Office of Manpower Administrator, salaries and expenses.

Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, salaries and expenses.
Bureau of Employment Security, salaries and expenses:

Activities relating to admission and employment of nonimmigrant aliens.

56,500

(365, 100)

Labor-Management Services Administration, salaries and expenses.

Wage and Hour Division, salaries and expenses.

Bureau of Labor Standards, salaries and expenses.

Women's Bureau, salaries and expenses.

31, 100

$31, 100

31, 100

100.0

32, 100

32, 100

45. 1

1 39,000

PROPOSED NEW CHARGES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND

The Department's budget as approved includes the following items which are to be financed from the subject trust fund:

1. Costs incurred in connection with carrying out the Department's responsibilities under Public Law 414 relating to both permanent and temporary admissions: $2,957.400.

2. Costs incurred in effectuating the Department's responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act: $212,000.

3. Costs incurred in connection with the administration of the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act: $230,000.

Title IX of the Social Security Act makes the funds covered into the employment security administration account available for (1) assisting the States in the administration of their unemployment compensation laws as provided in title III, including the costs incurred in connection with the administration of the various unemployment compensation laws; and (2) for costs in connection with the establishment and maintenance of public employment offices in accordance with the Wagner-Peyser Act.

Justification for charging item 1 to trust fund

While in a strictly technical sense the Department's responsibilities under the Immigration and Nationality Act are independent of those imposed upon it under the Wagner-Peyser Act, the Department carries out its responsibilities under the former act through the facilities of the public employment office.

The basic function which the Department performs under the Immigration and Nationality Act is testing the availability of labor. In this sense the Department, in fact, undertakes through the public employment office to find domestic workers for employers who have placed job offers with the public employment office. While it is true that the employer may seek to obtain a visa for an immigrant or nonimmigrant, the cost factor is in major portion related to a function which the public employment office normally performs. For this reason the cost should be truly assessed as a cost of operating the public employment offices and carrying out its responsibilities for finding jobs for domestic workers.

The certification which is given for the admission of either nonimmigrant or immigrant aliens is merely a byproduct of the search for domestic workers. Justification for charging item 2 to trust fund

Insofar as the costs incurred in giving meaning and effect to titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act are concerned the Department's regulations, issued under the Wagner-Peyser Act, prohibit discriminatory practices in the operations of the public employment offices. The funds thus expended by the Department in giving effect to these titles of the Civil Rights Act are in essence to give meaning and effect to standards of efficiency under which the public employment offices are required to operate.

For this reason it would appear that any costs incurred in the enforcement of the Department's policy and regulations against discriminatory practices in the maintenance and operation of the public employment offices are in connection with policies that are coextensive with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act. Accordingly, costs incurred in connection therewith can reasonably be construed as costs incurred in administering the Wagner-Peyser Act. Justification for charging item 3 to trust fund

The farm labor service is established pursuant to the provisions of section 3 of the Wagner-Peyser Act. Its basic responsibility is to recruit farm laborers to meet the labor needs of the agricultural producers of the country and conversely to locate jobs for unemployed workers designed to find agricultural employment.

In carrying out this responsibility the farm labor service, through the facilities of the nationwide system of public employment offices, established under the Wagner-Peyser Act, schedules successive employment for farmworkers in a number of States. A very significant phase of the farm labor force moves in the migratory labor stream.

Through the annual worker plan and through other recruitment programs the public employment offices, working with crew leaders and other labor contractors, are instrumental in arranging for the migration of workers from area to area, State to State, and region to region.

In carrying out these responsibilities the public employment offices, as governmental instrumentalities, have a legitimate concern in assuring that they do not participate in programs characterized by serious abuses and exploitation of migratory agricultural workers. While the registration of crew leaders and other labor contractors is provided for under a separate statute, designed to provide safeguards against such abuses and exploitation, it is a function so inter-related with the total migratory worker program, including the recruitment, job development, and scheduling of workers into interstate employment, all of which are programs conducted by the public employment offices, it would appear appropriate to assess the entire cost of the total farm labor service functions, including such registration, to a single appropriation source.

COMMENTS ON GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTS TO CONGRESS

Wage rates for federally financed building construction improperly determined in excess of the prevailing rates for similar work in New England areas GAO criticisms.-GAO review of the determinations by the Department of the minimum wage rates to be paid mechanics and laborers employed on construction of federally financed building projects in selected New England areas disclosed that many of the rates were improperly established at the higher rates negotiated by labor organizations and building contractors rather than at the lower wage rates prevailing on private construction in the project area. The review showed that these unrealistic determinations were based on inadequate information obtained by the Department on wage rates in these areas. GAO believes that the Department has not complied with either its own regulations or the intent of the Davis-Bacon Act that wage determination be based on the wage rates prevailing for similar construction in the locality.

GAO recommendation.-GAO recommends that the Department institute onthe-site surveys of both union negotiated rates and other wage rates being paid on comparable private construction in an area. Sufficient data should be gathered firsthand in the locality of the construction site to afford a basis for appropriate wage determinations.

Department of Labor response.-There is a basic difference in statutory interpretation between the Comptroller General and the Department. The Comptroller General construes the Davis-Bacon Act as restricting the Department to consideration of only wages paid on "private" construction in finding prevailing wage rates. The Comptroller General apparently excludes consideration of Federal construction, or construction assisted by Federal loans, grants, or insurance which is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act or its related statutes. The Department does not agree with this exclusion.

The Department is going to redouble its efforts to obtain a larger volume of payment evidence. Further, the Department is now requiring contracting agencies to furnish payment evidence with their requests for wage determinations. Wage rates for federally financed housing construction improperly determined in excess of the prevailing rates for similar work in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex., area

GAO criticisms.-GAO review of the determinations by the Department of the minimum wage rates to be paid to mechanics and laborers employed on certain federally financed housing construction in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex., area disclosed that the minimum hourly wage rates were improperly established at the higher union-negotiated rates paid principally on commercial-industrial-type building construction rather than the lower wage rates prevailing in the project area on private housing construction similar in character to the federally financed housing projects. GAO believes that the Department by not obtaining wage-rate data on similar private housing construction has not complied with the intent of the Davis-Bacon Act that wage determinations be based on the wage rates prevailing for similar construction in the locality. GAO feels that the higher wage rates determined by the Department increased the project costs by about $1.1 million on a $15 million contract.

GAO recommendation.—GAO recommends that the Department institute onthe-site surveys of both union-negotiated and other wage rates being paid on similar private construction in the area. Sufficient data should be gathered first hand in the locality of the construction site to afford a basis for appropriate wage determinations for federally financed housing projects.

Department of Labor response.-There is a basic difference in statutory interpretation between the Comptroller General and the Department. The Comptroller General seems to read the Davis-Bacon Act as requiring the Departmnt to use exclusively wages paid in the "private" sector of the economy in finding prevailing wages. The Department interprets the act as requiring consideration of wages paid on all projects of a character similar, regardless of whether the projects are in the "private" segment of the economy or its "public" segment. In addition to trying to obtain a larger volume of payment evidence, the Department has established three field offices. The field representatives will work closely with representatives of management and labor and with public officials in an effort to obtain more reliable support for wage determinations.

Unnecessary procurement of office furniture

GAO criticism.-The GAO review disclosed that new office furniture costing about $1 million was procured by the bureaus and offices during fiscal years