[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 135 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12178-S12185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are now prepared to move on to our 
next amendment. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes 
equally divided prior to a motion to table on the amendment to be 
offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, 
relative to Davis-Bacon, and no amendments be in order prior to a vote 
in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1844

 (Purpose: To limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in areas 
                     designated as disaster areas)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 
1844 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1844.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . No funds appropriated under this Act may be used to 
     enforce the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1931 (commonly 
     known as the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.)) in any 
     area that has been declared a disaster area by the President 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is a very simple, 
straightforward amendment that would prohibit enforcing Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wage requirements in areas designated by the President as 
natural disaster areas. Section 6 of the Federal Davis-Bacon Act allows 
the President to suspend this act in the event of a national emergency.
  I think all of us would agree, especially those Senators in North 
Carolina and in Virginia as well, that we did have a national emergency 
with Hurricane Floyd.
  Pursuant to this authority, President Bush suspended Davis-Bacon in 
1992 to help speed up and lower the cost of rebuilding the communities 
ravaged by Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki.
  So Hurricane Floyd has dealt this tremendous blow to the residents of 
the eastern seaboard, from Florida to North Carolina, even as far as 
New York. FEMA has called this one of the biggest multistate disasters 
in U.S. history. Many States believe cleanup costs from Hurricane Floyd 
will far exceed the costs of either Hurricanes Fran or Hugo. So 
relaxing the Davis-Bacon provisions in these hard-hit States will lower 
tremendously the cost of rebuilding these communities and help create 
job opportunities for those in need of work.
  Many people come to these communities and volunteer their time to 
help their friends and relatives and neighbors in need, and others cut 
their costs of services to help these unfortunate

[[Page S12179]]

victims of the hurricanes. Davis-Bacon's prevailing wage requirements 
will increase the cost of construction, forcing the taxpayers to pay 
more and receive less in return. Not only that, it will cost the 
victims more. So that is why there is a provision, a waiver provision, 
the President may exercise to bring these costs down in times of 
disasters.
  Government estimates, economic studies, and those involved in the 
construction industry believe Davis-Bacon actually inflates the cost of 
a construction project by an estimated 5 to 38 percent. For people who 
are the victims of these hurricanes--where there is Federal help--to 
have to pay more in these construction projects and for it to cost the 
taxpayers that much more money is outrageous. CBO estimates that Davis-
Bacon adds $9.6 billion over 10 years to the cost of all Federal 
construction projects.
  The historic floodwaters of Floyd have resulted in hundreds of 
millions of dollars in property damage and created a huge swath of 
human misery that will last for months. The Davis-Bacon Act should be 
suspended to aid disaster relief in the areas designated as natural 
disasters. It is reasonable. That is why there is a provision for a 
waiver. It is unfortunate President Clinton has decided not to waive 
it, or at least has not waived it to this point.
  On September 21, 1999, the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial 
entitled ``Hurricane Davis-Bacon,'' stated:

       Folks whose electricity shorted out when floodwaters hit 
     their circuit box or shopkeepers sweeping the mud and debris 
     out from once-vibrant businesses need no reminders about the 
     costs imposed by Hurricane Floyd. But as they go about their 
     repairs they may find that the destructive powers of Mother 
     Nature are nothing compared with those of Washington.

  Continuing to quote:

       Start with the Davis-Bacon Act, which effectively requires 
     that workers on federally subsidized construction projects 
     receive union wages--even though only about a quarter of the 
     construction industry is unionized. Davis-Bacon looms large 
     in the wake of Floyd because so much disaster relief comes 
     from the federal government. It was for precisely this reason 
     in 1992 that President George Bush ordered the relaxation of 
     Davis-Bacon rules to hasten repairs in Florida, Louisiana and 
     Hawaii after hurricanes devastated those states.

  Continuing to quote from the Wall Street Journal:

       The happy result was twofold: Not only did the work get 
     done faster, between 5,000 and 11,000 new construction jobs, 
     mostly to semi-skilled minority workers, were created. Alas, 
     the jobs didn't last long. Within days of becoming President 
     in 1993, Bill Clinton revoked the Bush waivers on Davis-Bacon 
     as a payback for organized labor's support. Mr. Clinton's 
     continued defense is particularly galling to many minority 
     workers, conscious of the law's origins in the Jim Crow 
     attitudes of the 1930s. ``People can't see the jobs and 
     buildings that aren't created because of Davis-Bacon, but 
     it is a major factor in the low-income housing crisis,'' 
     says Elzie Higginbottom, a low-income housing builder from 
     Chicago's South Side.

       Clearly the priority after any natural disaster must be 
     getting help to the people who need it. But as we help the 
     victims of Floyd pump water out of their basements and get 
     their lives back on track, let's be careful not to contribute 
     to the structural damage with . . . Davis-Bacon that only 
     raise costs and make it that much harder to do the work that 
     needs to be done.

  I think that editorial sums it up about as well as it can be summed 
up. The bottom line is, this act, which, ironically, discriminated 
against minorities--and that was the purpose of the act when it was 
first originated--will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and take 
advantage of an unfortunate situation where people have suffered 
through a disaster.
  I ask, what would be the problem of the President granting a waiver 
of Davis-Bacon? As I said before--and I think the Wall Street Journal 
said it better than I--the answer is, because the President owes a lot 
to organized labor, he is not about to do it. I think it is outrageous 
because the intent was clear.
  I will read from a letter from 80 organizations in support of my 
amendment. The list includes a number of outstanding national 
organizations. It also includes several State organizations 
representing some of the States that have been hit hardest by Hurricane 
Floyd and other disasters. It is the Coalition to Repeal the Davis-
Bacon Act.

       It is unfair to further burden the local communities 
     devastated by Hurricane Floyd and other disasters with the 
     inflated costs of Davis-Bacon.

  Mr. President, I think Senators will recognize some of the 
organizations--I will not read them all; there are 80--the American 
Society of Civil Engineers, the American Trucking Association, 
Associated Builders and Contractors, Citizens Against Government Waste, 
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Free Enterprise Institute, National 
Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, 
National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, National Federation of 
Independent Business, National League of Cities, National School Boards 
Association, National Tax Limitation Committee, National Taxpayers 
Union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to name a few of the 80.
  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:

                                           Coalition to Repeal the


                                              Davis-Bacon Act,

                                                  October 5, 1999.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: The Coalition to Repeal the Davis-Bacon 
     Act urges you to support the amendment by Senator Bob Smith 
     (R-NH) to relax the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act for disaster 
     stricken areas across the country, during the debate on the 
     Fiscal Year 2000 Labor/Health and Human Services and 
     Education Appropriations legislation.
       Hurricane Floyd has devastated states along the eastern 
     seaboard, from Florida to North Carolina to New York, which 
     now face major reconstruction demands. It is clearly one of 
     the largest multi-state disasters in U.S. history. Relaxing 
     Davis-Bacon in these hard hit states will lower the cost of 
     rebuilding these communities and will help create job 
     opportunities for those in need of work.
       Section 6 of the Davis-Bacon Act [40 U.S.C. 276a-5], allows 
     the suspension of the Act in the event of a ``national 
     emergency.'' Pursuant to this, President George Bush relaxed 
     Davis-Bacon rules in 1992 to hasten repairs in Florida, 
     Louisiana and Hawaii and lower the cost of rebuilding the 
     communities ravaged by Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki. As a 
     result, the work was completed faster and between 5,000 and 
     11,000 new construction jobs were created, mostly to semi-
     skilled minority workers.
       It is unfair to further burden the local communities 
     devastated by Hurricane Floyd and other disasters with the 
     inflated costs of Davis-Bacon. The Davis-Bacon Act has been 
     demonstrated to inflate construction costs by 5 to 38 percent 
     above what the project would have cost in the private sector. 
     Lifting Davis-Bacon restrictions would reduce unnecessary 
     federal spending and guarantee more construction for the 
     dollar as communities try to rebuild in the wake of 
     devastating disasters. Forcing disaster stricken communities 
     to be saddled with Davis-Bacon will just raise their costs 
     and make it harder to do the work that needs to be done.
       The September 21, 1999, editorial in The Wall Street 
     Journal, ``Hurricane Davis-Bacon'' summarized, ``Clearly the 
     priority after any natural disaster must be getting help to 
     the people who need it. But as we help the victims of Floyd 
     pump the water out of their basements and get their lives 
     back on track, let's be careful not to contribute to the 
     structural damage with . . . Davis-Bacon that only raise 
     costs and make it that much harder to do the work that needs 
     to be done.''
       We strongly urge you to waive Davis-Bacon and truly help 
     communities that are trying to reconstruct their public 
     infrastructure after a disaster.
           Sincerely,
     APAC, Inc.
     APAC Alabama, Inc.
     APAC Arkansas, Inc.
     APAC Carolina, Inc.
     APAC Florida, Inc.
     APAC Georgia, Inc.
     APAC Mississippi, Inc.
     APAC Tennessee, Inc.
     APAC Virginia, Inc.
     American Concrete Pipe Association
     American Legislative Exchange Council
     Amerian Society of Civil Engineers
     American Trucking Associations
     Americans for Responsible Privatization
     Ashburn & Gray Construction
     Associated Builders & Contractors
     Associated General Contractors of the Carolinas
     BE & K, Inc.
     Barrus Construction Company
     Brick Institute
     Business Leadership Council
     Cajun Contractors, Inc.
     Capital City Asphalt Company
     Citizens Against Government Waste
     Citizens for a Sound Economy
     Complete Building Services--A division of the Donahoe Co.
     Construction Industry Manufacturers Association
     Contract Services Association
     Council of 100
     Council of State Community Development Agencies
     Finley Construction
     Fluor Corporation
     Free Enterprise Institute

[[Page S12180]]

     Harmony Corporation
     Hays Mechanical Contractors
     Hodges Construction
     Independent Bakers Association
     Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.
     Institute for Justice
     ITT
     Joule, Inc.
     KCI Constructors, Inc.
     Labor Policy Association
     Land Improvement Contractors of America
     Lauren Constructors, Inc.
     Louisiana Association of Business and Industry
     MacGougald Construction
     McClinton Anchor Construction
     M.W. Kellogg Company
     N.C. Monroe Construction Company
     National Aggregates Association
     National Association of Home Builders
     National Association of Manufacturers
     National Association of the Remodeling Industry
     National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise
     National Federation of Independent Business
     National Frame Builders Association
     National Industrial Sand Association
     National League of Cities
     National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
     National School Boards Association
     National Slag Association
     National Society of Professional Engineers
     National Stone Association
     National Tax Limitation Committee
     National Taxpayers Union
     Niagara County Business Association
     Printing Industries of America
     Public Service Research Council
     Reno Construction Company
     Repcon, Inc.
     Small Business Survival Committee
     Southern Roadbuilders
     Southern Roadbuilders Concrete Paving
     Texas Bitulithic Construction Company
     Thompson-Arther Construction
     Thompson & Thompson
     TIC/The Industrial Company
     Trotti & Thomson Construction Co.
     U.S. Business and Industrial Council
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce
     Wilkerson Maxwell Construction

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am going to reserve the 
remainder of my time. It is my understanding that each side has 15 
minutes on this debate; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will yield the floor at the moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator from Massachusetts want?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 6 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we get started with this debate on the 
question of Davis-Bacon, it is kind of interesting. Over the course of 
recent days, we see a series of actions that have been directed at 
working families. The problem that most working families in our Nation 
face is that they have not participated in the great economic surge we 
have seen over recent times. Nonetheless, there is a continued effort 
to undermine their wages.
  Let's start with the continuing denial by the majority to permit us a 
vote on the minimum wage. Then everyone in the country saw the actions 
of the Republican leadership recently, diverting the earned-income tax 
credit in order to be used for balancing the budget. We have had recent 
debates on the floor of the Senate about undermining the National Labor 
Relations Board, which tries to work out legitimate disputes on the 
basis of laws that have been in effect for years. There was also action 
taken on the floor of the Senate which cut back on the total number of 
OSHA inspections to protect workers in their workplaces in this 
country.
  Beyond that, there have been the efforts to pass what is called comp 
time, which would have eliminated the 40-hour workweek and abolished 
overtime. All of that has been happening over the last 2 years.
  I don't know why the other side has it in for, in this instance, 
construction workers. But the attacks seem to be fairly uniform, if we 
look over the facts of the record in terms of working families. That is 
true with regard to pensions as well. We will have another time to 
debate and discuss this. But those are the facts.
  Rather than speculate on what is in an editorial or what is in a 
particular report, the best way to look at this is, first, the average 
wage of a construction worker in this country is $28,000 a year. Maybe 
that is too much for some Members of this body, but that is the average 
in terms of a construction worker. Yet the Senator from New Hampshire, 
in this amendment, says, in some parts of this country that isn't 
necessary for a worker to be able to bring up a family. It seems to me 
that $28,000, which is the average construction wage, is not an 
excessive wage in this country.
  Secondly, if you read the Davis-Bacon Act you will see that the 
President already has discretion to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act if he 
believes there is a national emergency and its in the national 
interest. Presidents have in fact exercised this authority: President 
Bush waived the Davis-Bacon Act in 1992 after Hurricanes Andrew and 
Iniki. So the President has some flexibility if there are particular 
emergencies, but that is effectively being denied with the amendment of 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Thirdly, if you look at various studies on Davis Bacon, including one 
by the University of Utah looking at 9 States that have repealed State 
Davis-Bacon laws, you see two very important facts: No. 1, there is a 
dramatic reduction in terms of training programs for construction 
workers; and, No. 2, the quality of the work by construction workers 
deteriorates, so the cost of doing business, rather than going down, 
actually goes up. Isn't that interesting? Now, with the amendment, we 
are trying to effectively undermine the wages construction workers 
would receive in these circumstances.
  And what do we find in the States that have actually repealed State 
Davis-Bacon? They may get a little bump in the first few months in 
terms of some bidding, but what happens is, with the dramatic reduction 
in training programs and dramatic reduction in skill, the costs of 
various contracts go up. We will have a chance to go through that.
  That is the issue: Whether at this time we are going to say men and 
women who are earning $28,000 a year are to see their wages cut. Many 
of them lost their homes, too; many of the workers who would be 
affected by this amendment live in areas where there has been 
devastation; many of these people have been wiped out completely and 
now, not only are they trying to get back on their feet, but as a 
result of this amendment, they will be denied at least the reasonable 
compensation which they had received at other times. Of course, this 
has implications in terms of the payment of taxes. This has important 
implications in terms of health care costs because in most of these 
contracts where you have Davis-Bacon, they have health care insurance.

  You are going to find additional kinds of burdens on local 
communities. This hasn't been talked about. Workers will see 
insufficient payments into their pension funds, which is going to mean 
that retirement programs for these various workers are going to be 
compromised, all under the guise that somehow we are helping the areas 
where many of our fellow citizens have suffered and suffered 
extensively as a result of these extraordinary acts of nature.
  I am all set to support whatever is necessary to help those families 
in any of these areas--and no one can watch what has happened to people 
in North Carolina and along those flood zones and not be moved--but let 
us do it right. Let us do it correctly, and let us not take it out on 
construction workers who, in many instances, have been devastated. Let 
us make sure they are going to get a reasonable day's pay for a 
reasonable day's work.
  If I may have 30 more seconds, I want to include in the Record that 
after Hurricane Andrew, in 1992, the GAO tried to assess the savings 
from suspending Davis-Bacon, but the GAO report was unable to conclude 
there were any savings.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator from Minnesota want?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes.

[[Page S12181]]

  Mr. SPECTER. We only have 15 minutes. How much time remains, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 26 seconds remain.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will use 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find this amendment to be very 
troubling, and I hope colleagues will support our effort to table it. 
This amendment plays off hard-working people who are trying to make a 
decent wage against people in communities that are faced with disaster.
  In 1999, so far, there have been 72 disaster declarations in 36 
States, including Minnesota. The Smith amendment would suspend the 
Davis-Bacon application to all contracts in these areas for the entire 
year.
  I think what people in Minnesota and in our country are saying to us 
is, when there is a disaster in our community and we need the help, 
please help us. I think what people in Minnesota and in the country are 
saying to us is that the prevailing wage is important, a living wage is 
important, a family wage is important, so please don't go cutting our 
wages.
  There is absolutely no reason in the world to play off construction 
workers and the need to make a decent wage and support your family with 
whether or not we are going to be able to provide disaster relief to 
communities. This is a false choice. It is, in many ways, an outrageous 
choice. This amendment should be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I find some of the remarks 
of my colleagues very interesting. To say this is a partisan attack 
against working people is so outrageous and so untrue that it barely 
deserves a response. People who don't belong to unions also have 
families. They also need to feed those families. Let's understand what 
is happening, if we can tone down the rhetoric a little bit. Nonunion 
workers who want to stand side by side with the volunteers, who perhaps 
are putting sandbags up to stop the floodwaters from coming into 
somebody's home, are asking to work at a lesser wage than the union 
worker to help these people out. And they can't do it under the Davis-
Bacon provision.
  That is what we are talking about. There is no concern expressed on 
the other side about the nonunion worker's family; it is only the union 
worker's family. We have people who are volunteering for no money, no 
pay, to stand and help these victims of floods and other disasters, and 
then we have nonunion people who are saying, look, maybe I am off from 
school, or maybe I am taking off a few days from my own job to help my 
friends, and I am willing to work for $5, $6, or $7 an hour, something 
less than the prevailing union wage. They can't do it. That is what we 
are talking about. This is the issue.
  This is nothing more than a payback for the huge contributions that 
come in from the labor unions, pure and simple. That is all it is. 
There is no excuse for this. The provisions in the law are very clear. 
The President could easily waive Davis-Bacon under the law, if he 
wished, but he doesn't want to do that. That is what we are hearing 
from the other side--lack of concern for the working man, unless he is 
a union man. If he is a union man, we have to protect him. If he is a 
nonunion man, who cares, we don't care about his family.
  Mr. President, I will submit for the Record a September 30 letter to 
President Clinton, interestingly, signed by 20 Members of Congress, 
including 7 from flood-damaged North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record, along with an editorial from the 
Washington Times.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1999.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States of America,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to relax 
     Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to facilitate 
     repairs in states hardest hit by Hurricane Floyd. As you 
     know, Hurricane Floyd has dealt a devastating blow to 
     residents along the eastern seaboard from Florida to North 
     Carolina to New York. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     (FEMA) has called this one the biggest multi-state disasters 
     in U.S. history. Many states believe that clean-up costs from 
     Hurricane Floyd will far exceed the cost of either Hurricane 
     Fran or Hugo.
       In North Carolina some 1,000 roads and 40 bridges remain 
     closed, as are sixteen school systems. Thousands remain 
     without electricity and an estimated 30,000 homes were 
     damaged or destroyed by the storm and flooding with 1,600 
     beyond repair. Agricultural impacts are estimated at more 
     than $1 billion in North Carolina with more than 110,000 hogs 
     and 1,000,000 chickens and turkeys killed by the storms. 
     Water systems in nine counties are contaminated and many 
     wastewater treatment plants are wholly or partly out of 
     operation. FEMA estimates that nearly 7,100 homes are 
     reported to be either destroyed or heavily damaged in South 
     Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other states. And while 
     nearly a week has gone by since Floyd's arrival, it is 
     anticipated that even more damage will be uncovered as the 
     flood waters retreat.
       As you may recall, President George Bush suspended to the 
     Davis-Bacon Act in 1992 to help speed up and lower the cost 
     of rebuilding the communities ravaged by Hurricanes Andrew 
     and Iniki. President Bush took this action pursuant to 
     Section 6 of the Act [40 U.S.C. 276a-5] which allows the 
     President to suspend the Act in the event of a ``national 
     emergency.''
       The economic effects of this hurricane are significant. 
     Many businesses have been damaged or destroyed. Thousands of 
     individuals have either lost their livelihoods or can not 
     make it to work because of impassable roads. It may be months 
     or years before these communities are rebuilt and a record 
     amount of federal assistance will be needed to do so.
       Relaxing Davis-Bacon in these hard hit states will lower 
     the cost of rebuilding these communities and will help create 
     job opportunities for those in need of work. Davis-Bacon 
     prevailing wage requirements increase the cost of 
     construction--forcing taxpayers to pay more and receive less 
     in return. Government estimates, economic studies, and those 
     involved in the construction industry believe that the Davis-
     Bacon Act inflates the cost of a construction project by an 
     estimated 5 to 38 percent. The Congressional Budget Office 
     estimates that Davis-Bacon adds about $9.6 billion (over 10 
     years) to the cost of all federal construction projects.
       The historic floodwaters of Floyd has resulted in hundreds 
     of millions of dollars in property damage and created a huge 
     swath of human misery that will last for months. We urge you 
     to suspend the application of Davis-Bacon for disaster relief 
     in the areas affected by Hurricane Floyd.
           Sincerely,
         Bill Goodling, Bill Barrett, Vernon J. Ellers, Sue 
           Myrick, Charles H. Taylor, ------ ------, Matt Salmon, 
           ------ ------, Tillie K. Fowler, Pete Hoekstra, Cass 
           Ballenger, Richard Burr, Walter B. Jones, Howard Coble, 
           Joe Knollenberg, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Bob Schaffer, 
           Robin Hayes, Nathan Deal.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, October 1999]

                        Flood Relief for Unions

       Bailing out after Hurricane Floyd was bad enough. What the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency called one of the biggest 
     disasters in history destroyed or damaged more than 30,000 
     homes and closed some 1,000 roads, 40 bridges and 16 school 
     systems in North Carolina alone. But now the victims of 
     Hurricane Floyd must also deal with a man-made problem: North 
     Carolina residents and those of other states may have to 
     endure union attempts to gouge them out of their flood 
     relief. The Davis-Bacon Act dictates that persons working on 
     federally subsidized projects receive the so-called 
     prevailing wage. In practice, of course, that means the 
     prevailing union wage, which is invariably higher than 
     whatever wage employer and employee might agree to without 
     government interference. Big Labor's friends in Congress 
     passed Davis-Bacon to price out of the market low-wage 
     competition and thereby protect the union cartel on federal 
     projects.
       So effective has this union-only requirement been that by 
     some government estimates Davis-Bacon arbitrarily boosts the 
     price of construction projects as much as 38 percent. Since 
     taxpayers rather than lawmakers must absorb the cost of this 
     shakedown, Congress has seen little need for reform.
       But applying Davis-Bacon to flood-relief work necessarily 
     means shifting flood relief from persons in desperate need of 
     help to paychecks for organized labor. Some lawmakers have 
     now written to President Clinton asking him to relax Davis-
     Bacon for flood relief so hurricane victims, not unions, are 
     its beneficiaries. ``The economic benefits of this hurricane 
     are significant,'' said lawmakers in their Sept. 30 letter. 
     ``Many businesses have been damaged or destroyed. Thousands 
     of individuals have either lost their livelihoods or cannot 
     make it to work because of impassable roads. It may be months 
     or years before these communities are rebuilt and a record 
     amount of federal assistance will be needed to do so. 
     Relaxing Davis-Bacon in these hard-hit states will lower the 
     cost of rebuilding these communities and will help create job 
     opportunities for those in need of work.'' Among the 
     signatories are North Carolina lawmakers Sue

[[Page S12182]]

     Myrick, Charles Taylor, Cass Ballenger, Walter Jones, Howard 
     Coble, Robin Hayes and Richard Burr.
       There is a precedent for relaxing Davis-Bacon. President 
     George Bush suspended the law in 1992 to speed relief work in 
     communities rebuilding after hurricanes Andrew and Iniki. The 
     statute provides that the president may suspend the law in 
     the event of a national emergency.
       On the off chance that Mr. Clinton may be more sensitive to 
     the pleas of campaign supporters in organized labor than he 
     is to those of persons in need of flood aid, Sen. Bob Smith 
     has said he would offer an amendment to the Department of 
     Labor appropriations bill forbidding the department from 
     using federal funds to enforce Davis-Bacon in places the 
     president has designated as natural disaster areas, including 
     North Carolina and other hard-hit states. A vote could come 
     as early as today. Says Mr. Smith, ``The historic floodwaters 
     of Floyd have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in 
     property damage and created a huge swath of human misery that 
     will last for months,'' says Mr. Smith. ``The Davis-Bacon Act 
     should be suspended to aid disaster relief.
       It should not be a difficult vote, nor should it be a 
     difficult decision for Mr. Clinton, to agree to protect flood 
     victims from union gouging. With the national spotlight 
     focused on the anguish of those in North Carolina and 
     elsewhere, do the Clinton administration and its supporters 
     want to argue that Big Labor's bottom line is the only line 
     that matters? It's time to show some compassion. It's time to 
     suspend Davis-Bacon.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by 
the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
  The Davis-Bacon Act was passed in 1931, and it was enacted in order 
to see to it that the Federal projects would not pay lower than the 
prevailing wage rate in a given area. That is not necessarily a union 
rate, but may be a nonunion rate as well. The Federal Government has 
moved in this direction in order to assure the quality of the work that 
would be done. In order to have quality work done and to see to it that 
people in a local area receive the work, the Federal Government has 
established this standard.
  Federal contracts are awarded on a low bid proposition, to who makes 
the lowest bid. If an out-of-area contractor were to come forward and 
make a lower bid, that would deprive people in the area of that 
employment and would not provide the kind of quality work that would be 
assured.
  Robert Reischauer, head of the CBO, testified a few years ago that 
the payment of the prevailing wage rate is designed to help the Federal 
Government get the kind of quality necessary. This was the quote of the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Robert Reischauer, when he 
testified before Congress on May 4, 1993.

       Higher rates do not necessarily increase costs. If these 
     differences in wages were offset by hiring more skilled and 
     productive workers, no additional construction costs would be 
     involved.

  It is also important to note that Davis-Bacon creates a financial 
incentive for contractors to fund and support apprenticeship training 
by allowing them to pay employees in registered apprenticeship programs 
less than the prevailing wage rate otherwise required.
  When we have had votes on this matter--and I have looked for a 
contested vote--as recently as 1996, there was bipartisan support to 
uphold Davis-Bacon. There is also a concern that if this exception were 
to be enacted on disaster areas, there would be a problem in finding 
skilled workers to come into the disaster areas and do the work. 
Thirty-seven States are involved in disaster areas, including my State 
of Pennsylvania; and if the prevailing wage rate were to be disrupted 
for the purposes of their Federal contracts, it would not be possible 
to get the same skilled laborers from the immediate area to come in and 
perform the necessary services.
  As I say, Davis-Bacon has been enacted since 1931. It has a very 
important purpose--for the Federal Government to get quality work, 
including the considerations advanced by others on paying a fair wage. 
It has been challenged from time to time, and while I respect the 
arguments made by Senator Smith, it seems to me that this amendment 
ought to be rejected.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 minutes 
21 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to Senator Reid of 
Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what this amendment would do is a number of 
things that are not good for working men and women. It would be an 
automatic suspension of the Davis-Bacon enforcement in areas where 
there have been disasters. It would mean hundreds of thousands of 
construction workers who typically go to these areas to work would lose 
the wage protections currently afforded them under the law. The 
President of the United States already has the authority to waive 
Davis-Bacon in the event of a national emergency.
  So far this year disasters have been declared in 36 States, including 
Nevada.
  This amendment is ill timed, ill advised, especially in light of the 
disasters that we had to deal with throughout the country.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is interesting that in 
those 36 disasters that the Senator from Nevada spoke of, the President 
has not decided to waive Davis-Bacon.
  The history on it is remarkable. We have had bipartisan votes on this 
floor on Davis-Bacon in the past in terms of some disasters. Presidents 
Roosevelt and Nixon also suspended Davis-Bacon to alleviate 
administrative confusion and delay, and to control inflation.
  There is a long--as I mentioned earlier, President Bush--history of 
bipartisan waivers and relaxation of the Davis-Bacon provisions.
  There is also an interesting editorial in the Detroit News. I ask 
unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I will read a brief 
excerpt from that editorial, called ``End of Payoff.'' It says:

       Here in Michigan, former deputy state treasurer and 
     Hillsdale College economics professor Gary Wolfram has 
     estimated that the prevailing wage law costs State taxpayers 
     $70 million to $100 million more than they would necessarily 
     have to pay each year for State and local public works 
     projects.

  I am having a hard time understanding how it helps working men and 
women to increase their taxes to pay to clean up disaster areas. If 
somebody could explain that to me, I might exchange my position.
  For the life of me, I don't understand how it makes sense to charge 
the taxpayers more money to clean up in unfortunate situations where we 
have disasters. It makes no sense to me.
  I conclude by saying that the Davis-Bacon Act is a Depression-era 
wage subsidy law. Its intent was demonstrated in the Congressional 
Record, which was to preserve northern construction jobs for white 
union men, and to prevent them from being taken by less expensive 
southern black labor.
  That was the original intent of that law, and its impact on taxpayers 
wastes valuable Federal tax dollars. It is a discriminatory law that 
limits equal access to work opportunities.
  Finally, no one should take unfair advantage of people who are the 
victims of disasters.
  As I said to you earlier, volunteers give their time, and nonunion 
people would like to come and help. They are going to be denied the 
right. They are not going to be able to work for the taxpayers or the 
Federal Government at a wage less than the prevailing union wage. It is 
going to cost the taxpayers.
  Those people who would like to help and who also have families to 
feed are going to be denied work. They are going to be told: Go home. 
You can't work because we have to pay a wage higher than for which you 
are willing to work.
  That is un-American. In America, it is an agreement between the 
employer and the employee. If an employee wants to work for less, then 
the employee has the right to do it.
  I urge support of my amendment and oppose the motion to table.

                               Exhibit 1


                             End the Payoff

       For close to 35 years, Michigan taxpayers have been paying 
     more than they should for public works projects because of a 
     political

[[Page S12183]]

     payoff known as Public Act 166 of 1965, commonly called the 
     ``prevailing wage'' law. State Rep. Wayne Kuipers has 
     proposed an elegant solution to this problem. Rep. Kuipers 
     has a bill that simply states that Public Act 166 of 1965 
     ``is repealed.''
       Rep. Kuipers' bill, HB 4193, should be promptly enacted. 
     The prevailing wage law requires that all state and local 
     governments pay union wages on their public works projects, 
     regardless of whether they can get the work done using less 
     costly nonunion labor. It is an act of pure economic 
     protectionism for one special interest.
       In fact, it is a clone of the federal Davis-Bacon Act, 
     adopted by Congress in the 1930s for the odious purpose of 
     freezing lower-wage minority bidders out of federal public 
     works contracts. The U.S. General Accounting Office has long 
     advocated the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.
       Here in Michigan, former deputy state treasurer and 
     Hillsdale College economics professor Gary Wolfram has 
     estimated that the prevailing wage law costs state taxpayers 
     $70 million to $100 million more than they would necessarily 
     have to pay each year for state and local public works 
     projects.
       The law was held in abeyance between 1994 and 1997. A 
     federal judge in Midland threw out the prevailing wage act, 
     but in 1997 a federal appellate court panel reinstated it. 
     During the interregnum, several school districts sold 
     construction bonds. When the law was upheld, they were left 
     with shortages because their bonds did not account for the 
     prevailing wage requirement.
       The Legislature, instead of repealing the act, voted to 
     make up the difference for the affected school districts at a 
     cost of $20 million over 10 years. As we noted at the time, 
     this amounted to a $20 million bribe to organized labor 
     interests.
       The Michigan Supreme Court, in a particularly benighted and 
     anti-taxpayer ruling last year, extended the prevailing wage 
     law to the construction of a student activity center, funded 
     by student fees and other nonstate appropriations, at Western 
     Michigan University. The court's majority acknowledged that 
     it was overturning a trial judge and two rulings by the state 
     Court of Appeals as well as a longstanding state Labor 
     Department interpretation, to reach this ruling.
       Unions contend that the premium pay supported by the 
     prevailing wage is the result of their better-trained workers 
     and the superior quality of their work. Rep. Kuipers, R-
     Holland, a former contractor has a different opinion: Let the 
     unions prove their case by competing for public construction 
     dollars without the artificial support of the prevailing wage 
     act.
       The bill is in the House Employment Relations Committee. 
     Surely, this measure is one of the reasons for a Republican-
     controlled Legislature.


                                our view

       The prevailing wage act imposes unnecessary costs on 
     taxpayers and should be repealed.


                             opposing view

       The act guarantees high-quality workmanship on public works 
     projects.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of a very brief reply, I think 
that Davis-Bacon is American. It has been American since 1931, almost 
as long as I have been in America; right about the same time. It has 
worked very well.
  There is merit to what the Senator from New Hampshire has argued in 
some respects. But to say that it is not American, this has been the 
Federal law for a very long time.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the remainder of time to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, prevailing wage means just that. That is 
in a given area. The fact is that the average, as I mentioned, 
construction worker who will be affected by this earns $28,000 a year. 
That is what it comes down to.
  I refer to that University of Utah study which showed that injuries 
went up and the cost of the buildings went up because there was a 
deterioration in productivity and the skills that were necessary for 
completion.
  It doesn't make any sense to bring this up as an amendment on this 
particular bill.
  Let's bring it back to committee. If the Senator has an argument to 
make, let's follow the regular legislative process. Let us table this 
amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1844. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
absent because of family illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 320 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we are near the conclusion of 
this bill. We are about to move to the Wellstone amendment. We are very 
close to completion of this bill. We are now going to move to the 
Wellstone amendment, and there are no further amendments on the 
Republican side.
  Mr. REID. I say to the manager of the bill, on this side, we have the 
Wellstone amendment we need to complete and the manager of the bill has 
an amendment. I say to the manager, we also have Bingaman-Domenici 
which needs to be worked out or offered.
  Mr. SPECTER. We are very close, Mr. President. I ask unanimous 
consent that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in relation to 
the Wellstone amendment on mental health prior to a motion to table.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object. I ask the Senator be allowed 
to offer his amendment before we enter into the time agreement. We will 
do that as soon as he offers the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I may offer the second-degree amendment----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Pennsylvania has 
the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield so the Senator may offer his 
amendment, and then I will repropound the unanimous consent request.


                           Amendment No. 1880

  (Purpose: to increase funding for the mental health services block 
                                 grant)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1880.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1880.

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

       On page 31, line 9, strike ``$2,750,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,799,516,000, of which $70,000,000 shall be made 
     available to carry out the mental health services block grant 
     under subpart I of part B of title XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and''.

                Amendment No. 2271 to Amendment No. 1880

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the mental health services block 
                                 grant)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.

[[Page S12184]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2271 to amendment No. 1880.

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

       Beginning on page 1 of the amendment, strike 
     ``$70,000,000'' and all that follows and insert the 
     following: ``$358,816,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out the mental health services block grant under subpart I of 
     part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act 
     ($48,816,000 of which shall become available on October 1, 
     2000 and remain available through September 30, 2001), and''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 
hour of debate equally divided in relation to the Wellstone amendment 
on mental health prior to a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, it 
is not anticipated that this side of the aisle will use very much time. 
So Senators should be prepared to vote perhaps even in advance of 5 
o'clock.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I will be pleased to use his 
additional time if he wants me to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will shortly outline my amendment, 
which is a very important amendment dealing with community block grant 
mental health services. I want to start out, however, in a very 
personal way.
  Mr. President, the Governor of Minnesota, Governor Ventura, in an 
interview with Playboy magazine said that he did not read books by 
Ernest Hemingway because the writer killed himself. And he want on to 
say:

       I've seen too many people fight for their lives. I have no 
     respect for anyone who would kill himself. If you're a 
     feeble, weak-minded person to begin with, I don't have time 
     for you.

  At Harvard University yesterday Governor Ventura was asked about his 
remarks, that suicide was for the feeble, weak-minded. And he said:

       I do upwards of 25 interviews a week . . . over 1,000 
     interviews a year. I'm human. You got good days; you got bad 
     days.

  He continued:

       I don't have sympathy, is what my feelings are on suicide. 
     . . . To me it's something that doesn't have to happen if 
     people take a positive attitude on life like I do.

  Today the Surgeon General, David Satcher, gave a very eloquent 
speech. Today is the ninth annual National Depression Screening Day. He 
pointed out that suicide is the ninth leading cause of mortality in the 
United States, responsible for 31,000 deaths.
  Mr. President, 85 Americans die every day having taken their lives. 
Suicide is the fourth leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 
14.
  I want to respond to these remarks by Governor Ventura because I have 
devoted so much of my work as a Senator in the mental health area, with 
Senator Domenici, my colleague from New Mexico, who is a Republican, 
and Senator Reid from Nevada.
  First of all, let me acknowledge the work of Al and Mary Kluesner. 
The Kluesners are wonderful people. Al and Mary Kluesner started an 
organization 10 years ago called SA/VE. This is an organization made up 
of family members. Many of them are parents who have lost their 
children. Al and Mary Kluesner have lost two children to suicide.
  The Governor of Minnesota and all Americans need to understand that 
suicide is directly linked to mental illness. The form of mental 
illness we are talking about is severe depression. When people struggle 
with severe depression, they lose hope.
  I want the Governor of Minnesota to understand that this mental 
illness is not a moral failing. I want Governor Ventura to understand 
that all these families that have gone through so much pain need 
support. They do not need ridicule.
  Today is the ninth annual National Depression Screening Day. This is 
when communities set up free confidential screening opportunities for 
people to talk privately with mental health professionals, receive 
educational material about the symptoms and treatment for depression 
and, when appropriate obtain referrals for care.
  Clinical depression is one of the most common illnesses. It affects 
more than 19 million Americans a year. These educational programs are 
to be commended. But if we do not have the resources to fund proper 
treatment for mental health illnesses, then all of this research and 
all of this education and all of this information may be for nothing.
  The clinical care that is needed may never reach those who need it 
the most.
  Why? Because they cannot afford it.
  Why? Because we do not have fairness--parity--in mental health 
coverage.
  Why? Because we drastically underfund public programs for mental 
health care, such as the mental health block grant program.
  Why? Because of problems with mental health services provided through 
the Medicaid programs, which represent 19 percent of nationwide mental 
health care.
  Why? Because it seems we would rather incarcerate children with 
mental illness than to provide community treatment programs that are so 
desperately needed.
  Why? Because we do not provide coverage for medication in so many 
health care programs.
  Untreated mental illness so often leads to tragedy such as suicide. 
We know from today's congressional briefing on depression and the 
elderly an outstanding fact: The highest suicide rate--often the result 
of undiagnosed and untreated depression--is for white men over 85 years 
old--65.3 per 100,000 persons.
  Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 
15 to 24.
  We need to increase funding for mental health services, not decrease 
it.
  This amendment, which I will summarize in a moment----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I have heard with--I do not know if the word is ``horror'' 
but certainly with disgust the statements made by the Governor of 
Minnesota. The Senator knows--because we have spoken--that 31,000 
people each year kill themselves. The Senator knows that; isn't that 
true?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is true.
  Mr. REID. Isn't it true that during the time we are going to be 
debating this very important matter, there will be four people in our 
country during this hour's period of time who will kill themselves?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. And for the Governor of the State of Minnesota to say--I am 
sorry to report--that these people in effect deserve to die because 
they have problems, is not understandable. The Senator understands. We 
have held hearings in the Senate dealing with suicide. We have heard 
from academics, we have heard from people from the entertainment 
industry, we have heard from people from all walks of life because 
suicide does not discriminate among people; it does not affect only one 
age group; it does not affect one economic group more than others; it 
affects everyone.
  It is true, is it not, I say to my friend, that the vast majority of 
suicides could be avoided if that person had some counseling and many 
times a little bit of medication? Isn't that true?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague from Nevada is absolutely correct. That 
is why I had to respond to these comments by Governor Ventura from 
Minnesota. This is an illness. This is an illness that affects many 
Americans. This is an illness that has led to such pain for so many 
families.
  I mentioned Al and Mary Kluesner from Minnesota who started an 
organization. Sheila and I have been to their gatherings, I say to my 
colleague, for the last 3 years. Hundreds of people come, including 
parents who have lost their children to suicide. They do not need 
ridicule. We need to understand this is not a moral failing. This is an 
illness. Suicide is the result of this illness. With treatment, we can 
prevent these deaths.

[[Page S12185]]

  Mr. REID. I will make one last statement, if I could.
  The illness that leads people to commit suicide, it is no different 
than someone that has tuberculosis, someone who has cancer; isn't that 
true?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, he 
is absolutely correct. The research over especially this last decade--
which has focused on brain diseases--over and over and over again 
points out that these diseases are comparable to physical illnesses. 
They are diagnosable and they are treatable, but the big challenge for 
us is to overcome the stigma, to overcome the discrimination. That is 
why I am so outraged by these remarks by Governor Ventura.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I very much appreciate, admire, and respect 
the Senator from Minnesota, who is on the floor now talking about these 
issues. We need to talk more about them.
  We don't know why people kill themselves. We have some understanding, 
but we need to study this. Thank goodness the Centers for Disease 
Control is now studying suicide. The Federal Government, for the first 
time, has directed research to determine why 31,000 Americans, young 
and old, kill themselves every year.
  Again, I appreciate very much the Senator from Minnesota having the 
courage to talk about an issue some people refuse to acknowledge.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is the fourth leading 
cause of death among children, ages 10 to 14, suicide, among white 
males. There are other populations as well. The rate of suicide among 
African American males, ages 15 to 19, has increased 105 percent 
between 1980 and 1996.
  Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have done a yeoman's job of 
getting more support for these mental health services. What I am trying 
to do is take this mental health performance partnership block grant 
program, which supports comprehensive community-based treatment for 
adults with serious mental illnesses and children with serious 
emotional disturbances, back to the level of funding the President 
requested. This is administered through the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration, SAMHSA.
  I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, if I could have 5 more 
minutes to summarize this, we want to go to a voice vote, and this 
amendment will be accepted. I will be honored.
  Let me simply talk about the services that are so important. This is 
funding for communities for programs that include treatment, 
rehabilitation, case management, outreach for homeless individuals, 
children's mental health services, and community-based treatment 
services that have everything in the world to do with providing 
treatment to people and enabling people to live lives with as much 
independence and dignity as possible.
  Right now the mental health block grant is funded at $310 million. 
That is a small amount compared to the tremendous need. This amendment 
would add $50 million. With this amendment, we could provide support 
for some important community services that would make a tremendous 
amount of difference.
  I went over some of the gaps earlier. My colleague from Pennsylvania, 
who is managing this bill on the Republican side, said there is an 
indication to accept this amendment. I will be very pleased. I know 
colleagues want to move this along.
  I say to my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues, I 
appreciate the support for this. I know Senator Specter is committed to 
this. I know Senator Harkin is as well. I would like to have this 
amendment approved. I would like to see the additional resources. This 
is an extremely important program. We have to do a lot better in this 
area. We can do it at the community level, but for those adults--and we 
are, in particular, talking about adults with serious mental illnesses 
and children with serious emotional disturbances--all too often, they 
wind up out on the streets or they wind up in prison or they wind up 
not receiving the care. So much of this illness is diagnosable. So much 
of it is treatable. There are so many ways we can help people.
  I think accepting this amendment and making sure we can keep this 
level of funding as we go to the conference committee would be 
extremely important.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been reviewing this amendment for 
additional funding for the mental health block grant. It is obviously a 
good program, beyond any question. The key issue is how far we can 
stretch in this bill. I have talked to the Senator from Minnesota and 
told him that after consulting with some of my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle, we would be prepared to accept it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield back my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment No. 2271.
  The amendment (No. 2271) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment No. 1880.
  The amendment (No. 1880) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________