The Davis-Bacon Act was adopted in early 1931. It was amended during the middle 1930s and, then, quietly became a part of federal contract practice. During the middle 1950s, however, it gained more visibility as the Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage principle" was added to various federal program statutes. For more than 4 decades now, and continuing into the 21 st century, Davis-Bacon has been almost constantly a focus of public policy concern: as legislation, through administrative rulemaking, and in litigation before the courts. As amended, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 requires, among other things, that construction contracts entered into by the federal government specify minimum wages to be paid to the various classes of laborers employed under those contracts. Minimum wages are defined as those determined by the Secretary of Labor (a) to be prevailing (b) in the locality of the project (c) for similar crafts and skills (d) on comparable construction work. The concept of wage was expanded in 1964 to include a fringe benefit component. The act has a coverage threshold of $2,000. In addition to direct federal construction contracts, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage "principle" has been written into more than 50 federal program statutes. The act is supplemented by the 1934 Copeland "anti-kickback" Act (which requires weekly reporting of wages actually paid and an affirmation from employers that any deductions from wages due to employees have been proper) and by federal overtime pay and health and safety standards statutes. Further, some states have enacted "little Davis-Bacon" acts within their respective jurisdictions. The rhetoric, for and against the act, has changed little through the years. Does the act protect workers, help stabilize the construction industry, and serve the federal contracting community? Or, is it anti-competitive, preventing flexible workforce utilization? Has it been administered effectively and, if not, can it be administered in an equitable fashion? Is there sufficient objective information concerning the act to allow for fair assessment of the statute and its impact? This report examines policy issues the act has sparked through the years and which remain a part of the Davis-Bacon debate into the 21 st century. These include such questions as: wage rate determination procedures, reporting requirements under the Copeland Act, an appropriate threshold for activation of the statute, interagency relationships with respect to Davis-Bacon enforcement and compliance activity, administrative or judicial appeals procedures, the use of "helpers" and other low-skilled workers on covered projects, and the right of a President to suspend the statute as well as the conditions under which such a suspension may occur. That the fundamental premise of the act remains in contention after 75 years may be, itself, part of the public policy debate. Historically, the act has enjoyed strong bipartisan support; but, at the same time, especially since the middle 1950s, it has provoked militant criticism. Federal agencies have disagreed, publicly, concerning the usefulness and administration of the act. It has been subjected to judicial review and interpretation, each new application becoming, in turn, a matter for further examination. Although the Department of Labor (DOL) has made certain changes in the act's administration, the statute itself has remained largely unchanged since 1935. Through the years, however, Congress has extended the act's provisions to cover an ever wider segment of federal and federally assisted construction; and, at least during the past several decades, such extensions of coverage have provided an opportunity for renewed debate concerning the act and its impact. Critics of the act argue, even were the statute justified in 1931, that it has now been rendered obsolete through market changes and enactment of other federal labor standards laws—notably, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Further, they argue that the act is inflationary, adding to the cost of public construction and, thereby, potentially reducing the volume of construction and the number of federal construction jobs. Finally, they suggest that it is anti-competitive, discriminates against smaller firms, and is difficult to administer. Repeal or significant modification of the act, they note, would reduce the paperwork burden of doing business with the federal government and would allow contractors more flexibility in manpower utilization. The act's defenders hold that Davis-Bacon is as important now as it was in the 1930s. It prevents, they assert, competition from "fly-by-night" firms that undercut local wages and working conditions and compete, unfairly, with local contractors for federal work. It helps stabilize the industry, an advantage, they suggest, to workers and to employers. In addition, Davis-Bacon may assure the consuming agency of better craftsmanship (if, when firms are required to pay not less than the locally prevailing wage, they tend to employ more highly skilled workers); and, supporters of the act add, it may reduce both the initial cost of federal construction through greater efficiency and decrease the need for repair and/or rehabilitation. At the same time, they point out, it deters contractors from fragmenting work and utilizing low-skill/low-wage "pick-up" crews and "helpers" and promotes skill transfer through formal apprenticeship programs. The Davis-Bacon literature is extensive and diverse. Generally, it falls into three categories: public materials (i.e., legislative hearings, agency reports and analyses), journalistic pieces, and academic studies. Of the latter, some are products that have been commissioned by interest groups (though they may be scholarly, nonetheless); others are putatively independent academic work. In some cases, there has been a merger of scholarship with journalism. Through the years since the prevailing wage legislation was first considered at the federal level, there have been numerous congressional hearings that have reviewed the statute. However, these seem, often, to have focused broadly upon policy concerns rather than upon specific economic impact and its assessment. As the Davis-Bacon debate has evolved, arguments have progressed through several levels of affirmation and rebuttal, most of which, pro and con, are subject to further oft-repeated counter arguments. At large, there appear to be significant gaps in our knowledge of the act, its administration and impact. Few studies of the statute, whether public or private, have escaped criticism on the grounds of flawed methodology or inadequate sample size. Prevailing wage protection, under public contracts, seems to have commenced at the state level and, later, to have been adopted by the federal government. Congressional interest in federal prevailing wage legislation predates both the "New Deal" and the economic collapse of 1929. Indeed, it emerged during a time of relative prosperity in the construction industry. The building industry, observed William Tracy of the Building Trades Department, AFL, was "enjoying the greatest prosperity in its history—with wages and hours of labor and improved working conditions better than ever before." But, it appears also to have been a period of turbulence and intense competition within the contracting community. During hearings before the House Committee on Labor in February 1927, Representative Robert L. Bacon (R-N.Y.) echoed Tracy's views. In New York, he noted, "wages are fair and there has been no difficulty in the building trades between employee and employer ... for some time." Bacon wanted to keep it that way: in 1927, he introduced legislation to require that locally prevailing wage standards be met in federal construction work. Problems, however, had emerged with respect to construction of a federal hospital in Bacon's New York district. Local contractors, he explained, had submitted bids on the project that reflected local standards. But the contract was awarded to an Alabama firm. The latter, Bacon noted, "... brought some thousand non-union laborers from Alabama into Long Island, N.Y.; ... They were herded onto this job, they were housed in shacks, they were paid a very low wage and the work proceeded." In Bacon's view, the least government could do, when contracting, was "to comply with the local standards of wages and labor prevailing in the locality where the building construction is to take place." His measure did not seek to inflate wages artificially but, rather, to assure that government respected the existing local standard. The bill was not adopted. Similar legislation was introduced in 1928 and, this time, Bacon won strong support from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In a note to Labor Secretary James J. Davis, Commissioner of Labor Statistics Ethelbert Stewart pointed out: "The essence of the thing as I see it is: Is the Government willing for the sake of the lowest bidder to break down all labor standards and have its work done by the cheapest labor that can be secured and shipped from State to State?" Steward expressed his full support for the Bacon bill, as did Davis. Indeed, to this point, the hearings had brought forth a body of testimony generally supportive of the prevailing wage concept, if not always of the specific provisions of the several differing proposals. But, once again, the proposal died when Congress adjourned. Late in 1930, after nearly a decade as Secretary of Labor (through the Administrations of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover), Davis moved on to become a United States Senator. Among the first acts of the Pennsylvania Republican was introduction of prevailing wage legislation. Representative Bacon offered a companion bill. The language of the Davis-Bacon proposals had been worked out by a committee "representing all of the departments" of the Hoover Administration and "unanimously agreed on." William N. Doak, Davis's successor as Labor Secretary in the Hoover cabinet, testifying in support of the Davis-Bacon legislation, noted that current contracting practices were "not only disturbing to labor but disturbing to the business community as well." When the legislation was taken up in the Senate, Senator Robert LaFollette (Progressive Republican-Wisc. ), chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, urged that the measure "be speedily enacted."