{
  "id": "RL34526",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34526",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 346998,
      "date": "2008-06-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T03:22:32.461936",
      "title": "The Davis-Bacon Act: Issues and Legislation During the 110th Congress",
      "summary": "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.\nWith the passage of time, the act was added to a series of individual public works statutes\u2014perhaps more than fifty, depending upon one\u2019s 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 Some have suggested that the act, having long outlived its Depression-era origins, should be repealed.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.\nThrough 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).\nOther 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).\nThis 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\u2019s 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.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34526",
          "sha1": "77f62b9098a30d598e3063782f844fd22f8ca1e8",
          "filename": "files/20080610_RL34526_77f62b9098a30d598e3063782f844fd22f8ca1e8.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34526",
          "sha1": "26ab08a30303d8ad2a2024f2c3fa310010719538",
          "filename": "files/20080610_RL34526_26ab08a30303d8ad2a2024f2c3fa310010719538.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}