[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8480-S8487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to consideration of S. 440, the highway bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object. [[Page S8481]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is noted.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to proceed to the consideration of S. 440.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator wish to debate the motion?
  Mr. DOLE. I will yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, we in the Labor 
Committee held a single hearing on Senator Kassebaum's legislation to 
repeal outright Davis-Bacon, which has been in law for over 60 years.
  Last year, we worked long and hard on an alternative Davis-Bacon 
reform bill on which there had been bipartisan support. That was a 
responsible effort to deal with this issue and update the law.
  Today, with little warning, the highway bill is being brought to the 
floor, which contains a provision to repeal Federal prevailing wage-
rate requirements for highway construction, known as the Davis-Bacon 
law.
  This is part of the larger assault on working families, in this case, 
families of highway construction workers who make between $20,000 to 
$30,000 a year.
  This is central to the Republican agenda, and it is all in the name 
of deficit reduction--all while we protect the large military 
contractors, big corporations with huge tax breaks, oil companies, and 
others who have long been subsidized by the Federal Government.
  Today, without any additional hearings or time for reflection or 
careful consideration of reform alternatives--and my colleague from 
Massachusetts will be speaking on this in just a moment--we are faced 
with a bill that would overturn 60 years of labor law related to 
Federal highway construction in a single moment.
  Why is that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the 
large trade association of mostly noncontract, nonunion contractors is 
in town this week? And this measure is suddenly brought to the floor 
now, simply to fly the flag for anti-Davis-Bacon forces who would try 
to turn the clock altogether on prevailing fair-wage standards.
  I do not know, Mr. President, but I am surprised by how suddenly the 
Senate's schedule was changed to bring this up. I thought we were going 
to turn to regulatory reform or Bosnia or welfare reform. Apparently 
the majority leader has other priorities.
  Mr. President, as a Senator from Minnesota, I am opposed to this 
attempt to slash wages of working families, families who dig our 
roadbeds, pour our tar, flag us to a stop at construction sites or do 
any other number of hard and sweaty jobs at construction sites and 
highway sites across this country.
  That is not a priority that I am willing to go along with. I will 
fight any effort to cut the wages of working families as hard as I can.
  I imagine over the next several days, we will have a considerable 
amount of discussion on this issue. We should be clear. This repeal 
effort is part of a larger systematic assault on the wages and living 
standards of working families.
  Mr. President, it is a mistake. We have cuts in Medicare, cuts in 
Medicaid, cuts in job training, cuts in school lunches, education, and 
now cuts in the wages of working families.
  Just name it, the majority has proposed it and are trying to program 
it through the Congress at a breakneck speed. We intend to slow it 
down. We intend to oppose it. This highway bill on its own merits ought 
to be debated and is an important piece of legislation. To try to put 
this amendment into the highway bill and essentially overturn over 60 
years of people's history I think it is a huge mistake. Of course, that 
is what this debate will be about.
  Mr. President, let me just say a few words specifically on Davis-
Bacon itself and prevailing wage rates that it requires on certain 
Federal projects.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator allow me to, in the way of a question, 
make a brief comment about why we did this?
  I was the Senator that brought up the amendment in the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works. I did so in my capacity as chairman of 
the subcommittee with the responsibility for this piece of legislation.
  I say to my good friend, Mr. President, it was in no sense chicanery 
or subversion. It was done quite openly. This is an issue, Davis-Bacon, 
on which many who have had the privilege of serving the institution for 
many years have had a very clear difference of opinion. That difference 
of opinion is shared widely across this Nation. We will develop that in 
the course of the debate.
  Mr. President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate with 
my good friend from Minnesota, my good friend from Massachusetts, and 
others who will engage in this very important debate. We should not 
start out with a characterization that there is any attempt on this 
side to do so by way of anything other than an absolute clear and full 
discussion of this issue in full view of everybody. Then it is my hope 
an up or down vote can be had here in the U.S. Senate on this issue. 
Each Senator can express for himself or herself their views on this.
  I thank my distinguished colleague for allowing me to speak.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Virginia, 
and I thank him for his remarks, that I just want to be clear I am 
speaking for myself, that I am very interested in this highway bill.
  It is an important piece of legislation. We have been working for 
several years on reform of Davis-Bacon, not repeal. A lot of work has 
gone into that. But all of a sudden to have this become a part of this 
piece of legislation, I say to my colleague, I think is a profound 
mistake.
  Speaking just for myself, I would point out that only today did I 
hear that this was going to be the bill before the U.S. Senate. Before, 
I thought we were going to go to regulatory reform, then I heard we 
were going to go to welfare reform, then I heard we might be debating 
Bosnia.
  I know my colleague from Virginia is interested in full debate. That 
is what we will have and certainly we will make sure that it is not 
personal or acrimonious. I want to be clear as to why we have objected 
to the motion to proceed and why we intend to have a very thorough 
discussion about Davis-Bacon and about this effort not only to repeal 
Davis-Bacon, but I think it goes beyond that. I think it is an effort 
to roll back 60 years of hard-earned history that have a lot to do with 
people being able to have a decent wage, 60 years that have a lot to do 
with people being able to have jobs that pay them a middle-class wage.
  I think the stakes are very high. For that reason, with my colleague 
from Massachusetts, we intend to have a full discussion on that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I welcome that full discussion. But 
somehow in the Senator's remarks, the remarks just given, I got the 
impression, why on the highway bill? Mr. President, why is it? My 
projections are $1.3 billion is directly associated with Davis-Bacon 
over the next 5 years of projected highway construction. Those are 
scarce dollars in today's economy. Those are dollars that could be 
translated into actual roads and road improvements were it not for this 
piece of legislation. And it is time. My distinguished colleague 
mentioned reform, he has been working on it for several years. Perhaps 
the time has finally arrived for him to bring out those reforms. They 
are long overdue.
  I simply think the statute has served its purpose. When I see $1.3 
billion taken from the highway budgets of our 50 States over the next 5 
years, this Senator says the time has come to eliminate it.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague for this opportunity to have a 
few opening remarks.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think in a moment I would yield to my 
colleague from Massachusetts, who will take the lead in this debate. I 
will be very proud to be a part of it.
  Again, let me say in this Congress I think we have had a single 
hearing on legislation to repeal outright the Davis-Bacon. We will 
surely have a quarrel about the figures and amount of money lost. And 
we certainly will have a full discussion about the meaning of 
prevailing wages and what that means to this country, what that means 
to this society, what that means to communities across the country. 
That I think will be the important part of this debate.
  There is no reason to argue any longer about the timing of it, but I 
want to make it crystal clear that we [[Page S8482]] intend to focus on 
this effort in this bill. And this bill is an important piece of 
legislation. But this particular provision to repeal Davis-Bacon is, of 
course, where we intend to focus our attention.
  I will yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, no, I am not prepared to yield the 
floor yet.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, why do I not go forward with some 
remarks. But if my colleague has a question, I do not want to interrupt 
the flow of that.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I do not have a question. I was prepared to make a 
statement.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. On Davis-Bacon?
  Mr. CHAFEE. We will be here quite a while. Everybody will have a 
chance to say what they want. If the Senator has something to say, go 
ahead. I will have my say later when he is through.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, why do I not defer to the manager, and 
I will speak later on, because I have extensive remarks on Davis-Bacon. 
So I will defer to the manager of the bill and then be back in this 
debate later on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am sorry we cannot proceed on this bill 
because this is an important bill. What it does, it opens the way to 
some funds, additional funds in the neighborhood of some $5 billion 
that we are going to have to--if we want, we are going to have to pass 
this legislation before October. So now is the time to get with it.
  I heard--I would like the Senator from Minnesota's attention if I 
might. I heard him say how erroneous it was for us to be dealing with 
legislation that has been on the books, I think he said, for 60 years? 
Is that the time limit, how long Davis-Bacon has been on?
  I have seen the Senator on the floor discuss striker replacement that 
has been on about the same length of time. He had no hesitancy about 
dealing with that legislation that has been on the books for a 
considerable time.
  So dealing with legislation that has been on the books for some time, 
labor legislation, is not unique in this place. It is not unique for 
the Senator from Minnesota, either.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. As I understand the debate about what was S. 55, which 
was a ban on permanent replacement of striking workers, I would say to 
my colleague, it was not an amendment on another piece of legislation. 
That was a separate bill that went through extensive hearings, that was 
scheduled for debate, that came up at the time scheduled, and then led 
to full debate.
  So I do think it is a rather different proposition.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, no one who has been in this Chamber very 
long will find repeal of the Davis-Bacon is something new. We have 
debated it. There have been hearings. There have been hearings in the 
committee of the Senator from Kansas, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts has been through those hearings many times. There is 
nothing unique.
  This is not a creeping up by night with this provision.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. This is something that has been around. I do not know how 
many times we voted on it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, I will be glad to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. As always he is very gracious.
  My point was not that we have not debated the Davis-Bacon before. We 
certainly have. My point simply was that this bill was just scheduled 
to come to the floor--we thought there were going to be any number of 
other pieces of legislation. It has come to the floor. Unfortunately, 
as a part of this piece of legislation, there is the provision for 
repeal of Davis-Bacon. That is why we objected to the motion to 
proceed. That is why we will have extensive debate. That is my only 
point.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would stress that the provision of 
Davis-Bacon that we have in this National Highway Systems law solely 
deals with highway construction. It does not deal across the board. It 
seems to me there is no more appropriate place for it than in this 
National Highway System legislation.
  Let me just say a few words, if I might. First, Congress must approve 
the National Highway System bill, as I mentioned, by September 1 of 
this year. If we do not, the States will not receive--I said $5 
billion, it is $6.5 billion of their Federal aid highway money. This 
amount includes $2.9 billion for interstate maintenance and $2.6 
billion for the National Highway System.
  Mr. President, a few words about the National Highway System. Why are 
we in this? The National Highway System was established by the so-
called ISTEA, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 
That was a major highway bill that we passed in 1991.
  The National Highway System can make a significant contribution to 
our transportation system. The 159,000 miles of designated National 
Highway System routes are the roads the States and the localities have 
chosen as some of their most important roads. These are the roads that 
provide mobility for our citizens and promote economic development.
  The National Highway System, which includes the Interstate System--we 
are all familiar with the Interstate System--represents 4 percent of 
the highways of the United States of America, a very small part. But 
these are the important roads. These roads carry 40 percent of the 
Nation's highway travel. These are the roads that connect our 
intermodal and strategic facilities such as our ports and airports and 
train stations and military bases.
  How was the whole thing developed? What is the National Highway 
System? It was developed by the Department of Transportation through 
the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the States. This 
was not something drawn up in Washington by a bunch of Federal 
bureaucrats. This was done in cooperation with the States. The Federal 
Highway Administration and the States designated the system based on 
the criteria of efficiency, connectivity, and equity among the States. 
The mileage distribution among the States and between urban and rural 
areas was another important element.
  The process to designate the National Highway System has worked quite 
well. There is a high degree of consensus among Federal, State and 
local officials that the map submitted by the Secretary of 
Transportation in December of 1993 represents the best effort at 
identifying the National System.
  What has happened is that the Federal Highway Administration has 
worked with, as I say, the State and local officials, to make changes 
in this map of 1993 to reflect new information and decisions made at 
the State and local level. This process will continue. This thing is 
not carved in stone. People come to us and say: We want to be added. 
There is a system for adding routes within the various States.
  This legislation includes a provision which will permit this process 
to continue, even after this bill has been enacted into law. So State 
and local officials with the Secretary of Transportation's approval 
will have the ability to make changes in this, as long--there is a 
maximum limit of mileage. That maximum limit is 165,000 miles.
  So what I am stressing here is that this is a dynamic, changing 
system, and it is important that the ability to make these changes is 
retained.
  Because we have this process that involves the local officials, the 
State officials, and the Federal Government officials--namely, the 
highway administrator--I think Congress has to be very restrained in 
making systems; in other words, changes. Somebody will pop up here on 
the floor and say, ``I want such and such added, I so move.'' Well, 
maybe that is valid. But we do not know. The managers of this bill, and 
the others involved here on the floor, do not know whether that 
particular road meets the criteria. So we have set forth in the 
legislation a method of making changes. We think it is a fair 
[[Page S8483]] method. We want to resist the temptation to add a whole 
series of other routes. Once we depart from the criteria, we say, 
``Well, Senator X has presented a very moving story about this highway 
he wants added.'' But once we start down the path of not adhering to 
the criteria or to the system set forth in the legislation, we are 
opening our way up to a lot of problems.
  This bill which was reported out by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee preserves the important principles of the 1991 surface 
transportation law. That was a monumental piece of legislation that we 
passed. It makes changes to provide greater flexibility to the States 
to resist administrative burdens.
  As I mentioned, there are a series of requirements that the States 
are relieved from, the principal one being the Davis-Bacon Act which 
brings us here this evening. The bill also provides additional 
flexibility for design standards for the national highway routes which 
are not applicable to the Interstate System.
  This legislation which is S. 440--we will hear that term quite often 
this evening; that is the number of this bill--provides the States with 
additional financing options to address the needs of the transportation 
systems. It allows the States to credit private sector donations 100 
percent to the States' cost share.
  This legislation addresses something that those of us here in this 
Senate are pretty familiar with, and that is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. 
The replacement of that bridge is essential. Its remaining lifespan is 
estimated to be only 10 years. The bridge was designed 40 years ago to 
carry 75,000 vehicles a day. How many vehicles does it carry, 75,000? 
No. Today the bridge carries 167,000, more than twice what it was 
designed for as maximum load.
  Title II of this legislation authorizes the States of Virginia, 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into an interstate 
agreement or a compact to establish the National Capital Interstate 
Transportation Authority. I must say sometimes we get long titles here. 
But that is what this is, the National Capital Interstate 
Transportation Authority.
  The ownership of this bridge is transferred to the authority. The 
authority has the ability to use various financing provisions, 
including tolls, to replace the bridge. The bill provides $97 million 
of Federal funds for completion of the environmental impact statement, 
for interim repairs to the bridge, and for the preliminary design and 
engineering of a replacement bridge.
  There is one action the committee took which is a great 
disappointment to me personally; and, that is, there is a change made 
in the speed limits. I believe the Federal speed limit maximum of 65 
miles per hour in rural areas on the interstate has been remarkably 
successful in reducing fatalities. It has resulted in major savings to 
the taxpayers of our country. The health care costs of speed-related 
crashes is currently estimated to be $2 billion a year; the health-
related costs of the carnage that comes from excess speeding is 
currently estimated to be $2 billion a year. The total economic cost to 
society--not just the health care costs but the property damage, lost 
work--is estimated to be $24 billion a year.
  According to the Department of Transportation, the decision that this 
Congress made several years ago to allow a maximum of 65 miles an hour 
just on rural interstates, increased from 55--which was the limit 
before--jumping from 55 to 65, and has estimated to have cost this 
country 500 additional deaths.
  In my view, it is inevitable that, if the Federal speed limit is 
repealed, which this bill does--not with my vote, but, nonetheless, the 
committee chose to do so--States will raise the speed limit, and the 
cost to everyone, including the Federal Government, would go up 
dramatically. In other words, what we have said is there are not going 
to be any Federal limits, no Federal speed limits on these highways. 
Let the States put on what they want. I suppose the States will say 65 
is not enough. Let us try 70. And the competitor will say, ``Well, why 
have any speed limit?'' And I think that is unfortunate.
  I am aware that there are likely to be amendments which will be 
offered to repeal or weaken other safety laws, particularly the safety 
belt and motorcycle helmet law requirement. What are those? When we did 
the ISTEA legislation in 1991, we provided that a State would have a 
certain amount of time to enact a mandatory seat belt bill and a 
mandatory motorcycle helmet bill. If the States failed to do that, then 
a certain amount of that State's highway money would have to go into 
safety features, including safety education. As a result of that, some 
26 States have passed mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation, and the 
strong seat belt legislation. What has been the result? California 
passed it. The Governor signed it. And as a result, the number of 
motorcycle deaths on the California highways has been reduced by 35 
percent. Maryland did likewise. As a result of the passage of the 
motorcycle law, with the mandatory helmet, the number of motorcycle 
deaths in Maryland decreased by 25 percent.
  You might say, ``Well, this is a State problem. What is the Federal 
Government doing in mandating motorcycles helmets?'' The answer is the 
following: The Federal Government is in it because we pay the health 
bills. The Federal Government has to pay the Medicaid costs of those 
who are in comas in hospitals because they had no helmet and got into a 
very serious motorcycle accident. I have seen that myself in my own 
State. We have one individual regrettably in our State hospital who has 
been there in a coma for 20 years severely injured by a head injury on 
a motorcycle without a helmet. The helmet would have prevented such an 
injury. That individual's medical costs have cost the State of Rhode 
Island and the Federal Government through Medicaid to date $3 million.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that this Senate would resist any efforts 
to reduce the mandatory motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws.
  Mr. President, I finally want to commend the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. This bill came from a subcommittee, and that 
subcommittee was chaired by Senator Warner. He has done a splendid job 
on this legislation. When it came up to the full committee, there were 
no changes, and it passed out of the full committee by a vote of 15 to 
1, with Democrats and Republicans voting for this legislation.
  So I have had the privilege of working with Senator Warner on this, 
and with the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Baucus, and 
with all members of this committee in this legislation. So I am very 
pleased that the Senator from Virginia has agreed to manage this bill 
before this full Senate.
  I mention Senator Baucus being the ranking member of the full 
committee. But Senator Baucus is also the ranking member of the 
subcommittee likewise. I greatly appreciate the cooperation and 
assistance that he has given us in this legislation.
  So, Mr. President, I hope we can get to this bill. It is important. I 
know the business about Davis-Bacon is contentious. I would like to see 
us have a vote on it, and see what happens. But most of all, I would 
hope at least we could move to the consideration of the legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to just take a moment of the 
Senate's time to perhaps bring it up to speed in terms of where we are 
on the overall issue of consideration of the Davis-Bacon Act because it 
is not unrelated to the concerns a number of us are expressing this 
evening and tomorrow and the early part of next week in terms of 
proceeding to the highway bill. And that is on March 29 of this year, 
the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, chaired by Senator 
Kassebaum, after having hearings and after having committee discussion, 
made a judgment about the Davis-Bacon proposal, which I did not 
support, but nonetheless reported that measure out, and it is now on 
the calendar. So that would be legislation that would be applicable to 
all Federal jurisdiction. And we would have an opportunity when that 
would be called off the calendar by the majority leader, which is his 
right and his privilege at any particular time, to get into a debate 
and discussion on that particular [[Page S8484]] measure. I think it is 
important that we do get into a discussion on that particular measure, 
and I will elaborate on the reasons for that because there has been a 
great deal that has happened in terms of various recommendations, 
adjustments, changes, amendments, which would I think be constructive 
and positive and which I think the Members would welcome and which I 
think would improve the legislation.
  However, we are not afforded that opportunity. We are faced now with 
a repeal effectively on the highway legislation, and there can be those 
who suggest, well, this really is not repealing it. The fact of the 
matter is that up to 40 percent of all Davis-Bacon construction is 
related to this piece of legislation. So in effect although it is not a 
repeal of Davis-Bacon, it is its death knell. And those of us who are 
willing and obviously want to debate the whole issue of Davis-Bacon and 
its implications thought that the most appropriate way of doing it is 
the way the Senate generally considers measures, and that is to deal 
with them on the basis of the legislation itself which would have 
general application rather than dealing with it piece by piece, on one 
piece of legislation after another.
  This measure, in terms of the Highway Act, is commendable, and I 
intend to support the underlying legislation. I see no reason why that 
legislation could not have been completed, even with discussions, 
tonight or tomorrow. There may be other Members of this body who wanted 
to address particular provisions in that legislation, but it is the 
decision and judgment of the committee to insert the provisions 
repealing the Davis-Bacon Act in here, which should be addressed as we 
normally address these measures on the piece of legislation which has 
been reported out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and which 
is on the calendar, and I would have welcomed the opportunity to debate 
it this evening, tomorrow, or any other time.
  But, no, it is said, well, we are going to circumvent the procedures 
and the process of the Senate, and we are going to repeal it; we are 
not going to wait for the Senate to debate that measure independently 
but we are going to tag that on to the highway legislation, and so we 
are forced into this circumstance. We are not the ones who are delaying 
the consideration of the highway legislation. It is those who want to 
circumvent the Senate procedures who are forcing this kind of delay. 
And so we are quite prepared to make some of our case this evening and 
tomorrow and the days ahead and welcome that opportunity to do so and 
to correct some of the comments that have even been made earlier this 
evening.
  I think that is the best way to address the legislation reported out 
of that committee. And I would say that as recently as today there have 
been coalitions that have been working on a series of recommendations 
and changes that are being considered by a number of our colleagues in 
the Senate on both sides of the aisle. I have not had the chance to 
review those. It is coincidental that those measures are being 
circulated today because those that are most involved in those 
negotiations, to my knowledge, had no awareness that this measure was 
going to be considered tonight. I think most of us in the Senate 
understood that we would be debating probably welfare legislation. And 
as I understood, at least from our side of the aisle, they thought that 
that would take us through this weekend and perhaps the regulatory 
reform would take up the early part of next week. And then in the past 
hours, as is the right of the majority leader, it was decided to move 
to this legislation.
  And so that is why we are in this situation. Those of us who want to 
speak on Davis-Bacon would urge the Senate to move toward the highway 
legislation. If this measure were not part of it, we would say all 
right, we are prepared to see a full debate and a timely debate on this 
issue and a resolution of the Davis-Bacon issue in a timely way on the 
measure that was reported out of our committee. That would let the 
Senate consider a number of the different changes and suggestions and 
amendments that might come at that time. But we are not given really 
that opportunity to do so.
  So we wanted to address this issue and speak to some of the 
misunderstandings which have been expressed even earlier this evening 
on this issue.
  I believe the vote on the bill and the provision to waive the 
application of Davis-Bacon to Federal highway construction is a 
critical test of whether the Senate will abandon its historic 
protection of local labor standards. In March, the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources voted along party lines to repeal Davis-Bacon 
altogether. I opposed that legislation. I know other Members of the 
Senate opposed it, too.
  Repealing the Davis-Bacon protections would take this country back to 
the days when cutthroat competition on wages drove down living 
standards for construction workers and reduced their families to 
poverty. I cannot believe that a majority of the Senate wants to return 
to the harsh employment practices of a half a century ago. The 
Republican argument for repealing Davis-Bacon is that the Government 
will save money by paying construction workers less than it does today. 
The problem is that the argument is not true.
  Now, listen to this, Mr. President. In fact, the Government will not 
save anything by driving down the wages of construction workers on 
highway projects. According to a recent study, the 13 States with the 
highest construction wages build their highways at lower cost than the 
13 States with the lowest wages.
  Let me just repeat that. And we will get back into the studies. We 
will have time. But I want to make an opening comment about the issues 
before us. The 13 States with the highest construction wages build 
their highways at lower cost than the 13 States with the lowest wages.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Will the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts be good 
enough to tell me, one, whose study is that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will speak just briefly.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator can speak all he wants; he will have plenty 
of time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I intend to put those in the Record. I intend to outline 
this, Mr. President, and then I will spend some time going through the 
various studies with the Senator.
  The average construction wage on a federally assisted highway project 
in Wisconsin was $15.55 an hour, more than twice the rate on projects 
in Mississippi, where the workers average $6.69 an hour.
  The cost per mile of construction was much lower in Wisconsin, 
$78,083 versus $95,329 in Mississippi. Cutting wages does not mean 
cutting costs.
  That is taking into consideration the variants in terrain and other 
kinds of construction. That is using a singular standard, and we will 
come back to review those studies in detail later this evening if that 
is the desire.
  Even if it were true that we could save money by driving down the 
wages of construction workers, it would be wrong to do it. This mean-
spirited attack on construction workers and their families is 
unwarranted and unfair.
  Mr. President, I have here a chart of what the workers are receiving. 
For example, this is in heavy construction, for iron workers. It shows 
the hourly wage and what their annual wage is on heavy construction.
  Let us talk about what the income of these workers is in America. The 
average income is $26,000 a year. That is a lot of money perhaps for a 
lot of people--and it certainly is--but it is $26,000 a year. We are 
having, effectively, an assault on these workers that are averaging 
$26,000. With all the problems that we have in this country, we want to 
undermine the ability of the average construction worker to make 
$26,000 a year.
  We just passed, less than an hour ago, legislation that is going to 
mean hundreds of billions of dollars to various financial interest 
groups in this country, and I supported it. But make no mistake about 
it, that is going to put hundreds of millions and billions of dollars 
in the pockets of Americans. Here we are talking about what goes into 
the pockets and pocketbooks of construction workers.
  The average is $26,000 a year. If you are an iron worker in 
Nashville, TN, you make an $8.41 hourly wage, $12,000 a year under 
Davis-Bacon--$12,000 a year.
  If you are up in Burlington, VT, it is $9.70 an hour, $14,000 a year. 
If you come up to our part of the country in [[Page S8485]] Providence, 
RI, it is $20 an hour, $31,000 a year. Up in Massachusetts, it reaches 
as high as $33,000 a year.
  This is for every construction worker under the Davis-Bacon Act, and 
I am going to come back as to how you reach Davis-Bacon figures.
  The same is true on residential construction; wages are not high. In 
fact, in residential construction wages are generally much less. For 
carpenters in Nashville, TN, $6 an hour, $9,000 a year. This is 
extraordinary. It is a real ripoff of the taxpayer to be paying someone 
who is going to make $9,000 on Federal construction.
  I find it troublesome that there is so much excitement about trying 
to alter or change Davis-Bacon, to somehow suggest that these men and 
women are making too much with these annual earnings of $9,000 in 
residential construction for carpenters in Nashville, or $11,000 in 
Ohio, or $15,000 in Connecticut, or even $21,000 in Michigan, or 
$28,000 for carpenters in Illinois, that this is somehow an injustice, 
that somehow these men and women are ripping off the system because 
they are making that.
  It just does not hold water, Mr. President. These are hard-working 
men and women. Their annual hours are only 1,500 hours. Some work a 
little bit more, 1,700 hours, depending on the weather and the economy, 
but it has been difficult in the construction industry over the period 
of recent years.
  Apparently some Republican Senators believe those construction 
workers are so overpaid that their wages should be cut. In fact, 
construction workers are not overpaid. Despite their considerable 
skills, the danger and physical hardship of their work, and the years 
of apprenticeship many have served to attain journeyman, their average 
annual income is about $28,000 a year.
  The second most dangerous industry is construction. The second most 
dangerous industry--construction. We are saying, ``Oh, no, they are 
doing too well in America,'' in spite of all the studies that show that 
the working families of this country over the period of the last 12 
years have fallen further and further behind in terms of the economy. 
They are working longer and making less in real income. That has been 
happening for 15 years, and if you go ahead with the repeal of Davis-
Bacon, you are going to accelerate that.
  It seems to me that we ought to be speaking for working families. We 
are not asking for them to get some special boondoggle when they are 
making $15,000, $16,000, $20,000, or $25,000 a year. That does not seem 
to me like some boondoggle. There are a lot of boondoggles around here, 
but this is not one of them.
  Republicans like to accuse the Democrats of class warfare when we 
oppose their tax cuts for the rich, but this is an uglier class warfare 
conducted by Republicans to keep blue-collar workers down, to keep them 
out of the middle class. This bill and the repeal of the Davis-Bacon 
Act for highway construction are part of a larger assault Republicans 
are mounting on all fronts against America's working families.
  What is happening to these families? They are having a hard time 
making ends meet. They are falling further and further behind in terms 
of real income and working harder.
  What is happening to their kids? If their kids want to go to college 
and they are eligible for the Stafford loans, under the Republican 
proposal, they are going to pay $3,500 more for those Stafford loans.
  If the kids need summer jobs, they will be lucky to get one. Mr. 
President, 1,400 jobs were cut in my city of Boston because of the 
cutback in the Summer Jobs Program.
  In terms of support in the school reform programs, even the 
projection in the Head Start Program, the Republicans are cutting back 
on the support for the children of these working families.
  We are having an assault on the income of working families, and with 
the Republican program for cuts in the Medicare Program, you are 
cutting back on the parents of the working families. You cannot get 
around that, Mr. President; you cannot get around that.
  What happens when they get savings under Medicare? They use it for 
tax cuts, $350 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy individuals in this 
country, reaffirmed in the last 48 hours over in the House of 
Representatives by the Republicans.
  We should not just treat these one by one, I would not think. 
Certainly the families do not figure it that way. They just do not look 
at it as a problem in one particular bill. They are looking at what the 
impact is totally on them, and that is what is happening.
  This goes right to the heart of the dollars and cents that they are 
able to make working in construction.
  Mr. President, in talking about what is happening and the impact on 
the working families, we will have in just a few days the regulatory 
reform bill which, effectively, emasculates the OSHA program with a 
supermandate that provides an entirely different cost-benefit ratio 
than is used by OSHA at the present time and will put at serious risk 
the various proposals that have been put out by OSHA to protect the 
American worker, not just in the construction industry, but in all 
industries. We will have that out here.
  They repeal the Delaney clause, which is going to mean that no longer 
are you going to be required to keep carcinogens out of the food stream 
in the United States of America. That came out of the Judiciary 
Committee. We will be debating that over here.
  For years, we talked about changing the Delaney clause to a more 
responsible risk-benefit ratio, a particularly sensitive issue for 
children who have an entirely different kind of risk-benefit ratio than 
adults. We tried to work that out in our committee. Oh, no, the votes 
were there to repeal the Delaney clause, and the Republicans have done 
that as well. So it will have an impact on the food stream in this 
country and greater risks will be out there, Mr. President.
  So, what happens with this Davis-Bacon proposal? The highway bill has 
become the latest battleground in that attack. It contains a provision 
to repeal Davis-Bacon. It proposes to take $1.1 billion out of the 
pockets of construction workers over the next 5 years. That is how much 
the committee's Republicans claim they can save by cutting wages on 
Federal construction projects.
  It is a typical Republican policy: Wage cuts for the workers, tax 
cuts for the rich. In fact, as the Federal highway construction data 
indicate, it is highly unlikely that any of these so-called savings 
will actually be achieved by the taxpayer. If anything, lower wages 
mean higher construction costs, not lower costs.
  The notion that reducing the wages of construction workers on Federal 
construction projects will result in substantial cost savings for the 
Federal Government has been examined and categorically rejected by the 
leading construction industry economist in the country, Dr. John 
Dunlop, a former Secretary of Labor under President Ford and a 
professor of economics at Harvard for many years. According to Dr. 
Dunlop, who is a Republican,

       There is simply no sound basis for gratuitously assuming 
     that lower wage rates in the construction industry generally 
     mean lower costs to the public.
       There is simply no sound basis for gratuitously assuming 
     that lower wage rates in the construction industry generally 
     mean lower costs to the public.

  The reason is obvious. You get what you pay for. Lower paid workers 
are likely to be less skilled workers and, therefore, less productive 
workers. If wages are lower, but it takes the workers longer to 
complete the work, there are no cost savings. If their work is inferior 
in quality, it means higher long-term maintenance and repair costs. So 
there are no cost savings. And that has not been figured into these 
cost savings. There are no provisions for the diminution in terms of 
the experience of workers on the job or for inferior kinds of work or 
for longer-term maintenance. That is not figured into these figures 
that are bantered around so easily on the floor this evening.
  This kind of attack on construction workers and their families is 
unjustified. There is nothing unfair about paying the prevailing wage 
on construction projects. Again and again over the years, we have heard 
the argument that Davis-Bacon is inflationary and that it mandates 
artificially high union wages. On the committee, Republicans made this 
argument in their report on the bill on page 11. They say, 
[[Page S8486]] ``The existing law protects union laborers at the 
expense of unskilled workers.'' That simply is not true.
  Only 29 percent of the prevailing wage schedules issued by the Labor 
Department in 1994 reflected union wage rates. Forty-eight percent of 
the wage schedules reflected nonunion rates, and the rest were mixed. 
Listen to this. Only 29 percent of the prevailing wage schedules issued 
by the Labor Department in 1994 reflected union wage rates. Forty-eight 
percent of the wage schedules reflected nonunion rates. And the rest 
were mixed.
  The Davis-Bacon law does not require contractors to pay union wage 
rates. The Washington Post recently got this wrong and had to print a 
correction. So let there be no mistake. The Davis-Bacon Act does not 
require the payment of union wages or the employment of union workers--
two misconceptions that are bantered around here on the floor and were 
in our committee. It requires the payment of prevailing wages, the 
going rate in the community. You are basically saying that in any of 
these communities, if they are paying $6 an hour, they get $6 an hour 
if they are going to build a Federal project. If you are going to build 
the highways or build residential construction, or if you are going to 
build heavy construction, it is a higher rate--whatever is the 
prevailing wage in the local community. Whether it be union or 
nonunion, that is the wage rate. So that the Federal Government will 
not be driving the wages down or artificially inflating them. That is 
basically the reason for the law.
  The goal of the act is not to artificially inflate wages. The goal is 
to keep Federal projects from being used to drive down local wages and 
local labor standards. That goal is as valid today as it was in 1931, 
64 years ago, when the law was first enacted.
  The construction labor market is not a national labor market. There 
are thousands of local markets, and the wage rate for laborers, for 
example, varies from one part of the country to another, from the 
minimum of $4.25 an hour to more than $20 an hour. Carpenter wages vary 
from less than $6 an hour to more than $25 an hour. The Davis-Bacon Act 
respects these differences. Those who want to repeal the act ignore 
those differences. They would let Federal contractors drive wages down 
as low as they can. Repealing Davis-Bacon or its application to highway 
construction is an invitation to exploitation, and it ought to be 
rejected.
  Mr. President, the evidence of the harmful effects of a repeal on 
minorities, as well, is clear. This would have an adverse impact in 
terms of the employment opportunities for women, as well as minorities. 
There is a very important study--but I see others who want to speak, so 
I will get into that later this evening or tomorrow.
  A Davis-Bacon repeal is wrong. The legitimate concerns about the 
act's threshold and unnecessary paperwork can be taken care of through 
a sensible reform amendment, like the one Senator Simon offered in our 
Labor and Human Resources Committee when we considered the issue. The 
Davis-Bacon Act does need to be updated, but the core principle of the 
law is as valid today as when it was signed 64 years ago. The Federal 
Government should not try to save money by cutting the wages of its 
citizens. The Davis-Bacon Act has not been substantially revised in 64 
years, since it was enacted. Reforms are needed. The threshold for 
coverage needs to be adjusted to reflect inflation. The paperwork 
requirements for contractors are overly burdensome and need to be cut 
back.
  Clear and more sensible lines should be drawn on what work is 
covered. Workers who are not receiving the wages they deserve need to 
have a more effective way to resolve complaints. That is why I am for 
reform of the Davis-Bacon Act. I have been on record in favor of reform 
for many years.
  But there is a world of difference between reform and repeal. A 
coalition of nearly 20,000 contractors, all opposed to an outright 
repeal, are lobbying for reform, not repeal. We stand ready to work 
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on any reasonable proposal 
for reform. We are strongly opposed to the anti-worker scheme that 
would dismantle basic construction workers' protections in all parts of 
the Nation. Repeal of Davis-Bacon is an anti-work ideology run amok and 
should be rejected out of hand by the Senate.
  I would be glad to either yield to the Senator from Rhode Island 
about those reports or to make some general concluding remarks.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think what we are going to do this 
evening is this. The Senator from Illinois has something he wants to 
discuss as in morning business, which will take about 15 minutes. And 
then it would be my intention--and the leader said we can--to adjourn 
for the evening. Then we would be here tomorrow morning at whatever 
time we come in. Then there will be a chance for everybody to discuss 
this further. I have some questions I would like to ask the Senator 
from Massachusetts, but obviously he will be here tomorrow. This is 
what we call a filibuster on the motion to proceed. Rather than wearing 
everybody out, it would be my suggestion that we adjourn following the 
comments by the Senator from Illinois, as in morning business.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, I see my friend from Illinois 
wanting to talk. I will welcome the opportunity to continue this dialog 
tomorrow. I will make a final comment on this.
  I do want to just underline a point, because I think it is a point 
worth reiterating--that is, that there is a proposal on the Senate 
calendar that deals with this generically. Those of us who are speaking 
about this measure wanted the opportunity to at least debate that 
measure independently and have a chance to amend it and have the focus 
and attention of the Senate on it. It has been the desire of the 
Republicans in the committee to put this measure on a matter that is 
out of your jurisdiction, quite frankly. Your committee does not have 
jurisdiction on the Davis-Bacon Act,
 nonetheless, the Senator made the judgment decision to take that step.

  Now, that is something that can be done, but it is not in the 
jurisdiction of your committee. It is in the jurisdiction of Senator 
Kassebaum's committee. They have taken action, but the Senator has 
circumvented the procedure and we are faced with this particular issue. 
We intend to speak to that.
  I do think that the point needs to be reiterated, that there is a 
total array of different Republican activities that are symbolized by 
this assault on working families that are making $27,000 a year.
  It is an assault on Davis-Bacon today. We had that assault on 
education just 3 weeks ago. We had that assault on Medicare. We still 
have not had the closing of the billionaires' loophole. It is 
interesting. We are all debating this issue out here and we still have 
not found time to debate and close the billionaires' loophole. I do 
think it is important for the American people to have some 
understanding of how we are spending our time and how we are spending 
our energy and what we are doing as a matter of priorities.
  We will have a full day, and I always welcome the chance to have this 
discussion with my friend and colleague. I see the Senator from 
Illinois here.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts mentioned 
reforms, and I am curious as to what the suggested reforms are.
  To suggest we have come out of the blue without any consideration in 
the respective committee that deals with Davis-Bacon, in our committee, 
we have trespassed into areas we do not belong in. Davis-Bacon we have 
had out here on the floor as the Senator from Massachusetts knows, 
many, many times. And this provision that came from our committee 
solely applies for the areas that we deal with. I am not willing to 
concede that it is not within our jurisdiction.
  However, I am curious as to what the suggestions are, and I do not 
need them in great detail, but roughly, what is the Senator talking 
about? The Davis-Bacon now applies to any contract over $2,000. In 
other words, it applies to everything.
  What is the general trend, if I might ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts, of these reforms?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see my colleague who offered the reform proposal which 
I supported in the committee. I wonder if the Senator from Illinois 
would like to take a few moments and go through the different 
provisions with regard to [[Page S8487]] raising the thresholds and 
with regard to other features such as the paperwork provisions--the 
range of different areas which have been raised as matters of concern.
  The Senator from Illinois has a very comprehensive program. I see the 
Senator on the floor now. I will let him comment on that. I look 
forward to adding to it tomorrow.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to deal with this tomorrow. I 
would say to the Senator from Rhode Island that what we do is raise the 
ceiling. We also deal with the problems that contractors say they have 
with Davis-Bacon. I think it is a practical bill that answers the 
fundamental problems.
  Mr. CHAFEE. What does the ceiling go to?
  Mr. SIMON. The ceiling would go, as I recall, to $100,000. I will 
have the full information on this tomorrow.
  We offered this in committee. We checked this out with a number of 
contractors. We think the proposal that we have makes a great deal of 
sense. I will have a chance to discuss that tomorrow.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I say to the Senator it is $100,000 for new 
construction; $25,000 for alteration, repair, renovation, 
rehabilitation.
  The second part deals with contract splitting. There is a whole 
provision in here affecting the reporting requirements, to allow 
inspection of payrolls by interested parties.
  This was an important issue to determine which workers are actually 
being covered.
  We will have an opportunity to discuss the compliance provision, the 
definition of various employees.
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield, we also reduced the reporting 
by contractors very significantly. I think that the average contractor 
would be pleased.
  Now, a contractor wants to depress wages, they probably will not be 
pleased.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am not prepared to concede that every contractor that 
does not like Davis-Bacon is out to depress wages. We will have time to 
discuss that further.
  I am not sure what has been done. It has been raised to $100,000. If 
the Senator will show me the building or any job that is less than 
$100,000 that the Federal Government goes out and contracts for, I will 
be surprised.
  Never mind. We will have all day tomorrow to discuss that. I would 
say that one of the things I would appreciate the Senator addressing, 
in my experience, in my State, I have discovered that Davis-Bacon is an 
anti-small business law.
  In other words, the small businessman cannot qualify to do Davis-
Bacon jobs. They do not have the record built up, or the recordkeeping 
machinery, the capabilities. It is a bad move for small businesses.
  Mr. SIMON. If the Senator will support the Simon-Kennedy amendment, 
the Senator will find that it helps small business people.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would be happy if that were so.
  Why do we not proceed as in morning business?
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as in morning business for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it would then be my thought that we would 
wind up here and adjourn for the evening.
   Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Simon pertaining to the introduction of S. 933 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                          ____________________