[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H2790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



        DAVIS-BACON: PROTECTING THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I join with several of my colleagues tonight 
to discuss the Davis-Bacon Act, an act which for more than six decades 
has protected the standard of living of all Americans. We are going to 
hear in the debate that comes up as there are efforts to repeal this 
act that somehow the Davis-Bacon Act merely helps a few union workers, 
that it is a special interest law for only a few.
  Mr. Speaker, Davis-Bacon benefits all Americans. It does help union 
workers who have negotiated good wage rates across America. But it 
helps nonunion construction workers also because prevailing wages in 
almost 75 percent of communities across the country are based on 
nonunion pay scales and because Davis-Bacon extends the same 
protections to nonunion workers as it does to union members.
  Davis-Bacon benefits communities like my own in San Diego, because 
wages in our city are protected from cutthroat out-of-State lower wage 
labor and our
 economy is enriched because our working people maintain the purchasing 
power to keep our own small businesses thriving and our own retail 
operations going.

  Contractors in our community are helped because they have a level 
playing field on which to compete and our taxpayers are benefited 
because they can rely on quality and the productivity, the timeliness, 
the reliability that more than compensates for the additional wage 
cost.
  All our citizens, Mr. Speaker, are benefited because all the 
construction projects we rely on, whether they be bridges or schools or 
dams, nuclear waste removal sites, military installations, 
superhighways, all are built to the highest specifications by the most 
qualified, well-trained workers. That is why Davis-Bacon protects the 
standard of living of all Americans.
  Now, we are going to hear in the debate that follows in a few days, 
in the months ahead, that eliminating Davis-Bacon will save the 
government billions of dollars, that Davis-Bacon adds to the cost of 
government at a time when we can ill afford that.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts say otherwise. In fact, eliminating Davis-
Bacon will not save the government money. Lower wages, it turns out, 
does not mean lower cost. And why is that? As has been shown in 
comparison after comparison, high-wage states complete the work of the 
Davis-Bacon contracts with 56 percent fewer hours worked. High-wage 
states, as contrasted to low-wage states, build 74.5 more miles of 
roadbed and 33 more miles of bridges for $557 million less, and at the 
same time workers received a wage package more than double that in 
those low-wage states.
  In addition, if Davis-Bacon were repealed, construction employees 
would be misclassified as independent contractors and the government 
would be cheated out of billions of tax dollars.
  As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, [Mr. DeLauro], 
pointed out, nine States have already repealed their little Davis-Bacon 
acts because they have found out that tax collections actually fell 
because of lower rates. The Federal Government, it has been estimated, 
will lose nearly a billion dollars a year because of the decline in 
construction earnings. That is simply not a very smart way to address 
our deficit problem.
  In addition, construction injuries increase by 15
   percent in non-Davis-Bacon States, and that results in enormous 
loss-of-work days and productivity.

  So, Mr. Speaker, not only does Davis-Bacon benefit all Americans; 
repealing it will not reduce any cost. It may, in fact, raise the cost 
of doing business.
  My own district in San Diego has a majority of residents who are 
either African-American or Hispanic. They always ask, is anything I 
propose or anything that I favor harmful or of benefit to ethnic 
minorities?
  Mr. Speaker, Davis-Bacon protects all working people, regardless of 
race of ethnicity. The intent of the act is to mandate that a fair and 
liveable wage be paid to every worker to stabilize local wage rates.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not repeal Davis-Bacon.

                          ____________________