[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2790-H2791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a number of us are taking the 
floor tonight in an attempt to respond to some of the misinformation 
used to justify the repeal of the Davis-Bacon, a law that requires 
fairness for our workers. The Davis-Bacon Act provides a process in 
which the Federal Government and many local governments must pay 
workers in a specific area the same wage on federal contracts as any 
other contract. There are several arguments put forth by the Republican 
majority or at least some of the Republican majority, because I would 
like to insert into the Record a letter from President Reagan in 1981 
showing his support for Davis-Bacon Act.

        We Agree With President Reagan Just Say ``No'' to Repeal


                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, September 29, 1981.
     Mr. Robert A. Georgine,
     President, AFL-CIO,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: I want to acknowledge the Building and 
     Construction Trades Department letter of September 11 
     concerning efforts to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. I have 
     asked the Secretary of Labor to respond directly, but I want 
     to assure you and your General Presidents that I will 
     continue to support my campaign pledge do not seek repeal of 
     the Act.
       With best wishes.
           Very sincerely,
                                                    Ronald Reagan.

  The arguments revolve around the act being racist, as barring 
minorities from earning prevailing wages and adding costs to Federal 
contracts for multiple reasons.
  Let us take the issue of Davis-Bacon being racist Federal law. This 
argument is based on language that was passed, was discussed when this 
original bill was passed in 1931. I would submit to the House that many 
things said in 1931 and the early 1930s on this House floor could not 
be used today, but that still means that Davis-Bacon is not a racist 
law.
  A Congressman Upshaw from Georgia in 1927 asked Congressman Bacon if 
this bill was based on preventing a large aggregation of Negro labor, 
and Congressman Bacon vehemently stated that any influx of labor, union 
or nonunion, regardless of race, being paid below prevailing wage would 
be detrimental to a local job market. Stating that Davis-Bacon is 
racially biased also assumes that minorities are not earning a 
prevailing wage. That argument that repealing Davis-Bacon helps 
minority workers goes against documented proof to the contrary.
  I would also like to insert into the Record a resolution from the 
NAACP in its July 1993 convention supporting Davis-Bacon and the 
continuation of Davis-Bacon.

[[Page H2791]] Resolution Passed by the NAACP at Its Annual Convention, 
                               July 1993


                         v. labor and industry

       1. Davis-Bacon Act--Concurred.
       Whereas, people of color have entered the construction 
     industry in increasing numbers in the past. Today, they are 
     threatened with the loss of many of the economic and social 
     gains made over the last several years; and,
       Whereas, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 protects the wages of 
     all construction workers, including minorities and women, who 
     are particularly vulnerable to exploitation; and,
       Whereas, shocking examples of the exploitation of 
     minorities and female workers on the construction site, even 
     in the face of the Davis-Bacon Act, the law designed to 
     prohibit such exploitation, are legion,
       Therefore, be it resolved, that the NAACP supports the 
     Davis-Bacon Act, takes steps to strengthen its enforcement, 
     and supports the creation of opportunities through training 
     and apprenticeship programs.

  A 1991 wage survey by the Department of Labor, reveals that the 
percentage of minorities employed by Federal contractors was 20.12 
percent as opposed to nonfederal projects of 20.56 percent. A 
difference of 0.4 percent in three categories, craftsman, operators, 
and laborers. Federal contractors have a higher percentage of 
minorities participation than nonfederal contractors. This also goes 
against the Senate report language which states that Davis-Bacon 
protects small businesses, especially minority small businesses, from 
being undercut in labor costs by large contracts.
  Davis-Bacon makes no distinction between race, gender or other 
characteristic. It simply requires an employer pay a prevailing wage, a 
fair wage. That is it.
  The next argument is that Davis-Bacon is a union wage. In the State 
of Texas we are a right to work State which prevents anyone from being 
forced to join a union. Contractors, the perfect example of small 
business, the engine of job creation, are the only respondents to job 
surveys that are sent out by the Department of Labor. Wage surveys are 
sent out and in a geographic area to obtain the wage and benefits paid 
by contractors and subcontractors. They are not sent to union halls or 
to union officials.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact that at no time does a union 
official send in a wage survey. It is actually the employer who sends 
them in. A contractor who decides on his own to be a union contractor 
obviously sends in that survey, but he does not represent the union.
  On the form contractors use to report wage information, form WD 10, 
it calls for a contractor to respond. There is no area for a labor 
leader or any other labor representative to respond.
  The process allows contractors of all sizes in a geographic area to 
decide what level they will pay their workers, while protecting the job 
market from large multistate contractors. In recent surveys on building 
trades, the Department of Labor showed that 38 percent of the 
respondents were union, 38 percent.
  To say that this wage is union wages is just not correct. If that is 
to say that 38 percent make up the distinction on this survey by the 
Davis-Bacon source book, then we Democrats in the House are now in the 
majority, Mr. Speaker, because we could control it with 38 percent.
  We should not run headlong into repealing a law that for 60 years has 
stood in its stead. It is based on falsehoods and wishful thinking, 
particularly that Davis-Bacon was based on racist assumptions, and also 
that it is a union wage that they are saying, with 38 percent only 
provided.
  Studies of 10 States where 50 percent of the highway and bridge 
construction occurs reveals that workers paid double that of low wages 
built 74 miles more roadbed and 32 miles more bridges for $557 billion 
less. My colleague, the gentleman from California, pointed this out, 
and I am proud to be here tonight with my colleagues, not only from 
Connecticut and California, but myself being from Texas, to talk about 
the benefits that we have by having a prevailing wage in Davis-Bacon 
being on our books since 1931.


                          ____________________