between the time of the survey and the time of the final determination of prevailing rates is inordinately long, and of course costly to them. Now, do you think that the delay is not still excessive, and if indeed it is, what can be done to remedy this? Mr. SILBERMAN. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, you have a legitimate criticism of our operation. Indeed, by reason of these hearings which have been called, I have looked carefully into that particular point. Now, part of the problem was that we had a great backlog of cases, or what we call cases, and the new Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards has insisted that the Davis-Bacon operation move in order to get that backlog down so they can act swiftly on new matters. They have reduced that backlog in the last 3 or 4 months by disposing of about 4,000 pending and new cases, bringing the backlog down to 300. I feel that we can operate much more quickly now in getting those determinations out and responding to appeals on the determinations. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Secretary and I will look personally into that matter and we will have a system which incorporates speedy response. Senator TowER. We appreciate it if maybe you would report back to us on that matter after you have had a chance to do something about it. Mr. SILBERMAN. As I said, I think we have made substantial progress in the last 3 or 4 months, but I am not satisfied that we have done all that we can, and we will report back to you, let us say, in 30 days, as to what we can do, even beyond what we have done, to speed our response. Senator TOWER. Unfortunately the Davis-Bacon Act does not define what the prevailing wage is, but leaves it up to the determination of the Secretary. How does the Secretary make this determination? Mr. SILBERMAN. Well, the Secretary makes the determination by seeking to gather as many facts as possible in a given locality, or a given area, as to the rates actually paid among various classes of mechanics and laborers, to use the phrase in the statute. In the event that the majority of a given class of mechanics and laborers are paid a certain rate, then that becomes the prevailing rate. We recognize that as the prevailing rate. And in accord with the language of the statute we set a "minimum" rate based on that prevailing rate. Now, in the event that in fact a majority at a given rate does not appear, then we drop down to something between 30 and 50 percent, and if it appears that a rate has that status, that is to say, it is paid to between 30 and 50 percent, we will recognize that as the prevailing rate. If we can't find a rate that achieves the status of 30 percent, then we pick an average of all of the rates. (The following information was received from the Department of Labor:) TIME REQUIRED TO ISSUE A WAGE DETERMINATION The average wage determination is issued within 10 to 15 days. Although agencies are asked to allow 30 days lead time for processing wage determination requests, most determinations do not take that long. Where more than 30 days is necessary, it is generally due to the need to complete the more difficult on-site surveys. A backlog of about 300 to 400 cases is normal, with about 350 requests received each week. In FY 1972, 17,757 project wage determinations were issued. At the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, 1972, only 246 requests were pending for project wage determination; this was the lowest figure for the year. This backlog would have been even lower if it were not for the requests submitted for repair of damages from Tropical Storm Agnes. More than 100 requests were received between June 26 and June 30 for this reason alone. Response to most of these was made within three days of receipt. Our great progress in reducing the backlog has been due to the decentralization of the wage determination program, effected on March 6, 1972. As of today, therefore, one may expect a wage determination within two weeks of its submission. Senator TOWER. What is your appeal procedure? What if the determination is disagreed with, either by organized labor or the contractors? Mr. SILBERMAN. Well, we have various steps on this. One of the things that I want to look at is to see whether we want to streamline that. We make this information available to all interested parties, and we extend an opportunity for all interested persons to submit additional wage data, either in support of or to rebut the finding that we have made. Then we go beyond that to conduct a telephone, mail, or on-the-spot survey to bolster our position or to find out whether we are wrong, and finally within the discretion of the Administrator, if there is a factual conflict, he can ask the Department's hearing examiners to hold a hearing on that, and we do that. In the event that the hearing examiner makes a finding one way or another, they can appeal that finding to the Wage Appeal Board, which is a somewhat independent operation within the Department of Labor, whose decision is final. Senator TOWER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Senator Brooke? Senator BROOKE. One question, Mr. Examiner. Mr. Secretary, in reading the testimony of Mr. Ahart, it states: Also the Department's wage determinations had not generally prescribed separate rates for helpers and trainees. Where local labor practices recognize these categories, separate rates would assist in lowering construction costs and encourage contractors to hire semiskilled and untrained persons on governmentfinanced projects. Such a procedure could be particularly desirable in areas of hard-core unemployment. That would indicate that the contractor may be reluctant to hire trainees and helpers at the lower wage rates. The Department of Labor has not developed these classifications for the purpose of making prevailing wage determinations. What effect, in your opinion, has this had on the willingness of contractors to hire minorities? Mr. SILBERMAN. Well, I am inclined to feel, Senator, we have made some great progress over the last few years in inducing contractors and the unions with which they deal to bring minorities into the construction industry, and I don't think the Davis-Bacon Act has been a substantial impediment to their improvement. We do, in fact, recognize a helper classification, where the data establishes that it does prevail in the area. Beyond that we have a special approach that we develop for trainees. If, in fact, there is a collective-bargaining agreement which recognizes a training classification, then we do approve a trainee rate on a project without regard to its prevailing nature. Beyond that, if the Manpower Administration of the Department of Labor has recognized the training program, and as you know, Senator, many of our manpower training programs are designed to recruit minorities into various industries, then the Davis-Bacon people will also recognize that training program. Finally, the new regulations, which were issued in January, as I recall, 29 CFR, part 4a, require the employment of a certain minimum ratio of trainees or apprentices on Federal projects, and we amended our regulations to recognize for Davis-Bacon purposes the trainees so required. Senator BROOKE. Davis-Bacon has not been an impediment? You are satisfied as to that? Mr. SILBERMAN. Yes. I think there have been a lot of other problems other than the recruitment of minorities that have been much more significant for us, and I think we have worked very effectively over the last few years in bringing more minority people into the industry. I might say I believe both the management and the construction unions have moved a long way in that direction over the last few years, too, and I distinctly know that the international construction unions have expressed fairly convincingly the goal of bringing more and more minorities into the crafts. I don't regard the Davis-Bacon Act as a problem in accomplishing that result. Senator BROOKE. Do you have any facts and figures that you could supply for the record on that? Mr. SILBERMAN. Certainly. Senator BROOKE. Would you supply that for the record? (The information requested follows:) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY We now have 56 affirmative action programs to promote equal employment opportunities in Federal construction—a program in almost every major city. In 26 of these cities, special training programs are also underway. Only 6 of the affirmative action programs have had to be imposed; the other 50 have all been voluntarily adopted. In addition to affirmative action programs for Federal construction, affirmative action is now required in all approved apprenticeship programs (29 CFR Part 30). Last year, the number of minority youths in registered apprenticeship programs serviced by the Department of Labor increased by 13 percent. The increase was 2,337, bringing to 20,482-an all-time high-the number of minority apprentices in these programs. The 20,482 minority apprentices represent 11 percent of the 186,236 apprentices registered on December 31, 1971. This compares to 9.1 percent of those registered in preceding years. This minority apprentice increase occurred even though the total number of registered apprentices decreased 13,692 during the year from 199,928 at the end of 1970 to 186,236 at the end of 1971. This situation parallels figures reported for new apprentices. Although there was an overall decline of four percent-from 35,079 to 33,631— for all new apprentices, minority persons entering apprenticeship for the first time increased 33 percent-from 4.089 at the end of 1970 to 5,427 at the end of 1971-16 percent of all new apprentices. There were also marked increases for the construction trades which employ over half of all apprentices. At the end of December 1971, 13,372, or 12 percent, were minority group members. This is an increase of 16 percent over the 11,543 at the end of December 1970, and 102 percent over the 6,603 at the end of December 1968. PROJECTED GOAL FOR THE INCLUSION OF MINORITY WORKERS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 1 Designates the number of minority persons for which credit was given to the administrative committee by OFCC for the first year, as a result of a compliance audit. Senator TOWER. Historically, of course, the construction unions have had the reputation of being most discriminatory against blacks and other minorities. I think we would be interested to know what progress has been made in this area. I am glad Senator Brooke brought this up. Mr. SILBERMAN. I would be delighted, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Senator Brock. Senator BROCK. I frankly was somewhat surprised, Mr. Secretary, with your statement that the Davis-Bacon Act has had no adverse ef fect on minority employment in the face of a pretty strong GAO report which I think reads rather clearly that it has had a detrimental effect. Now, perhaps you have taken steps of late to correct it, and I would not for a moment derogate the effort that you are now making in this and other areas that are addressed by these two bills, but I don't see how in all conscience you can say that Davis-Bacon not designating helpers and trainees could do anything other than discourage minority employment when the minorities are the very people who are hurt by it, because they couldn't get in before. The only way they could acquire skill is in this area, and they have been told in area after area, if not nationally, on a local basis, you can't come in unless you get a skill, and you can't get a skill because you can't come in. So they are affected both ways. Mr. SILBERMAN. Well, Senator Brock, we have negotiated various hometown plans all over the country, beginning with the recruitment and training of minorities brought into the construction industry. Those hometown plans are recognized by the Davis-Bacon division, and indeed, the Assistant Secretary has power to make waivers for Davis-Bacon purposes of any training program. We have a regulation to that effect. Senator BROCK. How many times has he done so ? Mr. SILBERMAN. I can recall several times in which he has done so, but it isn't necessary under our new regulations for him to do that any more because our regulations specifically allow, as I understand it, the recognition of any training program-recognition for Davis-Bacon purposes of any training program approved by the Manpower Administration. Is that not correct? Mr. NYSTROM. That is correct. Senator BROCK. I hope you are making more progress now than you have made in the past, and I would not criticize your efforts at this point. Senator BROOKE. May we ask for the record that we get the information of the number of waivers that the Secretary has had. Mr. SILBERMAN. I certainly will, but the waivers were more important before the change in the regulation which made automatic the approval of any trainee rate which was a product of an equal employment training program. Up to the time that regulation came out, we had to do that, but we don't now. I can recall one incident with respect to the South Carolina training program. Senator BROOKE. Thank you. (The following information was received from the Department of Labor:) DAVIS-BACON TRAINEE WAIVERS Under the Davis-Bacon Act there are essentially three ways to establish trainee rates. Each rate so established constitutes a waiver or variation from DavisBacon prevailing rates. 1. Trainee rates can be set for training programs approved by the Manpower Administration. These may be programs established specifically to comply with OFCC affirmative action requirements, or they may be programs developed and approved for the purpose of participating in youth, anti-poverty, and manpower programs of the Department of Labor. In every case where a special rate for trainees has been requested, the rate has been approved. Between August 1971, and June 30, 1972, such rates were ap |