Application of the act to these (and to new) legislative programs has continued to spark congressional interest. Some urge that the prevailing wage statute is as important now as in the 1930s. This report is essentially a tracking document. In 1935, Congress adopted major changes to the statute: (a) reducing the coverage threshold from contracts of at least $5,000 to those in excess of $2,000; (b) extending coverage from public buildings to include "construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating, of public buildings or public works"; and (c) requiring that the locally prevailing wage rates be predetermined—prior to solicitation of bids—and that they be written into bid solicitations. Serious academic studies may be fewer. The Davis-Bacon Act and the CWA/SRFs

Through more than a decade, authorization for funding of the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund (CWA/SRF) has been a matter of contention with the authorizing committees of both the House and the Senate. Mica (as would others) referred to "an unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon requirements" and suggested that the "President will veto the legislation if it contains the Davis-Bacon provisions." Davis-Bacon and Energy Independence (H.R. For example, in Sec. 2419)

The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 ( H.R. 2419 ), as passed by the House, contains loan guarantees for biorefineries and biofuel production facilities. It was the construction of these plants that suggested a Davis-Bacon provision and encouraged the Committee on Agriculture to propose one. 2419 , as reported from committee, provided that, as a condition for receiving a loan or loan guarantee, the applicant "shall ensure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the performance of construction work financed in whole or in part" with such loan or loan guarantee, "shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor...."
At the full committee level, Representative Marilyn Musgrave, a long-time critic of Davis-Bacon, proposed striking the prevailing wage provision. But, the bill's fate ( H.R. Davis-Bacon and Homeland Security (H.R. It chose as its vehicle H.R. HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. The HOPE Housing Act

The bill ( H.R. 1328)

In the House, on March 6, 2007, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 was introduced ( H.R. Correct, it does not change current law. Citing the General Education Provisions Act or GEPA [20 U.S.C. 1232b], he observed that the "Davis-Bacon mandate would apply to any bill that received federal dollars for construction or renovation" and affirmed that "...Davis-Bacon is the federal government intruding in the affairs of the States...." He charged that the act is "anti-competitive." 3021 . Appropriations: Departments of Transportation and HUD (H.R. Ultimately, the measure was added to H.R. Appropriations: Agriculture and Rural Development (H.R. 3161 , the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (2008). And related concerns. None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture who would require contracts to construct renewable energy systems to be carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act. It is a mean amendment, and it should be defeated." There may have been some measure of irony, here. Litigation followed.
In 1931, following several years of intermittent hearings and, ultimately, encouragement from the Hoover Administration, Congress adopted the Davis-Bacon Act (now, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148). The act, as amended, requires that workers employed on public buildings and public works of the federal government and of the District of Columbia must be paid at least the locally prevailing wage as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Initially, the act applied to construction in excess of $5,000; but, in 1935, the act was amended to render its terms applicable to projects of $2,000 and above.
With the passage of time, the act was added to a series of individual public works statutes—perhaps more than fifty, depending upon one's count. As each of these statutes came up for renewed funding, the Davis-Bacon provision became a subject of dispute; and, by the 1960s, such disputes became both numerous and contentious. Some have suggested that the act, having long outlived its Depression-era origins, should be repealed. Others have argued that the act is as important today as it was in the 1930s and that it should be applied more generally and routinely.
Through the past decades, application of Davis-Bacon to the Clean Water Act (State Revolving Funds) has posed a serious problem and, with other concerns, has impeded authorization of funding for covered projects. (See H.R. 720.) The battle for (or against) Davis-Bacon has been fought out in other sectors as well: for example, see Homeland Security (H.R. 2638) and the energy independence bill (H.R. 6). Even the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419) contains a Davis-Bacon provision. (As part of that program, a series of biorefineries and biofuel production facilities would be constructed; and, if so, construction workers on such plants can expect to be paid at least locally prevailing wages.) See also the HOPE VI housing renovation and restoration act (H.R. 3524), the Indian health care amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1328, S. 1200), and construction of educational facilities (H.R. 2470, H.R. 3021, H.R. 5401, S. 912, and others).
Other construction-related proposals currently before Congress contain Davis-Bacon requirements. See, for example, H.R. 3074 (the Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill) and H.R. 3161 (the Agriculture and Rural Development appropriations bill).
This report, essentially a tracking document, will be updated as developments warrant. It reviews the origins and evolution of Davis-Bacon, suggests what is (and may not be) known about the act's impact, and reviews current legislative initiatives that involve the act. Though it may not review all Davis-Bacon proposals of the 110th Congress, it does provide some measure of the give-and-take on the legislative front.