Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. I rise to speak against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. It sounds fair. The Davis-Bacon Act prevents the

Federal Government, a large influential construction owner, from using precious tax dollars to undercut local wage standards through its investments in construction work.

Those against Davis-Bacon say it drives up costs. Not so. Why don't we deal with facts for a change?

Davis-Bacon has no effect on total costs of construction. Study after study reveals productivity makes up for any additional labor cost, essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law is repealed. In other words, projects using highly skilled workers often cost less than those using low-wage, low-skilled workers.

Opponents who claim the government could save billions by eliminating Davis-Bacon protections ignore productivity, safety and the act's economic development benefits, which contribute to the real cost effectiveness of Davis-Bacon.

In addition, the Davis-Bacon minimum wage must reflect the rate of contribution to retirement, health insurance, apprenticeship training, and disability insurance. By including fringe benefits and wage calculations, Davis-Bacon delivers health care and pensions for workers on these projects.

Without prevailing wages, investments in training fall; work related injuries increase; pension coverage drops; fewer workers have health care insurance; wages stagnate and even drop over time; and total construction costs are still unchanged.

In fact, the real economic significance of Davis-Bacon wage requirements for federally assisted construction projects is that it maintains community standards by preventing bottom-feeding contractors from driving down construction workers' wages and working conditions.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the King amendment.

This amendment would strip away Davis-Bacon wage protections in Hawaii and nationwide.

Enacted in 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act ensures that workers on federal construction contracts receive at least the prevailing wage for construction jobs. The Davis-Bacon Act ensures projects are built by skilled and experienced workers who know what they're doing. Prevailing wages and higher-skilled work result in greater productivity and lower cost.

In industries without Davis-Bacon protections, we have seen unscrupulous contractors engage in a ``race to the bottom,'' trying to undercut each other to perform shoddy work, with less-skilled workers, at sub-par wages. These projects often end up costing more in the long run due to repairs, revisions, and delays.

Some claim that Davis-Bacon costs the Federal Government more. On the contrary, studies show that higher-wage workers are more productive, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run.

Construction workers who build highways, homes, or buildings should be able to earn enough to feed their families, put a roof over their heads, and send their kids to college. Beyond just helping workers and their families, prevailing wages improve local economies. Workers spend their income in local businesses and pay local taxes. Workers participate in building trades training programs and health care programs and are not dependent on benefits from other social programs. One study found that local prevailing wage law generated 2.4 times the economic benefit of the cost of the construction project.

Sadly, this amendment is another example of this bill's consistent attacks on American workers, including the construction workers, teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters who are committed to build, educate, heal, and protect communities in Hawaii and throughout our country. Rather than focus on providing good jobs with fair pay, the Republicans are more interested in increasing corporate profits on the backs of American workers.

I strongly support Davis-Bacon protections and oppose this misguided amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source