Page images
PDF
EPUB

is fully in effect we might have different fuels for automobiles. It may be atomic, it may be radio, or what have you.

So we could feel that such ideas might well have to be revised as time goes on. We do have a definite viewpoint on what we believe to be the need, the modern day need, for setting up labor standards in the construction of these highways the same as you have standards for specifications and materials dimensions, the thickness of the under layer and the top layer, and so on.

There have been various Federal labor laws on the books, notably the Davis-Bacon Act, which concerns itself with the paying of wages in conformity to the prevailing scales in the community where the wages are being paid.

That we are particularly interested in, Mr. Chairman, and if I may quote very briefly from the action of the recent American Federation of Labor convention in Los Angeles on that subject, I can say that the convention stated:

We urge the officers of the federation to take all possible steps to procure increased appropriations for this purpose.

Namely, highway construction.

There is an obvious need for building many new highways and improving existing ones. We note that the current law does not carry a Davis-Bacon provision on grants to the several States for highway construction. We recommend that steps be taken to add the Davis-Bacon provisions to the legislation governing highway grants.

That was unanimously adopted at the convention last September in Los Angeles.

You have a very good pattern set for the request which I am making of you. In a current bill, S. 5, I believe the number is

Senator GORE. Who is the author of that bill? Mr. RILEY. That is a joint bill, Mr. Chairman. It is very frequently referred to as the Hill bill, and it is designed to promote school construction on a Federal-aid basis. It has any number of sponsors. Apparently some 35 to 40.

That bill, in my opinion, is going to come out of the committee, and come out largely intact. For that reason we feel that the provision in that bill under the heading "State plans, section 5, subsection 10," is good language.

Senator GORE. Would you recommend that that language be included in the road bill?

Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator GORE. Is that a long section?

Mr. RILEY. No; it is not.

Senator GORE. Would you mind reading it?

Mr. RILEY. Actually, it is a very short section. It is a subsection. I would not attempt to read the whole section. I can give you the introduction to it. [Reading:]

Any State desiring to accept the benefits of this act shall submit through its State agency a State plan for carrying out the provisions of this act. Such State plan shall

and then we go into the subsection:

provide that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on construction work performed on

4

and in this bill it is school. and I am succeeding the substitution of one word "highways".

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, why don't you read that from your statement? You have that in your statement adapted to highways. It is on page 4 of your statement.

Senator GORE. I am sure Senator Case would not mind me saying that he has been reading your statement and is very complimentary of it.

Mr. RILEY. I appreciate it. [Reading:]

Provide that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on construction work performed on highway-facilities projects approved under the plan shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U. S. C. 276a-276a-5), and that every such employee shall receive compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times his basic rate of pay for all hours worked in any workweek in excess of 8 hours in any workday or 40 hours in the workweek, as the case may be.

The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in paragraph 10, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (15 F. R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267), and section 2 of the act of June 13, 1934, as amended (40 U. S. C. 276c).

It is just that simple that the language we suggest be in there. Any variation of that which would be aimed to effect the same purpose, we certainly would not be quarrelsome about it whatsoever. With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing particularly to add. I will say that our teamsters union, the president of the teamsters union is a member of the advisory committee along with General Clay on the general good purposes of highway construction, Mr. David Beck.

We have watched this situation sufficiently that we know now that the movement is going to come out in some form and that inasmuch as it will, we hope it will come out with that particular type of inclusion which will give us the advantage just as is included in other Federal projects and now to be proposed in the State plan under Federal-aid projects.

Senator GORE. You are proposing that the Congress write this into the bill as a condition precedent to the allocation of funds to respective States?

Mr. RILEY. That is right, exactly. We have good standards for construction; let's have good standards for the payment of labor. There is nothing free in the world. We in the long run will pay our share of this high construction bill ourselves. We are not preconceived on notions of long-term bonded indebtedness.

We feel, and we are showing here in this program for schools, that we want to have the necessities given to the coming generation as well as to the present one. The facilities in that bill called for a halfbillion dollars for 2 years, for the ensuing fiscal year beginning July 1, 1955, and 1956, which will give the rising generation an opportunity.

Senator GORE. Mr. Riley, early in your testimony you expressed your concern and your support for an accelerated program of construction and improvement of all types of highways.

Mr. RILEY. Yes. We are not obstructionists on this. We want to see lots of highways, wherever they belong. We are not experts to tell you where they belong or how to finance them. We want those who need highways to get them.

Senator GORE. Are you aware of the fact that S. 1048 proposes an accelerated program of construction for all types of highways?

Mr. RILEY. I know that.

Senator GORE. Whereas the new bill, S. 1160, proposes an acceleration only of the Interstate System?

Mr. RILEY. If the farmers can't get their trucks to market we feel that they are being let down. Highways are essentially a rural transportation problem and in the city as well. Therefore, if we are going to serve the cities why shouldn't we serve all the farmers wherever they may be to the greatest practical extent?

We certainly are not going to suggest that you pull any punches in providing them with the same facilities as they need them as you would the rest of the population.

Senator GORE. A great many people other than farmers use the primary, secondary, and urban roads.

Mr. RILEY. Certainly. Logging, and so forth.

Senator GORE. As a matter of fact, the Interstate System carries only one-seventh of the traffic. Many leading cities in America are not on the Interstate System at all. I agree with your statement that we should accelerate the improvement of, the construction of, all types of our highways. I believe our transportation problem must be viewed in whole and not just in part.

Mr. RILEY. That is right. People will not give protection to this bill. You have to look at this with a wide screen.

Senator GORE. I started to ask you about financing, but you excused yourself from that.

Mr. RILEY. I do not qualify myself as a financial expert. We are qualified in the field of labor and labor relations.

Senator GORE. Let me put it this way: One of the things that has worried me about the administration proposal is that all of the increased expenditures would be on this one system that handles only one-seventh of the traffic and would preempt the sources of so-called highway-use revenue for the next 30 years. It is a matter of concern. Mr. RILEY. Definitely. And if I may take recourse to the few words I read you about the action of our convention, I would say that they are sufficiently accommodating to say that the legislation should not be confined to any particular type of transportation facility, but facilities which will go to all the people.

Senator GORE. Senator Case?

Senator CASE. Mr. Riley, first, with respect to the suggested language, I think the suggestion that the States should be required to submit a plan for carrying out the purposes of the act is sort of a carryover from the school bill, is it not?

Mr. RILEY. That is it exactly. It is taken bodily except for one word there.

Senator CASE. Of course, there is no plan in existence today for a program of school construction comparable to what is suggested in the Hill bill. So that some formal acceptance by the States would probably be necessary.

With respect to highways, we do have a going plan of Federal aid for highways.

Mr. RILEY. That is right.

Senator CASE. So it occurs to me that your purpose could be accomplished if you required that a State should certify that certain things had been done in connection with the contract.

Mr. RILEY. We have no jealousy of terminology whatsoever. Whatever accommodates the situation certainly we would be very happy with.

Senator CASE. It is certainly true that in the Davis-Bacon Act and in the Lease-Purchase Act you have precedence for what you have suggested.

Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator CASE. I am a little bit curious to know why no precedent can be cited in the field of highway construction. The Federal Government has been aiding highway construction for some time, and I do not recall that this proposal was made when we had up the highway bill last year.

Mr. RILEY. That is true; it was not. The magnitude of this program, whatever form it may take in the long run, certainly recommends itself forcibly to the extreme need for being modern and mature in our thinking and to incorporate such language.

Senator CASE. You know of no precedents in any of the highway Acts?

Mr. RILEY. I claim no precedent. My precedent, as you have mentioned, is the Lease-Purchase Act which we very vigorously supported and which we were responsible for having included in that bill, the language that I am sure you are well informed on.

Senator CASE. Do you know of any basis of opposition or hesitation which has been responsible for the fact that there is precedent in highway legislation?

Mr. RILEY. I do not know of any. I would have no opposition to cite in that regard, Senator Case. It is one of those things that may be the first things first. I would not want to exclude it even on that ground.

It just simply has been that now the program is getting so vigorous, so very serious, and so large, that it commands new thinking.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, that suggests to me that among the other witnesses that are to appear on this legislation-you may already have this in mind—will be representatives of the American Association of State Highway Officials.

Senator GORE. They are scheduled to testify.

Senator CASE. In contacting them I suggest that the staff bring to their attention this suggested provision, because there must be some reason why this has not come up before or, whether there has been or not, it would be desirable I think to have some expression of opinion from the State highway officials because it would be applicable to the funds that they put into the highway construction as well as to the Federal funds.

Senator GORE. Without objection the staff will be instructed to so inform the State highway officials and so request them.

Do you have anything further?

Senator CASE. That is all.

Senator GORE. Senator McNamara, the witness before the committee may be known to you: Mr. Riley of the American Federation of Labor. It is your time to submit questions.

Senator MCNAMARA. I would not presume to ask any questions at this point because I unfortunately had to attend an executive session of the Labor Committee this morning.

Mr. RILEY. For the benefit of Senator McNamara and Senator Kerr, may I sum up? I stated that I am not qualified, at the outset, on financing on road building. We feel that we know a little about labor relations and we are asking first of all that there be included in the legislation, in whatever form it may take, Davis-Bacon provisions, fair labor standards, to be included.

Senator GORE. As a condition precedent to the allocation of the funds to the respective States.

Mr. RILEY. That is right. I remarked that in the Labor Committee there is now pending a bill which to my way of thinking certainly will come out in substantially the form that it went in.

The school-aid bill, school construction bill, with matching funds on the part of the Federal Government, includes the type of legislation section that we would like to have put into this bill on fair labor standards.

Senator GORE. Would you also summarize your view with respect to the improvement of all types of roads?

Mr. RILEY. Yes. We are for roads wherever they are needed-secondary, arterial, superhighway, or whatever have you. We think that as long as those facilities are needed they should be afforded. We are not attempting to tell you how they should be financed. That is for the Congress to exercise its wisdom on or to be advised on. We are not experts in that field.

Senator GORE. Senator McNamara, do you have any questions now? Senator MCNAMARA. No, sir.

Senator GORE. Senator Kuchel?

Senator KUCHEL. Let me say to Mr. Riley first of all, that I think you have made a constructive suggestion, specifically with respect to the amendment.

Mr. RILEY. I appreciate that.

Senator KUCHEL. Generally, it is a very fine statement, including, I might add, your own continuing recognition of the unique problems we have in California and in the West where it is true that our population increase is fantastic.

Only because of the discussion, Mr. Riley, while you have been here testifying, I want to say this, and I am sure that the members of the committee will agree with me: In the last 2 years the work of this committee with respect to highway legislation in my judgment has been free of partisan politics.

I think when we wrote the legislation that is now the law, we gathered around the table and in the interest of the welfare of the country and the Federal Government's responsibility, we drafted what we thought was a good program.

My particular interest in the report of the so-called Clay committee is to have this Senate committee again determine in that same nonpartisan sphere whether the vehicle of selling bonds and earmarking revenues to pay for them might be a good thing for the people of this country. You recognized in your report the lease-purchase legislation. Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. The lease-purchase legislation will permit buildings to be erected on a time payment plan, and thus for the first time

« PreviousContinue »