requiring such 
     work. By expanding Davis-Bacon to cover such facilities, H.R. 
     1231 would negatively impact small and minority firms, as 
     well as the federal government. Davis-Bacon currently poses 
     sufficient hardship to small and minority contractors without 
     being extended to contracts involving leased government 
     facilities.
       7. H.R. 1231 leaves the door open for abuse and costly 
     litigation by expanding Davis-Bacon's scope and coverage 
     without rigorously addressing the Act's overly harsh impact 
     on small and minority-owned firms and minority workers. By 
     expanding the already overly burdensome Davis-Bacon Act, H.R. 
     1231 would most likely create a climate of legal and 
     regulatory noncompliance by firms incapable of meeting its 
     requirements. Furthermore, cumbersome provisions in Section 4 
     allowing laborers, mechanics and ``interested persons'' to 
     file challenges against the DOL and/or Davis-Bacon 
     contractors would encourage all kinds of costly litigation on 
     provisions in Sections 2 and 3 of the bill relating to such 
     issues as state wage law preemptions, wage/fringe benefit 
     combinations, ERISA preemption, multiple contract bundling, 
     and helper classifications. The potential costs of such 
     litigation far outweigh any possible benefits which H.R. 1231 
     could have as it currently stands.


                               conclusion

       While many of NAMC's members advocate repealing the Davis-
     Bacon Act, NAMC supports H.R. 2042/S. 916 because of the 
     serious effort this bill makes in addressing the most enerous 
     aspects of Davis-Bacon. The Davis-Bacon Reform bill is 
     significantly more tolerable than H.R. 1231/S. 627, which, 
     for the most part, attempts to expand Davis-Bacon without 
     paying sufficient attention to the harmful effects this would 
     have on the economy as a whole, and on small-business 
     concerns and minorities in particular.
       Congress' recent vote prohibiting the DOL from implementing 
     helper regulations promulgated under the Reagan 
     administration would seem to suggest a lack of information or 
     real understanding of the truly harmful effect which Davis-
     Bacon has had, and continues to have, on small and minority-
     owned businesses and minority workers. NAMC calls on 
     President Clinton and Congress to conduct a rigorous review 
     of the plight of all small and minority-owned construction 
     firms and minority construction workers before taking steps 
     further entrenching Davis-Bacon's onerous effects on the 
     national economy.
  Mr. CRAIG. Clearly, Mr. President, that is what we are talking about 
in part here.
  But let us back up and remember what we are saying here. We are 
talking about around $400 million of Federal grants to improve 
educational facilities in limited ways, to maximize and leverage local 
dollars, school board dollars, State tax dollars, to make sure that 
poor kids and not-so-poor kids can have the very best educational 
facilities available, and why should we penalize them by an antiquated 
law. That is what we are talking about.
  Recognizing that my time is probably very nearly up, as we vote on 
this, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment introduced by my colleague from Idaho. This amendment, which 
the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee defeated by a vote of 
12-5 on June 15, 1994, would weaken the fair wages provision in title 
XV of S. 1513--the Improving America's Schools Act.
  Mr. President, title XV would authorize the Secretary of Education to 
allocate $400 million directly to local school districts in fiscal year 
1995 for the repair, renovation, alteration, and construction of public 
elementary and secondary school facilities.
  In order to ensure that workers on these federally funded projects 
receive at least the prevailing wage in their locality for their kind 
of work, this title includes a fair wages provision that would direct 
local school districts to meet the requirements in the Davis-Bacon Act.
  I support the fair wages provision in title XV of S. 1513 not only 
because it protects workers, but also because it provides important 
safeguards for businesses, taxpayers, and the Federal Government.
  The Davis-Bacon Act has enjoyed strong bipartisan support since its 
enactment in 1931. While many of the act's most ardent supporters have 
traditionally been Democrats, this legislation was originally 
introduced by a Republican Representative from New York, Robert Bacon, 
and signed into law by a Republican President, Herbert Hoover.
  Contracting practices in the 1930's required Federal projects to 
accept the ``lowest responsible bid.'' The concept of responsibility, 
however, did not include the consideration of wages and working 
conditions. Thus, the question arose as to whether the Federal 
Government was ``willing for the sake of the lowest bidder to break 
down all labor standards and have its work done by the cheapest labor 
that can be shipped from State to State.''
  During the debate on the Davis-Bacon Act, the Secretary of Labor, 
William Doak, noted that contracting practices in 1931 were ``not only 
disturbing to labor but disturbing to the business community as well.''
  In the committee report on the Davis-Bacon Act, Robert Lafollette, 
Republican Senator from Wisconsin, stated that:

       The measure does not require the Government to establish 
     any new wage scales in any portion of the country. It merely 
     gives the Government the power to require its contractors to 
     pay their employees the prevailing wage scales in the 
     vicinity of the building projects. This is fair and just to 
     the employees, the contractors, and the Government alike.

  A similar report was filed by Richard Welch, a Republican 
Representative from California, for the House Committee on Labor.
  Mr. President, as I have already said, the Davis-Bacon Act not only 
protects workers, it also protects businesses, taxpayers, and the 
Federal Government.
  By promoting fair wages, the Davis-Bacon Act ensures that the workers 
on federally funded projects receive at least the prevailing wage in 
their locality for their kind of work.
  By promoting fair wages, the Davis-Bacon Act gives local businesses a 
fair chance to compete for Government projects on the basis of skill 
and efficiency, rather than losing this work to disreputable 
competitors who would underbid by paying substandard wages.
  By promoting fair wages, the Davis-Bacon Act protects taxpayers and 
the Federal Government from fly-by-night contractors whose substandard 
wages would attract substandard workers and result in shoddy 
construction work, requiring still more tax dollars for higher repair 
costs and additional maintenance over the life of the project.
  Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act is as important in the 1990's as 
it was in the 1930's. Last year, three researchers at the University of 
Utah found that the repeal of the Utah State prevailing wage law 
``accelerated the decline in the union share of the State's 
construction labor market, drove down average construction wages in the 
State, and decreased union apprenticeship training for construction''--
a decrease which was not offset by other public or private training 
funding.
  The NAACP recognized the importance of the Davis-Bacon Act last year 
by passing the following resolution at its annual convention:

       Whereas, people of color have entered the construction 
     industry in increasing numbers in the past. Today, they are 
     threatened with the loss of many of the economic and social 
     gains made over the last several years; and,
       Whereas, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 protects the wages of 
     all construction workers, including minorities and women, who 
     are particularly vulnerable to exploitation; and,
       Whereas, shocking examples of the exploitation of 
     minorities and female workers on the construction site, even 
     in the face of the Davis-Bacon Act, the law designed to 
     prohibit such exploitation, are legion; and, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the NAACP supports the Davis-Bacon Act, 
     takes steps to strengthen its enforcement, and supports the 
     creation of opportunities through training and apprenticeship 
     programs.

  I would also like to submit a letter from the AFL-CIO in support of 
the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Mr. President, Senator Kennedy recently introduced S. 627 which 
includes a comprehensive series of amendments to the Davis-Bacon Act. 
This bill presents a fair and balanced approach to the issues that have 
been raised in the course of our debates over this important statute. I 
firmly believe that the amendment offered today by my colleague from 
Idaho regarding the Davis-Bacon Act should be considered during the 
debate on S. 627 and not during the debate on the reauthorization of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA].
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my 
colleagues to support fair wages for the men and women who build our 
bridges, our highways, our hospitals, and our schools by opposing this 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         American Federation of labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1994.
       Dear Senator: It is our understanding that sometime later 
     today Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) will offer a very damaging 
     amendment to remove the Davis Bacon provisions that are 
     contained in the infrastructure education portion of S. 1513. 
     Improving America's Schools Act of 1993. The construction 
     authorized by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun language is very 
     important to the infrastructure needs of American education 
     system. The David Bacon language that Senator Craig is 
     attempting to remove from Senator Moseley-Braun amendment is 
     the normal Davis Bacon language that applies to federal 
     construction. It is the same Davis Bacon language that exists 
     in over 60 other federal states that provide federally funded 
     construction monies.
       It should be noteworthy for those Senators who are 
     interested in across-the-board Davis Bacon reform that just 
     today the Senate Labor Committee held a hearing on 
     legislation to provide across-the-board Davis Bacon reform. 
     It is our hope that across the board Davis Bacon reform 
     legislation can hopefully move to the Senate floor in the 
     near future. In summary, we urge the defeat of the Craig 
     amendment and we urge the retention of the traditional Davis 
     Bacon language that has been incorporated into S. 1513.
           Sincerely,
                                    Robert M. McGlotten, Director,
                                        Department of Legislation.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Craig 
amendment. This amendment, Mr. President, merely ensures that Federal 
dollars spent on improving our Nation's schools will be spent as wisely 
as possible. It is designed to enable our schools to get the most for 
the dollars they spend.
  In many rural areas, Davis-Bacon adds extra costs to public works 
construction. That, in turn effectively keeps smaller contractors from 
competing with larger operations. In addition, the Davis-Bacon 
requirements increase construction costs in disadvantaged communities. 
This is blatantly unfair.
  During consideration of the safe drinking water bill, I offered an 
amendment exempting disadvantaged communities from Davis-Bacon. It was 
simply an attempt to level the playing field for contractors from small 
communities, who so often cannot afford to meet expensive wage 
requirements. This includes communities in both rural and urban 
locations.
  In the bill we are debating today, educational grants are destined to 
go to the local educational agencies with the greatest needs. These 
tend to be extremely rural and extremely urban areas. These truly are 
our disadvantaged communities.
  When it comes to rural areas, Davis-Bacon is a plain raw deal. 
Nationally, Davis-Bacon adds 3.1 percent to total construction costs. 
But in rural areas, Davis-Bacon increases construction costs by nearly 
40 percent. This is true because of the wage differentials. It should 
surprise no one that in the most rural sections of this country, wages 
are not as high as they are in the rest of the country. Wages don't 
have to be as high and there are many good reasons for that.
  I hope that my colleagues from agricultural and rural States will 
understand that every time a Senator representing an ``Ag State'' votes 
to strengthen or to preserve Davis-Bacon, that Senator is also voting 
to injure the competitive position of small contractors in the 
disadvantaged communities at home.
  Davis-Bacon has been harshly criticized by most rural and inner-city 
groups. Among such critics is the National School Boards Association. 
Others include the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, National Center 
for Neighborhood Enterprise, National Association of Counties, National 
League of Cities, National Association of House and Redevelopment 
Officials, National Taxpayers Union, and the American Farm Bureau.
  The Congressional Budget Office has told us on more than one occasion 
that Davis-Bacon has an inflationary effect on private construction 
costs, not to mention Federal spending. Moreover, the Government 
Accounting Office has called for a complete repeal of Davis-Bacon, 
because we waste a billion bucks each year as a result of this law.
  This amendment, however, doesn't even come close to repeal. I think 
it is so important to point out that under this amendment, only those 
projects that receive more than 25 percent of its funding from the 
Federal Government would be subject to Davis-Bacon.
  Mr. President, this is a fairness issue. At a certain point, even 
supporters of Davis-Bacon must realize that applying it to financially 
strapped schools is counterproductive. Schools in disadvantaged areas 
cannot even afford textbooks and pencils for every student, yet some 
think it is just fine to spend 40 percent more than we have to on 
school construction. It truly defies common sense.
  Why should we penalize those communities that most need financial 
relief? If we want to give them more bang for the buck, we should 
exempt them from Davis-Bacon requirements as another means of financial 
assistance. These communities need our help.
  So, with that in mind, I would hope that each and every Senator will 
find it very easy to support this reasonable and modest attempt to do 
more to improve our Nation's deteriorating school systems and provide a 
much-needed dose of economic stimulus to our disadvantaged communities.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
to the Improving America's Schools Act proposed by the Senator from 
Idaho. The Davis-Bacon Act has successfully protected construction 
workers from exploitation for over 60 years. During this time, Congress 
has considered many proposals to amend the Davis-Bacon Act. The current 
proposal put forth by the Senator from Idaho merely represents a 
piecemeal approach to reforming the act. While I believe that the 
Davis-Bacon Act needs to be reformed, I cannot support a piecemeal 
approach to this objective.
  During the tenure of the Davis-Bacon Act, many working class families 
in this country have come to depend upon this law to protect their wage 
standards; any legislation which seeks to compromise this protection 
would compromise their well being. Also, by paying the prevailing wage, 
the Federal Government is able to hire skilled workers, workers whose 
competency results in higher quality construction and thus, long-term 
savings.
  If we are going to reform the Davis-Bacon Act, we should do it right. 
We need broad-based, concrete Davis-Bacon reform. Reform that will 
modernize the application of the act, improve the administration and 
enforcement of the act, and most importantly, ensure continued 
prevailing wage protection for construction workers. The piecemeal 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Idaho merely seeks to circumvent 
the principles prescribed by the Davis-Bacon Act.
  When considering Davis-Bacon reform, we must look at the whole 
picture and address the areas in need all at once. It is for this 
reason that I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yield back.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I again want to thank the Senators from 
Idaho for their courtesy and their accommodation of working this 
amendment through, and their willingness to enter into a time 
agreement. Important hearings are taking place and the Senator has been 
extremely cooperative in being willing to permit the vote on his 
amendment.
  We will have a vote, up or down, on the amendment, hopefully, after 
the Senate has had consideration of the Kassebaum amendment that is 
going to deal with the vocational education regulations. We want to 
give the assurance that we will have it, hopefully, in a timely way.
  What we are trying to do, at least in spirit, is to conform to what 
was agreed to by the two leaders last evening, and that is to address 
these remaining items during the course of the morning and permit the 
hearing process to move through.
  So I am very grateful to them for that. I want to give the assurance 
that, no matter how this comes out, we will be, I am sure, working with 
the Senator from Idaho and others who are concerned about this.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. May I inquire of the Senator, what is the Senator's 
intention? Are we going to lay this aside?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We would then lay this aside. I understand Senator 
Kassebaum will be on the floor momentarily and we will address her 
particular amendment, and then we will consult with her, as well as 
Senator Craig, and work out the time for the resolution of both of 
those amendments, which I suspect will be later in the morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying the amendment 
aside?
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, would the chairman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. My understanding is the Kassebaum amendment will be 
debated, and then you will stack these votes together, both this 
amendment and the Kassebaum amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what basically we are looking at is the 
Kassebaum amendment. I have been informed by Senator Hutchison that she 
will introduce an amendment dealing with the Women's Equity Provisions 
that are included in the legislation. We will come back at some time in 
the later morning to the Smith amendment that has been amended and will 
be open, as I understand it, to additional potential amendments.
  So we again invite our colleagues--we are not inviting them to submit 
more amendments, but we do indicate, at least from the floor managers' 
position, that is the way we are going to proceed. We are going to try 
to do that in as expeditious a way as possible so the Senate can move 
on to a very important appropriations bill and other business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 2438

 (Purpose: To temporarily prohibit the promulgation of new regulations 
  to carry out the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
                     Education Amendments of 1990)

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2438.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IV of the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.  . CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL AND APPLIED TECHNOLOGY 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning on 
     June 1, 1994, and ending on the date of enactment of an Act 
     reauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
     Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the 
     Secretary shall not issue any new final regulations to 
     implement such Act.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to avoid 
an unnecessary, premature, and potentially devastating change in policy 
for vocational education programs by the Department of Education. The 
amendment prohibits the Secretary of Education from issuing any new 
final regulations to implement the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied 
Technology Education Act until the completion of the reauthorization of 
that law.
  If I may just explain for a moment what brings me to this point--I 
think it is of concern to some of my colleagues who will wish to speak 
to it briefly.
  When the vocational education law was reauthorized in 1990 there was 
substantial debate over the degree to which special population students 
should have access to vocational education. Some wanted to mandate that 
these students have access to these programs and be provided the 
supplementary services that they would need to participate fully.
  The Department interpreted the law to require States to provide 
services to special population students in federally-funded programs. 
This was consistent with my position on this issue and, I think, that 
of a number of others. I believe States should not be required to offer 
the full range of services across all vocational education programs, 
but only those programs that were federally funded should offer full 
access.
  The Department is now facing a lawsuit by several groups that 
represent special populations who allege the current regulations 
prohibit equitable participation for them. Department officials have 
indicated that they hope to settle the lawsuit if they change their 
interpretation of these regulations to require that States provide 
these services in all programs, not just federally funded programs.
  However, changing the regulations at this time, I would argue, is 
inappropriate for several reasons.
  First, we will reauthorize the Perkins Act next year and will look at 
this issue more comprehensively during that process. The issue of 
whether disabled and disadvantaged students have access to quality 
vocational education programs and whether they have the support they 
need to succeed in these programs will certainly be examined in detail 
during that reauthorization. It simply does not make sense, I believe, 
Mr. President, to make a change of this magnitude--and it is 
significant--through the regulatory process when the law may change in 
a year.
  Second, this change would represent a new unfunded Federal mandate on 
States which will have to use State funds to supplement insufficient 
Federal funds to provide these services. This is a violation of the 
President's Executive Order 12875 on Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership, since it would impose a regulatory change on States 
without providing the funds necessary to pay direct costs incurred by 
the State or local governments in complying with the mandate.
  The Department has asserted that these costs could be supported by 
other Federal programs, such as the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act [IDEA], or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
that we are debating now. This is a rather presumptuous claim, I think, 
since our promise to fund 40 percent of IDEA costs has never been 
fulfilled either. So to assume there would be more money there, I 
think, adds insult to injury.
  Third, the National Assessment of Vocational Education indicates 
that:

       Special population students * * * are overrepresented in 
     secondary vocational education. In 1992, the 34 percent of 
     all high school graduates who were members of special 
     population groups earned 43 percent of all vocational 
     credits. Special population students are a somewhat larger 
     proportion of all vocational students now than they were 10 
     years ago, and higher achieving students are a smaller 
     proportion.

  It seems the Department's premise that disabled and disadvantaged 
students do not have access to vocational programs has been discounted 
by the Department's own report. While overall vocational enrollments 
have declined, the percentages of special population students enrolled 
in these programs have increased.
  Fourth, States have just turned in their State plans under Perkins. 
The deadline was May 1. The State review and approval process is 
extensive and requires evaluation of the State vocational technical 
system, 60-day reviews by interested organizations and public hearings 
before the plan is forwarded to Washington. A change in the regulations 
now would require each State to submit revised plans. The State 
Directors of Vocational and Technical Education estimate that the 
additional review, revision and public comment periods will cost each 
State $100,000, or $5 million across the country. These funds would be 
much better spent on providing program and student services.
  Fifth, this change would cause unwarranted confusion and program 
disruption at the local level.
  Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of vocational education 
programs. I am a strong supporter of making certain that access is 
available to all. But I think allowing these regs to go forward at this 
time, without giving the necessary thought to the reassessment costs, 
when we will be reauthorizing the Carl Perkins legislation next year, 
is the wrong step to take. I hope my colleagues will join me in support 
of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is an amendment that would 
effectively prohibit the Department of Education from issuing any new 
final regulations on the Perkins Act. The issue is that after the last 
reauthorization in 1990, the Bush administration issued regulations 
that did not include the participation of special needs children in the 
program and the Clinton administration is issuing regulations to 
correct the situation. So Senator Kassebaum, I believe on behalf of 
herself and Senator Cochran, is offering this amendment. They will call 
it, effectively, an unfunded mandate.
  I will oppose the amendment. I will refer in just a moment to the 
Department of Education's letter expressing their strong opposition. 
This amendment would interfere with the Department's authority to carry 
out the provisions of the Perkins Act as intended by the Congress.
  The regulations themselves are in no way an unfunded mandate. They 
are, rather, the steps the Department is taking to make sure that 
special populations have access they need to the Perkins-funded 
programs. In the funded programs, we want to make sure the special 
needs children are going to have access to those programs.
  The legislation of 1990 was very clear about its intention, having 
all students included in these programs. The evidence we have shows 
that they are left out. So there was a clear intention they be included 
in the program and clear evidence they are not participating in the 
program, and it justifies the reasons for the regulations themselves.
  The most recent National Assessment of Vocational Education report 
shows the problem is most serious at the secondary school level, where 
the special needs and limited English proficient students are not being 
included in the technical careers.
  I will include in the Record the list of the various groups, the 30 
organizations representing students and educators, who oppose the 
regulations as proposed by the Department of Education in 1991.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Alternative Schools Network.
       American Association of University Women.
       American Foundation for the Blind.
       The Arc (formally the Association for Retarded Citizens).
       ASPIRA Association, Inc.
       American Occupational Therapy Association.
       Center for Law and Education.
       Center for Law and Social Policy.
       Council for Exceptional Children.
       Division on Career Development, Council for Exceptional 
     Children.
       Education Law Center--New Jersey.
       Education Law Center--Pennsylvania.
       Epilepsy Foundation of America.
       Learning Disabilities Association.
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
       National Association for Bilingual Education.
       National Association of Developmental Disabilities 
     Councils.
       National Association of Vocational Assessment in Education.
       National Association of Vocational Education Special Needs 
     Personnel.
       National Coalition of Title I/Chapter 1 Parents National 
     Council of La Raza.
       National Head Injury Foundation.
       National NAACP.
       National Puerto Rican Coalition.
       National Rehabilitation Association.
       National Urban Coalition.
       National Urban League.
       Spina Bifida Association of America.
       The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
       United Cerebral Palsy Association.
       Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Association.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these are some of the groups who have 
been most involved in term of the development of the legislation and 
the approach of Congress.
  I will just reference the letter from Secretary Riley. I ask 
unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of Education,


                                                The Secretary,

                                                    July 13, 1994.
     Hon. Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Nancy: Thank you for your letter of May 31, 1994 about 
     possible changes to the regulations implementing the Carl D. 
     Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act 
     (Perkins Act). I hope you will excuse the delay in my reply.
       Your letter specifically referred to the provisions of the 
     regulations that pertain to services for special populations. 
     You expressed concerns that the possible changes would far 
     exceed the scope of the federal law, create an ``unfunded 
     federal mandate'' in violation of Executive Order 12875, turn 
     the Perkins Act into a civil rights statute, and because of 
     the timing, create unwarranted confusion and disruption, 
     especially with the reauthorization process coming in the 
     near future.
       The concerns raised in your letter are very important and I 
     gave them full consideration in developing and transmitting 
     possible revisions to the regulations to the Office of 
     Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Let me assure you 
     that the concerns that you and others have raised will 
     continue to receive our attention as we consider whether to 
     change the regulations.
       As Department staff indicated in meetings with several 
     Congressional staff members, and in consultations with 
     representatives of various interested parties, the Department 
     is concerned about the way in which the current regulations 
     have been working, especially with regard to the provision of 
     services to special population students. Under the current 
     regulations, we believe that special populations may not be 
     gaining access to the full range of vocational education 
     programs, because they may not be receiving the services they 
     need to have a reasonable opportunity to succeed. We are 
     concerned that the current regulatory provisions on equal 
     access and full participation may contribute to the apparent 
     practice of tracking special populations into only a few, 
     lower-skill program areas.
       As you know, representatives of members of special 
     populations have filed suit against the Department, 
     challenging the current regulations governing full 
     participation and supplementary services as denying special 
     populations access to high-quality vocational education 
     programs. National Puerto Rican Coalition v. Riley, Civ. 
     Action No. 92-2905 (D.C.C. filed Dec. 30, 1992). We believe 
     that the statute is ambiguous and the current regulations are 
     legally supportable. However, we are concerned about the 
     policy embodied in the current regulations governing full 
     participation, whether that policy best carries out 
     Congressional purpose, and how that policy may contribute to 
     some of the problems with access and success in vocational 
     education for special populations.
       Under the revised provision being considered, the 
     requirement that a recipient of funds under Title II, Part C 
     of the Perkins Act provide for the full participation of 
     members of special populations, including the provision of 
     supplementary services, would apply to the recipient's entire 
     vocational education program, not merely its projects funded 
     by the Perkins Act. This possible change is consistent with 
     one of the Congressional purposes in enacting the Perkins 
     Act--namely, assuring that students who are economically 
     disadvantaged, students of limited English proficiency, 
     students with disabilities, and women have access to 
     vocational education and any special services they need in 
     order to succeed. The change being considered would address 
     concerns that special population students are poorly served 
     in many vocational education programs. I believe that changes 
     to address these concerns should be considered before the 
     reauthorization takes effect, which is likely to be more than 
     two years away.
       We are very sensitive to the issues expressed in your 
     letter. As a former governor, I am aware of and share many of 
     the current concerns about ``unfunded mandates.'' In that 
     regard, we have been careful to ensure that changes under 
     consideration are consistent with the Executive Order on 
     unfunded mandates and will not create a new civil right, in 
     the sense that there will not be a new individual entitlement 
     to services. We fully share your concern that any change be 
     consistent with the statute and minimize disruption to the 
     program. I hope that you will carefully review the changes, 
     if they are proposed, and consider how they address the needs 
     of students, as well as the concerns expressed in your 
     letter.
       We initiated the meetings with Congressional staff and 
     other interested parties to ensure that we had public input 
     on these important issues before we finally decide whether to 
     propose changes to the regulations. We have carefully 
     considered the comments we received, including your letter, 
     before transmitting the possible changes to the regulations 
     to OMB for review. If we decide to propose changes to the 
     regulations, we will particularly invite public comment on 
     the important issues you and others have raised. Section 
     504 of the Perkins Act required regional meetings and a 
     negotiated rulemaking process only for the issuance of 
     initial regulations issued under the Perkins Act, and we 
     do not anticipate conducting negotiated rulemaking on the 
     possible changes described above. The consultative process 
     that we have initiated and the opportunity for public 
     comment will serve similar purposes. Moreover, through 
     public comment, we will ensure that we have heard from all 
     interested parties before any final decision is made to 
     change the regulations. I can assure you that any 
     rulemaking process we conduct on this matter will be 
     meaningful, and that all comments received will be 
     carefully reviewed and considered.
       Thank you for sharing your views on these important issues 
     with me. If I can provide further assistance to you, please 
     contact me.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Richard W. Riley.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just read part of the letter. It 
says:

       Dear Nancy: Thank you for your letter of May 31, 1994 about 
     possible changes to the regulations implementing the Carl D. 
     Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act 
     (Perkins Act). I hope you will excuse the delay in my reply.
       Your letter specifically referred to the provisions of the 
     regulations that pertain to services for special populations. 
     You expressed concerns that the possible changes would far 
     exceed the scope of the federal law, create an ``unfunded 
     federal mandate'' in violation of Executive Order 12875, turn 
     the Perkins Act into a civil rights statute, and because of 
     the timing, create unwarranted confusion and disruption, 
     especially with the reauthorization process coming in the 
     near future.
       The concerns raised in your letter are very important and I 
     gave them full consideration in developing and transmitting 
     possible revisions to the regulations to the Office of 
     Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Let me assure you 
     that the concerns that you and others have raised will 
     continue to receive our attention as we consider whether to 
     change the regulations.
       As Department staff indicated in meetings with several 
     Congressional staff members, and in consultations with 
     representatives of various interested parties, the Department 
     is concerned about the way in which the current regulations 
     have been working, especially with regard to the provision of 
     services to special population students.

  This is the important part:

       Under the current regulations, we believe that special 
     populations may not be gaining access to the full range of 
     vocational education programs, because they may not be 
     receiving the services they need to have a reasonable 
     opportunity to succeed. We are concerned that the current 
     regulatory provisions on equal access and full participation 
     may contribute to the apparent practice of tracking special 
     populations into only a few, lower-skill program areas.

  The letter continues with the reasons for that particular conclusion.
  I hope after we do have an opportunity to hear from Senator Harkin, 
who is our chairman of the committee dealing with special needs, that 
this amendment will not be accepted.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I join Senator Kassebaum in urging the 
Senate to approve this amendment. She has very adequately stated the 
reasons for adopting the amendment. I simply want to add a word of 
support for the effort she is making by offering the amendment and 
calling the attention of the Senate to this important need. It is a 
need to come to the rescue of local administrators who are wrestling 
with the challenge of trying to spread too few dollars over too many 
needs at the local level.
  What the Department of Education is purporting to do by issuing these 
regulations is to put another mandate, another requirement, another 
directive on the backs of local administrators to tell them how to use 
their money. There is no Federal funding that goes along with this new 
regulation that is proposed to be implemented, but there is the force 
of law that would require them to channel their funds into yet another 
Federal program.
  The Federal effort is, of course, to make available to disadvantaged 
populations, or so-called special populations, the benefits of 
vocational education.
  One thing needs to be pointed out, though. Local administrators and 
local officials have made giant strides to make accessible and 
available to these special populations the benefits of vocational 
education. GAO, for example, in a 1993 report says that 60 percent of 
those in vocational education programs now come from these special 
populations.
  So the question has to be asked today: If the purpose of the new 
Federal regulation that is being proposed is to encourage more 
participation, it seems that local administrators have done a great 
deal to achieve that goal. Of course, we hope that more can be 
achieved, but to impose a new affirmative action requirement from the 
Federal Government at this time in an area of the law that comes up for 
reauthorization next year seems to be getting the cart before the 
horse.
  If we have a reauthorization program approved by the Congress next 
year which has new requirements in it, then, of course, the Department 
is going to have to implement those requirements through regulations. 
What the Senator from Kansas is saying is, why saddle the local and 
State officials now at this late hour in the life of this Perkins 
vocational education bill with a new requirement that is unfunded when 
we are just about to begin hearings in the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee to determine what changes need to be made in the law?
  If these changes need to be made, let us reauthorize it, let us spell 
it out in the law, but let us not sit back while the Department 
overregulates the State administrators with requirements that will cost 
them money. It will make them less able to deal with the challenges 
that they face in other areas in vocational education.
  I know others know more about this subject than I do. It seems to me 
to make perfectly good sense to adopt the amendment of the Senator from 
Kansas, and I hope the Senate will do so.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I regret that I must oppose the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Kansas. Senator Kassebaum's amendment would 
preclude the Department of Education from issuing any new final 
regulations to implement the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
Technology Education Act.
  Mr. President, the Department has proposed changes in Perkins Act 
regulations pertaining to services for special populations. These 
regulatory changes are urgently needed to ensure that students with 
special needs have access to vocational and applied technology programs 
in our Nation's schools. I commend the Secretary for taking the 
initiative to pursue these changes. They are necessary changes and I 
wholeheartedly support them.
  When we reauthorized the Perkins Act in 1990, we gave particular 
attention to enhancing services for special populations. Indeed, both 
houses of Congress included language to accomplish this critical 
objective in their respective bills. For instance, the House bill 
contained requirements for State level assurances and for local 
assurances that special populations would be served. Further, the House 
bill required State Boards to assure that such populations have access 
to programs and that individuals with handicaps be served in conformity 
with the Education of the Handicapped Act and section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act. The House bill required that each school district 
and institution of higher education assure that the special needs of 
students would be met in integrated setting. The Senate agreed to 
include these requirements in the final bill.
  The Senate bill specified that the special populations to be served 
include: The economically disadvantaged, individuals with disabilities, 
individuals who participate in programs designed to eliminate gender 
bias and stereotyping in vocational education, students of limited-
English proficiency, economically disadvantaged adults, and criminal 
offenders--both juveniles and adults--who are serving in correctional 
institutions. The House agreed to include this definition of special 
populations in the final bill.
  Mr. President, I could go on at great length describing the 
additional provisions we included in the 1990 reauthorization measure 
to ensure that special populations would have access to vocational and 
technical education services. The legislative history on this question 
is clear: Congress intended that individuals with special needs be 
served.
  Unfortunately, the Perkins Act regulations developed under the 
previous administration do not adequately address the needs of these 
special populations. For this reason, this administration appropriately 
seeks to change the regulations.
  As Secretary Riley wrote in his letter of July 13 to Senator 
Kassebaum,

       * * * we believe that special populations may not be 
     gaining access to the full range of vocational education 
     programs, because they may not be receiving the services they 
     need to have a reasonable opportunity to succeed. We are 
     concerned that the current regulatory provision on equal 
     access and full participation may contribute to the apparent 
     practice of tracking special populations into only a few, 
     lower-skill program areas.

  Clearly, we cannot permit this deplorable situation to continue.
  As Secretary Riley points out in his letter, the Department initiated 
meetings with congressional staff and other interested parties to seek 
input prior to deciding whether to propose changes to the regulations. 
The Department is continuing to solicit comments on its proposed 
regulations prior to developing final regulations. The regulatory 
process is proceeding as it should and I see no reason for Congress to 
interfere in that process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
Secretary Riley's letter to Senator Kassebaum be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 U.S. Department of Education,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 1994.
     Hon. Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
     Ranking Republican, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Nancy: Thank you for your letter of May 31, 1994 about 
     possible changes to the regulations implementing the Carl D. 
     Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act 
     (Perkins Act). I hope you will excuse the delay in my reply.
       Your letter specifically referred to the provisions of the 
     regulations that pertain to services for special populations. 
     You expressed concerns that the possible changes would far 
     exceed the scope of the federal law, create an ``unfunded 
     federal mandate'' in violation of Executive Order 12875, turn 
     the Perkins Act into a civil rights statute, and because of 
     the timing, create unwarranted confusion and disruption, 
     especially with the reauthorization process coming in the 
     near future.
       The concerns raised in your letter are very important and I 
     gave them full consideration in developing and transmitting 
     possible revisions to the regulations to the Office of 
     Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Let me assure you 
     that the concerns that you and others have raised will 
     continue to receive our attention as we consider whether to 
     change the regulations.
       As Department staff indicated in meeting with several 
     Congressional staff members, and in consultations with 
     representatives of various interested parties, the Department 
     is concerned about the way in which the current regulations 
     have been working, especially with regard to the provision of 
     services to special population students. Under the current 
     regulations, we believe that special populations may not be 
     gaining access to the full range of vocational education 
     programs, because they may not be receiving the services they 
     need to have a reasonable opportunity to succeed. We are 
     concerned that the current regulatory provisions on equal 
     access and full participation may contribute to the apparent 
     practice of tracking special populations into only a few, 
     lower-skill program areas.
       As you know, representatives of members of special 
     populations have filed suit against the Department, 
     challenging the current regulations governing full 
     participation and supplementary services as denying special 
     populations access to high-quality vocational education 
     programs. National Puerto Rican Coalition v. Riley, Civ. 
     Action No. 92-2905 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 30, 1992). We believe 
     that the statute is ambiguous and the current regulations are 
     legally supportable. However, we are concerned about the 
     policy embodied in the current regulations governing full 
     participation, whether that policy best carries out 
     Congressional purpose, and how that policy may contribute to 
     some of the problems with access and success in vocational 
     education for special populations.
       Under the revised provision being considered, the 
     requirement that a recipient of funds under Title II, Part C 
     of the Perkins Act provide for the full participation of 
     members of special populations, including the provision of 
     supplementary services, would apply to the recipient's entire 
     vocational education program, not merely its projects funded 
     by the Perkins Act. This possible change is consistent with 
     one of the Congressional purposes in enacting the Perkins 
     Act--namely, assuring that students who are economically 
     disadvantaged, students of limited English proficiency, 
     students with disabilities, and women have access to 
     vocational education and any special services they need in 
     order to succeed. The change being considered would address 
     concerns that special population students are poorly served 
     in many vocational education programs. I believe that changes 
     to address these concerns should be considered before the 
     reauthorization takes effect, which is likely to be more than 
     two years away.
       We are very sensitive to the issues expressed in your 
     letter. As a former governor, I am aware of and share many of 
     the current concerns about ``unfunded mandates.'' In that 
     regard, we have been careful to ensure that changes under 
     consideration are consistent with the Executive Order on 
     unfunded mandates and will not create a new civil right, in 
     the sense that there will not be a new individual entitlement 
     to services. We fully share your concern that any change be 
     consistent with the statute and minimize disruption to the 
     program. I hope that you will carefully review the changes, 
     if they are proposed, and consider how they address the needs 
     of students, as well as the concerns expressed in your 
     letter.
       We initiated the meetings with Congressional staff and 
     other interested parties to ensure that we had public input 
     on these important issues before we finally decide whether to 
     propose changes to the regulations. We have carefully 
     considered the comments we received, including your letter, 
     before transmitting the possible changes to the regulations 
     to OMB for review. If we decide to propose changes to the 
     regulations, we will particularly invite public comment on 
     the important issues you and others have raised. Section 
     504 of the Perkins Act required regional meetings and a 
     negotiated rulemaking process only for the issuance of 
     initial regulations issued under the Perkins Act, and we 
     do not anticipate conducting negotiated rulemaking on the 
     possible changes described above. The consultative process 
     that we have initiated and the opportunity for public 
     comment will serve similar purposes. Moreover, through 
     public comment, we will ensure that we have heard from all 
     interested parties before any final decision is made to 
     change the regulations. I can assure you that any 
     rulemaking process we conduct on this matter will be 
     meaningful, and that all comments received will be 
     carefully reviewed and considered.
       Thank you for sharing your views on these important issues 
     with me. If I can provide further assistance to you, please 
     contact me.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Richard W. Riley,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Kansas. The amendment before us is very 
simple. It precludes the Department of Education from issuing new 
regulations before Congress reauthorizes the Carl Perkins Vocational 
and Applied Technology Education Act.
  Let me briefly explain the reasons for my support. The current 
vocational education regulations require federally funded vocational 
programs to provide services to special populations. These regulations 
have been in effect since the 1990 law was enacted. The administration 
is now proposing to change those regulations and require that all 
vocational programs, regardless of whether they receive Federal funds, 
provide services to special populations.
  Clearly, it is important that special populations be accommodated in 
every school and in every program. There is no question but that we 
must provide all populations with equal opportunities.
  However, there are three sound reasons why changing the regulations 
is not a good idea at this time.
  First, the Perkins Act is due to be reauthorized next year. That is 
an appropriate vehicle on which to debate and analyze the issue and 
determine whether a change in policy is necessary at that time. 
Changing the policy in midstream after the States just submitted their 
May 1 plan is both unfair and unwise public policy.
  Second, the change represents a stretch of Federal authority into the 
locally controlled school policy. We may be able to govern the way in 
which Federal funds are used but we should not be in the business of 
dictating to local educational agencies how to spend their own funds or 
how to structure their own programs.
  Finally--and this is the most important one--there is no evidence 
that the policy needs to be changed or that special needs populations 
are left out of vocational programs. It is quite the contrary. In a 
recent report by the National Assessment of Vocational Education, it 
states that ``At the local level the evidence strongly suggests the 
Perkins funding improves service provision for vocational special needs 
students.'' The report provides every indication that special needs 
populations are being adequately, if not overly, served in vocational 
programs. The report cautions against making Perkins the dumping ground 
for special needs students and instead encourages a stronger emphasis 
on guidance and counseling for these students. There is a tendency, 
unfortunately, in many areas to overly use Perkins for this purpose and 
not allow the special needs students to get better training for their 
purposes than perhaps the Perkins program may provide. So clearly 
changing the policy at this time does not make sense.
  For these reasons and the others stated by my colleague from Kansas, 
I urge my colleagues to support the Kassebaum amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my colleague from Vermont says changing the 
policy at this point does not make sense. And if we were changing 
policy, I would agree. What the Secretary of Education is doing is to 
bring the policy in the regulations in line with the law that we 
passed.
  In 1990, special populations--specifically economically disadvantaged 
students, students of limited English proficiency, women, men, and 
women who sought education and training opportunities in areas 
previously stereotyped as women's programs or men's programs, and 
finally students with disabilities--were a major focus.
  After the Secretary of Education from your State, Mr. President, 
Lamar Alexander, issued the regulations, six of us wrote a letter to 
him protesting those regulations, that they did not do what the law 
required. Congressman Ford, Congressman Martinez, Congressman Miller, 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Pell, and I sent this letter. I ask unanimous 
consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 Committee on Education and Labor,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 10, 1991.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing regarding the recently 
     published proposed regulations on the Carl D. Perkins 
     Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990. We 
     have several concerns regarding the regulations which we wish 
     to bring to your attention.
       While Congress significantly changed the mechanism by which 
     vocational education is delivered, the focus of the Act 
     remains the same: to make program improvements in vocational 
     education and to provide effective equal access to special 
     populations in vocational education programs.
       In the 1990 amendments to the Perkins Act, Congress 
     intended that equal access to vocational education programs 
     must be ensured for special populations in part by re-
     enforcing and augmenting the provisions of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504, 
     nondiscrimination under Federal grants to the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of 
     the 1972 Education Amendments. These laws entitle students to 
     equal access to the full range of education programs, 
     regardless of the sources of funds. This same principle 
     applies to vocational education programs. Students must have 
     the opportunity to access any vocational education program 
     with the support necessary to function equally, regardless of 
     who pays for those supportive services.
       The Perkins law assures that individuals who are members of 
     special populations will be provided with equal access 
     recruitment, enrollment, and placement activities and will be 
     provided with equal access to the full range of vocational 
     education programs available to individuals who are not 
     members of special populations, including occupationally 
     specific courses of study, cooperative education, 
     apprenticeship programs, and to the extent practicable, 
     comprehensive career guidance and counseling services, and 
     shall not be discriminated against on the basis on their 
     status as members of special populations.
       With regard to the specific uses of the Federal Perkins 
     vocational program funds, the Act requires that these funds 
     be used in programs that integrate academics with vocational 
     education, offer coherent sequences of courses, are of 
     sufficient size, scope, and quality as to be effective, and 
     that serve the highest concentrations of individuals who are 
     members of special populations. These programs are required 
     to provide supplementary services to students who are members 
     of special populations, including, with respect to 
     individuals with handicaps (A) curriculum modification, (B) 
     equipment modification, (C) classroom modification, (D) 
     supportive personnel, and (E) instructional aids and devices. 
     Federal Perkins funds cannot be used in programs that do not 
     meet these criteria.
       A related issue raised by the regulations is the use of the 
     term ``project''. The Act uses the term program; we believe 
     that regulations should be consistent with the Act and, 
     hence, the term ``program'' should be used throughout.
       As already noted, the Act requires that funds must be used 
     to integrate academic and vocational education through 
     ``coherent sequences of courses'' so that students achieve 
     both academic and occupational competencies. The Act also 
     seeks to require institutions to provide programs ``of such 
     size, scope, and quality as to be effective.'' Yet, the 
     proposed regulations permit a single adult course to qualify 
     as a sequence of courses. This is patently incorrect, and a 
     clear misinterpretation of the statute. Coherent series of 
     courses and sequential course of study should both be 
     interpreted as a ``series of courses'' and a single course is 
     not in compliance with the law.
       While we agree with the Department's regulations in 
     applying evaluations to an entire program of an institution 
     receiving funds, particularly in view of the fact that we 
     have not had desirable data from States in the past, we 
     believe that because of the expense involved and the 
     potential of this provision resulting in some school 
     districts and institutions rejecting Perkins' funds, we 
     believe that evaluations could be conducted on a sampling 
     basis or some other method to minimize the burden.
       The proposed regulations increase the frequency of 
     reporting and other accountability requirements of programs 
     funded under the Act. In the preamble to the 
     regulations, there is also a reference to America 2000 and 
     the Secretary's support for increased accountability. 
     Although we concur in terms of accountability in education 
     programs, we do not agree that the regulations should 
     expand on the law and require more paperwork for many of 
     the programs, (e.g. Indian Vocational Education Program, 
     Native Hawaiian Vocational Education Program, National 
     Tech Prep Education Program, etc.).
       Also, as part of the Department's accountability and 
     evaluation activities, we urge the Secretary to provide 
     resources and participate in conducting the pilot project 
     utilizing wage and other records authorized under Section 
     408(c)(1)(A) of P.L. 101-392 to provide high quality 
     longitudinal data on a cost-effective basis with minimum 
     administrative burden.
       As regards the National Center or Centers for Research in 
     Vocational Education, the proposed regulations allow up to 
     five preference points in the competition for the research 
     and development center and up to five preference points for 
     the dissemination and training center if an institution or 
     consortium demonstrates that it can effectively carry out 
     both the research and development and dissemination and 
     training activities of the Center. We believe that only 
     allowing five preference points is a minor consideration and 
     not the major consideration that Congress intended for an 
     institution or consortium which demonstrates that it can 
     effectively carry out both activities. If all activities can 
     be carried out at one center, that is obviously a desirable 
     objective; and therefore the law meant to encourage funding 
     one center if it could perform all these tasks.
       It also appears to us in terms of the manner in which the 
     proposed regulations are written, that two competitions would 
     be held for the National Center or Centers for Research in 
     Vocational Education. Two competitions, in our view, could 
     result in a process which could be awkward and extremely 
     time-consuming. It is Congress' intent that all applicants 
     could submit three applications in one competition. If after 
     applications have been reviewed for one center, none of the 
     applicants demonstrate the capability of effectively carrying 
     out both the activities, then the Department could proceed to 
     the consideration of separate applications without an 
     unnecessary delay or request for another competition.
       Thank you for your consideration of these views. We know 
     that the Department had a difficult task in writing these 
     proposed regulations, and you have performed it quite ably.
           Sincerely,
     Willaim D. Ford,
       Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor,
     Matthew G. Martinez,
       Chairman, House Subcommittee on Human Resources,
     George Miller,
       Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
       Chairman, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
     Claiborne Pell,
       Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and 
     Humanities,
     Paul Simon,
       Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Employment and 
     Productivity.

  Mr. SIMON. What we will do if we pass this amendment by my colleague 
from Kansas--and I have great respect for her, not only for her work 
here but her interest in Africa and other things. She is one of the 
finer Members of this body. But I think we would send the wrong signal 
if we accepted this. This amendment is strongly opposed by the 
administration, and I hope it will be strongly opposed by the Senate.
  Senator Kassebaum says it would nationwide cost us $5 million to 
implement. Compare that $5 million to what we do for disadvantaged 
students. The Center for Law and Education says--and I am quoting 
them--

       The futures of millions of students will be jeopardized if 
     remedy is delayed until reauthorization of the Perkins Act.

  Now, let us face it. That is an exaggeration, and I am sure Senator 
Kassebaum would say that is an exaggeration. And I would agree with 
that. I think it is fair to say the futures of tens of thousands of 
students will be jeopardized. When you compare that $5 million with the 
chance to make productive taxpaying citizens out of people, I think we 
will save many, many times that $5 million.
  So I hope the amendment will be rejected. It sends the wrong signal 
at the wrong time. What the Secretary of Education is simply doing is 
implementing the law that we passed. Frankly, the previous Secretary of 
Education--and I have great respect for him, but Secretaries of 
Education work with OMB and work with others, and sometimes they make 
political decisions. The previous Secretary of Education I think made a 
political decision and watered down what we passed, which was strong 
legislation. My hope is that the amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I question the 
presence of a quorum.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. SIMON. I withhold that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I might just respond briefly because I 
know others wish to speak.
  I should like to have made a part of the Record the support for my 
amendment by the American Association of School Administrators, the 
National School Boards Association, the American Vocational 
Association, and the State Directors of Vocational Education. All are 
in support of the amendment that I have offered.
  In response to the Senator from Illinois, I would suggest that as we 
have worked on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, we have wanted 
to address the concerns of special population students to make sure 
that their access to and participation in these programs was assured. I 
think the regulations that have been put forward now, however, have 
gone beyond the law. As I said in my opening remarks, this would be an 
unfunded mandate that is going to cause some serious problems for us, 
particularly when by next year we will have looked at it in ways that 
better assess the problems that need to be addressed, rather than doing 
it rather peremptorily with new regulations by the Department of 
Education.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have just been handed a statement by 
David Evans, who helps our subcommittee and who has been the right arm 
to Senator Claiborne Pell and to all of us. It says:
       The Department of Education is expressing serious concern 
     that the Kassebaum amendment would preclude the issuance of 
     final regulations to implement both School-to-Work 
     regulations pertaining to the tech prep and other Perkins Act 
     programs and a provision adopted last year as part of the '93 
     Technical Amendments to the Higheer Education Act. The latter 
     provision is essential to a number of rural community 
     colleges that have formed consortia for the purposes of 
     qualifying for Perkins Act program funds.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, may I ask the managers of the bill if 
this would be an appropriate time to lay aside an amendment and offer a 
short amendment which we will seek a rollcall vote on?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have the attention of the Senator, we want to 
address the Senator's concerns, which we are going to accept. But what 
I would like to do, if it is agreeable, is to permit Senator Harkin to 
speak for 10 minutes, and if the Senator wants an additional 10 
minutes, we would so include it. Then after that we would conclude the 
debate on Senator Kassebaum's amendment. Then we would consider Senator 
Pressler's amendment with a 10-minute time limitation, 5 minutes to 
each side, and then we would vote on all three amendments. That way it 
would be the least disruptive in terms of the Senate proceedings. It 
would give a sense of predictability to the Members in terms of their 
going ahead. That would be enormously helpful in terms of the floor 
managers.
  So I hope now that we can hear from the Senator from Iowa, and then 
if the Senator from Kansas needed additional time, she would take it. 
Then we would move on into the consideration of the Pressler amendment. 
Following that, we would move toward the three votes.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object to the Kassebaum amendment. I 
would like to take a few minutes to explain why. This amendment goes 
really against the wishes of Congress, which have been stated many 
times, in terms of overturning Grove City, the Civil Rights Restoration 
Act, in terms of IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
section 504; all of the progress that we have made in terms of reaching 
out, especially in education to make sure that States meet their 
constitutional responsibilities to provide equal educational 
opportunities for all students regardless of whether they are 
economically disadvantaged or physically or mentally disabled. We have 
come a long way in this regard. It seems that this would be a terrible 
step backward.
  I think the most important thing, though, Mr. President, is the 
breadth, the scope, of this amendment. I listened to the Senator from 
Kansas and the Senator from Mississippi earlier and their arguments. It 
sounded as if they were talking about some narrow little issue that 
they were concerned about. While it may be the case that they are 
concerned about a narrow issue, this amendment as it is drafted is 
extremely broad.
  Let me just read it again, Mr. President. It is a very simple 
amendment. It says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     shall not issue any new final regulations to implement such 
     Act  *  *  *.

  ``[S]uch Act'' being the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act.
  That is the amendment. It does not say he shall not issue any new 
final regulations concerning A, B, C, or D. And it says he shall issue 
no regulations concerning the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act.
  We passed this act in 1990. It will probably come up for 
reauthorization in 1995 or 1996. But the amendment of the Senator from 
Kansas is so broad it covers everything. It says the Secretary ``shall 
not issue any new final regulations'' to implement such act. I do not 
know that we have ever done that around here. I do not think the 
Senate, this Congress, has ever passed that kind of amendment to say 
that a Secretary cannot fulfill his constitutional requirements, the 
requirements to issue final regulations to implement the laws that we 
pass here.
  Let us say, for example, that later this year or next year the 
Secretary deems it important enough to issue a final regulation 
concerning disability issues under Carl D. Perkins. If we adopt this 
amendment, the Secretary will not even be able to issue a regulation 
concerning disability issues or any issues under that the way the 
amendment is written.
  So it is an extremely broad amendment. As I said, I do not know that 
we have ever done anything like that here.
  We have been through this fight before on whether we cover projects 
or programs. We had it with the Supreme Court case in Grove City. The 
Senator from Kansas is very much aware of that decision and what that 
decision did in terms of programs and projects. We passed the Civil 
Rights Restoration Act to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in 
Grove City. The Supreme Court said that it applies to projects. We said 
no, no. The intent of Congress was to cover programs, not just 
projects.
  So we passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act to reflect that. We had 
a specific vote on that issue. And the vote was 73 to 24. The Congress 
said, no; we meant to cover programs, the whole program, and not just 
specific projects. The Senator from Kansas was one of those voting in 
the majority of 73 to overturn Grove City to make it clear that we were 
talking about programs.
  Now the thrust of this amendment, as I understand it, while it is 
drafted so broadly, is to cover the issue of projects versus programs.
  Again, this whole issue of unfunded mandates I must speak about. This 
is not another unfunded mandate. We are not saying that States have to 
do this or that. We are saying that if a State provides funds for 
vocational education, it cannot do so in an unconstitutional manner. It 
cannot say, OK, we will provide vocational funds just for this sector 
of students but not for this sector. It must provide it and open it to 
all. That is under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States.
  What we have said here is that we believe that vocational education 
is so important that we will provide additional funds to the States to 
help them meet their constitutional obligations. It is not a mandate. 
We are just saying we are going to help you out. But in so helping you 
out, when we give you these funds, you cannot just funnel them all to 
one project and say, OK, we will provide the supplementary aid and 
supportive services there but we will not in any of the other projects 
under the program.
  I think that is, quite frankly, unconstitutional. It certainly flies 
in the face of what we decided in the 73-to-24 vote overturning the 
Grove City case.
  Let me give you some concrete examples of what I am talking about 
here, Mr. President. When Congress reauthorized the Carl Perkins Act, 
we said that special populations should enjoy equal access to all the 
courses of study, and we did it in a meaningful and effective manner. 
We wanted it to be meaningful and effective. For some special 
populations, the opportunity can only be meaningful and effective if 
they receive supplementary aid and assistance.
  Let us say a State says: We are going to open up a vocational program 
to deaf students, but we will not provide interpreters. Well, the deaf 
student has the right to take that vocational training, but without a 
deaf interpreter it is meaningless. So we said that you have to provide 
the supportive services to enable them to do that.
  In the same way, equal access to education is meaningless to 
economically-disadvantaged students unless they get compensatory 
education. Again, what happened was that Secretary Alexander issued a 
regulation saying that special populations are entitled to equal access 
to these vocational programs, but the responsibility to provide the 
supplementary aids and services only applies to the projects receiving 
the vocational education funds--right back where we were with the Grove 
City case.
  Thus, for example, Mr. President, if only the culinary arts project 
in a vocational education program received Federal aid, then the 
regulations provide that only that project is required to provide 
supplementary aid. If the computer programming project in the same 
program did not receive Federal aid, then there was no requirement 
under the Vo-Ed Act to provide the supplementary aids and services to 
make the opportunity to participate meaningful and effective.
  Again, we have some historical context here. Prior to the 1990 
amendments, the Vo-Ed Act included set-asides, or earmarks, for special 
populations. We said that is wrong, we do not want to have special set-
asides and programs. We are going to include them in the broad overall 
compass, like we have done under the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act, section 504, and everything else; we are going to bring 
everybody into this, and we will not have special set-asides. But we 
did it, expecting that all students would be provided with a high-
quality program, not just in the project but the entire program. That 
is what we said. We said ``program'' and not just ``project.''
  So what we have come down to here is the issuance of regulations, to 
ensure that the entire program is covered and not just a project. We 
used the word ``program'' in the act in 1990. We had already passed the 
Civil Rights Restoration Act. We knew what we were talking about when 
we said ``program.'' I believe that Secretary of Education Reilly ought 
to be given the opportunity to implement the congressional intent.
  So I guess my basic argument against the amendment goes down to these 
fundamental items: No. 1, it is so broad, the Secretary shall not issue 
any new final regulations to implement the act. Anything. It covers 
everything.
  Second, even if it were more specific and included ``project" versus 
``program,'' I would argue that this Congress decided that we wanted to 
cover programs, not just projects, that we wanted to make sure that 
supplementary aids and devices, whatever assistance was meaningful to 
students--so that a deaf student would not be just pushed into culinary 
arts, maybe a deaf student wants to take computer programming but 
cannot do it, unless they provide a deaf interpreter. But if the 
decision has been made that the Federal aid is channeled only to 
culinary arts, then that is the only place where that deaf student 
could get a deaf interpreter, and he or she could not get that support 
in computer programming.
  So what basically the thrust of this amendment would do would be to 
continue to try to funnel--and I know this is not the Senator's 
intention, but I think it is the effect of the amendment --it would be 
to funnel disadvantaged students, economically disadvantaged students, 
into certain kinds of dead-end jobs, because they would not receive the 
compensatory aid and the other types of aid that they need. We would 
set up almost a dual-track system.
  I am sure the Senator, in her remarks, will say, look, this does not 
cover disability because they are covered under section 504, under 
IDEA. That is right. So in vocational education we will have one track 
if you are physically disabled, mentally disabled; but if you are 
economically disadvantaged, if you come from a poor family and you may 
need special assistance or services, you are cut out of that. We will 
put you in the culinary arts program. But you will not be able to take 
computer programming because they do not receive any Federal aid.
  Well, Mr. President, the fact is that we knew what we were talking 
about in this Congress when we overturned Grove City. The Senator from 
Kansas voted to overturn Grove City. We knew what we were talking about 
in 1990 when we said ``program,'' not ``project.''
  Therefore, Mr. President, I think this amendment is one that ties the 
hands of the Secretary in a way that we have never done it before. 
Second, it goes against the clear intent of Congress in trying to cover 
vocational education programs and not just specific projects.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Iowa 
would yield for a question for a moment. I gather from his closing 
comments he still would not be supportive if indeed I defined it a bit 
more narrowly, as has been stated.
  What the amendment does is prohibit promulgation of any new final 
regulations under the Carl Perkins law. But I could change that to 
apply to only sections 117, 118, and 235 of the implementing 
legislation, as are under consideration. I gather that the Senator 
would still not be supportive. That is what the Department of Education 
is considering in its revision.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I did say that. I do believe 
this amendment is drafted too broadly. Obviously, the Senator narrowed 
it down. In my remarks, I said I would still be opposed because it 
would set up this dual-track system under vocational education. And I 
would have to oppose that because I think all of the students ought to 
be under the umbrella.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I wanted to raise that, Mr. President. I feel that we 
could better analyze what is happening next year when we hold oversight 
hearings. As I have said before--and I will not spend a lot of time on 
this again--I believe it is far better to approach this with some 
caution, particularly when the vocational educators themselves have 
grave reservations about how they will be able to handle the new 
regulations and fund these programs.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________