THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Early supporters of Davis-Bacon also believed that the law would prevent outside contractors from undermining local firms in the Federal bidding process. In practice, however, Davis-Bacon wages hurt local businesses and make it more likely that outside contractors will win bids for Federal projects.
[Page: S6311] GPO's PDF
Mr. President, for all of the above reasons, I believe that the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. I urge my colleagues to support the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DAVIS-BACON ACT.
(a) REPEAL.--The Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.) (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act) is repealed.
(b) REFERENCES.--Any reference in any law to a wage requi rement of the Act of March 3, 1931, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be null and void.
SEC. 2. COPELAND ACT.
Section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c) (commonly referred to as the ``Copeland Act'') is repealed.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by sections 1 and 2 shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act but shall not affect any contract in existence on such date of enactment or made pursuant to invitation for bids outstanding on such date of enactment.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator BOB SMITH as a cosponsor of the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999.
I believe Davis-Bacon repeal is long overdue. This 68-year-old legislation requires contractors to pay workers on federally-subsidized projects what the Labor Department determines is the local prevailing wage. What Davis-Bacon actually does is cost the Federal Government billions of dollars, divert funds out of vitally important projects, and limit opportunities for employment.
In my own State of Oklahoma, it has been proven that many ``prevailing wages '' have been calculated using fictitious projects, ghost workers, and companies established to pay artificially high wages. Oklahoma officials have reported that many of the wage surve y forms submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor to calculate Federal wage rates in Oklahoma were wrong or fraudulent.
Records showed that an underground storage tank was built using 20 plumbers and pipefitters paid $21.05 an hour but no such tank was ever built. In another case, several asphalt machine operators were reported to have been employed at $15 an hour to build a parking lot but the lot was made of concrete, there were no asphalt operators, and the actual Davis-Bacon wage shoul d have been $8 an hour. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Secretary of Labor established that at least two of the inflated Oklahoma reports were filled out by union officials.
The Davis-Bacon Act also diverts urgently needed Federal funds. After the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, Mayor Ron Norick of Oklahoma City estimated that the city could have saved $15 million in construction costs had the President waived the Davis-Bacon Act.
This money could have been used to provided additional assistance to those impacted by the bombing and to further rebuild the area around the Murrah site. The Federal role in disaster situations should be to empower communities and foster flexibility so that rebuilding efforts can proceed in the best manner possible.
The Congress should repeal a law that discourages, rather than encourages, the employment of lower skilled or non-skilled workers.
Davis-Bacon began as a way to keep small and minority businesses out of the government pie, and today it still does, reaching even further. Repeal of the act will take wage setti ng out of the hands of bureaucrats and return the determination of labor costs on construction projects to the efficiencies of the competitive marketplace. This would result in a more sound fiscal policy through payment of actual market-based local wage rates ; more entry-level jobs in construction industry for youth, minorities, and women; and more small businesses bidding on Federal contracts.
The Davis-Bacon Repeal Act will provide increased job opportunities for those who might not ordinarily have the chance to enter the workforce, the opportunity to learn a trade, and the opportunity to climb the economic ladder.
I applaud Senator SMITH for his efforts and appreciate the chance to cosponsor this bill.
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 1158. A bill to allow the recovery of attorney's fees and costs by certain employers and labor organizations who are prevailing parti es in proceedings brought against them by the National Labor Relations Board or by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
FAIR ACCESS TO INDEMNITY AND REIMBURSEMENT ACT
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my honor today to introduce the ``Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act'' (the ``FAIR Act''), which will amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide that a small employer prevailing again st either agency will be automatically entitled to recover the attorney's fees and expenses it incurred to defend itself.
The FAIR Act is necessary because the National Labor Relations Board (``NLRB'') and Occupational Safety and Health Agency (``OSHA'') are two aggressive, well-funded agencies which share a ``find and fine'' philosophy. The destructive consequences that small businesses suffer as a result of these agencies' ``find and fine'' approach are magnified by the abuse of ``salting'' or the placement of paid union organizers and their agents in non-union workplaces for the sole purpose of disrupting the workforce. ``Salting abuse'' occurs when ``salts'' create labor law violations or workplace hazards and then file frivolous claims with the NLRB or OSHA. Businesses are then often forced to spend thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves against NLRB or OSHA as these agencies vigorously prosecute these frivolous claims. Accordingly, many businesses, when faced with the cost of a successful defense, make a bottom-line decision to settle these frivolous claims rather than going out of business or laying off employees in order to finance costly litigation.
The ``FAIR Act'' will allow these employers to defend themselves rather than settling, and, more importantly, it will force the NLRB or OSHA to ensure that the claims they pursue are worthy of their efforts. The FAIR Act will accomplish this by allowing employers with up to 100 employees and a net worth of up to $7,000,000 to recover their attorneys fees and litigation expense directly from the NLRB or OSHA, regardless of whether those agencies' decision to pursue the case was ``substantially justified'' or ``special circumstances'' make an award of attorneys fees unjust. Thus, the Congressional intent behind the broadly supported, bi-partisan ``Equal Access to Justice Act'' (``EAJA'') to ``level the playing field'' for small businesses will finally be realized.
The ``FAIR Act'' is solid legislation; it is a common sense attempt to give small businesses the means to defend themselves against unfair actions. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues for their cooperation and assistance as I work to ensure that the ``FAIR Act'' is enacted into law.
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DODD, and Mr. THURMOND):
S. 1159. A bill to provide grants and contracts to local educational agencies to initiate, expand, and improve physical education programs for all kindergarten through 12th grade students; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
PHYSICAL EDUCATION FOR PROGRESS ACT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I send to the desk and introduce the Physical Education for Progress--or ``PEP''--Act. My bill would provide incentive grants for local school districts to develop minimum weekly requirements for physical education, and daily physical education if possible.
Every student in our Nation's schools, from kindergarten through grade 12, should have the opportunity to participate in quality physical education. Children need to know that physical activity can help them feel good, be successful in school and work, and stay healthy.
[Page: S6312] GPO's PDF
Engaging in sports activities provides lessons about teamwork and dealing with defeat. In my judgment, physical activity and sports are an important educational tool, and the lessons of sports may help resolve some of the problems that lead to violence in schools.
Regular physical activity produces short-term health benefits and reduces long-term risks for chronic disease, disability and premature death. Despite the proven benefits of being physically active, more than 60 percent of American adults do not engage in levels of physical activity necessary to provide health benefits.
More than a third of young people in our country aged 12 to 21 years do not regularly engage in vigorous physical activity, and the percentage of overweight young Americans has more than doubled in the past 30 years. Daily participation in high school physical education classes dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 27 percent in 1997. Right now, only one state in our union--Illinois--currently requires daily physical education for grades K through 12. I think that is a staggering statistic. Only one State requires daily physical education for our children.
The impact of our poor health habits is staggering: obesity-related diseases now cost the Nation more than $100 billion per year, and inactivity and poor diet cause more than 300,000 deaths per year in the United States.
We know from the Centers for Disease Control and others that lifelong health-related habits, including physical activity and eating patterns, are often established in childhood. Because ingrained behaviors are difficult to change as people grow older, we need to reach out to young people early, before health-damaging behaviors are adopted.
To me, schools provide an ideal opportunity to make an enormous, positive impact on the health of our Nation. The PEP Act, to me, is an important step toward improving the health of our Nation. The PEP Act would help schools get regular physical activity back into their programs. We can, and should, help our youth establish solid health habits at an early age.
The incentive grants provided for by my bill could be used to provide physical education equipment and support to students, to enhance physical education curricula, and to train and educate physical education teachers.
The future cost savings in health care for emphasizing the importance of physical activity to a long and healthy life, to me, are immense.
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN):
S. 1160. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Service Code of 1986 to provide marriage penalty relief, incentives to encourage health coverage, and increased child care assistance, to extend certain expiring tax provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
TAX RELIEF FOR WORKING AMERICANS ACT OF 1999
Mr. GRASSLEY.
Mr. President, today I am being joined by Senator FEINSTEIN in introducing the ``Tax Relief for Working Americans Act of 1999''. Congresswoman NANCY JOHNSON is introducing companion legislation in the House. We're here today to declare victory in the debate over whether or not we should have significant tax relief for the American people. The President and most congressional Democrats have now joined Republicans in support of cutting taxes. The question now is not whether there should be tax cuts, but what kind, and how much. I can't think of a better problem to have.
With our core tax cut plan, we're proposing a major first step in sending hard-earned dollars out of Washington and back to the taxpayer. I support an across the board tax cut. But, I'm afraid that if we do that first, we won't have any money left over to pay for tax cuts that people are telling me they really want, like addressing the marriage penalty, providing health care tax relief, and more help for education. They want these problems in the tax code fixed first. An across the board cut won't fix these problems, it'll only compound them. That isn't fair. And we're saying fairness should come first.
The President only offered modest tax cuts, along with a new retirement savings proposal that nobody understands, and many question whether it will work. And then, he wants to raise other taxes to pay for it. The President wants it both ways. He wants to be able to take credit for a tax cut on the one hand, while he's raising taxes on the other. We deserve what we get, if we let him get away with the double talk we all know so well.
We have two alternatives. One is to push for an across the board tax cut first, and let the President and some in Congress play the class warfare card they play so well. And in the end, we probably end up with no tax relief. Senator FEINSTEIN and I are saying that we should take the initiative and push for major tax relief that people really want and both Republicans and Democrats support. Our package will provide close to $300 billion in tax relief over ten years. I, for one, view this as a very strong starting point in determining how the coming on-budget surplus will be used.
Among other things, our bill will provide tax relief for senior citizens, those who are married, those who need to buy their own health insurance, and those who purchase long-term care insurance. Moreover, it will include provisions to ensure that parents who make use of education or child care tax credits are not hurt by the Alternative Minimum Tax. We also hope to improve the living standards of Americans through tax relief for urban revitalization, rural preservation, rental housing, and economic growth. We also provide needed tax assistance to farmers by shielding them from the Alternative Minimum Tax, and allowing them to set up special tax-deferred savings accounts to help them weather the ups and downs of farming. And, we help improve the environment by extending the production tax credit for wind energy and expanding the credit for biomass. I've strongly supported both of these alternative energies since taking the lead on them back in 1992.
We think this package is a good start in the process of delivering tax relief to the American people, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from Iowa, to introduce the Tax Relief for Working Americans Act--what I consider to be a ``fair share'' tax plan. This bill, while protecting our Social Security and Medicare needs, will also allow all Americans to benefit from our economic prosperity.
The American people are responsible for the more than $4 trillion in budget surpluses over the next 15 years, so it makes sense to give them some needed and deserved tax relief.
The Tax Relief for Working Americans Act is a sensible and moderate bill that provides needed tax relief for working families. It does so, moreover, in a fiscally responsible manner which protects Social Security and Medicare. This tax plan is estimated to provide tax relief of $271 billion over ten years, fitting within the budget framework set out by the President to protect Social Security and Medicare.
The legislation will provide relief to 21 million working couples who incur the marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction to put them on equal footing with unmarried couples. A married couple in the 28% bracket, for example, will save $392.
It includes tax incentives for the over 30 million Americans who purchase their own health insurance or who pay more than 50% of their employer provided health care insurance. This means a family that earns $60,000 and pays $4,000 a
year for health insurance will receive a tax credit of $2,400.
And it will raise the Social Security Earnings test to $30,000, so that the 1.1 million seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 who earn more than $15,500 would be able to keep more of their hard earned dollars. For a 67 year old secretary who earns $30,000 a year this would mean she will save nearly $5,000.
Under this legislation, millions of Americans who struggle to afford decent child care, will receive increased benefits from the Dependent Care Tax Credit. The credit will increase from 30% to 50% by 2004 and millions more will qualify for the maximum credit. When fully in effect, a family which earns $30,000 and spends $5,000 a year on child care for their two children will receive a $2,400 tax credit which should eliminate any federal tax liability.
This legislation will also help to expand our economy by making permanent the Research and Development tax credit. Research and development
[Page: S6313] GPO's PDF
There are also other important provisions in this legislation to promote long-term care, create more affordable housing, make education more affordable, and to help our farmers.
I believe that this tax plan is one which can, and will, receive broad bipartisan support. It is a tax plan which Congress can pass and the President can sign. I urge my colleagues to work with the Senator from Iowa and myself, and to pass the Tax Relief for Working Americans Act.
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. TORRICELLI):
S. 1163. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for research and services with respect to lupus; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
LUPUS RESEARCH AND CARE AMENDMENTS OF 1999
Mr. BENNETT.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999. This legislation would authorize additional funds for lupus research and grants for state and local governments to support the delivery of essential services to low-income individuals with lupus and their families. The National Institute of Health (NIH) spent about $42 million less than one half of one percent of its budget on lupus research last year. I believe that we need to increase the funds that are available for research of this debilitating disease.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents