John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the Senate's consideration of S. 440, the highway bill, the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order, that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments, and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to a failed motion to table, unless the amendment is described only as relevant, in which case, second-degree amendments would be in order prior to a motion to table. This agreement has been agreed to by the Democratic side.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to join in the commendation to the Senator from Texas for the vigor with which she has handled this. She certainly is a strong proponent for her State, rightfully so, and she does an excellent job. I congratulate her.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CHAFEE. That is a leap that I am not quite prepared to agree to. Let me just say this: We have a philosophic difference here. The philosophic difference is as follows: The Republicans are saying let competition work, let the marketplace take effect just like it is in 85 percent of construction. What the Democrats are saying is no, no, no-- that we are going to give a special privilege, a fixed wage, as it were, to those who are working on Government jobs; namely, in this case, highway construction. What they are saying is that these wages are not going to be fixed by the free market or by what the employer wishes to pay or what the workers are prepared to accept. They are going to be guided solely by what is known as the prevailing wage. We all know that the prevailing wage is the union wage. That is a fact. I think you have great difficulty showing many sections of the country where the so-called prevailing wage under Davis-Bacon is not the union wage. So what the Democrats are saying is this is the way we want to do business. We want to say that only those companies that have had a history of paying the union wage, that are big enough to handle all the complexities involved with the recordkeeping, with the forms, with the compliance with Davis-Bacon, will be able to bid on these jobs. The little fellow who is out there and has done well, in let us, say home construction or in sidewalk paving, or driveway paving, he cannot bid on a paving job for the U.S. Government or for the Highway Administration or for the State highways where there is Federal money contributed. He is out. That is a fact. Davis-Bacon is a protective device for two things: For union wages, and union employees, union members, and for the big construction companies. It is no surprise that the Senator from Illinois is quoting some construction company saying we want to keep Davis-Bacon. Of course they do. And it is probably one of the biggest construction companies because they can keep everybody else out. The little fellow who comes in at a lower price, at a better bid, he is out. To me that is a very, very strange way of doing business. It is saying that competition is not going to prevail. That is really what Davis-Bacon says. You cannot have competition except under these limited rules where you are going to pay the prevailing wage. I listened carefully to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts yesterday who had a very vigorous speech. As a matter of fact, all speeches the Senator from Massachusetts gives are vigorous speeches, with the volume turned up on occasion. His point is that you are going to drive everybody else into the poorhouse. They are depressing wages, this wicked business of competition. That is like saying all the companies, the workers that work on the 85 percent of the other construction in the United States not covered by Davis-Bacon. What are we talking about? We are talking about building a building, building a warehouse, building housing, building apartment houses. That is not covered by Davis-Bacon unless the Government in some fashion has contributed, as the Senator knows. That is the rules that guide when Davis-Bacon applies. The idea is that everybody that is doing construction in these other nongovernment jobs is just in rags, has been beaten down by the competitive system. That is nonsense. We all know that is nonsense. Those who are good, if you are a good worker and have the skills and can produce, you get the job and you get the pay. And to say that everybody is working at a minimum wage, a carpenter or a latheman, an electrician, a plumber, whatever it is, is working at some scroungy minimum wage because he does not have Davis-Bacon to protect him is total nonsense. I am sorry that the suggestion has been made. We can argue whether we want to have the Government getting into setting these wages, as in effect we are doing. That is fine. But to suggest that everybody is poverty stricken if Davis-Bacon should be eliminated is just not so.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator from Illinois would like to engage in a discussion on this point?

Mr. CHAFEE. No. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I am here to listen to the persuasiveness of his argument. I will say that this bill is important. As we all know, unless we pass this legislation by the end of September of this year, our States will be deprived of some $6.5 billion of highway funds, which we need. So I think it is unfortunate we are involved in this filibuster, but that is obviously the choice of those on the other side. I am perfectly prepared to hear the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I'm sure my colleagues are aware, this week Washington has been host to the White House Conference on Small Business. This officially sanctioned conference brings small businesspeople from all over the country together to make recommendations to the President and the Congress regarding policy changes that are needed to improve the Nation's business climate. In the past, many of the proposals made by the Conference have later been adopted by both the executive and legislative branches. The process of bringing together those that our actions affect directly for their input is a fine example of the kind of communication and democratic governance that sets our Nation apart. I take the recommendations of the Conference most seriously. Rhode Island is a State of small business. Of the nearly 25,000 firms doing business in my State, over 21,000 of those have fewer than 20 employees. Enterprises with less than 20 employees account for more than 50 percent of the payroll expenditures in our State each year. Clearly, then, what helps small business helps Rhode Island. One of the most important themes Rhode Island's delegation has sounded throughout the Conference and the preliminary activities associated with its is the extraordinary role the Small Business Administration [SBA] has played in our State. As my colleagues will recall, Rhode Island suffered a double-whammy in the early 1990's. We had the same recession experienced by the rest of the Nation--but it was quite a bit worse in our manufacturing State. On top of that recession, we also had a private deposit insurance collapse that led to the closing of many of our credit unions, the lender of choice for many of our small businesses. The net result was an economic downturn compounded by a credit crunch of considerable proportions. It was at this point that our Providence SBA office began to work with our surviving private lenders to establish designated small business lending funds that the SBA would consider guaranteeing on a case-by-case basis. This activist, entrepreneurial approach is one important ingredient in the small business recovery that has occurred. Lending is up; in 1994 the SBA backed nearly 300 loans in Rhode Island, And in 1995 expectations are that the agency will guarantee over 500 small business loans. This rapid expansion is also a function of the Federal Government's decision to use fees to offset the cost of expanding SBA lending authority. It is likely that further reductions in SBA's subsidy rate will be used to preserve the SBA's ability to meet demand at the same time that SBA's cost of doing business are reduced. I applaud this and other changes being made at SBA that will allow programs to continue even while SBA does its part in reducing the Federal deficit. Thus, Mr. President, the SBA is important to Rhode Islanders. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, and other small business backers as we work our way through this year's appropriations bills and try to preserve the positive contributions of the SBA. As further evidence of Rhode Islanders' strong support for this program, I ask that a resolution recently approved by the Rhode Island General Assembly be printed at the conclusion of my remarks. The resolution follows: Joint Resolution Whereas, the U.S. Small Business Administration was created in 1953 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to foster the growth of small entrepreneurs, and Whereas, our Nation's economic prosperity is linked directly to the health of the small business community, and Whereas, the Rhode Island business community is comprised of over 97 percent small businesses, and Whereas, small businesses have grown 49 percent since 1982, they employ 54 percent of the American work force, account for 50 percent of the gross domestic product, and account for 71 percent in new job growth in 1993, and Whereas, the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 504 and 7(a) financing programs are a public/private partnership that leverages private dollars and allows for continued access to capital for Rhode Island's small business community, and Whereas, SBA's technical resources including the Small Business Development Center at Bryant College and the Service Corps of Retired Executives provide much needed counseling to the Rhode Island small business community, and Whereas, the Rhode Island SBA District Office has approved over 800 loans totaling $168.5 million in guarantee and 504 financing to the Rhode Island small business community from October 1992 to present, and Whereas, this financial assistance has played a vital role in reviving the Rhode Island economy; now be it Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby respectfully requests the United States Congress to financially support the U.S. Small Business Administration and its 7(a) and 504 financing programs, as well as its education/training and advocacy programs, and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of State be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit a duly certified copy of this resolution to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and the President of the United States Senate, and to the Rhode Island Delegation in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, June 16; that following the date; the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that there be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exception: Senator Sarbanes, 15 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that, at the hour of 11 o'clock, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 440, the National Highway System bill, which we have been on this evening.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I will certainly take a good look at it. I will get a copy either from the Senator's office or from the reprint here, and take a good look at it.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Illinois for the presentation he made, and for the effort he is making to cover pregnant women and children. I certainly will look at the legislation he has presented. I think it is a great help in this ongoing debate that we are having that the Senator has stepped forward with this legislation, which seems to me to hold a lot of promise. As he mentioned, always the funding part is difficult. But, nonetheless, I agree with the source of funding from the increased tax on cigarettes. I am not sure everybody else will enthusiastically embrace it. But I think the Senator mentioned Rhode Island and what we are doing to fund this program. There may have to be, in fact, an increase in the price of cigarettes, which will hopefully keep them away from those who are price sensitive in connection with purchasing that kind of deleterious substance. So, again, I think it is wonderful what the Senator has done. I take it that the Senator has not yet introduced that legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered and agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 135, submitted earlier today by Senators Dole and Daschle.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk that is signed by 16 Senators.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Larry Dwyer, detailed from the Federal Highway Administration, be granted floor privileges during the duration of the Senate's debate on S. 440.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 17; and, further, that the Senate now proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

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.'')

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. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would be happy if that were so. Why do we not proceed as in morning business?

Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.

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. CHAFEE. What does the ceiling go to?