mined by the district court, and it might take a few months more on appeal.

Meanwhile, what kind of certainty do you have as far as the project, and the wage rates on the project, are concerned to provide stability for bidding by the contractors on the job? It disappears.

Similarly, if the appeal to the court is provided for, not before the project is to be performed but afterward, then it seems to me it presents a kind of a gambling proposition. The contractor disagrees with the determination made by the Department of Labor; he thinks perhaps it should be a lower wage rate, maybe 10, 15, 20, 25 cents lower. In those circumstances, he says to himself, "Well, they have determined the wrong rate; I think I know what the right prevailing rate is; I will bid my job 25 cents lower and then I will gamble and see whether I come out right in the end by appealing to a court to declare that this lower wage rate, that I am paying as a gamble, whether that is right or not."

Here again you create instability at the outset, in the bidding process, if contractors take that route, depending upon court review to upset a wage determination that other people relied upon.

Mr. DANIELS. Therefore, the Presidential Appeals Board will operate in a more expeditious manner.

Mr. DONAHUE. Yes, sir; it would, in my opinion. It would operate, I would hope, if enacted into law, as effectively as the Board we now have which we anticipate will act effectively on cases as they

come up.

Mr. DANIELS. When a case is taken to the Board, can you explain how the Board would proceed to process that case and how long a period of time it would take to get a determination from the Board as compared to the judicial review system that you have just described?

Mr. DONAHUE. We have not had any experience, as I explained, with this Board. It has been my hope and it has been Mr. Manger's hope, and I am sure the hope of the members of the Board themselves, that they would operate no less expeditiously than the operation has been in the past when the Solicitor considered an application of the law and acted accordingly. They would have the same time limitations placed upon them that I have now placed upon me.

Now, it may be in some situations that the Board is unable to act, as indeed it is today with me sometimes, when we are unable to act expeditiously enough to affect the terms of the contracts as far as wage rates are concerned. In that event, what we say and do may be largely advisory for future cases rather than for present ones. It is within that ambit that the Wage Board will be acting as it is established today, and if it were established by law, it would be within that same ambit, I would anticipate, that any Presidentially appointed administrative board would act.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Donahue.
Mr. DONAHUE. Thank you.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Martin.

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaking for the minority, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that we are going into this field of legislation with an entirely open mind the same as the chairman an side. I think that is the only approached.

embers on the majority is problem should be

I want to commend and congratulate Mr. Donahue for the fine job that he has been doing in this field. I think that as a result of our previous extended hearings on the Davis-Bacon Act, he has been attempting to correct some of the weaknesses that were brought out from those hearings. I think he is using commonsense in his approach to these problems and doing an outstanding job.

I want to commend you, Mr. Donahue, for the work you are doing in this field.

I recall at one of our hearings over a year or so ago that your Department in administering the Davis-Bacon Act was composed primarily of attorneys and you had Mr. Manger working for some time as to the background of construction and practical experience. You did touch on this one point but how many men do you now have in this Department who have practical background of construction experience behind them?

Mr. DONAHUE. I will let Mr. Manger answer that question in detail, Mr. Martin, but I want to say that we have a top staff of three or four working closely with Mr. Manger, and then we have four sections with wage analysts in each section. Each section devotes its attention to a particular geographical area of the country which is divided into four parts, unlike Gaul, and there are three or four people in each one of those sections who are determining wage rates for various parts of various States. All of them are no longer lawyers as they used to be; they are all people with practical knowledge in the construction industry.

With that generality, Mr. Manger, would you elaborate?

Mr. MANGER. We brought in, Mr. Martin, Mr. Chairman, to the division eight people who had a background of construction and we set them up as section chiefs or assistant section chiefs. Then, in addition to that, we hired what you might call trainees who had not had any construction experience but who are in a training capacity under the people who have had the construction and labor relations experience in the construction field.

We didn't feel that we should go out and hire all top people at one time but to train people along the line as well, train people who are not lawyers but have a different background.

Mr. MARTIN. I think that is good. In general, the background of these people who are familiar with construction work, has it been labor unions or management side or engineering side or what have been the backgrounds?

Mr. MANGER. The background is this: They have been with the Government agencies and working on construction projects and in the labor relations field on construction projects.

Mr. MARTIN. But they are not heavily weighted on any unions or management?

Mr. MANGER. No, sir; they come from Government agencies.

Mr. MARTIN. In regard to your Wage Appeals Board that you set up, and I think this is a good step, what is the status of this Board under the present law? Do you actually have the power to override the decisions that you make in this field?

Mr. DONAHUE. They have indeed full authority to override any decisions I may make under authority delegated to them by the Secretary of Labor, and he has made it clear in his regulations that he regards the action of this Board as final so far as he is concerned.

Mr. MARTIN. Say we have a new Secretary of Labor. Could this Board be then discontinued under the new Secretary if he so desired? Mr. DONAHUE. I suppose so, but not without some sensitivity, I might quickly add, to the considered opinion of this subcommittee. Mr. MARTIN. What about decisions in regard to fringe benefits that will be coming out if this bill passes?

Mr. DONAHUE. They would be fully appealable to this Board.
Mr. MARTIN. So they would handle fringe benefits?

Mr. DONAHUE. Yes.

Mr. MARTIN. The same as basic questions?

Mr. DONAHUE. All basic questions arising under the Davis-Bacon Act or law, questions of debarment, questions of violations, would be appealable to this Wage Appeals Board.

Mr. MARTIN. I think you have very fine personnel on this Board that you mentioned here in your statement. I think they will be objective in their hearings when and if they have some, and I think they would be fair in their determinations.

Mr. DONAHUE. That would be my hope, sir.
Mr. MARTIN. That is the way it should be.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. HAWKINS. I have no questions.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Donahue, I just wanted to congratulate you on making a very good statement. The steps that you have taken certainly show it to be for the best.

Mr. DONAHUE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BELL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Donahue, I want to repeat what the members of the committee have said.

We are grateful to you for your presentation and I am sure that you know that we have a number of other witnesses scheduled. We trust that you will have a representative here so that perhaps when questions arise we would appreciate it if someone could be here that we could ask factual questions of, Mr. Manger, or whoever you would care to have.

Mr. DONAHUE. We would be delighted to have someone here, Mr. Chairman. We will make a point of it.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you very much.

For the information of those interested, the witness tomorrow is Mr. Robert F. Keller, the General Counsel of the General Accounting Office.

On Friday, the 27th, Mr. C. J. Haggerty, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, will be the witness before the subcommittee.

The committee will then consider such other witnesses as may care to come forward. Of course, our counsel is requested to schedule any witnesses who express a desire to be heard. You may submit the names at the earliest convenience and we will certainly arrange to hear them. The same goes for the minority side if they wish to have specific witnesses.

Mr. Donahue, I want to thank you very kindly for your help as always and we shall look forward to watching the progress of the

regulations which you have put into effect. I am sure we will be consulting with you in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. DONAHUE. Thank you.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you.

The committee will now go into executive session, and I ask the ladies and the gentlemen present if they would mind leaving the room so that we might have an executive session.

(Whereupon, the subcommittee went into executive session, the open hearing to reconvene on Wednesday, June 24, 1964.)

(The following statement was submitted:)

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION

The National Electrical Contractors Association is the recognized spokesman for the electrical contracting industry, which is comprised of more than 20,000 construction contracting businesses. The association has presented testimony many times in the past before this subcommittee reflecting its views on the DavisBacon Act.

Rather than risk the possibility of being repetitive in again presenting the electrical contracting industry's viewpoint on the administration of the DavisBacon Act, which is a matter of public record, it would seem more appropriate to voice the association's strong support of the administrative changes effected by the Department of Labor-which in our opinion will accomplish the aims of H.R. 7075.

These administrative changes were explained in detail to this subcommittee by Charles Donahue, Solicitor of Labor, in his testimony before this subcommittee on June 23 of this year.

The Labor Department's efforts to reduce the backlog of wage determination requests and its extension of the effective time period of wage determinations from 90 to 120 days is a step in the right direction. The anticipation of wage determination problems (heretofore left to last-minute judgments) has been minimized by the availability of an outline of proposed construction programs at the beginning of each fiscal year. The inclusion of information in the outline of the types of construction and locations facilities and expedites the establishment of wage determinations well in advance.

Probably the most significant change that has been made is the establishment of the Wage Appeals Board. The Labor Department has assured members of this subcommittee of the Board's impartiality and independence. The exceptional qualifications of the members of the Board is unquestionable.

Though the association would not object to a Presidentially appointed appeals board, not enough experience has been gained to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the present method of selecting the Board. It is interesting to note that as of this date not a single case has been formally presented to the Wage Appeals Board, even though critics of the previous Davis-Bacon administration alleged numerous and gross errors and irregularities.

In conclusion, this association takes the position that judicial review would do no more than increase the backlog of cases which now threaten to strangle our judicial system. This type of appeal inevitably would prove injurious to all interested parties and ultimately could lead to the emasculation of the Davis-Bacon Act and the purposes for which the act was passed by the U.S. Congress.

Those responsible for the recent adoption of procedures to effect economy and efficiency in the administration of the Davis-Bacon Act are to be commended, and the National Electrical Contractors Association contends that they certainly warrant the subcommittee's consideration of their request of "the test of time."

AMENDMENTS TO DAVIS-BACON ACT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 429, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John H. Dent presiding. Present: Representatives Dent, Daniels, Ayres, Martin, and Bell. Also present: Dr. Deborah P. Wolfe, education chief; John Schuyler, counsel; Adrienne Fields, clerk; and Charles Radcliff, minority counsel.

Mr. DENT. The hearing on H.R. 7075, a bill to amend the DavisBacon Act will come to order.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Robert F. Keller, General Counsel, General Accounting Office. We welcome you, Mr. Keller. you may proceed to give the testimony in any way you think will benefit the committee best.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. KELLER, GENERAL COUNSEL, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY J. E. WELCH, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; AND V. S. VASILOFF, ATTORNEY

Mr. KELLER. Thank you very much.

First, I would like to introduce the two gentlemen who are appearing with me.

On my immediate left is Mr. J. E. Welch who is Deputy General Counsel of the General Accounting Office, on his left Mr. V. Š. Vasiloff who is an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel of the General Accounting Office.

Mr. DENT. We welcome you, gentlemen.

Mr. KELLER. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have a rather brief prepared statement which I would like to read, and then will be glad to answer any questions you might have, sir.

Mr. DENT. All right.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate your invitation to give you our views on H.R. 7075, which would amend the Davis-Bacon Act.

The General Accounting Office has had an important part in the Federal procurement area for many years and has acquired extended experience in the use, application, and enforcement of contractual conditions requiring payment of minimum wages under, or in accordance with, the Davis-Bacon Act. Our testimony today is directed to

38-263-64- -5