SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1373 words

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY June 22, 1999 BRADFORD W. COUPE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WET WEATHER FLOWS

BODY:
TESTIMONY PRESENTED By BRADFORD W. COUPE, ATTORNEY FOR THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION CONCERNING THE NEED FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND OTHER WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bradford W. Coupe, and I am representing the National Constructors Association, a national association of major contractors including some of the nation's largest contractors who design, build and construct industrial, heavy and highway projects in both the public and private sectors. They also perform public sector water resource protection projects including wastewater treatment plants and water resource environmental facilities I am here today to support reauthorization of the Clean Water Act for the first time since 1987. 1 also urge you to support other water resources legislation that would greatly contribute to the improvement of alternative water supply and water-related environmental infrastructure and water-resource protection and restoration projects. The goals of the Clean Water Act have been the reduction and ultimately the elimination of discharges of pollutants from municipal sewage systems and industrial plants, and wherever attainable, fishable and swimmable water quality in all of the rivers, lakes and streams of the Nation. The Clean Water Act established two primary mechanisms for the accomplishment of these goals. First, all industrial and municipal dischargers are required to treat their wastes to clearly definable minimal levels based on best practicable and best available technologies. The second mechanism is a program of financial assistance to municipalities for the construction of sewage treatment facilities to meet the requirements of the Act. The character of that financial assistance has changed over the years from primarily a categorical grant program under which the Federal Government's share was as much as 75 percent of eligible project costs to the current program that provides a combination of grants earmarked for construction of specific treatment works facilities and other water pollution control projects and capitalization grants provided to State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds ("SRFs"), which in turn provide loans and other forms of financial assistance to local agencies to assist in the cost of construction of water treatment works and other water pollution control projects. You have heard other witnesses testify today that an investment of more than $ 300 billion is needed to construct municipal water pollution control facilities eligible for federal financial assistance under the Clean Water Act. Interestingly, in reading the House and Senate Committee Reports that accompanied the Clean Water Reauthorization bills to the floor of each chamber in 1985, I noticed that7he Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the United States," commonly referred to as the 1984 Needs Survey," estimated that the investment required to construct municipal water pollution control facilities eligible for federal financial assistance under the Clean Water Act to meet both 1984 and year 2000 sewage treatment needs was 101.7 billion. Clearly, there is an ongoing need in the foreseeable future for continued federal financial assistance to help State and local government agencies achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. As contractors that have constructed water treatment works facilities financially assisted by federal funds made available under the Clean Water Act, my clients understand and appreciate the value and the benefits that Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements provide to contractors, worker's and the local community. By establishing a wage floor on federally-assisted water treatment projects , our members, as well as other fair and responsible contractors are able to compete on a level playing field for such work with the confidence that they will not be under bid by contractors that employ low- wage, low-skilled workers in order to achieve a competitive advantage. For a long time, it was generally believed that the ability or willingness to employ low-wage workers in the construction industry directly translated into lower labor costs that substantially reduced the overall cost of public and private construction. We in the industry knew that this isn't necessarily true, but now there is a substantial body of research that confirms what we knew all along. That is, payment of locally- prevailing wages and benefits does not mean higher costs to the taxpayer for public works construction. In fact, numerous studies have concluded that whatever cost savings may be realized from employment of lower-paid construction workers are more than offset by lower productivity associated with lower wage workers who are generally less skilled and less experienced. As a result, several of these studies have found that the actual cost of various kinds of public works projects, most particularly schools and highways, is generally lower where prevailing wage requirements are applicable. Moreover, application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to public works projects has been demonstrated to provide other benefits such as higher State and local income tax and sales tax revenues derived from higher construction earnings in the community, and elimination or substantial reduction of cost overruns on covered public works projects due to the higher productivity of well-trained and experienced workers attracted to employment on prevailing wage jobs. In addition, application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to federally-assisted public works projects helps to support expanded apprenticeship training opportunities in several ways. This is because, public works contractors on Davis-Bacon projects are relieved of the obligation to pay Davis-Bacon prevailing wages to their employees enrolled in apprenticeship programs approved by the federal Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training ("BAT") or a State agency authorized by the BAT to approve such programs. This a powerful incentive for contractors to participate and invest in formal apprenticeship programs. This is especially important today, because a shortage of skilled labor is rapidly developing in the construction industry that only promises to get worse as large numbers of older "Baby-Boom" era workers begin to retire, unless something is done to make employment in the construction industry more attractive to the next generation of workers. Insuring that wages and fringe benefits are maintained at a level that enables workers to live a reasonably comfortable lifestyle goes a long way toward that goal. Being able to offer every qualified applicant an opportunity to learn the skills and acquire the experience necessary to become a well-paid journey-level craft worker is also an important factor in attracting new workers to the industry. Finally, the availability of ample employment and training opportunities for good paying jobs in the construction industry attracts more minorities and females to the industry who would not otherwise consider such a career. All of these benefits are directly attributable to application of Davis- Bacon prevailing wage requirements to federally-assisted public works projects. Nevertheless, there are some members of Congress who believe that Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements should no longer be applied to construction of water treatment facilities and other water resources projects. It is submitted that for the reasons I have discussed, as long as federal financial resources continue to be used to assist construction of such projects, it is not only in the best interest of the contractors and employees who work on these projects, but also Federal and State taxpayers and the State and local governments that receive such assistance, to continue to include these requirements in any new legislation to reauthorize Clean Water Act, as well as any other new water resource development legislation that this subcommittee might consider. Thank you for your attention.

LOAD-DATE: June 24, 1999