ther, as the testimony of the AFL-CIO has pointed out, the legislation actually "perpetuates shortcomings" in many cases and “actually weakens present honsing legislation" in others. One of the provisions of deep concern to our organization, which represents hundreds of thousands of construction laborers, many from minority groups, are the provisions of this legislation that would take the teeth out of the DavisBacon Act. It is ironic and deeply disturbing to us that while one of the avowed purposes of the legislation would be to help poor and low-income groups the result would be opposite if this legislation, as now written, became law. What we mean is that the sections emasculating the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage portions would further depress incomes in areas that need money the most. The Davis-Bacon Act has played a vital part in stabilizing the construction industry since it was enacted in 1931. The original Act and subsequent laws are designed to protect contractors and workers in a partcular locality from incursions in underbidding of outside contractors, thus protecting wage and liv ing standards in the community. Prevailing wage laws prevent substandard wages and working conditions, provide employment for local building crafts, thereby maintaining local purchasing power and stabilizing conditions in the construction industry. But some of the sections of the proposed legislation. would actually eliminate practices that have been part of the Federal Housing Program since 1937. Under Section 12 of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, a contract made under a capital grant would no longer have to contai: a provision requiring payment of prevailing wages in the locality. The present law requires this provision. There is no reason why this practice should not continue to exist since laborers and other tradesmen would be doing the same work as employees working for contractors now covered by Davis-Bacon provisions. Section 16 (2) of the 1937 Act also provides that all contracts covered under that section must include a provision that laborers and mechanics employed in building public housing projects be paid not less than the wage prevailing in the locality as predetermined by the Secretary of Labor under the DavisBacon Act. That section further provides that all maintenance laborers, among other classifications, who are involved in the administration of the projects be paid not less than the wages prevailing in the locality. The proposed Section 12 of the Aministration's bill deletes Davis-Bacon coverage from maintenance laborers, mechanics and many other classifications such as architects, engineers draftsmen and technicians. There is no reason why these highly-skilled tradesmen, including maintenance laborers, should not be paid prevailing rates covering their type of work where their skill, experience and ability are not different from those employed in building the project. Another section of the Act disturbs us deeply. Under Section 507(b) in Title I of the bill. the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is permitted to waive the application of Davis-Bacon in any case where prospective owners of the dwellings involved or other persons voluntarily donate their services without compensation or where laborers or mechanics not otherwise employed voluntarily donate their service without full compensation for the purpose of lowering the cost of construction or rehabilitation. We see no objection to laborers or any other craftsmen voluntarily donating their services without compensation. The section of this proposed legislation that concerns us in the power that would be granted to the Secretary to waive compliance of DavisBacon protection to unemployed laborers and mechanics to work on projects without full compensation. This becomes an invitation to the unemployed to work for less than the prevailing wage rates. That type of practice is entirely contrary to the aims and purposes of the Act. In these circumstances, laborers would not "donate" their services, but would become victims of an unemployment situation working for less money to which they would be entitled. S. 3639 further tries to emasculate the Davis-Bacon Act in Section 507(a) of Title I. Under this proposal, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements would apply only to those mortgage-insured multi-family housing projects having twelve or more units. It would be unjust for the Congress to allow a laborer or mechanic on a smaller multi-family project to be paid less than the prevailing wages when he is performing the same work as those employees on a twelve or more multi-family project. As a reminder, the purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act in the first place was to make sure that the vast purchasing power of the Federal Government in con struction program should not be used to depress wages and working conditions already established in local areas. This underlying idea has stood the test of time and has proven its merit. But the proposed legislation that we have dis cussed in our testimony today would be a grievous blow to this principle and would set back construction laborers and other workers in the industry. We strongly urge the Committee to report out a bill in line with past practices in the industry and respecting legislation that has been on the books for nearly 40 years. The Davis-Bacon Act has been a way for literally millions of workers to obtain economic justice and has rendered a great deal of stability to the construction industry. Enactment of this legislation, as written, would seriously upset this entire process. In conclusion, we would like to further point out that the Laborers' International Union is strongly encouraging the introduction of new technology into the home-building field. Our concern about providing homes, as well as jobs for our members, has led us to pioneer in the field of signing national agreements with manufacturers of factory-made pre-cast concrete housing. Most recently, we signed agreements with six firms that plan to introduce on a wide scale to North America the European systems of factory-made housing that rebuilt Europe after World War II. Prior to that, the Laborers' International Union signed national agreements with two other manufacturers of pre-cast concrete housing that are using systems developed in this country. With so many of our members living in inner city areas, we recognize deeply the scope of this prob lem and we are vitally concerned about doing something about it. We want to express our appreciation for the opportunity to present our views. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1970. Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, We are especially interested in the section Secretary Romney has proposed to provide judicial relief in localities where zoning or other practices are used to exclude housing for lower-income families. The League supports the concept of this recommendation, believing it to be an important adjunct to assuring that the housing programs adopted by Congress will indeed serve the people they are designed to serve. In general, we support the provisions to consolidate and simplify housing programs and to create uniform, but flexible standards for income and eligibility. We do not comment specifically on the technicalities of the bill, but do raise a few questions relative to the practical effects of the legislation. The League hopes the Committee will include provisions in the legislation to effect the Romney recommendation. Sincerely, Mrs. BRUCE B. BENSON, President. STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES The League of Women Voters appreciates this opportunity to file a statement for the record on the Administration's proposed Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970. It is our intention to express support for some aspects of the measure and to pose questions about others. We do not intend to comment specifically, at this time, on the new formulas and administrative changes proposed in this legislation. This statement will be addressed to five points. (1) We shall review briefly the League's thinking and positions with regard to the nation's housing problems and the goals set by Congress for housing during the past two years. (2) We shall concentrate attention on one innovative feature which we welcome especially the section the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, George Romney wishes written into the bill to emphasize the responsibility of local governments to enable the development within their jurisdictions of reason able amounts of housing for lower-income residents, and which would give the Attorney General and citizens authority to bring suit against local governments which discriminate against such housing. The League supports the concepts of this provision and applauds the Administration for submitting it for inclusion in the Housing and Urban Development Act. We hope the Committee will report favorably on a refined version of this proposal. Its inclusion in the law can have a salutary effect in stimulating citizens and local governments throughout the country to think about what can and should be done in their communities to enable lower-income families to secure housing. (3) We wish to express support for the intent of the measure to consolidate and simplify housing programs and to create uniform, but flexible, standards of eligibility and participation. We are concerned that some of the new requirements related to uniformity will result in additional hardship for lower-income families. We may have some constructive suggestions at a later date, after we have had an opportunity to study some of the ramifications of the new standards and eligibility criteria. (4) We shall comment upon the policy commitment stated in the bill and the four goals stated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in his testimony and in the official explanation of the bill, and raise a few questions about potential conflict between specific proposals and the goals stated. (5) We endorse the commitment in the "Open Space Land" Section which states: "The Congress further finds that there is a need for the additional provision of parks and other open space in the built-up portions of urban areas especially in low-income neighborhoods and communities, and a need for greater and better coordinated state and local efforts to make available and improve open-space land throughout the entire urban areas". We have two brief comments to make on this provision: (a) It is clearly impossible to provide a “suitable environment" for people without open space and parks.” (b) Such a requirement in this legislation ties in logically with the necessity for lessening community opposition to such housing and is therefore especially important. WHERE THE LEAGUE STANDS To provide some context for this statement, the League wishes to point out that our commitment to housing betterment in this nation is to the broad objective of equality of opportunity for access to housing. During the past two years, League members have surveyed housing needs and have reviewed federal, state and local housing programs in their states and communities. They have studied extensively the obstacles to equal access to housing, with special emphasis on the problems of racial minorities and economically disadvantaged people. They have surveyed housing in their areas in the light of the national goals set by the Congress in 1968, and they have a good understanding of the obstacles remaining. Within the context of our objective of equal opportunity in housing, local Leagues work in very specific ways in their own areas to advance the goals for housing set by Congress. The League works also with other groups1 to support adequate funding for housing, and for protection and advancement of the rights of access to decent housing in a suitable environment for all people, regardless of race, religion, origin of birth or economic status. League concern with equal housing opportunities throughout the nation is part of a larger commitment: "Support of equal opportunity in education, employment and housing. Evaluation of further measures to combat poverty and discrimination". Attached is a copy of a "Checklist for Analysis and Action". It will provide for you additional insight into: the seriousness of League dedication to housing and related programs, the variety of ways in which we shall be working, and our keen interest in this particular legislation. 1 The League of Women Voters is a member of the National Housing Conference and the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing. Inc. and is working with the National Council of Negro Women and several national organizations in the establishment of a Homeownership Task Force. These organizations include: National Association of Home Builders. National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Association of Real Estate Boards, National Tenants Organizations, The National Urban Coalition. Rural Housing Alliance and The Urban League. The "Checklist" is not a statement of League position, but is rather a League reference tool in their decisions about possible action toward achieving the Nation's housing goals. Before commenting about the bill more specifically let = REVIEW NA goals set by Congress during these two years just paat WHERE ARE, WE HEAWAY E The Congress has committed the nation to qua denen fijad Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 placed ryte, body ing and Urban Development and upon all ezerihets Me the obligation to adminlater their groetine **^ ** and urban development is a master affe natt »J " E able amounts of housing for lower-income residents, and which would give the Attorney General and citizens authority to bring suit against local governments which discriminate against such housing. The League supports the concepts of this provision and applauds the Administration for submitting it for inclusion in the Housing and Urban Development Act. We hope the Committee will report favorably on a refined version of this proposal. Its inclusion in the law can have a salutary effect in stimulating citizens and local governments throughout the country to think about what can and should be done in their communities to enable lower-income families to secure housing. (3) We wish to express support for the intent of the measure to consolidate and simplify housing programs and to create uniform, but flexible, standards of eligibility and participation. We are concerned that some of the new requirements related to uniformity will result in additional hardship for lower-income families. We may have some constructive suggestions at a later date, after we have had an opportunity to study some of the ramifications of the new standards and eligibility criteria. (4) We shall comment upon the policy commitment stated in the bill and the four goals stated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in his testimony and in the official explanation of the bill, and raise a few questions about potential conflict between specific proposals and the goals stated. (5) We endorse the commitment in the "Open Space Land" Section which states: "The Congress further finds that there is a need for the additional provision of parks and other open space in the built-up portions of urban areas especially in low-income neighborhoods and communities, and a need for greater and better coordinated state and local efforts to make available and improve open-space land throughout the entire urban areas". We have two brief comments to make on this provision: (a) It is clearly impossible to provide a "suitable environment" for people without open space and parks." (b) Such a requirement in this legislation ties in logically with the necessity for lessening community opposition to such housing and is therefore especially important. WHERE THE LEAGUE STANDS To provide some context for this statement, the League wishes to point out that our commitment to housing betterment in this nation is to the broad objective of equality of opportunity for access to housing. During the past two years, League members have surveyed housing needs and have reviewed federal, state and local housing programs in their states and communities. They have studied extensively the obstacles to equal access to housing, with special emphasis on the problems of racial minorities and economically disadvantaged people. They have surveyed housing in their areas in the light of the national goals set by the Congress in 1968, and they have a good understanding of the obstacles remaining. Within the context of our objective of equal opportunity in housing, local Leagues work in very specific ways in their own areas to advance the goals for housing set by Congress. The League works also with other groups to support adequate funding for housing, and for protection and advancement of the rights of access to decent housing in a suitable environment for all people, regardless of race, religion, origin of birth or economic status. League concern with equal housing opportunities throughout the nation is part of a larger commitment: "Support of equal opportunity in education, employment and housing. Evaluation of further measures to combat poverty and discrimination". Attached is a copy of a "Checklist for Analysis and Action".* It will provide for you additional insight into: the seriousness of League dedication to housing and related programs, the variety of ways in which we shall be working, and our keen interest in this particular legislation. 1 The League of Women Voters is a member of the National Housing Conference and the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, Inc. and is working with the National Council of Negro Women and several national organizations in the establishment of a Homeownership Task Force. These organizations include: National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Association of Real Estate Boards, National Tenants Organizations, The National Urban Coalition. Rural Housing Alliance and The Urban League. 2 The "Checklist" is not a statement of League position, but is rather a League reference Fool in their decisions about possible action toward achieving the Nation's housing goals |