[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10027-H10031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO REFORM DAVIS-BACON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an 
issue that was previously discussed by my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], dealing with the Davis-
Bacon legislation. There are many on my side of the aisle that would 
like to totally repeal this legislation and put at risk those 
construction workers across America whose quality of life and skilled 
craftsmanship directly depends on this important piece of legislation. 
There are many in the Republican Party who disagree with that premise 
but who do believe that reform of this rather outdated law in terms of 
its threshold level needs to be reformed and revised.
  Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, over the past several months a group 
of us have, in fact, come up with a piece of legislation to reform 
Davis-Bacon. This piece of legislation I introduced today with the 
cosponsorship of 27 Republicans and the support of organized labor 
across the country as well as many of the largest contracting 
corporations in America.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, in fact, does allow us to reform 
Davis-Bacon. It allows us to deal with the extremely low threshold of 
$2,000 and raise that in a significant way. In fact, similar 
legislation was already introduced in the Senate in the form of S. 
1183, which also enjoyed the support of the labor movement in this 
country.
  Like S. 1183, my bill will raise the current $2,000-and-above 
threshold for 

[[Page H 10028]]
applying Davis-Bacon to Federal contracts to $100,000 for contracts for 
new construction, and $25,000 for renovation and repair work. It will 
prohibit contract-splitting to avoid Davis-Bacon coverage. It will make 
provisions for payment of less than prevailing wages to apprentices, 
trainees, and helpers.
  A very important part of reform, Mr. Speaker, is to allow us to 
continue to develop the apprenticeship programs and the trainees and 
helpers that are so necessary to the building trades of this country, 
and, in fact, the construction unions are, in most cases, the 
organizations that best provide those apprenticeship programs.
  The act enforces and provides enhanced enforcement of the act and 
makes other changes to clarify the scope of coverage of Davis-Bacon. 
But my legislation differs from the Senate bill in two important ways 
that I think bring the bill even more to the center.
  First of all, where S. 1183 adjusts the threshold for inflation only 
every 5 years, my bill adjusts the Davis-Bacon threshold on an annual 
basis so that that threshold goes up each year.
  Second, where S. 1183 replaces the current weekly payroll reporting 
requirements with a monthly requirement which is very onerous for the 
business community, my bill requires payroll reports only every 3 
months, or quarterly, which is a provision very much welcomed by the 
business community.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many who will get up and argue there are 
abuses of the program, as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] did today, and I will not dispute that, 
and, in fact, there are the appropriate actions that can be taken by 
the Federal agencies, Department of Labor, to deal with those instances 
where fraud and abuse occurs. That does not mean we should jeopardize  
the quality of life of every construction worker in this country, which 
is what repeal of Davis-Bacon would do. I would like to submit for the 
Record as part of my extraneous material, Mr. Speaker, a series of 
articles put forth by Peter Cockshaw. Peter Cockshaw publishes the 
Construction Labor News and opinion articles and newsletter. He has 
been doing this since 1971 and is one of the most respected 
construction authors in the country. In his letter that I am going to 
submit for the Record, he points out in the 1960's and 1970's he 
strongly backed repeal of Davis-Bacon, but as the same article 
indicates, he says, ``My opposition to repeal today is based on a 
medically changed labor relations climate.''

  Peter Cockshaw and the Cockshaw report, which owe nothing to anyone 
and operate independently from both union and nonunion contractors, 
supports keeping Davis-Bacon in place but making the reforms in line 
with what I have outlined in my legislation.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the legislation I have introduced today not 
only is supported by all the major building and construction trades, 
but I have here a list that I will also include of 145 contracting 
companies and associations across America, many of them that frequently 
support Republican candidates in 20 separate States, who support this 
legislation and who support reform of Davis-Bacon as opposed to repeal 
of Davis-Bacon.
  Let me further add, Mr. Speaker, that 34 Republican members signed a 
letter that I circulated to Speaker Gingrich saying that we did not 
want Davis-Bacon to be a part of reconciliation and we continue to work 
to try to pull that out to allow us to have a separate up-or-down vote, 
hopefully, on my amendment and my bill, which would, in fact, reform 
the entire Davis-Bacon process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sound way to approach a difficult issue. It is 
Republican approach that I know my Democrat colleagues will embrace as 
well. Labor is behind it. Significant business support is behind it.
  I urge my colleagues to join with us in reforming Davis-Bacon is a 
way that keeps in mind the sensitivity of the American worker.
  The material referred to follows:

                                          Cockshaw's Construction,


                                           Labor News+Opinion,

                                   Newton Square, PA, May 4, 1995.
     Dan McGirt,
     Legislative Assistant, Office of U.S. Representative Curt 
         Weldon, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dan: As you requested when we talked Wednesday 
     evening, enclosed is our April issue with follow up on the 
     Davis-Bacon ``battle'' (see page 3).
       Among other aspects, the article documents that the use of 
     higher skilled, higher paid tradesmen on federal highway 
     construction over a 14 year period actually was less costly 
     than in the lower wage states. If you have any questions on 
     the piece, or any other Davis-Bacon matter, please don't 
     hesitate to call me.
       Also enclosed is a bio and ``Newsmaker'' reprint which 
     summarizes my 31-year background in construction.
       As I indicated, our publication is 100% independent. We 
     accept no advertising or financial support from any 
     organization. The sole source of our revenues is from 
     subscribers and from all types of industry groups I address 
     in speeches (union and non-union employers as well as 
     organized labor).
       Finally, as the March article you have notes, I strongly 
     backed repeal of Davis-Bacon in the 1960's and 1970's. But, 
     as the same article indicates, my opposition to repeal today 
     is based on a radically-changed labor relations climate.
       Hopefully, this information is useful to you. I would 
     appreciate your forwarding a copy of Curt's letter with the 
     March article when it is sent to the other Members.
       And please give my best wishes to Curt.
       With warmest personal wishes,
                                                Peter A. Cockshaw,
                                 National Labor Analyst/Publisher.

     [From Cockshaw's Construction Labor News+Opinion, March, 1995]

                 Will Prevailing Wage Laws Be Repealed?


opposing sides launch high stakes campaigns that will determine fate of 
                            davis-bacon act

       The campaign to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act is shaping up as 
     the most bitter labor relations battle of this decade.
       Gauging by the sparks now flying between repeal proponents 
     and opponents, that probably is an understatement.
       Encouraged by Republican victories in Congress and many 
     state legislatures last year, repeal advocates see a golden 
     opportunity to ax the Act.
       U.S. House and Senate bills H.R. 500 and S. 141 seek to do 
     just that. Repeal supporters also are pushing legislation in 
     several states which have ``Little Davis-Bacon'' laws.
       Leading these efforts is the merit shop Associated Builders 
     and Contractor (ABC). It heads a group called the ``Coalition 
     to Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.''
       Faced with the repeal threat, opponents are marshaling 
     their forces all over the country. The largest group is the 
     ``Contractors' Coalition for Davis-Bacon'' comprised of some 
     18,000 employers, associations and building trades unions.
       To influence the outcome, opposing sides have ``flooded the 
     airwaves'' with a blitz of claims, position papers and 
     studies. Cockshaw's, assisted by respected construction 
     analyst and research William Maloney, has just completed an 
     exhaustive probe into all these arguments -- both pro-and-
     con.
       Having done so, we'll now attempt to put the Davis-Bacon 
     debate in sharper focus and offer our views on whether repeal 
     is in construction's best interests.
       Let's first examine the key arguments by ABC and others who 
     seek to kill prevailing wage laws at both the state and 
     federal levels.
       In making their case, repeal advocates focus on two central 
     issues:
       1. That the Davis-Bacon Act inflates the cost of 
     construction, and
       2. That it serves to protect the wage and benefit structure 
     of union workers.
       (Some also allege that the Act is racially discriminatory 
     -- a charge we view too spurious to dignify.)
       Before addressing the critical issue of cost, let's 
     dispense with the claim that the act fosters union bias.
       This contention was true in the 1960's and `70's. Then the 
     Act did protect union wages because the unions enjoyed a 
     large portion of market share.
       However, this is the 1990's where the tremendous growth of 
     the non-union sector has shrunk organized labor's market 
     share to about 20% of all construction.
       Moreover, when once a majority of the workforce was 
     organized, only 18.8% of construction workers were union 
     members in 1994, the BLS reports.
       Data from the U.S. Labor Department's Wage and Hour 
     Division also illustrate the lessening impact of union rates 
     on prevailing wages.
       Last year only 29% of the 12,500 wage decisions were based 
     on union rates.
       So arguments that Davis-Bacon protects union compensation 
     packages are no longer relevant.


             Not battle between union and open shop sectors

       Industry authority Maloney who heads the University of 
     Maryland's Construction Engineering and Management Program 
     makes another crucial point:
       ``Although some may see it as such, the fight over Davis-
     Bacon is not strictly a union vs. non-union struggle.
       ``Many nonsignatories have as much to lose from repeal as 
     the signatory sector.
       ``That because astute open shop contractors offer wages and 
     benefits comparable to union signatories--pay needed to 
     recruit and retain qualified workers.
       ``Absent the Act, cutthroat competitors will steal work 
     from union and non-union employers alike.

[[Page H 10029]]

       ``They'll do so by low-balling the bid with lower-paid, 
     lower-skilled workers.''
       In sum, the current battle is between responsible 
     employers--both union and open shop--on one side and those 
     who win work by shortchanging workers on the other.


                  cost savings arguments are disputed

       The disputed argument of those who want to ax Davis-Bacon 
     is that the repeal will save money.
       ``In making their case,'' Maloney explains, ``opponents 
     have adopted a extremely narrow perspective on the Act's 
     impact.
       ``They have done this by focusing solely on the value of 
     the construction contract.
       ``That simplistic approach assumes that wage rates are the 
     main determinant of installed costs.
       ``It totally ignores the influence of productivity--which 
     is largely influenced by the knowledge and skills of the 
     workforce.''
       Results of an eye-opening study by three noted economists 
     at the University of Utah support Maloney's contention.
       The economists probed the impact of repeal in nine states 
     in which prevailing wage laws were repealed.
       Their 82-page study is ``Losing Ground: Lessons from the 
     Repeal of Nine `Little Davis-Bacon Acts'.''
       Tossing cold water on the cost-savings claims by repeal 
     advocates, the Utah economists found:
       ``The shift to a less-skilled labor force--lowering labor 
     productivity along with wages--have lessened any possible 
     savings associated with repeal.''
       On the other hand, repeal proponents repeatedly cite cost 
     savings estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO).
       Last year CBO estimated that repeal would save some $3 
     billion over five years.
       The problem with that projection is that it is based on 
     outdated and dubious methodology compiled from a study done 
     13 years ago.
       This fact was pointed out by the U.S. Labor Department's 
     (DOL) Employment Standards Administration.
       In testimony before the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
     Committee last month, Assistant DOL Secretary B.E. Anderson 
     stated:
       ``Current CBO estimates originate from a 1983 study which 
     used crude savings estimates from a 1982 departmental 
     regulatory impact analysis.
       ``Changes in the construction industry--including narrowing 
     the gap between union and non-union wages and changes in our 
     administration of the Act--make these estimates unreliable.''
       The cost issue aside, University of Utah economists cited 
     the impact of repeal on training and safety.
       The study found that construction training fell off 40% in 
     the 9 states which repealed the laws. It also noted that 
     occupational injuries rose by 15%.


               repeal advocates ignore changed conditions

       The biggest problem Cockshaw's has with arguments made by 
     repeal advocates is that they totally ignore current industry 
     conditions.
       Most of the claims now being made to kill the Act have 
     validity when applied to the 1960's and 1970's.
       But, unlike the high wage climate 20 and 30 years ago, 
     construction today is a low wage industry.
       Pay is so lousy the industry no longer can compete for 
     qualified workers and there are skilled shortages most 
     everywhere.
       Interestingly, those who lead the drive to repeal the 
     Davis-Bacon Act agree with these points.
       In a speech last year, Tommy Knight, president and CEO of 
     ABC member Brown & Root stated:
       ``None of our challenges is more important than the need to 
     reverse the decline in living standards that our craft 
     employees have suffered over the past decade.
       ``Since 1983, the purchasing power of the typical 
     construction worker has been reduced by almost 30%.
       ``Worse, a majority no longer can carry health insurance 
     for their families. They can't afford it.
       ``Typical teenagers now view a potential career in 
     construction as only slightly more appealing than becoming a 
     migrant farm worker.''
       Brown & Root's chief executive continued: ``It's a small 
     wonder that our average craftsman is more than 40 years old 
     and from a generation that entered the business when a good 
     living could still be made from it.
       ``If this trend is left unchecked, it won't be long before 
     our industry compromises its ability to fill the needs of our 
     customers and our country.''
       ABC's executive vice president, Dan Bennet, also sounded 
     the alarm early last year about construction's poor financial 
     incentives.
       Then in December he bemoaned the resulting skills 
     shortfalls, noting: ``A major part of the problem lies with 
     an aging workforce . . . and the lack of qualified entry 
     level workers to take their place.''
       Given these views, the ABC's campaign to repeal Davis-Bacon 
     is puzzling.
       That's because it is impossible to raise wages when you act 
     to lower them!
       And there is solid evidence that this is exactly what will 
     happen if prevailing wage provisions are struck down.
       It comes from the same 82-page University of Utah study 
     cited earlier. The authors' key conclusion regarding the 
     impact of repeal in nine states:
       ``Repeals in the states studied cost construction workers 
     at least an average $1,477 per year in earnings.''
       Given this evidence, it's crystal clear that scrapping 
     Davis-Bacon will lower wages further and make a construction 
     career even more unattractive.
       And skilled labor shortages, which are already increasing 
     at an alarming rate, will worsen.
       In summary, there was a time when Davis-Bacon contributed 
     to higher costs and inflation. At that time, in the 60's and 
     70's, Cockshaw's backed repeal efforts.
       But, as we've demonstrated in this article, conditions in 
     construction today are vastly different. For that reason and 
     others we've cited, Davis-Bacon repeal now would be a huge 
     mistake.
       Although repeal is not in the industry's best interests, 
     reform of the Act's administration is.
                                                                    ____


     [From Cockshaw's Construction Labor News+Opinion, April 1995]

               The Bitter Battle Over Davis-Bacon Act--II


        new analysis reveals that repealing law won't save money

       Last month Cockshaw's argued that repeal of the Davis-Bacon 
     Act is not in construction's best interest.
       We made a number of points to support that view. One of 
     them attempted to refute claims of those who contend that 
     axing the Act will save taxpayers money.
       As respected construction authority William Maloney noted: 
     ``In making their cost savings case, repeal advocates have 
     adopted an extremely narrow perspective on Davis-Bacon's 
     impact.
       ``They have done this by focusing solely on the value of 
     the construction contract.
       ``That simplistic approach assumes that wage rates are the 
     main determinant of installed costs.
       ``It totally ignores the influence of productivity--which 
     is largely influenced by the knowledge and skills of the 
     workforce.''
       To buttress Maloney's argument, we quoted University of 
     Utah economists who probed the impact of repeal in nine 
     states where prevailing wage laws were repealed.
       Their conclusion: ``The shift to a less-skilled labor 
     force--lowering labor productivity along with wages--have 
     lessened any possible savings associated with repeal.''
       Now there is more evidence to counter repeal proponents' 
     cost savings claims.
       It comes from one of the country's leading statistical 
     analysts and economists, Robert Gasperow.
       Gasperow, executive director of the Construction Labor 
     Research Council (CLRC), just completed a review of a study 
     commissioned by the National Alliance for Fair Contracting 
     (NAFC).


   examines the relationship between wages, manhours and final costs

       Using data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration 
     (FHWA) over 14 years, the study sought to determine the 
     correlation between wages, manhours and highway construction 
     expenditures.
       NAFC asked Gasperow to verify that the data and conclusions 
     were based on sound economic principles.
       His analysis--including comments about the relationship 
     between wages and final installed costs--is most revealing.
       Gasperow stated: ``The study's data and findings support 
     NAFC's position that wage rates are but one determinant of 
     highway costs.
       ``It also documents that there is only minimal correlation 
     between the hourly wage rate paid to labor and the cost of a 
     mile of highway.
       ``Further, the limited correlation which does exist appears 
     to indicate the relationship is inverse--higher hourly rates 
     tend to equate to lower highway cost per mile.''
       The veteran economist explains that the amount/cost of any 
     single factor in highway construction--various mixes of 
     equipment, labor, materials and management--reveals little 
     about total cost.
       Up to a point, factors are substitutes for each other 
     because they may be exchanged. Similarly, within a factor 
     category, there may be substitutes.


            higher skilled craftsmen are more cost-effective

       For example, workers with varying skill levels may be 
     utilized. Although there are higher costs per unit of time 
     for the more highly skilled, these workers require fewer 
     labor inputs.
       Therefore, if the gain in output per unit of time exceeds 
     the premium paid to the more highly skilled worker, this 
     becomes a more cost-effective alternative.
       The analysis of FHWA data documents the impact on highway 
     costs of utilizing various amounts of labor inputs at varying 
     hourly rates.
       Gasperow explains: ``It substantiates the lack of 
     correlation between labor inputted into a mile of highway and 
     total cost of project.
       ``Using higher skilled, higher hourly cost labor 
     substantially lowers the required labor inputs--often to the 
     extent that cost per mile is lower then paying higher hourly 
     labor rates.''
       The industry analyst's bottom line conclusion: ``There is 
     no basis for the contention that lower labor rates result in 
     lower highway costs.''
       Study data revealed that, in the 26 states accounting for 
     over three-quarters of highway expenditures, the cost per 
     mile is $50,000 less in higher wage states.

[[Page H 10030]]

       This result is despite the fact that rates in higher wage 
     states averaged $17.64 an hour--compared to lower wage 
     states' $9.21 per hour.
       The CLRC director noted that a ``number of factors'' made 
     the FHWA data base ``ideal'' for this type of analysis.
       That's because he rates it as ``objective, comprehensive 
     and neutral'' (i.e., not designed to evaluate labor costs).
       Moreover, the study covers 1980 through 1993 so exceptions 
     and a typical projects reported in a specific state in a 
     specific year have little or no impact upon the findings.
       Gasperow's review of the FHWA figures also noted the small 
     portion of highway costs which accounts for labor--21%.
       ``This suggests,'' he opines, ``that efforts to reduce 
     federal highway expenditures might be better directed toward 
     the other 79% of cost categories.''
       That aspect aside, Gasperow's analysis, coupled with the 
     evidence Cockshaw's offered last month refutes claims of 
     those who argue that Davis-Bacon repeal will save the 
     taxpayers money.
                                                                    ____


      [From Cockshaw's Construction Labor News+Opinion, May, 1995]

                  Will Davis-Bacon Repeal Save Money?


 probe of repeal advocates' cost savings claims reveal that study data 
                        they cite are unreliable

       We are constantly amazed at how many in this industry 
     swallow the claims of various groups--hook-line-and-sinker.
       That's probably because those who make claims to promote 
     their agenda often contend that a study supports them. 
     Apparently once people hear the word ``study,'' they assume 
     the claims are true.
       As Cockshaw's longtime subscribers know, we've exposed many 
     of these ``studies'' as defective. Some even turned out to be 
     pure fiction.
       Now we'll put the spotlight on another study--a 1983 effort 
     by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This is the report 
     many continually cite as source for claims that Davis-Bacon 
     Act repeal will reap big cost savings.
       For example, in recent testimony before the Senate Labor 
     and Human Resources Committee, Maurice Baskin, general 
     council for the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) 
     contended:
       ``An extremely conservative estimate by the Congressional 
     Budget Office found that the Davis-Bacon Act raises federal 
     construction costs by at least $3.1 billion over five 
     years.''
       Since most repeal proponents--including many members of 
     Congress--have made similar claims, Cockshaw's asked 
     statistical expert Robert Gasperow to thoroughly scrutinize 
     this government study. He is director of the Construction 
     Labor Research Council (CLRC).
       We think you'll find the analysis of Gasperow an eye-
     Opener. It follows.


             cost estimates may be incorrect or nonexistent

       Overall, the 1983 CBO study is a well thought out 
     evaluation of the Act. The problem is that its cost estimates 
     are flawed, Gasperow explains.
       In fact, the CBO admits its estimates may be incorrect, or 
     even nonexistent.
       But repeal advocates fail to mention this vital point when 
     making their cost savings claims.
       Another fact repeal proponents don't reveal is that the 
     study repeatedly notes unquantified benefits of the Act that 
     could offset, or even exceed, perceived costs.
       An April 2 CBO update of the cost figures extrapolates the 
     earlier 1983 study's uncertain methodology.
       But the update is most revealing for its comments by CBO's 
     Assistant Director for Budget Analysis, Paul N. Van de Water. 
     He admits:
       ``Any estimate of cost implications of the DBA is 
     uncertain. Very little empirical work has been published on 
     the subject since CBO's 1983 report, and even then there was 
     little consensus as to the precise cost impacts. . . .''
       Not only does Van de Water concede that CBO's cost 
     estimates are suspect, he also reveals that ``CBO's 1983 
     report was based on 1979 figures.''
       Industry analyst Gasperow stresses another fact not cited 
     previously--that the CBO study repeatedly refers to the Act's 
     benefits. For example, the 43-page report's summary section 
     notes:
       ``The Act's benefits include protecting both the living 
     standards of construction workers and the competitiveness of 
     local firms bidding against transient contractors who might 
     win federal contracts (by paying) lower-then-prevailing local 
     wages.
       ``Government contracts are especially vulnerable to such 
     practices because they must be awarded to the lowest 
     qualified bidder.
       ``Further, by excluding bids from contractors who would use 
     lower wage, less-skilled workers, DBA may aid federal 
     agencies in choosing contractors who will do high quality 
     work.
       ``Finally, by helping to stabilize wage rates in the 
     inherently volatile construction labor market, DBA may aid 
     the industry in recruiting and training workers.
       (This would) ``help to maintain the long-term supply of 
     skilled labor.''
       And although it makes no attempt to quantify these 
     benefits, Gasperow explains, the study concedes that they may 
     equal or exceed the Act's costs.


            is reform a better option than outright repeal?

       While not recommending a particular course of action, the 
     CBO report indicates that reform of some sort may be a better 
     option than repeal.
       The study's summary section advises: ``Adoption of any of 
     these options but repeal would preserve the fundamental 
     benefits the Act was designed to offer--while still saving 
     varying amounts of federal outlays.''
       Also, contrary to critics' claims, the CBO indicates there 
     is no bias as to union rates in Dept. of Labor's wage 
     determinations.
       As CBO's report states: ``Union rates tend to be issued for 
     geographic areas and types of construction that are 
     relatively heavily unionized. And non-union rates are used in 
     areas where the non-union construction work is dominant.''


                cbo admits it doesn't have reliable data

       As the quotes by CBO official Van de Water revealed 
     earlier, cost estimates of DBA are ``uncertain.'' Adds CLRC's 
     Gasperow:
       ``Again and again, CBO admits that its analysis of the Act 
     is hampered by lack of good data to use in costs evaluation. 
     That's because sources of data are few and those that do 
     exist rely on a small number of wage observations.''
       Gasperow also notes that the CBO made no effort of its own 
     to perform data collection. And this short-coming applies to 
     data used by the Department of Labor and other sources.
       The industry analyst criticizes other aspects of the CBO 
     effort, stating:
       ``While the study is open about admitting limitations of 
     its cost data, it is misleading in one key respect.
       ``In general, the report equates wage rates with 
     construction costs. There is not an equal substitution 
     between labor at various wage scales.
       ``Higher wages can be offset by higher productivity. And 
     more labor hours are required when lower skilled persons are 
     employed.''
       The analysis by CLRC's Gasperow--coupled with CBO's 
     admission that its cost estimates are ``uncertain''--have 
     exposed repeal advocates' savings claims as flawed.
       Those who continue to make such claims do themselves and 
     the industry a great disservice.

                   List of Supporters of Davis-Bacon


                               california

       Amelco Electric, Gardena, CA; Ball, Ball & Browsmer, 
     Danville, CA; Brutoco Engineering & Construction, Fontana, 
     CA; Construction Employers Association, Walnut Creek, CA; 
     J.R. Filanc Construction, Oceanside, CA; Association 
     Engineering Construction Employers, Sacramento, CA; Berry 
     Construction, Upland, CA; California Alliance for Jobs, 
     Oakland, CA; Dutra Construction Company, Inc.; Rio Vista, CA; 
     John A. Artukovich & Sons, Azusa, CA; K.E.C. Company, Corona, 
     CA; National Electrical Contractors Association Southern 
     Sierras Chapter, San Bernardino, CA; National Electrical 
     Contractors Association--San Diego, San Diego, CA; Roy E. 
     Ladd, Inc., Reading, CA; Top Grade Construction, Livermore, 
     CA; K.L. Neff Construction, Ontario, CA; National Electrical 
     Contractors Association--Santa Clara Valley Chapter, San 
     Jose, CA; Northern California Drywall Contractors Assoc., 
     Saratoga, CA; Scott Company of California, Gardena, CA.


                                colorado

       L.O.S.T. Construction, Inc., Louviers, CO.


                              connecticut

       ABB-CE Services, Inc., Windsor, CT; Lane Construction, 
     Meridan, CT; L.G. Defelice Inc., North Haven, CT.


                               washington

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Washington, DC; 
     Crane Rental, Washington, DC; Handon Diving, Washington, DC; 
     Lynn-Phill Construction Company, Washington, DC; Macton 
     Construction, Inc., Washington, DC; Sheet Metal & Air 
     Conditioning Contractors National Association, Washington, 
     DC; Temple Construction Company, Washington, DC.


                                florida

       Union Contractors & Subcontractors Association, Inc., 
     Lakeland, FL.


                                 hawaii

       General Contractors Association, Honolulu, HI.


                                  iowa

       Heavy/Highway Contractors Assoc., Des Moines, IA.


                                illinois

       Barton Contractors, Inc., South Roxana, IL; Concrete 
     Contractors Association, Deerfield, IL; Excavating and 
     Petroleum Tank Removal, Carbondale, IL; Illinois Valley 
     Paving Company, Winchester, IL; Illinois Valley Contractors 
     Association, La Salle, IL; Kenny Construction, Wheeling, IL; 
     L.J. Keefe Company, Mt. Prospect, IL; Lake County Contractors 
     Association, Waukeegan, IL; Midwest Foundation Corporation, 
     Tremont, IL; Shappert Engineering, Rockford, IL; Underground 
     Contractors Association, Des Plaines, IL.


                                indiana

       Associated General Contractors of Indiana, Indianapolis, 
     IN; CCC of Evansville, Inc., Evansville, IN; Crider & Crider 
     Excavation, Bloomington, IN; Hagerman Construction, Ft. 
     Wayne, IN; Kimes Construction, Inc., New Albany, IN; HEC 
     Steel Service, Inc., Owensboro, KY.


                             massachusetts

       Perini Corporation, Framingham, MA.

[[Page H 10031]]



                                maryland

       Associated Builders, Inc., Hyattsville, MD; Bechtel 
     Construction Company, Gaithersburg, MD; Clipper Steel, Elk 
     Ridge, MD; Eastern Steel Construction, Fallston, MD; Gallo 
     Rebar, Capitol Heights, MD; Hickman Construction, Suitland, 
     MD; James Buch & Sons, Laurel, MD; Mechanical Contracting 
     Foundation, Rockville, MD; Mekco, Inc., Laurel, MD; Mid-
     Atlantic Steel Contractors, Inc., Ellicott City, MD; 
     National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, MD; 
     O'Connell Construction, Inc., Olney, MD; S.C.C.I., Temple 
     Hills, MD; Wood Steel Company, Inc., Bryans Road, MD.


                                michigan

       Metropolitan Detroit Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors 
     Association, Detroit, MI; Snowden, Inc., Escanaba, MI.


                               minnesota

       Bor-Son Construction, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.


                                missouri

       Bangert Brothers, St. Louis, MO; Heavy Constructors Assoc. 
     of the Greater K.C. Area, Kansas City, MO; Mechanical 
     Contractors Association of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO; National 
     Electrical Contractors Association--St. Louis Chapter, St. 
     Louis, MO; Painting & Decorating Foundation, St. Louis, MO; 
     Site Improvement Association-- St. Louis, Maryland Heights, 
     MO.


                               new jersey

       Associated General Contractors of New Jersey, Edison, NJ; 
     Building Contractors Association of New Jersey, Edison, NJ; 
     Burris Construction Company, Mount Laurel, NJ; Raytheon 
     Constructors, Inc., Lyndhurst, NJ.


                                new york

       Ashco Contracting Inc., Delanson, NY; Frank L. Ciminelli 
     Construction Co., Inc., Buffalo, NY; General Contractors 
     Association of Greater New York, New York, NY; Grace 
     Industries, Whitestone, NY.


                                  ohio

       Associated General Contractors of Ohio--Cleveland Division, 
     Brooklyn Heights, OH; Cin-Don Inc., Concord, OH; Construction 
     Employers Association, Brooklyn Heights, OH.


                              pennsylvania

       Allison Park Contractors, Inc., Allison Park, PA; American 
     Bridge, Pittsburgh, PA; Contractors Association, of Eastern 
     Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; IW Employers Association, 
     Pittsburgh, PA; Joseph B. Fay Company, Pittsburgh, PA; 
     Laurel Contractors Association, Ligonier, PA; Master 
     Builders Association, Pittsburgh, PA; Mechanical 
     Contractors Association, Pittsburgh, PA; National 
     Electrical Contractors Association, Western Pennsylvania, 
     Pittsburgh, PA; Osiris Enterprises, Pittsburgh, PA; 
     Philadelphia Builders Chapter (AGC), Philadelphia, PA; 
     Sheet Metal Air Conditioning National Association, 
     Pittsburgh, PA; Sofis Company, Inc., Clinton, PA.


                                virginia

       Construction Contractors Council AGC Labor Division, 
     Springfield, VA; Dredging Contractors of America, Alexandria, 
     VA; J.W. Wise Reinf. Steel, Manassas, VA; Master Builders' 
     Association, Inc., Greater Metropolitan Washington, D.C. 
     Chapter, AGC, Springfield, Va; National Erectors Assocaition, 
     Arlington, VA; National Association of Plumbing, Heating, 
     Cooling Constractors, UA Task Force, Falls Church, VA; 
     Sullivan Steel Service, Beaverdam, VA; Vanessa General 
     Builders-VA Ltd., Virginia Beach, VA 23462-4402.


                               washington

       Associated General Contractors of Washington, Seattle, WA; 
     Fletcher General, Seattle, WA; Max J. Kuney Company, Spokane, 
     WA.


                               wisconsin

       Antigo Construction Inc., Antigo, WI; B.R. Amon & Sons, 
     Inc., Elkhorn, WI; C. Jensen & Son, Inc., Superior, WI; Dell 
     Construction Company, Inc., Eau Claire, WI; Dresel 
     Construction Company, Ltd., Chippewa Falls, WI; Duffek Sand 
     and Gravel, Inc., Antigo, WI; Edward Kraemer & Sons, Plain, 
     WI; Edward E. Gillen Company, Milwaukee, WI; Hoeppner 
     Building Corporation, Eau Claire, WI; Hoffman Construction 
     Company, Black River Falls, WI; J.F. Brennan Company, 
     LaCrosse, WI; James Peterson Sons, Inc., Medford, WI; 
     James Cape & Sons Co., Racine, WI; Lunda Construction 
     Company, Black River Falls, WI; Mann Brothers, Inc., 
     Elkhorn, WI; Market & Johnson, Inc., Eau Claire, WI; 
     Mashuda Contractors, Inc., Princeton, WI; Mathy 
     Construction Company, Onalaska, WI; Michaels Pipe Line 
     Construction, Milwaukee, WI; Oscar J. Boldt Construction 
     Company, Appleton, WI; Pagel Construction Co., Inc., 
     Almond, WI; Payne & Dolan, Inc., Waukesha, WI; Reliance 
     Construction Company, Inc., De Pere, WI; Rock Road 
     Companies, Inc., Janesville, WI; Roffers Construction 
     Company, Inc., Ashland, WI; Ruzic Construction Company, 
     Neillsville, WI; Stoehr Grading Company, Inc., New Berlin, 
     WI; Straight Arrow Construction Co., Inc., Cottage Grove, 
     WI; Timme, Inc., Endeavor, WI; Trierweiler Construction & 
     Supply, Marshfield, WI; Vinton Construction Company, 
     Manitowoc, WI; William Beaudoin & Sons, Inc.; Brookfield, 
     WI; Wingra Stone Company, Madison, WI; Yahara Materials, 
     Inc., Waunakee, WI; Constructors' Labor Council of WV, 
     Charleston, WV; West Virginia Heavy/Highway Labor/
     Management Council, Charleston, WV; West Virginia 
     Construction Council, Charleston, WV.

                          ____________________