ment convenience, that it could be interpreted 16 ways and it seems to me that it would lead to more problems than it would settle. Every contracting officer could rule that this is in accordance with Government convenience. Then he could do almost anything.

Mr. GOODELL. You used the words here to describe Government contracting officers, "inexperienced in labor relations and industrial construction." You do it in a context which takes quite a slam at them. Are they really that bad?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. They vary a great deal I assure you.

Mr. GOODELL. I take it you have run across some that you feel are that bad if you make this statement.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is right.

Mr. GOODELL. Did I get an answer to that?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I agree.

Mr. GOODELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. One last brief question in the same context that Mr. Goodell stated: Do you think that perhaps the Labor Department should draw back its contracting officer's regulation and reassert some of that authority within the Department of Labor itself. In other words, we have had testimony for instance that the Air Force hires certain types of so-called consultants who are supposed to be experienced in labor relations, but they have to go outside and hire them on some kind of a monthly or contract basis. The Navy Department does it differently. The Navy Department does it by bringing people up through the Civil Service that they believe are properly trained and eligible. This is bound, it seems to me, almost to insure different ways of applying the law or effectiveness in applying the law. Would it in your opinion be better to have the contracting agencies supplied by the Labor Department by specifically trained Government personnel under the general jurisdiction of the Labor Department for this work?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I could see some advantages, but I would hesitate to venture an outright opinion on that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. As Mr. Goodell said, you sort of slammed them hard.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I would like to amend my statement a little. I have known many contracting officers who were highly competent. Do not mistake me. But the very fact that there are hundreds of them throughout the country and with each of them making independent judgments on a matter of this sort, I think could be very disruptive and disturbing.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. But they do that now.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I know.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Don't you think we could improve the administration of the law at least by some system that would make them more uniform in their training and application of the law. We saw many instances where the contracting officer makes a determination and it is not reviewed by anybody to see if it differs from the decision of some contracting officer a hundred miles away. That is not sound from the point of view of the contractor, is it?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I agree.

Mr. GOODELL. If the gentleman will yield, I do feel that your statement with reference to contracting officers can at least be interpreted

as a rather scathing indictment of the present administration of the law since this is the way it is being done. This is, I think, significant from our viewpoint if you do not think very much of the contracting officers and the contracting officers are making many of these decisions subject to review. But as we all know, whether it is a court procedure or other type review it is the initial decision that is the most important.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is correct.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Hoekstra, may we thank both of you gentlemen for your very great patience with the committee. I think it has been a most interesting and helpful discussion and one which will perhaps help guide us as we finally reach our determinations. We are very grateful to you for your presence and cooperation.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will meet tomorrow to hear Mr. Leon B. Kromer, the executive vice president of the Mechanical Contractors Association, to be followed by Mr. Robert Higgins, the assistant executive vice president of the National Electrical Contractors and Mr. John Clark, president of the Southwestern Line Constructors Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association.

The committee will stand adjourned until 9:45 tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 9:45 a.m., Tuesday, June 26, 1962.)

ADMINISTRATION OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. James Roosevelt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Roosevelt, Dent, and Goodell.

Also present: Representatives Griffin and Martin.

Staff members present: Howard G. Gauser, chief counsel for labormanagement; Edmund Edelman, subcommittee counsel; and Adrienne Fields, subcommittee clerk.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will come to order, please.

The committee has invited this morning Mr. Leon B. Kromer, Jr., executive vice president of the Mechanical Contractors Association, to be with us.

Mr. Kromer, will you come forward, sir? Make yourself comfortable and we will be happy to hear you, sir.

STATEMENT OF LEON B. KROMER, JR., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. KROMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Leon B. Kromer, Jr., the executive vice president of the Mechanical Contractors Association of America.

The Mechanical Contractors Association is a national association of over a thousand heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and plumbing contractors, with affiliated associations throughout the United States. The volume of work performed by these contractors on industrial, institutional, commerical, and public works approximates $2.5 billion a year.

I wish to address myself to three major points, presently before the subcommittee, in its study of the administration of the DavisBacon Act. These are:

Criticism of the administration of the act and conclusions drawn therefrom by witnesses before the subcommittee.

The issue of jurisdiction.

The issue of judicial review and a suggested method to resolve this problem.

Witnesses have appeared before the subcommittee during the course of these hearings and cited specific cases of erroneous predetermination of or modification to minimum prevailing rates under the Davis-Bacon Act.

The difficulties in having these errors corrected by the Solicitor's Office have been outlined. I do not intend to add any factual information of this nature to the data already before the committee.

I would emphasize, however, that these cases point up the need for some recourse by aggrieved parties other than appeals to the Office of the Solicitor. The inadequacy of the present procedures in controversial cases is evident.

However, it is erroneous to conclude, as have some witnesses before this subcommittee, that because of these cases the act should be repealed; that it is a mechanism to inflate wage rates throughout the United States. The thousands of wage cases issued that correctly set forth local prevailing rates refute such a conclusion.

Likewise, it is erroneous to conclude, as have witnesses before the subcommittee, that the act is outmoded and has outlived its usefulness. The basic purpose of the act has been expressed to the subcommittee by the Secretary of Labor in his statement, and I quote:

*** that Federal funds should not be used to depress local wage standards. The Supreme Court, in Binghamton Construction case, stated that the purpose of the act was "To protect employees (on Government construction) from substandard earnings."

The basic purpose of the act is no less valid today than it was 31 years ago when first enacted. To eliminate this act, would, on Federal and federally assisted construction, place laborers and mechanics in the jungle of fierce competition that is the industry. Labor would again become a barter item in the bidding to get work. In many areas of this country, with excess manpower available, the end result with respect to wages and earnings would be all too apparent.

Employees, therefore, need its protection as much today as at any time since enactment. The association that I represent is unequivocally opposed to repeal of the act.

The question of jurisdiction of the act has arisen since the start of the missile sites program. In over 20 years of experience in construction labor relations both in and out of the Government, I cannot recall this question ever having assumed the important of a compelling national problem as it has since the start of this program.

This is in the fact of accepted criteria as to what is construction and, therefore, what is covered by Davis-Bacon.

Throughout the massive program undertaken during the war there was no question as to the act's coverage. The construction of operating bases, training stations, ordnance plants; the monumental expansion of our industrial capacity all were covered by Davis-Bacon, including the installation of machinery and equipment. The Manhattan district project during the war and the AEC installations erected since, presented novel and complex construction problems Yet these facilities were constructed, including the installation of machinery and equipment by contractors employing building tradesmen pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.

This concept of coverage is recognized under the New York State minimum wage law which is similar to but predating Davis-Bacon. On hospitals, schools, and other facilities, this law covers not only the construction of the buildings, but the installation of all machinery and equipment, down to kitchen and cafeteria equipment, and, in the case of hospitals, operating room equipment and so forth.