I believe the Department of Labor would do well to listen to the words of the late Walter Reuther, former president of the United Auto Workers. In testimony before the Douglas Commission, Mr. Reuther said:

Now I try to ask myself: "Why do the building trades behave as they do?" They aren't all the same, although we know there are a number of people in the building trades who take a negative view of technological progress. I try to understand their problem and I come to the conclusion in many cases that they are against technology as a defense mechanism.

They have had a history of unemployment and slack times. I think that they look at technology as a threat to their job security. I believe that we have to prevail upon them to understand that they will get more job security out of the economics of abundance that will be made possible by technology than they can get out of the economics of scarcity.

I would hope that we can persuade them to go along with the new technology, because if they don't, then I think our society will have to go on despite their attitude, because no one has the right to stand in the way of the ability of the society to take care of a need as fundamental as decent housing.

Now, if this were some luxury gadget that you could use or not use, you could enjoy or not enjoy and somebody said: "I'm going to interfere with the right of the people to get access to some luxury gadget," my attitude would be quite different. But housing is a fundamental need, and no economic group, whether it be the building trades or the United Automobile Workers, or anybody else, has a right to stand in the way.

I sincerely believe that my amendment and Senator Brock's bill, S. 3373, can solve these complex issues without impairing the rights of anyone. The basic elements of my bill are:

First, through a civil court action in a Federal or State court, any person, including builders, contractors or manufacturers, may prevent the enforcement of any local code, law, ordinance or work rule that restricts his use of new techniques or materials in a federally assisted housing program. No action by a government agency is required. Second, the remedy does not apply if the restrictive code or work practice is required to protect the health or safety of working or living conditions. If this defense is raised, the new product or technique will be presumed to meet the required test by conforming to standards established by any nationally recognized standard setting or testing agency designated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and qualified and equipped to perform suitable tests or evaluations.

Third, the court may order equitable or preventive relief and damages, although damages may not be assessed against a local governmental body.

Fourth, the safety and health issue and all other questions under the bill will be decided by a State or Federal court in the locality.

My amendment and Senator Brock's bill will not establish national standards or a national building code. If a defendant in an action. brought under the bill raises the defense that the new product or techniques will not meet health and safety requirements, the plaintiff's new product or technique will be presumed to meet these requirements if it conforms to standards set by a nationally recognized standard-setting or testing agency.

HUD's only involvement is to designate these agencies, but it does not set the standards themselves. If HUD has not designated such an agency, or if the HUD-designated agency has no appropriate standard, or if the new product or technique fails to meet an established

standard-and we are speaking of performance standards then the plaintiff has the full burden of showing that his innovation is healthful and safe.

As a result, the entire matter is decided by a court, either State or Federal, in the locality where the problem arose and without the intrusion of a Federal agency.

As I read the witness list for these 4 days of hearings, I cannot understand why none of the consumer groups has requested to testify in favor of this bill. I see few more significant consumer issues today than providing lower cost housing to all Americans. Certainly, it is of primary importance to the middle- and low-income groups.

I would like now to turn to S. 3654, introduced by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Tower. I support Senator Tower's efforts to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act provisions from the National Housing Act and the Housing Act of 1937, and I hope this subcommittee will act favorably on the bill at the earliest possible time.

In recent years, the Davis-Bacon Act has succeeded only in increasing construction costs through encouraging unrealistic construction wage rates rather than fulfilling Congress intended goal of preserving local jobs.

In the meantime, I believe the Department of Labor can cure many ills by a more commonsense approach to its administration of the law.

Yesterday Under Secretary of Labor Laurence Silberman stated, "I am the first to agree that the Davis-Bacon Act has not always been administered in the most efficacious manner," and further indicated that the hearing on S. 3654 has caused him to take a hard look at the problem.

I guess some action is better late than never, since the Comptroller General published his report listing the Department of Labor's deficiencies in administration of the law almost 1 year ago.

I hope Secretary Silberman will take into consideration all of the Comptroller General's recommendations; however, I hope he concentrates his efforts in two major areas.

First, he must solve the problem of the Department applying urban wage rates to rural districts.

Second, he must see that the Department's wage determinations prescribe separate rates for trainees and helpers from those for skilled workmen. Such a move not only will save construction costs, but more importantly, will open the door to the employment of black and Mexican Americans who have consistently been left outside in the cold because of their lack of skills. Certainly, a contractor will be more inclined to hire unskilled or semiskilled persons if he can pay that person in relation to his abilities.

Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the opportunity of appearing before the subcommittee today, and I commend to you Senator Brock's bill, S. 3373, and Senator Tower's bill, S. 3654.

You may rest assured that I shall continue to battle in the other body, and together we may finally achieve a significant victory for the housing consumer.

Senator CRANSTON. Do you feel, Congressman, that there would be any problems in having Federal judges, who lack training and expertise in these matters, make these rulings?

Mr. BLACKBURN. Senator, I have felt for some time that Federal judges have lacked a lot of expertise in matters that they have exercised judgment on, but that has never been a hindrance to them in the past, and I do not think it would be a hindrance to them with regard to this bill.

Senator CRANSTON. There would presumably be a pretty uniform system developed, would there not, despite the different rulings by different courts around the country?

Mr. BLACKBURN. Well, there are geographic considerations that would enter into any new technique or new product. For example, certain soils have a very deleterious effect on certain types of piping used for sewage purposes in some areas of the country. So, these are the factors that could be developed in testimony before the court, so that the courts could give consideration to various geographic factors where involved.

What we really need is a performance standard of codes, which would show if the new product or new technique met a performance standard; that is, the board would hold up at a certain weight over a certain period of time, or the roof would last a certain number of years under normal atmospheric conditions. That is the measure that we should insist that the localities demand in their construction.

Senator CRANSTON. I gather you do not favor the idea of having the Federal Government appoint panels that would look over local codes and make binding or nonbinding recommendations with regard to them. Why do you not favor that course?

Mr. BLACKBURN. Well, I have confessed I have a real conflict in that particular area, because I have had a basic sympathy with HUD's ambition to eliminate these restrictive building codes. We do know that in many cities the building codes have been developed and are the result of union activities to protect union jobs.

Many of these building codes are very badly antiquated, and I do support HUD's efforts in that regard.

On the other hand, I feel in some instances HUD has used the workable programs to insist that localities adopt building codes that I do not think were really in the best interest of the local community. I say I do not have a simple answer to that problem. I suppose if I had to choose between the two, I would probably go to stronger national standards.

Senator CRANSTON. Did you favor the National Institute of Building Science proposal?

Mr. BLACKBURN. Yes.

Senator CRANSTON. HUD has required in Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif., the use of Romex wire in construction.

City officials there claim the wire is not safe and that the advisory board did not contain representatives of all areas of the electrical construction field.

Don't you think there is a problem in requiring local governments to conform with rulings of unrepresentative boards which have not been selected by the Federal Government?

Mr. BLACKBURN. That is the dilemma I mentioned to you earlier that I have had presented to me. I have had city officials come to me because, frankly, I have been very heavily involved in the workable programs on the House side, and I feel that in some instances, HUD

has abused its economic power in forcing local communities to do things that perhaps HUD should not have forced them to do.

But I am not enough of an electrician to make a judgment decision on Romex cable.

Senator CRANSTON. The real question is the format used to make these decisions. Do you believe that HUD should be able to deny special community revenue-sharing funds if local codes contain restrictions which HUD objects to?

Mr. BLACKBURN. No, I do not. I am satisfied that a lot of communities are coming around to not a national building standard, but something approaching it, and that once we can allow housing or prefabri cated units to be sold in a large enough geographic area so that prefabrication of either modular units or whole houses would be possible, then those local communities that were squeezing out such housing through unnecessary restrictive codes would be under considerable pressure from their own constituencies to allow that type of housing to come in because of the cost factor.

Senator CRANSTON. Your prepared testimony is very forceful, and I thank you for being with us today. Thank you very much. Senator Tower.

Senator TOWER. I want to thank Congressman Blackburn for his fine testimony that has added further weight to the arguments in favor of the legislation we are considering here today.

As a cosponsor of the Brock bill and as the original author of the Breakthrough Amendment, I am delighted to see that a member of the committee on the opposite side of the Hill has such positive ideas.

I would like to ask the Congressman if he has experienced the same thing that I have, and that is getting frantic calls from builders back in the home State trying to get some determination of wage rates that have been held up in the Department of Labor a long time. Have you had that experience?

Mr. BLACKBURN. I really have not, because my district is part of urban Atlanta, and, therefore, it really is not rural enough to have wage differentials be important.

Senator TOWER. But in smaller towns outside of Atlanta, they do have that problem?

Mr. BLACKBURN. I am sure they do, and I am sure if my district covered a larger geographic area—and I am frankly glad it does not; it is easier to cover

Senator TOWER. I think you are locked in where you are.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I do not want to rock any boat.

I suspect if I had a larger geographic area which did include rural areas, I would have this type of problem.

I have had problems because contractors have bid on jobs out in other parts of the State, and they have complained they could not get a determination of wage rates.

Senator TOWER. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Senator CRANSTON. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mr. Richard Van Dusen, Under Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. Secretary, we welcome you to the hearing.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. VAN DUSEN, UNDER SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY ARTHUR S. NEWBURG, DIRECTOR, OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH

Mr. VAN DUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have taken the liberty of bringing with me this morning Mr. Arthur Newburg who is the director of Operation Breakthrough, because so many of the Department's efforts in the area of introducing new technology do involve Operation Breakthrough, and you may have questions to which he might be able to respond more directly

than I.

Mr. Chairman, if I may simply proceed with the statement, I think that is probably the most appropriate way to proceed.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you several measures that have an important bearing upon how successfully we meet our housing needs in this decade and decades beyond.

One of these measures, S. 3373, deals specifically with the technological lag in housing. This is a subject to which the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Secretary Romney in particular, have devoted substantial effort.

As you know, a principal purpose of Operation Breakthrough, as initiated by Secretary Romney in May of 1969, was to break through the constraints that have kept the housing business from making the same technological progress that has marked other consumer-oriented businesses.

Technological progress is, of course, more than a matter of invention and discovery. Ideas and methods do not make available better products and do not permit economies if they remain only in the laboratories. They must be brought out into the world and put to work.

Yet it is just at the point of application that certain kinds of resistance begin to appear. Some may see new ways of doing things as a threat to their livelihood. Some may fear that the new and untried way is certain to be faulty or unsafe. Some may simply be reluctant to learn new ways of doing things or to devise new procedures for coping with the demands of new methods or materials. It is more comfortable to do or use what has always been done or used in the past. It requires less thought. There is less risk of being wrong.

Ordinarily, this resistance has yielded to the attractiveness and promise of the better idea-the "better mousetrap." In this country, particularly, the common experience has been that the new inventions and new techniques have benefited more people than they have harmed. We are, moreover, historically a nation which has been accustomed to striking out into the unknown.

In most fields of endeavor, we are thus accustomed to progress and expect progress. And with progress has come a momentum that has tended to prevent resistance to change from becoming too fixed and too unyielding.

Housing is one notable exception to this pattern. Partly because a house is the most bulky and complex of all consumer products, and partly because it needs to be fitted to a particular site, housing has not as fully benefited as other consumer products from the efficiencies of modern industrialized production and transportation.

80-741-72- 6