Max Baucus: “essentially, very clearly, we have already debated this issue many times. The provisions of the bill apply to the…”

“essentially, very clearly, we have already debated this issue many times. The provisions of the bill apply to the same--the same provisions currently apply to the Clean Water Act revolving loan fund and to the Safe Drinking Water revolving loan fund. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There are all kinds of studies that Davis-Bacon adds to the costs of construction, and it does not add to the cost of construction. A lot of studies show, frankly, that the provisions of Davis-Bacon providing for the prevailing wage actually reduce the cost of construction because of fewer delays. There is a more uniform application of the contract, fewer cost overruns, generally, sturdier construction. In the long haul, many studies show that the prevailing wage provision tends to not increase costs in a project, but actually reduces them. The short answer is that this is an issue that has been around a long time, and all Senators are very familiar with this issue. The committee did consider this amendment in committee. It was rejected in committee by a vote, I think, of 11-6, and it was the same amendment. I strongly urge Senators--just as members of the committee did not-- to not adopt the amendment.”