would have to ask you to help. I am not sure what the language would be to correct this.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Now my final question, and I certainly respect the gentleman for the sincerity of his views. I know how deeply he feels on this subject. I respect him for this, but let me ask you this question. We have certain wage standards for the construction industry in Cook County, Ill., part of which I represent here in Congress. These standards have been brought about through various processes, including State legislation that was passed by the State legislature. The workers enjoy these particular standards. Along comes a large financial syndicate from Texas and buys up some farmland in the case of residential construction, or bids on a Government contract. They bring along their own help, they bring along all the people who are going to work on these jobs and in the absence of the Davis-Bacon Act they would invariably outbid the local contractors with help that they brought in which enjoys much lesser fringe benefits and lesser standards of living than the prevailing standards in Cook County today.

Does the gentleman think that it is fair that workers in the construction industry in Cook County should be exposed to this type of unfair competition?

Mr. ALGER. I would say the gentleman's analogy is wrong on at least two points, as I see it.

No. 1, the Texas contractor, and I would like to think we could operate that big, though sometimes I suspect the stories are a little bit inflated, but the Texan would not bring his workers with him.

We had this, and again I submit this as my opinion, you might say to the contrary, but I hold that the Texan would under no circumstances bring them. That would be far more expensive.

However, for the sake of discussion, if he were to bring people it is not that they would enjoy a lower standard of living but rather that we in Texas do get a lower rate but we get as much for it. Our cost of food, in some cases rent, and certain other necessities of life are not as high as they are in Cook County. This I know. If they were brought up there, of course, they would have to be paid what would be the subsistence allowance comparable to the difference in exchange rates, between our community and Cook County.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I can assure the gentleman, and I will be very happpy to get the gentlemen some facts to back up what I am saying, that in those construction projects that do not come under the DavisBacon Act provisions, on non-Federal construction, where we have had developments of residential building in the Chicago land area and other parts of Illinois, by outside construction firms, not necessarily from Texas, which have brought their own help, they have depressed the standards considerably. If we could be sure this would not happen, I might be able to give some sympathetic consideration, but the very purpose of this act, and I will not review the whole thing-but Mr. Haggerty this morning reviewed in two paragraphs why this act was created in the first instance, when it developed, that a New York situation developed where they brought in outside help.

Now, it may surprise the gentleman to know that while the DavisBacon Act was passed in 1931, some 30 years later in many areas of the country the very same conditions prevail on building construc

tion not covered by Davis-Bacon provisions. So there are still contractors who will bring whole crews with them at much lower wage standards than prevail in the community.

I think the gentlemen will agree with me that this is really not fair to the people of that community.

Mr. ALGER. I would not have the gentlemen think that I would categorically turn my back on situations like that should they exist.

I said I did not think they did but if, on the contrary, you prove they do, I say we have to manfully face the situation and correct it. But in order to compromise our difference in viewpoints, let me point out to you another example of the way Davis-Bacon worked as we saw it in the committee, at least we were forewarned this way, and I think there have been some cases since.

One example I recall was a situation near Front Royal, Va. There was some construction work there where the Davis-Bacon law would apply, but there had been no decision made in that area, so they went to the nearest urban area. That urban area did not have prevailing rates of the kind of Davis-Bacon where there was a precedent. So they had to be set.

The next thing they did was to set the Washington, D.C., standards for the Front Royal area. We felt this was much higher than was actually the prevailing rate there.

There is the other side of this coin. I suppose I am almost prejudiced and I would have to study this with you on the incident that you bring up because, oddly enough, Mr. Pucinski, the situation of bringing migratory workers came before the Committee on Public Works and the Aliquippa case was brought up and, right or wrong, testimony was introduced into our record that was inaccurate and we caught it and we brought it to the attention of the union officials that brought this to our attention. In the course of all this, I felt I had reason to believe that the migratory worker aspect had been brought up out of all proportion to the situation that actually prevailed.

Again I must tell you I am drawing now on information that is 5 or 6 years ago and I realize that my case is weak to that point but at that time I can assure you that the facts that I am speaking of, which we can exhume if we wanted to go back that far, did show that they were using the migratory worker as kind of a lever and were blowing it up out of all proportion.

Again I turn around and agree with you that if there are cases where men are not being paid prevailing wages to me this is kind of uncanny because the way I see it, gentlemen, people will not work for less than prevailing wages because they can get it somewhere else. It is true in my county.

Again if there is a situation where people are absolutely being mistreated because they are working on Government projectsMr. PUCINSKI. Not on Government projects.

Mr. ALGER. Then on non-Government projects. If people are being taken advantage of, I am not for exploiting human beings, you must know that. Though I am conservative, the only ax I have to grind many times as a conservative, is when I oppose legislation, people say you are against working people, and that does not follow and in this instance, I want you to know that.

Mr. PUCINSKI. It would be my hope that the gentleman from Texas, previous witnesses, the chamber of commerce, and others would join with this committee in perfecting the Davis-Bacon Act and then, as has been suggested here before the committee, and the chairman has already agreed, let us look and see if the bureaucracy is not doing what this act requires it to do, if this act is not being properly administered, if this act is being carried way beyond what the law provides. I think there is enough vigor in Congress on both sides of the aisle to make sure that the administrators of this act do carry out the letter of the law. But I am very distressed when I hear people say they would like to repeal the act itself because the act itself has served a very fundamental purpose. If there is some deficiency in administration we should know about it and I am sure that the review that the chairman has assured the committee will ensue will bring a great deal of this out.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Pucinski, I hope I did not so state my case that you misunderstand me. I said I would like you to repeal it, but then I went about criticizing. What I am now saying to you, Mr. Pucinski, is that if you follow the course set out in the Roosevelt bill, no matter how well intentioned, you are taking away from the laboring union the thing that you, just as much as I, say you believe in, as Sam Gompers said, "collective bargaining." This is not collective bargaining. This is bargaining by Federal mandate. This is the area in which our disagreement lies if one lies.

I suspect if you might follow the Davis-Bacon argument far enough you might convince me. And I can be reasoned with, but I cannot be pushed or intimidated. Neither can you.

I suggest you are endangering collective bargaining.

I have had this out with Mr. Reuther. He comes before our committee asking us to do things far from collective bargaining. Is it collective bargaining to come here and to ask you gentlemen to see to it that certain working conditions are enforced?

I do not think that is collective bargaining.

When you say in this bill, as you do, that it has to be collective— on page 2

The rate of payment by contractor or subcontractor to a fund established by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement—

you are tying it directly with the unions. I know you disagree with us in Texas on the right-to-work law, and I recognize your right to that view. We do not always have unions but yet we pay well. I say I am for collective bargaining. I challenge you. I say that this course of legislative mandate is destructive of the collective bargaining that you gentlemen have always stood for and protected. I say you are asking for it by law.

On this point, we could spend the afternoon.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We obviously disagree; but I am very happy you are here today to give us your views.

Mr. ALGER. Thank you. I have been here long enough now and mellowed enough to know that the difference of viewpoint on the record is what keeps our course. I want you to know I make lots of mistakes, but my colleagues see to it that those mistakes are straightened out.

It is out of the difference of viewpoints that I think the right course is found.

I submit this, Mr. Chairman, this is far to the right, as I am accused of being. I think to a small degree I will counter the movement to the left.

I am going to have to run, Mr. Chairman, even though you are so kind to extend me the time.

Mr. GOODELL. I commend you on your statement. I appreciate it. I think you have added something to our record.

Mr. ALGER. Whether you agree or disagree, I certainly appreciate your courtesy.

Mr. ROOSEVELT The last witness this afternoon is Mr. Frank McBride, the president of the Mechanical Contractors Association of America.

Mr. McBride, we have kept you a little late but we appreciate your being with us this late in the afternoon.

I would suggest that you go right ahead with your testimony in any way that is convenient to you.

STATEMENT OF FRANK MCBRIDE, PRESIDENT, MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY LEON KROMER, JR., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Mr. MCBRIDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I have no copies of my statement to present to the committee because of personal dental misfortune early this week that put me out of commission for a couple of days. Time has been short.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. We are very sympathetic with you.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Thank you.

I am Frank McBride, president of the Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc., and president of the Frank A. McBride Co., mechanical contractors, in Paterson, N.J. Accompanying me is Mr. Leon Kromer, Jr., the executive vice president of our national association.

I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to appear before you today. As president of the Mechanical Contractors Association of America, I speak in support of the proposed amendments to the Davis-Bacon Act and the Federal 8-hour laws.

Specifically, I refer to H.R. 9656 and H.R. 9657.

The association I represent has a membership of approximately 1,200 mechanical contractors in the country. They employ in the neighborhood of 55 to 75 thousand pipefitting mechanics and sheetmetalmen.

I am going to make a statement that to the members present may seem a little funny because of the statements made by previous witnesses as to the purpose of the original act.

At the time the Davis-Bacon Act was originally enacted, one of its purposes was to insure that contractors bidding on and performing construction work to which an agency of the Federal Government was a party paid rates of wages no less than those paid on private construction work in the same area.

To accomplish this purpose, the law requires the Secretary of Labor to investigate basic hourly wages paid construction laborers and mechanics in the area where the project is to be located and determine those prevailing. His determination must be included in the specifications for such construction work.

Under the law, therefore, the Secretary ascertains wage patterns actually established and paid on private construction work in the area. However, in the last 20 years the construction industry, through collective bargaining, has established various types of funds for the benefit of laborers and mechanics employed on construction work in addition to the basic wage rates. Such funds have been administered pursuant to the provisions of section 302, subsection (c) (5) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 as amended.

The types of funds referred to are set forth in proposed amendment as section 1(b) (2).

Some time ago the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, took a study of union wages and hours in the building trades as of July 1, 1960. The information set forth in its Bulletin No. 1,290, dated April 1961, covered approximately 650,000 skilled mechanics and 160,000 helpers and laborers in 52 selected cities with population of 100,000 or more.

This study of almost 2 years ago stated the following:

Labor-management agreement containing provisions for health and welfare plans were applicable to 75 percent of the building trades workers. Pension plans were stipulated in contracts covering 45 percent of the workers, page 1 of the Bulletin.

It can be accurately assumed that this number has substantially increased in the intervening period to the present time. It is, therefore, apparent that the wage determinations issued by the Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act do not reflect prevailing area standards of employment that have been established for private industry, in the most part, through collective bargaining. Contractors on Federal construction can therefore perform work at standards of employment below those established in the area for private construction work. This was not the intent of the original act. It can only be corrected through enactment of the proposed amendment.

It might be well to point out that in the process of collective bargaining, wages and so-called fringes, welfare pension funds, et cetera, are interchangeable. By this I mean that today any discussion of wages in most instances necessarily includes discussion of fringe benefits. The two are generally referred to as the total package.

Logically, the funded fringe benefits are considered by construction management together with hourly wages as the total direct labor cost. The amendment now before the subcommittee clearly defines the type of funds to be included in wage determinations with the basic hourly rate of pay. The amendment, therefore, is administratively. feasible.

For this reason, the association I represent supports the amendment as now presented to the subcommittee.

New York State with a minimum wage law similar to the DavisBacon Act amended the law in 1956 to include funded fringe benefits as a part of wage schedules of contracts to which the State of New York and municipalities and subdivisions, et cetera, are a part.