	The Davis-Bacon Act

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, as amended, requires, inter alia , that construction contractsentered into by the federal government specify minimum wages to be paid to the various classes oflaborers employed under those contracts. In addition to direct federal construction contracts, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage"principle" has been written into a series of federal program statutes. The issues surrounding the act have changed little through the years. And, does the act mandate that union wages be paidon federal contract construction projects? It may -- butthat question is similarly open. For the more recent Administrations (those of Richard Nixonand George W. H. Bush), it is also difficult to define precisely their rationales -- though the BushAdministration acted in response to particular events. In this instance, there appears to have been a conflict between the provisions of theDavis-Bacon Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) -- the latter, a very broad generalstatute designed to restructure the economy and which was subsequently found to be unconstitutional(1937). (6) 
The impact of the suspension of 1934 seems not to have been immediately felt. (7) 
On June 30, 1934, as quietly as it had been suspended (just 25 days earlier), the act wasrestored to full force, the President simply remarking of the suspension proclamation that "it appearsthat a revocation of the said proclamation would be in the public interest." In a statement on February 23, 1971, President Nixon announced a decision. He noted that the act had been adopted in 1931 during a period marked byvery different circumstances. In 1971, the act meant something else entirely. What impact would(or could) the suspension of the act have in that environment -- in what, it turned out, was asuspension of just over 30 days. George H. W. Bush

President Bush faced challenges leading up to the 1992 election. The President Acts on Davis-Bacon. (40) But then, on June 5, it was reported that the White House was"again giving 'serious consideration' to ordering a nationwide suspension" of the act and, accordingto "one White House source," the decision to suspend the act is now "more likely than not." (42) On October 9, 1992, Congress adjourned. During late August, Hurricane Andrew struck Florida and Louisiana. I do hereby suspend, until otherwise provided, theprovisions of any Executive order, proclamation, rule, regulation, or other directive providing forthe payment of wages, which provisions are dependent upon determinations by the Secretary ofLabor under the Davis-Bacon Act;.... (43)
The Proclamation went on to discuss the relative merits of the suspension in terms of the generalreconstruction in the three areas to which it applied: Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii. (57) 

	Suspension Under George W. Bush

On August 29, 2005, Florida and the Gulf Coast were hit by Hurricane Katrina. (62) 
On September 8, 2005, President Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act as it relates tospecific segments of the country (i.e., to portions of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, andLouisiana). The Bush Administration, the Daily LaborReport stated, would reinstate on November 8th -- just two months after its suspension -- the"Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements for reconstruction projects in the hurricane-batteredGulf Coast region."
The Davis-Bacon Act is one of several statutes that deals with federal governmentprocurement. (See also the Walsh-Healey Act of 1936 and the McNamara-O'Hara Service ContractAct of 1965.) Enacted in 1931, Davis-Bacon requires, inter alia , that not less than the locallyprevailing wage be paid to workers engaged in federal contract construction. The act does not dealdirectly with non-federal construction. In addition to the act per se , the prevailing wage principlehas been incorporated within a series of federal program statutes through the years. And, manystates have enacted "little Davis-Bacon" acts of their own.
The act of 1931, as amended, provides that the President "may suspend the provisions of thissubchapter during a national emergency." With slight variation, that provision has been a part of thestatute since it was enacted.
The act has been suspended explicitly on four separate occasions: (a) In 1934, PresidentFranklin Roosevelt suspended the act in what appears to have been for administrative convenienceassociated with New Deal legislation. It was restored to full strength in less than 30 days with fewpeople, seemingly, aware of the suspension. (b) In 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended theact as part of a campaign intended to quell inflationary pressures that affected the constructionindustry. In just over four weeks, the act was reinstated, the President moving on to differentapproaches to the problem. (c) In 1992, in the wake of Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki, PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush suspended the act in order to render reconstruction and clean-up in Florida andthe Gulf Coast and in Hawaii more efficient. The impact of the suspension is unclear for the act wassuspended on October 14, 1992, just days prior to the 1992 election. President William Clintonrestored the act on March 6, 1993. And, (d) on September 8, 2005, President George W. Bushsuspended the act in order to render more efficient reconstruction and clean-up of Florida and theGulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The act was reinstated on November 8, 2005.
In the suspensions of 1934 and 1971, the suspension applied to the entire country -- possiblywith the understanding that it would be restored once the immediate emergency was over. In 1992and in 2005, only portions of the country were involved. In 1992, it remains unclear how long thesuspension might have lasted -- if George H. W. Bush had been re-elected. Similarly, the suspensionunder George W. Bush was intended to be open-ended -- i.e., "until otherwise provided." But in fact,it lasted for about two months. The suspensions are also separated by the definition of "nationalemergency" used to invoke them: administrative convenience in 1934, inflationary pressures in theconstruction industry in 1971, and issues associated with hurricane damages in 1992 and in 2005.
This report reviews the several cases during which the Davis-Bacon Act was suspended andwill likely be updated as developments make necessary.