{
  "id": "R41469",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41469",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 425829,
      "date": "2013-11-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T23:13:40.532690",
      "title": "Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wages and State Revolving Loan Programs Under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act",
      "summary": "The Davis-Bacon Act requires employers to pay workers on federal construction projects at least locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits. These wages and benefits are the minimum hourly wages and benefits that employers must pay workers. In order to hire and retain workers, employers may pay more than locally prevailing wages or benefits. Supporters of the Davis-Bacon Act maintain that it creates stability in local construction and labor markets and ensures that projects are built by the most skilled and experienced workers. Critics of the act argue that it impedes competition, raises construction costs, and imposes additional administrative requirements on contractors. \nThe Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly called the Clean Water Act (CWA), authorizes appropriations to states to operate state revolving loan funds (SRFs) that finance the construction of wastewater treatment plants. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes appropriations for SRFs to finance the construction of public drinking water systems. An issue for Congress is whether to apply Davis-Bacon prevailing wages to projects financed by the state revolving loan programs under the CWA and SDWA. \nThe SDWA has a Davis-Bacon provision, but the provision predates, and does not apply to, the state revolving loan program. The CWA states that Davis-Bacon prevailing wages apply to projects that are \u201cconstructed in whole or in part before fiscal year 1995\u201d with funds from the revolving loan program. Authorization for appropriations expired at the end of FY1994 for the CWA and the end of FY2003 for the SDWA. Nevertheless, Congress has continued to appropriate funds for the SRFs under both statutes. \nAfter the authorization of appropriations for the SRFs under the CWA expired at the end of FY1994, Davis-Bacon coverage was the subject of considerable debate. In 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a memorandum stating that projects that began construction after the end of FY1994 did not have to comply with the Davis-Bacon requirements. However, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFL-CIO disagreed with EPA\u2019s interpretation of the law. The BCTD argued that Davis-Bacon coverage applied to projects funded by the SRFs as long as Congress continued to appropriate funds for the program. In June 2000, EPA and the BCTD proposed a settlement agreement that would require states to ensure that prevailing wages are paid for work performed on projects funded through the SRF program \u201cfor as long as grants are awarded to the states.\u201d The agreement was to take effect in July 2001. Later, the implementation date was moved to September 2001, and then to October 2001. It does not appear that the settlement agreement was ever implemented.\nThe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided FY2009 supplemental appropriations funds to the CWA and SDWA SRFs, and required Davis-Bacon prevailing wages on projects funded in whole or in part by the act. Regular appropriations for EPA for FY2010 and FY2012 included provisions that applied Davis-Bacon prevailing wages to projects financed by the state revolving loan programs under both the CWA and SDWA. As interpreted by the EPA, regular appropriations for the EPA for FY2010 required Davis-Bacon prevailing wages on any project funded with FY2010 appropriations or any agreement executed in FY2010, even if the funds were appropriated in a prior year. Appropriations for FY2012 required Davis-Bacon prevailing wages for projects funded under both revolving loan programs for FY2012 and future fiscal years.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41469",
          "sha1": "3659ffb3dba930f119a2c0af0015a515a6f7f32b",
          "filename": "files/20131120_R41469_3659ffb3dba930f119a2c0af0015a515a6f7f32b.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41469",
          "sha1": "14ebe2c7ab3f9dcbf51a6cd8c2133c42698cd1cd",
          "filename": "files/20131120_R41469_14ebe2c7ab3f9dcbf51a6cd8c2133c42698cd1cd.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations"
  ]
}