tracts. The union, which had a traditional onsite labor contract work clause, told its members not to handle the prefabricated fireplaces and fined those members who did. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that the contract clause, while enforceable with the masonry subcontractors, was inapplicable to the general contractor. Accordingly, the complaint was rejected, but not until the project had been significantly delayed.

So that this committee doesn't get the erroneous opinion that engineers are anti-union, we wish to make clear that our prime responsibility is to our clients who retain us to design the finest facilities that we can using the best mechanical and electrical systems as possible under our modern technology. This is what we are required to do and what we want to do, but we are handicapped if others can overrule our design decisions.

Despite a few positive breakthroughs-such as the Tri-Trades Agreement, wherein national unions representing carpenters, electricians, and plumbers signed contracts allowing factory construction of prefabricated, light-frame house sections-the increasing frequency of product-related boycott complaints indicates that this problem demands solution. Product boycotts are injurious in four ways:

1. They increase costs; not only by preventing the savings inherent in doing much of the work at the factory, but also when construction unions insist upon being paid for services which they don't perform as a prerequisite to allowing certain prefabricated products or materials on-the-job site. Furthermore, any disagreement, with subsequent work stoppage, may delay numerous other portions of a job, thus adding to costs.

2. They stifle innovation and technical advances. If a manufacturer-for example-develops a prepackaged air conditioning and air distribution system, with expandable, insulated ducts, there is serious question as to where, or even if, sheet metal workers would permit its installation. The natural trend, therefore, is for manufacturers to stick to existing products and for engineers and architects to specify those items which they know will be acceptable to the various trades.

3. They raise serious questions of liability. My own firm as the mechanical engineer on the Federal Bank Building job, designed a certain type of high-velocity duct work which we believed was best suited to the overall cooling and heating needs of the building. When the union refused to install this particular duct work, and if, for example, the contractor had used steel fabricated duct work instead of the duct work that we specified, who would have been liable for the heating and air conditioning system if it had failed to perform in the building? No architect or engineer is going to accept the responsibility for a project over which he lacks full and complete control.

4. They represent an improper organizing tool. In several casesincluding our Northern Federal Bank Building project-unions have objected to certain products on the basis that employees of the company which manufactured those products were either unorganized, or represented by a different union. When that happened, companies were faced with the unpleasant alternatives of: (1) fighting the union, (2) negotiating with the union, or (3) recognizing that their market would henceforth be severely limited.

Every Member of Congress must be aware that the problem of restrictive building practices is not an idle threat. Even the National Commission of Urban Problems-the Douglas Commission-in its 1969 report to the President, noted:

Many restrictive practices do exist. They vary greatly from place to place. Beneath these variations from place to place and from trade to trade are certain practices that, in their totality, retard the adoption of new materials and improved systems of handling old materials, thereby adding to housing costs.

The practices and events of the building industry since issuance of the Douglas Commission report have done little to correct this shortcoming. A continuing impediment to the development and utilization of modern technology for all U.S. housing is congressional inaction relative to restrictive agreements between housing contractors and the trade unions. The decisions of courts at all levels have made it abundantly clear that relief from restrictive work practices clauses in collective bargaining agreements can be obtained only by changes in existing law or by enactment of new statutes which will assure labor's adherence to national policy, including progress on federally assisted housing programs.

Federal policy has already been enunciated by the Congress through adoption, in 1969, of an amendment to section 1010(a) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966. That Amendment clearly states:

... to the extent feasible, in connection with housing construction, any major rehabilitation, and maintenance under programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that there is no unreasonable restraint by contract or practice against the employment of new or improved technologies, techniques, materials and methods or of preassembled products which may reduce the cost or improve the quality of such construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance, and therefore stimulate expanded production of housing under such programs.

S. 3373 will, we believe, provide a vehicle for assuring compliance with the intent of the 1969 Demonstration Cities policy enunciation. The current legislation will support the aforementioned amendment by providing a means by which any person, including builders, contractors or manufacturers-and we would certainly include architects and engineers-may, through civil court action in a Federal or State court, prevent the enforcement of any local code, law, ordinance, or work rule that restricts use of new techniques or materials on a federally assisted housing program. No action by a Government agency is required.

Obviously, civil court action would not be authorized if the existing restrictive code or labor agreement is deemed necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare. The new building technique or material must be shown to be of a quality of excellence comparable to existing standards which have been developed to cover such products. Whether or not the products can match such standards, or pass qualifying tests, is the responsibility of the aggrieved company or individual which must prove its products quality through tests conducted by a recognized body, approved by the Secretary of Department of Housing and Urban Development. Some concern has been expressed over the possibility that the Secretary of HUD will utilize this responsibility to promulgate code exceptions which may lack the concensus en

dorsement of the professions, builders, suppliers, and other groups interested in maintaining safe, healthful standards.

In this regard, the Consulting Engineers Council of the U.S. and the National Society of Professional Engineers believe that the assignment of responsibility for approving a recognized, standards-setting or testing agency-line number 8, page 2, of S. 3373 should be assigned to the proposed, new National Institute of Building Sciences. This body, which would be created under legislation already approved by the Senate and included in similar legislation in the Houserepresents an independent, unbiased entity which is both equipped and competent to adjudge the qualifications of various testing bodies. Also, our two organizations would like to suggest the addition of the word "consensus" following the word "appropriate" on line 6, page 2, of S. 3373. This change would delineate the fact that Congress is neither condoning nor authorizing so-called sweetheart arrangements whereby a manufacturer pressures a testing facility or standards-setting body to endorse his product, after which he goes to court to try to force its use. The changes we are suggesting will, hopefully, help avoid any harassment-type claims by producers or fabricators who wish to promote questionable products. By requiring that the National Institute of Building Sciences stipulate which bodies are qualified to adjudge the merits of a particular product, Congress will remove any political considerations from the standards clearance

process.

With these changes, the engineering profession believes that S. 3373 will deal effectively with the problems of overcoming restrictive practices in the building industry. It will make invalid and unenforceable any contract provision or other type of agreement which blocks the use of new or improved techniques, methods or materials or of preassembled products in connection with the construction of major rehabilitation of housing assisted by Federal funds.

If America is to meet its housing goals, increased emphasis must be given to volume production, to new technology, and to advanced metheds of homebuilding procedures and management. Congress already has indicated a resolve to overcome existing restraints which hinder progress in the housing industry. Approval of S. 3373, with the changes we have suggested, will, we believe, represent a major step forward in providing quality housing to those 10 million U.S. families whose current habitation is regarded as totally unacceptable. We urge your support and thank you for the opportunity of presenting our views on this important matter.

If there are any questions, I would certainly be happy to try and

answer them.

Senator TOWER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chapman. We appreciate your constructive suggestions relative to amendments to S. 3373, and I can assure you that they will get very serious consideration. Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you.

Senator TOWER. Would you like to expand on some ideas presented earlier about triparty agreements that were presented by Mr. Mahin a few minutes ago?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Basically, we feel that with triparty agreements, taken at face value, might be helpful in avoiding disagreements or problems by trying to assure in advance that there are no jurisdictional

disputes on projects. Of course, most triparty agreements to date have been experimental. So far as I know they have only been negotiated in connection with HUD Breakthrough projects at the present time, basically to solve the problems of jurisdictional disputes.

Senator TOWER. Do you agree with the previous witness that it could and can, in effect, just be a triparty-type closed-shop arrangement?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Not if properly and honestly used. If you are on the opposing side, you might take that opinion, but I think they could eliminate problems if they are properly used.

Senator TOWER. But you could foresee the possibility that it could come to pass in that manner, couldn't you, that it could simply be an arrangement whereby one union feathered its own nest by insisting that it would only install manufactured items that were put together by members of their own union?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes; that is possible, but I would hope it would not happen. I am afraid the labor attorneys have more expertise than engineers in interpreting union objectives or practices in this regard. (Full statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF THE U.S. NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The engineering profession sincerely appreciates this opportunity to present its views on S. 3373. The prob lems which this measure seeks to overcome constitute both a threat and an obstacle to the construction industry in general and to housing in particular. My name is Donald L. Chapman. I am vice president of the architectural and engineering firm of Grover Dimond Associates, Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota. Our firm provides technical and design services in the fields of civil, structural, mechanical, electrical and industrial engineering. I appear before you today, however, as spokesman for two national engineering associations--the Consulting Engineers Council of the U.S., which represents approximately 2500 private practice engineering companies, and the National Society of Professional Engineers, which has more than 65,000 individual engineer members.

Engineers play a key role in the design and construction of housing. My own firm, for example, provides services ranging from areawide planning to wastewater treatment. Streets, sidewalks, electrical power, communications, water, gas, lighting, traffic signals, schools, hospitals, all these and more, demand the expertise of engineers at the early stages of a project's planning,

By virtue of their involvement, engineers are concerned with meeting today's (and tomorrow's) housing needs. We know that some 10 million U.S. families cannot afford adequate housing. The steadily rising cost of new, or remodeled, accommodations (up 13 percent since last year) indicates that the situation probably will worsen before it improves. Accordingly, we are convinced that all potential avenues for reducing housing costs deserve careful consideration.

One method of holding the line is to reduce cost of labor and materials while maintaining or improving quality. There are frequent opportunities for accom plishing this goal, including development and utilization of technological advances in the home building industry. One promising process is "Optimum Value Engineering" (OVE) in which engineering design changes are weighed against the problems of costs, codes, trade practices, installation time, market acceptance and quality achieved.

Through OVE, engineers have found that reliance upon smaller and fewer, but stronger, structural members can lead to lighter structures thus requiring more modest footings and foundations. About one-third of the concrete usually used for foundations is generally sufficient.

Similarly, engineers are finding that use of adhesives rather than nails can speed construction, as do metal drywall clips instead of the more common, and more costly, wood blocking. Fiberglass bathtubs, prefabricated plumbing walls, plastic drain pipe, pre-finished windows and door units, and pre-wired electrical switch boxes (already mounted on asbestos panels), are just a few of the ideas

incorporated into one 952-square-foot OVE prototype house which resulted in a reduction of $1,652 over cost of a more traditionally designed and constructed house. Less labor, hence lower labor costs, represented $506 or almost one-third of the savings.

Unfortunately, it may be impossible to utilize these and similar economies in the millions of housing units which must be built in the coming decade. Despite the obvious benefits of large-scale prefabrication, two things-local building code restrictions and union insistence upon work preservation agreements in labor contracts-presently constitute a "Sword of Damocles" over every designer and builder. Architects and engineers are understandably hesitant to specify time and money-saving materials or components which a local code may prohibit or, even worse, which may not even be installed after assembly and shipment to the project site.

On the first of these two problems, real progress is finally being made toward alleviation of code restrictions. Previously, even the most modern local codes failed to provide for evaluating truly innovative building materials and methods. They were, instead, oriented to certain specific and familiar methods (and materials) of construction. Each was, it seems, incompatible with any other.

Thanks to the National Council of State Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS), coordination and consolidation of codes is approaching reality. NCSBCS provides a vehicle, through which conflicting local codes are being brought together and differences eliminated.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is presently developing with the joint assistance of the National Bureau of Standards and private industry, a set of criteria based upon performance. These criteria evaluate standards of comfort and utility as well as the usual structural, electrical and mechanical requirements. When completed, the "guide criteria," as it has come to be known, should not be regarded as a building code but it can serve as experimental design parameters based upon performance.

Even more heartening has been the action by several states-twenty at last count-which have passed industrialized housing laws, or general purpose building codes, which preempt local regulations for industrialized housing that meets established state standards.

The engineering profession, however, believes that more equitable and informed use of building codes will be further encouraged by enactment of S. 3373. In so doing, however, we believe the House and Senate should make it clear that this legislation is in no way intended to provide a vehicle by which the Federal Government, and particularly the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, may become a "national czar" of building codes and standards. The intent of this legislation, plainly and simply, is to assure that qualified, tested, new materials or prefabricated components may be purchased and installed on those projects where they have been specified by the responsible architect or engineer. Obviously, as designers of projects, A-E's have a personal interest in assuring satisfactory construction and operation.

On the matter of union reluctance to use new and innovative techniques, court decisions and rulings upholding labor restrictions against certain building products or materials have sparked widespread alarm among engineers. We refer, of course, to labor groups insistence upon contract provisions which prohibit installation (or even handling) of prefabricated components that may eliminate work that tradesmen have historically provided at job sites.

With full respect for the working man's apprehension over anything which infringes upon his right to earn a living, we also recognize the importance of holding down costs, improving quality, and speeding completion of projects. During these presentations, your Subcommittee has heard, or will hear, of numerous incidents involving union refusal to install prevalved boilers, prefinished doors, pre-wired switch boxes, prefabricated air filter units, and dozens of other cost-saving components.

In my own firm, our project engineers specified a certain type of high pressure supply ductwork as part of the HVAC system on the Northern Federal Bank Building in St. Paul. To assure adherence to design criteria, our plans called for ductwork manufactured by any one of three companies. Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 76, of St. Paul, challenged our "or equal" specifications on the basis that the contractor, in using the prefabricated ductwork, was violating a "work preservation" clause in his labor agreement. The Sheet Metal Workers took this position despite the fact, by their own admission, the employing contractor had not previously constructed, or fabricated. “double-walled, internally insulated, high velocity ducts and fittings" as specified and there were no other facilities