and were so unanimous in our realization that there was an inequity, he would investigate them further, but a year and a half has gone by. I would say to the gentleman from Iowa they have not done anything. They did not keep their word. Their position is simply they want no change in the law.

I do not accept that as a valid position. That is why the committee in this case, and I think every member on the minority side except the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. CARLSON), agreed to this proposal, because we thought something needed to be done.

Mr. GROSS. I see no Department position in the report and I do like to know what position the Department is taking.

Mr. ASHBROOK. The Department of Labor is opposed to this bill. They want no change in the act as it now stands, and I think most of the Members after hearing the testimony do not agree with that position in all candor.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. ASHBROOK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman respond to this argument, that it is administratively infeasible and filled with all kinds of ambiguities because it would require the Department of Labor to see whether any of these employees were covered by collectivebargaining agreements, and if they were, the employees could not be paid at lower than the rates in that agreement. How is the Secretary to know before the contract has been awarded or before particular specifications have actually been issued which employees are ultimately going to be employed by the successful contractor? He does not even know who will be successful, which contractor it is going to be, and therefore how would he know the employees, and therefore how would he comply with the requirements, and how could he come up with a contract containing terms and conditions that are not contrary to a collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees? I am simply desirous of getting information, because even though it is difficult to change people's minds on a bill under a suspension of rules with only 20 minutes on either side, still if the gentleman could relieve my mind on that point it would satisfy some fears we have.

Mr. ASHBROOK. I think if they do nothing else than require that they did at least include the wage level for the previous one, we would have accomplished a great deal.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Does the gentleman mean they have to consider the wage level that was used in a preceding contract?

Mr. ASHBROOK. If they have a successor contractor, they would have to consider the wage of the predecessor contractor.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will yield further, is there not a Supreme Court decision somewhere that says something on this point?

Mr. ASHBROOK. The Burns decision?

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Is there not a decision that it is not required that a successor contractor be bound by the terms and conditions of a labor contract entered into by his predecessor? I do not have the citation handy, but it seems to me there is a decision to that effect and therefore this would rewrite existing law as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. I think it was a National Labor Relations Board against Burns Security Services case.

86-853 O - 72-6

Mr. ASHBROOK. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois, who is learned in this area, as I understand it the Burns case dealt with a private employer, and the Congress time and time again has set standards for people who do contract business with the Government, and the Walsh-Healey Act has set different standards, and the DavisBacon Act has set different standards, and the Service Contract Act has set different standards. It is like comparing apples with oranges. A contract with a person in the private-sector is totally different from a contract in a situation where the contractor is doing business with the Government. We have always made a difference in WalshHealey and in Davis-Bacon and in the Service Contract Act. So the same thrust of law relating to predecessor and successor contracts would apply to the public sector but not necessarily the private

sector.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. To return to the point, does not this pose some administrative difficulties when we cannot tell to whom the contract will be awarded? How does one administer this provision which says we have to take into consideration previous bargaining conditions? Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ASHBROOK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about whether the old contractor had an effective bargaining agreement, and the way the act works, the contracting agency has to supply certain information to the Department of Labor and then the Department of Labor makes its determination. All we have to do is have the contract agency supply one additional piece of information and that is whether a collective bargaining agreement now covers those employees and what it applies to, and then the Department of Labor will know.

Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. HICKS).

Mrs. HICKS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor for bringing this matter before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 15376, a bill to amend the service contract of 1965.

The Special Subcommittee on Labor, on which I serve, conducted exhaustive oversight hearings on the way this act has been administered since 1965. We found problems under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and tried to take a completely bipartisan approach to solving these problems.

I believe that the bill we have reported out, and it was reported out unanimously from our subcommittee and the full Committee on Education and Labor, will go a long way toward making the Service Contract Act an effective vehicle for protecting the wages and fringe benefits of service workers.

These service workers are among the lowest-paid workers in the United States. They are the laundry workers, busboys, dishwashers, guards, janitors, and other workers performing housekeeping functions under Government service contracts. These workers on the bottom rung of the economic ladder are the ones the Congress tried to protect in 1956 when it enacted the Service Contract Act.

The Service Contract Act simply provided a method for protecting the wages and fringe benefits being paid service workers, by directing that they be paid at least the prevailing rates in their local

area.

For various reasons the act has not worked as well as was originally intended, and we discovered countless instances where faulty wage determination procedures had worked great hardships on service workers and their families.

I believe the bill we have devised will prevent the tragic economic hardships which are visited upon these workers under the present operation of the act, and will make it clear that the Congress meant business when it set out to protect these workers.

Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is rather unique that I yield to a distinguished opponent of the legislation, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BLACKBURN) 3 minutes.

*

Mr. BLACKBURN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to suspend the rules. The bill before us seeks to improve the lot of service contract workers, but it would not accomplish that purpose. It is confusing on its face, and if it were enacted it would vastly complicate the Service Contract Act, which in turn would lead to delay and abuse in the service contracting process. Let me briefly mention some of the problems of the bill.

First, the Secretary of Labor, who is charged with the responsibility of making the wage and fringe determinations, would be forced to make a determination for each individual contract in many cases where he now may make a single determination which applies to many service contracts in a particular locality. This single determination procedure permitted under the present law conserves valuable resources, saves time and prevents duplication of effort. If this bill is enacted, many more determinations will be required, resulting in delays and confusion in the service contracting process. Service employees have nothing to gain and much to lose by this amendment.

Second, the bill would foreclose, within a few years, the existing authority to omit making wage and fringe determinations in those cases of minimal impact and importance in the application of the statute. It would thus limit and ultimately eliminate the present administrative flexibility to allocate resources available for making wage determinations in those areas and contracts where substantial needs for wage and fringe protections exist.

Third, sections 2(a)(1) and (2) provide that minimum wage rate and fringe benefit determinations may include prospective increases provided for in a collective bargaining agreement.

Is it intended by this provision to permit acceleration of deferred wage and fringe benefit increases? If so, it seems to us that this could seriously jeopardize the national effort to curb inflation-particularly insofar as the provision could have a precedential effect for other areas of Government contract work or, indeed, might "spillover" as a practical matter to the public and private employment sectors generally.

At the very minimum, this provision would clearly benefit by clarification and rephrasing to assure that it does not authorize acceleration of deferred increases. Under the suspension of the rules, however, this will not be possible.

Fourth, section 3 (c) provides that, in the case of successor contracts under which substantially the same services are furnished, the minimum wage rates and fringe benefits to be paid by the successor contractor may not be less than those paid under the predecessor contract— and may also include any prospective increases which were provided for under the predecessor contractor's collective bargaining agreement. This is so even if the successor contractor employs his own work force and does not retain any of the predecessor contractor's employees.

At a time when the American taxpayers are demanding and deserve economy in Government, this provision would serve to guarantee ever-increasing labor costs in service contracts. Beyond this, it introduces a major new concept into our national labor policy.

In NLRB against Burns International Security Services, Inc.decided May 15, 1972-the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a successor contractor is not obligated to observe his predecessor's collective bargaining agreement. Section 3(c) of H.R. 15376 would in net effect overturn this decision.

If it is the will of the House that our national labor laws should now be rewritten to provide for compulsory imposition of the terms of collective bargaining agreements on employers and employees who were not parties to the agreement, we respectively suggest that this is a decision to be made only after the most thorough and extensive debate with full opportunity for Members participation through the amendment process. It is not, in our opinion, a decision to be made in summary fashion as part of a package deal in which the hands of the Members are tied.

Fifth, the bill limits the Secretary of Labor's discretion and flexibility in two important respects. Under these proposed amendments, he may grant a variation or exemption only in special circumstances, and he may act to relieve a contractor from being listed as ineligible only in unusual circumstances. Unfortunately, the bill does not define either of these terms and the Secretary and everyone else who has an interest in this legislation is left without any guidance. This is yet another example of how this legislation fails to do the job it purports to do. Legislation is supposed to serve as a guide to conduct, and that requires thoughtful and careful preparation and drafting. It would be a shame for this House to suspend the rules and bring this bill to a vote because it clearly needs more careful consideration. As it stands now, it can only honor the interests of service workers by saddling them with a mandate for confusion.

Last, the proposed amendments raise serious due process questions because it requires that a contractor who has violated the act, unless relieved due to the unexplained unusual circumstances I just mentioned, must be listed as ineligible within 30 days after a hearing examiner has made his finding. This gives a contractor virtually no time to pursue his existing appellate remedies or seek review which might exonerate him. Bear in mind that this hard and fast rule would apply even if the violation were de minimis and involved no element of willfulness. Such violations are common, and therefore would not seem to allow for relief as unusual circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, no one will claim that the present Service Contract Act is perfect in either conception or administration. But the bill before us is confusing and would only complicate and confuse matters.

In this regard, it is significant to note that the committee was unable to arrive at an estimated cost of administering the act as it is proposed to be amended because of uncertainties over the best technique for making wage and fringe benefit determinations-House Report No. 92-1251, page 6. Yet the committee has nonetheless taken steps to assure that the Department of Labor will make such determinations for each and every contract subject to the act. It seems to us that a valid question may be raised as to whether the committee has not put the cart before the horse. Would it not be better to first ascertain improved techniques for making wage and fringe benefits determinations before sending the Labor Department out with a blank check to apply admittedly poor or unevaluated techniques to an even greater number of contracts than at present?

The report of the Committee on Education and Labor states that H.R. 15376 is designed to bring about more equitable and more efficient administration of the Service Contract Act. We, of course, fully support this highly desirable goal.

However, it seems to us that it would be far more consistent with that avowed purpose to subject the legislation to the sounding board of full and complete debate, including the amendment process. rather than to have it come up, as scheduled, on a take it or leave it basis.

For our part, the issues posed in this legislation are too serious to treat in such an abbreviated fashion. The bill should be referred back to committee so that it may be brought to the floor at a later time in accordance with the usual procedures of the House allowing Members the fullest freedom to work their will on its various provisions.

Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. GONZALEZ).

Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for granting me this time.

I rise merely to support this bill and to urge its enactment because of its overdue need.

Those of us who cosponsored and otherwise helped as to the passage of the 1965 act were certainly under the impression then that the thing this present amendment leads to correcting had been taken care of.

All this bill will do, regardless of the scare talk about administrative costs and the like, is to substitute for the law of the jungle as it now exists a rule of reason and equity and justice.

In my district for 10 years, since I have been in the Congress, I have had repeated specific occasions of abuse that have given rise to an urgent need to enact this legislation. I so urge my fellow Members. Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN).

Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, this bill has several objectionable features. It presents a seemingly impossible administrative mandate by requiring that the Secretary of Labor make wage determinations in accordance with collective bargaining agreements covering service workers at a point in time when there is no way to tell whose service