HR-8602-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Eric Burlison (R-MO)
What it does
This bill would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act's wage requirements, which currently require contractors on federally funded construction projects to pay workers the "prevailing wage" — typically the local union wage rate — as determined by the Department of Labor. The repeal would take effect 30 days after enactment but would not apply to contracts already in existence or bids already outstanding at that time, protecting workers and contractors mid-project.
Who benefits
Non-union construction contractors who currently must pay prevailing wages on federal projects, making them more cost-competitive. Taxpayers and the federal government, if lower labor costs reduce the total price of federally funded construction projects. Small and mid-sized contractors in lower-wage regions who argue prevailing wage rates price them out of federal contracts. State and local governments that receive federal construction funding and could potentially stretch those dollars further. Open-shop (non-union) construction workers who may gain access to more federal projects if contractor costs fall.
Who is hurt
Union and non-union construction workers currently earning prevailing wages on federal projects, who could see lower wages offered on future contracts. Building trade unions, whose wage standards and membership are directly tied to prevailing wage requirements. Workers in high-cost metropolitan areas where prevailing wages are significantly above market minimums. Apprenticeship programs affiliated with unions, which are often funded through prevailing wage structures. Communities where federal construction projects are a significant source of middle-income employment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Davis-Bacon artificially inflates the cost of federal construction projects by mandating above-market wages, with studies — including a 2008 analysis by the Beacon Hill Institute — estimating the law adds 9–15% to project costs, wasting billions in taxpayer dollars annually. They contend that repealing the law would allow more competitive bidding, enabling the federal government to fund more infrastructure projects with the same appropriated dollars, and would open federal contracting to a broader pool of small and regional businesses currently priced out of the market.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Davis-Bacon prevents a "race to the bottom" in wages on publicly funded projects, ensuring that federal spending supports middle-class jobs rather than subsidizing low-wage contractors. They contend that the law's prevailing wage determinations reflect actual local market rates, and that studies — including research by the Economic Policy Institute — find little to no net cost savings from repeal once worker productivity, turnover, and training costs are factored in. They further argue that repeal would disproportionately harm workers in skilled trades who depend on prevailing wage protections to maintain living standards.