this law of supply and demand stronger than anything else we could contrive?

Mr. BORTH. I think it stands to reason that if your wage rates are not correct on any given job and you thus don't get help, the only alternative you have is to raise your rates. The contractor will do that either through the collective bargaining process or if it is a nonunion shop he will do it on his own. As the law of supply and demand works he will or will not get help.

Mr. HIESTAND. Don't we know of a lot of instances in these farflung locations where a wage is paid substantially above either prevailing rates or determined rates?

Mr. BORTH. I think there have been witnesses to that point, Mr. Hiestand, who have shown that the rate established by the Secretary of Labor has even been higher than the union rate.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Are there not instances after the determination has been made in which the actual rate that was paid was higher than the union rate because of the supply and demand situation?

Mr. BORTH. I could not answer that categorically because I don't know it to be a fact.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think the Chair will have to say that we have had instances particularly in the Houston case where the determination was made but the contractor put it into the record that he was paying a wage higher than the specific rate determined by the Department. Mr. BORTH. It could be.

Mr. HIESTAND. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Martin.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman, because the hour is getting late. I would like to point out that we have had several witnesses who have felt that the Solicitor's Department and those under him have been biased in their decision because of their background of work previous to coming into Government employ.

I wonder if we could establish the facts in this case by having counsel for the subcommittee get a complete list of those employed in the Solicitor's Department with their background of experience before they came into the Government work.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am not sure that is available. You want a complete list or do you want the Civil Service file on everyone working in the Solicitor's Office?

Mr. MARTIN. The Solicitor said that the number was comparatively small.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Compared to the total of 78,000 it is comparatively small.

Mr. MARTIN. I am sure it is 40 or 60.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think it is a thousand working specifically on Davis-Bacon. You don't want the entire Solicitor's Office?

Mr. MARTIN. No, the ones that are working on the Davis-Bacon. So we could have a background of the facts as to what their previous employment was. We have had several witnesses who felt they were somewhat biased.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I will consult with the Department to see if this is a practical thing.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that when we investigated the operations of the National Labor Relations Board— and I am sorry that Mr. Pucinski left because he was chairman of

that subcommittee-there was a good deal of talk along the same lines about the NLRB trial examiners. Just as a routine matter we asked the National Labor Relations Board trial examiners' secretaries to furnish us with a list of the trial examiners and a brief biographical sketch of each one. I don't see why there would be any question

about it.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Did you get it?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, we got it. I would suggest here that we specifically ask that any previous experience or work for a labor organization or as an officer of a labor organization or for contractor or contractor's association should definitely be a part of any biographical information that is furnished.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I certainly think we should look into it. I would like to make the point that would not necessarily make somebody biased.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Absolutely. It should only be a part of the record. It should not be considered as proving, or disproving, anything in and of itself.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I have no objection to making it part of the record, but I notice Mr. Borth referred to the fact that the present solicitor comes out of the Plumbers Union. This is sort of an indirect suggestion, just because a man happens to come from one place or another. I for instance belonged to a union before I was elected to Congress, and yet I think I have been pretty fair in my approach here in Congress as to the problems of both management and labor.

One would not suggest because of the Secretary of Defense was the president of one of the largest corporations in this country, that he is running the whole Defense Department to the best interests of private big business.

I think that to suggest that because a man came out of industry or labor when he reaches this position, we would be discouraging good people in this country to assume responsible positions in Government.

There has been no showing here that Mr. Donohue has made his rulings because he happens to come out of the labor movement, if he really does. I don't even know if he does.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I don't know that anybody has made that assertion or tried to. It is only a part of the record.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Under the Republican administration we ought to then say because people who come out of industry are invited into Government, ipso facto they are proindustry and against labor. I don't think the Republicans would make that kind of admission.

Mr. MARTIN. I was requesting a list with a background without any prejudice involved.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think the proper way to do this will be quite a job, but I think it is necessary at this point.

The Chair, without objection, will instruct counsel to secure the backgrounds of all those working in the Solicitor's Office in the DavisBacon Division, and will also make inquiry of all contracting agencies of the background of those making initial determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act in order that we may have the rounded picture of all those who are working in this area.

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you.

Mr. Borth, may I ask you one question in regard to missile work? You didn't touch on that too much in your testimony. What is your feeling in regard to an amendment to the Davis-Bacon Act to exclude the installation and checkout phase of the missile work from the DavisBacon Act?

Mr. BORTH. I have not given any thought to that particular question but I can answer it this way. I hate to see anybody excluded from anything. I think there was a question-this has been proposed in other areas I wonder who takes care of the little employer? If we exclude these great big contractors from being involved, I always wonder who takes care of the small employer who has problems, too. That would be my only worry about it, Mr. Martin. I see your point however to waylay any delays.

Mr. MARTIN. You have your difficulty between the industrial unions who do normally the big share of installation and checkout of the missile and you get strife and disagreement between the industrial and craft unions. It has caused jurisdictional disputes and strikes.

Mr. BORTH. I understand perfectly your objective. The only question I have is the principle involved of eliminating somebody from under the jurisdiction of a law whether it be the Davis-Bacon Act, national labor relations law, picketing, striking, secondary boycotts, and so forth. These days are bad. There is no question about it. I think they can be worked out. Personally, I think they should be worked out across the bargaining table.

The way they do it now is to have the Missile Sites Labor Relations Advisory Commission do it. I think you will have testimony in that regard as to whether that is working or not. I know what the Secretary of Labor says. I think it would be interesting to find out what the management people have to say.

Mr. MARTIN. You have had no experience yourself in regard to this missile work on the installation and checkout?

Mr. BORTH. Not personally, I have been involved in it through association work, but that is all.

Mr. MARTIN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Borth, may I just say to you in complete frankness that I think you have given the committee some specific suggestions which are most helpful to the committee in its considera

While some of us may disagree with the necessity or wisdom of all of them, nevertheless this is the way I think we get to better legislation. We are grateful to you for your very thoughtful and complete presentation.

Mr. BORTH. Thank you.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Because of the lateness of the hour, we will ask Mr. Welch to come before us tomorrow morning and at this time ask Brigadier General Hayes, Assistant Chief of Engineers for NASA Support, to come forward.

General, I believe you are accompanied by Mr. Irving Manger. We are happy to have him again as an old traveling companion of the subcommittee.

I would suggest that you proceed, General, in any manner which is convenient to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. THOMAS J. HAYES, III, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR NASA SUPPORT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ACCOMPANIED BY IRVING MANGER

General HAYES. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am sorry that I was not able to join you on that trip, too, as things worked out.

I am Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Hayes III, Assistant to the Chief of Engineers for NASA Support. I have been asked to appear before you to testify on the Davis-Bacon Act and its application to the construction program of the Corps of Engineers.

The corps' construction program includes the major construction work of the Department of the Army, and a large segment of the Department of the Air Force construction program. Recently we have begun awarding construction contracts for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Normally, the work of the corps is performed under contracts awarded on a fixed-price basis following open advertising and competitive bidding.

The Davis-Bacon Act provisions are made a part of our construction contracts where the contract amount exceeds $2,000. A predetermination of wage rates is requested from the Secretary of Labor using Department of Labor Form DB-11 on which we state the exact location of the work to be performed, give a brief description of the work, and indicate the classifications anticipated.

As prescribed by the Davis-Bacon Act the Secretary of Labor has the sole authority to predetermine wage rates. The wage determination issued by the Secretary, pursuant to the request, is incorporated in the specifications and the rates therein become the minimum rates to be paid by the successful bidder.

During my tenure as commanding officer of the Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office and presently as Assistant to the Chief of Engineers for NASA Support, I have had occasion to observe at firsthand, problems confronting us in the construction of missile and space projects. Among these are labor problems. Two of the major causes for labor disputes and work stoppages are jurisdictional and economic.

(a) Jurisdictional disputes and work stoppages result from (1) conflict between industrial workers employed by industrial contractors and building trades working for construction contractors at the construction site, and (2) conflict between crafts within the building trades.

(b) Economic disputes and work stoppages result from failure of labor and management to agree on wage rates and fringe benefits. I mention these two major causes of labor disputes and work stoppages because of the frequently alleged relationship to the DavisBacon Act. However, I do not believe the nonexistence or existence of the Davis-Bacon Act or revision thereof would have any material effect on reducing labor disputes or work stoppages because the DavisBacon Act provides only for a decision on minimum wages to be paid, not who shall do the work. Even though criteria were established to define construction, the problem of jurisdiction would persist. Jurisdictional problems were generally resolved by the parties to the controversy through voluntary means or under existing law designed for this purpose.

I understand that there have been many suggestions for amendment of the Davis-Bacon Act. However, I believe the necessity for amendment of the act should not be attributed to jurisdictional disputes on missile bases. With respect to economic disputes and work stoppages, only a few, if any, can be attributed to the Davis-Bacon Act. In our experience the major controversy from an economic standpoint has been whether building or heavy and highway construction rates prevail in the area for work of a character similar to the contract work to be performed.

I understand this is an area into which the committee intends to inquire.

Over the years administrative problems have arisen. One such problem stems from the time limitations placed on wage determinations. Occasionally these limitations interfere with the normal contracting procedures. The Solicitor of Labor is aware of these problems and continuing efforts are being made to resolve them.

This concludes my formal statement. I will be glad to try to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. ROOSEVET. Thank you, General.

Let me first say that I think the committee was very much impressed with the efficiency and effectiveness and dedication of the personnel of the Corps of Engineers in the various instances in which we had an opportunity to be in contact with them during our trip. I have one preliminary question:

You note the figure of $2,000 which is included in the present act as being the amount above which the act takes effect.

General HAYES. That is right.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Do you believe, in light of current costs and conditions, the committee should reconsider this $2,000 in order to lighten the work without basically affecting the purposes of the act? Do you believe that this could be done by perhaps multiplying it to $5,000 or some other realistic figure?

General HAYES. I recognize that the figure was set at a time when construction costs were considerably less than they are now. I think even if the figure were raised to reflect those increases in construction costs, the amount still would not make any material difference. The number of contracts in that range are comparatively few.

If you raised the figure to $10,000 or $15,000, I don't think it would make any material difference in the handling of our contracts. Mr. ROOSEVELT. As far as the Corps of Engineers is concerned? General HAYES. As far as the Corps of Engineers is concerned. Mr. ROOSEVELT. It would have considerable effect in some other areas although we have not gone into that deeply enough yet.

General, I am very interested in your statement that you believe that the jurisdictional disputes are not due to the Davis-Bacon Act and would exist whether or not it was in operation.

To carry on from there, you do note that there are some problems which the Solicitor of the Department of Labor is aware of and continning efforts are being made to resolve them.

One of the things which came to our attention is that in the case of the Corps of Engineers you made a specific recommendation. I am talking about the Houston matter, where the local officer makes a recommendation. In this instance it was overruled by the Department.

88711-62- -18