delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, as amended, 80 Stat. 1139, 40 U. S. C. § 270a et seg., a prime contractor on a federal construction project involving over $2,000 must post a payment bond to protect those who have a direct contractual relationship with either the prime contractor or a “subcontractor.” The issue in this case is whether the term “subcontractor,” as used in the Act, encompasses a firm that is technically a “sub-subcontractor.”

The material facts are not in dispute. Petitioner J. W. Bateson Co. entered into a contract with the United States for construction of an addition to a hospital and provided a payment bond signed by Bateson’s president and by representatives of petitioner sureties. Bateson, the prime contractor, subcontracted with Pierce Associates for a portion of the original work, and Pierce in turn subcontracted with Colquitt Sprinkler Co. for the installation of a sprinkler system, one of the items specified in the contract between Bateson and the United States. Under a collective-bargaining agreement with respondent Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, Col-quitt was obligated to pay over amounts withheld from employees’ wages for union dues and vacation savings, and to contribute to the union’s welfare, pension, and educational trust funds. When Colquitt failed to make any of these pay*588ments by the end of the union members’ employment with the firm, the union and respondent trustees notified Bateson of the amount that they claimed was due them under the payment bond and then filed suit against Bateson in the name of the United States.

The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 325, 551 F. 2d 1284 (1977). The appellate court recognized that Colquitt, which had a contractual relationship with Pierce but not with Bateson, was “technically a sub-subcontractor,” but it concluded nevertheless that Colquitt should be considered a “subcontractor” for purposes of payment bond recovery by its employees or their representatives. Id., at 327, 551 F. 2d, at 1286.1 Applying a functional test based on the “substan-tiality] and importan [ce]” of the relationship between Bateson and Colquitt, the court noted that Colquitt was performing on the jobsite “an integral and significant part of [Bateson’s] contract” with the Government, that the work “was performed over a substantial period of time,” that Bate-son had access to Colquitt’s payroll records, and that Bateson could have protected itself “through bond or otherwise” against Colquitt’s default. Ibid., 551 F. 2d, at 1286.

We granted certiorari, 433 U. S. 907 (1977), to resolve a conflict between the decision below and the holdings of at least three other Circuits.2 We now reverse.

*589Like the predecessor Heard Act, Act of Aug. 13, 1894, ch. 280, 28 Stat. 278, as amended, Act of Feb. 24, 1905, 33 Stat. 811, the Miller Act was designed to provide an alternative remedy to the mechanics’ liens ordinarily available on private construction projects. F. D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U. S. 116, 122 (1974). Because “a lien cannot attach to Government property,” persons supplying labor or materials on a federal construction project were to be protected by a payment bond. Id., at 121-122. The scope of the Miller Act’s protection is limited, however, by a proviso in § 2 (a) of the Act that “had no counterpart in the Heard Act.” Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., 322 U. S. 102, 107 (1944). This proviso has the effect of requiring that persons who lack a “contractual relationship express or implied with the [prime] contractor” show a “direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor” in order to recover on the bond. 40 U. S. C. § 270b (a);3 see F. D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. *590Industrial Lumber Co., supra, at 122; Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., supra, at 107-108. In the instant case it is conceded that Colquitt's employees enjoyed no contractual relationship, “express or implied,” with Bateson, and that they did have a “direct contractual relationship” with Colquitt. The question before us, then, is whether Colquitt can be considered a “subcontractor.”

As we observed in Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., supra, Congress used the word “subcontractor” in the Miller Act in accordance with “usage in the building trades.” 322 U. S., at 108-109; see id., at 110. In the building trades,

“a subcontractor is one who performs for and takes from the prime contractor a specific part of the labor or material requirements of the original contract . . . .” Id., at 109 (emphasis added).

It thus appears that a contract with a prime contractor is a prerequisite to being a “subcontractor.” 4

*591This interpretation of the Act’s language is confirmed by the legislative history, which leaves no room for doubt about Congress’ intent. While relatively brief, the authoritative Committee Reports of both the House of Representatives and the Senate squarely focus on the question at issue here:

“A sub-subcontractor may avail himself of the protection of the bond by giving written notice to the contractor, but that is as far as the bill goes. It is not felt that more remote relationships ought to come within the purview of the bond.” H. R. Rep. No. 1263, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1935); S. Rep. No. 1238, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1935).

This passage indicates both that Congress understood the difference between “sub-subcontractors” like Colquitt and “subcontractors” like Pierce, and that it intended the scope of protection of a payment bond to extend no further than to sub-subcontractors. See MacEvoy, 322 U. S., at 107-108, and n. 5. There is nothing to the contrary anywhere in the legislative history. Thus, while Colquitt could have claimed *592against the payment bond had Pierce defaulted in its obligations , the employees of Colquitt were not similarly protected against Colquitt’s default, because they did not have a contractual relationship with Pierce or any other “subcontractor.” 5

This view of what was intended in the Miller Act is reinforced by the fact that all reported decisions that have considered the question, except that of the court below and one early District Court decision, have reached the same conclusion.6 Presumably aware of this well-settled body of law *593dating back almost 20 years, Congress has never moved to modify the Act’s coverage. As a result, all of those concerned with Government projects — prime contractors, sureties, various levels of subcontractors and their employees — have been led to assume that the employees of a sub-subcontractor would not be protected by the Miller Act payment bond and to order their affairs accordingly.7 In the absence of some clear indication to the contrary, we should not defeat these reasonable expectations, particularly in view of the importance of certainty with regard to bonding practices on Government construction projects. See generally MacEvoy, supra, at 110-111.

In reaching a result contrary to that of other Courts of Appeals, the court below did not address itself either to the legislative history quoted above or to the conflict among the Circuits that its ruling created. Instead, it focused primarily on the substantiality and importance of the relationship between Colquitt and Bateson, see supra, at 588, relying for this approach on our decisions in MacEvoy and F. D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co. While those cases did involve the scope of the term “subcontractor” in the § 2 (a) proviso, they arose in situations in which the *594firm at issue, unlike Colquitt, had a direct contractual relationship with the prime contractor. The question in both cases was whether a supplier of materials to the prime contractor could be considered a “subcontractor,” 8 and on this question an absence of dispositive statutory language and legislative history led the Court ultimately to look to “functional” considerations. 417 U. S., at 123-124; see 322 U. S., at 110-111. In the instant case, by contrast, the traditional tools of statutory construction provide a definitive answer to the question before us, and hence it would be inappropriate to utilize the approach relied on by the Court of Appeals.

In concluding that the word “subcontractor” must be limited in meaning to one who contracts with a prime contractor, we are not unmindful of our obligation to construe the “highly remedial” Miller Act “liberal [ly] ... in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects.” MacEvoy, supra, at 107. As we wrote in MacEvoy, however, “such a salutary policy does not justify ignoring plain words of limitation and imposing wholesale liability on payment bonds. . . . [W]e cannot disregard the limitations on liability which Congress intended to impose and did impose in the proviso of § 2 (a).” 322 U. S., at 107. It was Congress that drew a line between sub-subcontractors and those in “more remote relationships” to the prime contractor. H. R. Rep. No. 1263, supra, at 3; S. Rep. No. 1238, supra, at 2; MacEvoy, supra, at 108; Rich, 417 U. S., at 122. If the scope of protection afforded by a Miller Act payment bond is to be extended, it is Congress that must make the change.

*595The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

dissenting.

The Court’s narrow reading of the word “subcontractor” creates a system of protection for construction workers that I cannot believe Congress intended. It drives a wedge between employees working side by side on tasks equally vital to “the prosecution of the work.” 40 U. S. C. § 270a (a) (2). Under the Court’s reading, those who work for the general contractor or for a “first-tier” subcontractor are protected by the bond; those who work for other subcontractors are unprotected.

The Court’s construction of the statute derives strong support from the statement in the Committee Reports distinguishing between “sub-subcontractors” and “more remote relationships.” Nevertheless, I am persuaded that contrary evidence of congressional intent outweighs the isolated statement upon which the Court’s decision primarily rests. I shall therefore first explain why I think the Act protects every person who has supplied labor or material in the prosecution of the work provided for in the prime contract. Thereafter, I shall explain why I believe the excerpt from the Committee Reports does not compel a contrary conclusion.

I

The Miller Act, like the Heard Act which preceded it, covers “all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in [a federal construction] contract.” 1 *596Unless this language were to be narrowly read to cover only persons supplying labor or materials directly to the general contractor — and no one suggests that such a narrow reading is proper — it plainly identifies “the prosecution of the work" as the proper test of coverage. This Court so read the comparable language in the Heard Act in United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Co., 200 U. S. 197.

In that case the Court recognized that a “liberal interpretation” was needed to further “the manifest purpose of the statute to require that material and labor actually contributed to the construction of the public building shall be paid for and to provide a security to that end.” Id., at 203.2 The Hill Court therefore allowed recovery to all who supplied labor *597to the contractor, whether directly or indirectly through a subcontractor.3

The question at the heart of this case is whether Congress intended the Miller Act to cut back the coverage of the Heard Act. The fact that there was no significant change in the statutory language identifying the persons protected by the Act is a sufficient reason for concluding that no change in coverage was intended.4 This conclusion is confirmed by a study of the entire legislative history of the Miller Act.

The Miller Act was primarily designed to speed workmen’s recoveries under the Heard Act by correcting procedural flaws in the old Act. Not a word in the legislative history hinted that the coverage of the Heard Act was too broad. To the contrary, the proposed revision was consistently presented as *598a measure to strengthen the existing rights of laborers on public works.5 “The most radical changes made in the existing law by these bills,” Congressman Miller, the proponent of the Act, explained, “is that we provide in this bill for two bonds; one a performance bond to the Government, and the other a payment bond.” 6

While Congress intended to speed the recoveries of protected workers, it sought to do so within the framework of existing law. Witnesses testifying in support of the Act urged Congress to preserve as much language from the Heard Act as possible, in order that past judicial interpretations would continue to apply under the new Act.7 Congressman Miller *599himself noted that the Committee was “rather loath to disturb existing law and existing court decisions where we can correct the difficulty without doing so.” 8 Thus it is especially significant that the drafters lifted bodily from the Heard Act the coverage provision that had already been construed in Hill.

The historical context in which the statute was enacted confirms this analysis. The Miller Act was passed during the depression of the 1930’s. Tew construction laborers could then find work except on Government projects. Reform of the Heard Act drew urgency from the ironic discovery that precious construction jobs too often proved worthless when an irresponsible subcontractor was unable to pay his workers. An exchange between Senators Walsh and McCarran about the Miller Act shows the sentiments of the day:

“Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, . . . the investigation conducted by the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor showed a deplorable condition with reference to the way employees on public buildings were defrauded and cheated of their wages, and any measure that will tend to strengthen their rights and help them to secure their compensation is justified.

“Mr. McCARRAN. That is the object of the pending bill . . . .” 79 Cong. Rec. 13383 (1935).

The language of the Miller Act is entirely consistent with the obvious legislative intent to preserve the substantive protections of the Heard Act. The Miller Act extends coverage *600to “all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in [the] contract . 9 This coverage is comparable to that afforded by many state mechanic’s lien statutes. See generally Note, Mechanics’ Liens and Surety Bonds in the Building Trades, 68 Yale L. J. 138 (1958). The purpose of both the Heard Act and the Miller Act was to protect persons supplying labor or materials for federal construction projects, which are not subject to state mechanics’ liens.10 Giving an ordinary meaning to the language used by both Acts will achieve that purpose.

The proviso to § 2 (a) of the Miller Act, which requires persons having a direct relationship with a subcontractor to give written notice of his claim to the prime contractor, does not narrow the coverage of the statute. It merely requires persons covered by the bond to give the required notice in order to preserve their protection.11

*601It is true, of course, that it would be anomalous to require that notice be given by employees of first-tier subcontractors but not by employees of second-tier subcontractors.12 Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., 322 U. S. 102, 108. But that anomaly is entirely avoided if the term “subcontractor” is read to refer to any person or firm that has contracted to do any part of the work provided for in the prime contract, whether that person has dealt directly with the prime contractor or with another subcontractor. In the common usage of the construction trades, the term “subcontractor” does not include ordinary laborers or materialmen. Id., at 109. But the term is often used to describe subordinate contractors who have accepted contractual responsibility for a portion of the work covered by the basic contract, no matter how many subcontractors lie between the general contractor and the subcontractor who actually does the work.13

*602State courts, which have more occasion to deal with construction contracts than we do, recognize that a generic use of the term subcontractor is entirely proper. For example, Colorado's construction bond law protects persons furnishing labor or materials to a “contractor, or his subcontractor.” Despite the personal pronoun, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that the bond covers those who deal with a “second-tier” subcontractor, saying:

“To construe the term ‘sub-contractor’ so as to exclude a ‘sub-subcontractor’ from the protection granted by the contractor’s bond statute would require us to ignore the purpose of the statute. Since the benefits of our mechanic’s lien act do not apply to projects constructed by governmental agencies, a remedy similar to our mechanic’s lien statute was provided by the legislature for the protection of those furnishing supplies or material for such projects. . . . The statute stands in lieu of the mechanic’s lien statute, and is designed to protect those who supply labor and materials for public works.” South-Way Constr. Co. v. Adams City Serv., 169 Colo. 513, 516-517, 458 P. 2d 250, 251 (1969).

Other courts have taken a similar approach. See, e. g., Nash Eng. Co. v. Marcy Realty Corp., 222 Ind. 396, 54 N. E. 2d 263 (1944); Bumb v. Petersmith Controls, Inc., 377 F. 2d 817 (CA9 1967) (remote subcontractor is protected “subcontractor” under California law); Hey Kiley Man, Inc. v. Azalea Gardens Apts., 333 So. 2d 48, 50-51 (Fla. App. 1976). See also Note, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 1236, 1238-1239 (1932) (using “subcontractor” generically in noting a trend favoring bond coverage for “remote subcontractors”).

Thus, if we consider the language of the statute, its broad purpose to provide protection comparable to that afforded by *603state mechanic’s lien laws on private contracts, and its specific purpose to provide protection for laborers performing work on federal projects, we must conclude that employees of a “sub-subcontractor” who actually perform work on the job are protected.

II

The contrary argument rests almost entirely14 on a statement in the Committee Reports that draws a distinction *604between a “sub-subcontractor” and “more remote relationships.” 15 I believe the significance of that statement has been overemphasized.

Those who have participated in the making of legislative history know that congressional reports sometimes contain statements that are merely intended to summarize portions of the hearings or to answer testimony expressing specific concerns about a bill. For this reason, the hearings should be examined in order to understand the excerpt on which the Court relies. In three days of testimony, the coverage of the Act was mentioned only briefly. A witness for a surety company raised the specter of remote materialmen seeking to recover as “subcontractors,” an idea Congressman Miller quickly rejected:

“Colonel PROCTOR. . . . [If] it wifi cover everybody all the way down the line whether the work goes into the job or not you have an insurance policy and not a surety. For example, if it will cover the labor of the quarryman that strips the quarry, that he is a subcontractor to the man that cuts the stone, that he is a subcontractor with the man that lays the stone and he is a subcontractor with the general contractor, you have a situation there that is an insurance policy and not a bond.

*605“Mr. MILLER. We axe not figuring in going into all the subcontractors.” Hearings, supra n. 6, at 61-62 (emphasis added).

This colloquy was concerned with the danger that the term “subcontractor” might be used loosely to describe the suppliers or employees of materialmen. It was that danger that I believe the Committee Report was intended to forestall. Obviously, suppliers or employees of materialmen do not provide “work [that] goes into the job.” They are not considered “subcontractors” under the most common usage in the construction trades, as this Court recognized when it construed the Miller Act to bar the claims of remote materialmen and their employees. Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., 322 U. S. 102.

It is the “remote relationship” of persons like the quarry-man and the stonecutter mentioned in the hearings that I believe the author of the Committee Report intended to exclude from the statute. Since the wording of the statute is itself adequate to effectuate this intent, there is no reason to give further effect to the unnecessarily broad language used by the author of the Committee Report to allay the narrow concern identified in the Committee hearings.16 If Congress had intended to do more than allay that concern — if it had intended to cut back on the coverage of the Heard Act — I am convinced that it would have used statutory language to accomplish its purpose.17

*606In sum, while I cannot unequivocally assert that my explanation of the statement in the Committee Report is correct, the apparent genesis of the statement casts sufficient doubt on its intended purpose to prevent it from overriding what I regard as compelling evidence of a contrary congressional intent.

I respectfully dissent.