Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Is there anything else you wanted to relate to this committee. We intend to get in touch with HUD and give them the history of our hearing.

We want to give them the witnesses that appeared against their practice of hurting the small businessman and the consumer.

Mr. TOBIN. Well, that is about the extent of it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Roe.

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Tobin, are you telling the committee here today, then, that you feel strongly that the local autonomy is being endangered and the very existence of small businessmen in local small towns is being endangered by this process presently carried on by the Department of Housing and Urban Development?

Mr. TOBIN. If they get off the ground and ship this hundred houses, we will say this, the city of Peoria, and a promoter promotes this subdivision, the plumber, the heating man, the electrician, the carpenter, the drywall man, the painter, and a whole bunch, they will get nothing. That money, all it does, it goes out of Peoria, all of it. Just a few nickels and dimes from that one module unit will be spendable in Peoria. All the rest of the money goes back to another State, two or three States away.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Is that similar to some of the plastic pipe that was used in Washington in our hearing room?

Mr. TOBIN. Yes; that is my understanding, ABS plastic.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. If you will pass it on, we will have our counsel look it over.

Mr. TOBIN. We can't understand why HUD has to fight so hard for plastic. That is our biggest problem.

Mr. ROE. Thank you.

Mr. TOBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The next witness will be Mr. John G. Soucie, business representative of the Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 561, Evansville, Ind.

You may proceed, Mr. Soucie.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. SOUCIE, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 561, EVANSVILLE, IND.

Mr. SOUCIE. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, my name is John Soucie, Evansville, Ind. I am with the Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 561.

In regards to electrical and plumbing contractors and their codes, we believe in codes to an extent where it protects the owner and everybody in general.

When you get into sewers and conduit outside of the building line, through these codes they are enforcing the code that these people are supposed to have licenses, which I represent the common laborers, white and colored.

And our people can't get plumber's licenses and that takes the work away from our people that we have been doing for a number of years. So we are contesting these codes where they are in force,

for instance, in Evansville. I have been down there 34 years, representing the laborers. We have always put in the sewers outside of the building. And in the last 15 years, they have come along with a code that they have to go ahead and lay these sewers with plumbing contractors who have plumbing licenses-either plumber licenses or a master plumber license, which I still say codes is all right where they enforce the law properly. But wherever you use the code to go ahead and take the work away from other people in the trades, I think it is about time for the Federal Government to look into it. Mr. ROE. Is this being done in Evansville?

Mr. SOUCIE. Being done all over the country.

Mr. ROE. Which code is this?

Mr. SOUCIE. I am talking about the plumbing code.

Mr. ROE. Who is doing this?

Mr. SOUCIE. The plumbing contractors used to use our people to lay sewers. Right at the present time they want to take the ditch work away from us.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Is this the national code you are talking about, you are not talking about the city of Chicago code, are you?

Mr. SOUCIE. NO; I am talking about the national codes.

Mr. ROE. You are talking about the so-called model codes that are being pushed around?

Mr. SOUCIE. That is right. I think you have a brief here from our internatioanl union on this code proposition. We would like for HUD to look it over very seriously, because whenever you use codes to go ahead and take work away from other trades, I don't think it is right. Now, we did take it into the Federal courts, and by them depriving our colored people and our laborers of laying sewer, and we did win the case. And that code there in Evansville has been taken out of existence.

So I would like for HUD to seriously look over this situation and see that these codes are compiled with to an extent not to take the other trade's work away through a code, because the other person hasn't got a license or can't even get a chance to take the test.

They might tell you they can take a test, but still and all, you have got the contractors, the plumbing contractors, and you have got the plumber's organization that sits on these here boards, so how could an individual if he could pass every question, how could he get a license?

And I would like for HUD to take a look at it. We would like to have that considered, not only just in one area, but the whole United States.

Mr. ROE. Is this involved at all, do you know, with the one- and two-family dwelling unit code?

Mr. SOUCIE. Yes; it covers all of them.

Mr. ROE. I see. Mr. Chairman, the committee has received a statement from the Laborers' International Union of North America, a statement by Maurice Fancher, one of the vice presidents of that organization, and he has asked that this be included in the record. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(Letter follows:)

STATEMENT OF MAURICE FANCHER FOR LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF

NORTH AMERICA

My name is Maurice Fancher, Fourth Vice-President and Director of the Department of Jurisdiction of the Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. On behalf of the officers and members of this International Union, we are grateful for the opportunity to present our view on "codes" to the House Small Business Committee, Subcommittee No. 3, dealing with Small Business Problems in Smaller Towns and Urban Areas.

The entire subject matter of "codes" is, in its broad effect, exceedingly complex. As stated by former Senator Paul Douglas, in addressing himself to the subject of codes and other matters as Chairman of the National Commission on Urban Problems, "we have found . . . that when one examines these issues in detail other urban questions such as poverty and pollution, and welfare and race are bound up with them."

The Laborers' International Union has, in the past few years, directly involved itself in the code adoption area, not only to protect the work and trade jurisdiction of its membership, but also to discharge its social and general leadership responsibilities to insure that codes are adopted, interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the public interest. Because of the particular composition of our membership, and the fact that our members work principally in the construction industry, the Laborers' International Union has maintained a deep and abiding interest in urban renewal problems and in seeking ways to assist the ghetto dweller to obtain decent and low-cost housing. To this end we have done everything within our power to mobilize our resources for literacy, job and skilled training, and have sought to make training and job opportunities available not only to our members, but to the disadvantaged generally. Nevertheless, we have, from time to time, found our efforts stifled as a result of "codes," ostensibly passed in the public interest, but so interpreted and so applied as to cater to special contractor and labor interests.

Let me make it perfectly clear, however, that as a general matter we are not opposed to the concept of national or model codes designed to accomplish legitimate health and welfare purposes; Provided, that adequate safeguards are included to insure that only the bona fide interests of the consuming public are protected and that the code, directly or indirectly, cannot be used as a device to undermine the traditional jurisdiction, work practices and job opportunities of the members of this International Union. The one area where we have been deeply affected arises through the existing definitions of certain model codes which are then adopted in toto by state, city and county authorities as the operative code in their jurisdictions, and they are then interpreted and applied to prevent laborers, represented by this International Union, from engaging in those new site and rehabilitational work tasks which they have traditionally and historically performed.

To provide clear understanding, the Laborers' International Union, with a membership in excess of one-half million members, represents employees who engage in skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled work, but the majority of whom are engaged in construction and related occupations. A substantial number of the union's members work in the "outside utilities" field as "pipelayers." This work involves the installation of sewers, drainage lines, water lines, conduit, etc., in streets, roadways, alleys, through open fields and undeveloped terrain, and regardless whether the property is publicly or privately owned.

Pipelayers who are represented by the Laborers' Union have performed this work almost continuously since the turn of the century. Historically, this utilities work has involved the digging of trenches by hand, the removal of dirt and debris from open ditches, the shoring of the sides and the installation of pipe or conduit, and the refilling and tamping of the trench. This kind of heavy, manual and semi-skilled work has been the type which other trades have traditionally refused to perform on the ground that this constitutes "laborers" work, not requiring the full gamut of the journeyman's skills. As a result, over the years the laborers engaged as pipelayers developed a greater skill and efficiency which has resulted in contractors finding it more economical and productive to use laborers for such utilities work. And as a further result, a national practice has developed in which the principal source of job entry into this outside utilities field for members of minority and disadvantaged groups has been through the local unions affiliated with the Laborers' International Union.

The threat of the foregoing national practice which emanates from plumbing and electrical codes-whether on a national or local basis-is that the definition

of plumbing or electrical contracting is usually couched in terms which permit a local plumbing or electrical licensing board to interpret and apply the codes' provisions so as to require that all work must be performed by "licensed" plumbers or electricians. For example, if the term "electrical contracting" or "electrical business" is defined in an electrical code as including installation or repair of conduit, then the electrical licensing board will rule that only a licensed electrician can make such installation; and any unlicensed laborer-pipelayer who is employed to do the work will be subject to arrest, fine or imprisonment for violating the code's criminal provisions. And in most of these situations, the local electrical licensing board-which is made up of electrical contractors and journeyman members of the electricians' union-apply the code strictly to insure that the individual doing the work belongs to the prefered "licensed" class of persons, rather than insuring that the work itself is satisfactorily installed, irrespective of the union in which membership is held.

Thus, in New Jersey, the State electrical licensing law was applied to preclude laborers from installing conduit in an open trench cut alongside a state highway construction project. The conduit, which is nothing more than open pipe, was being laid end-to-end and had no connections to any electrical source or output and there was no possibility of any "electrical" connection or failure. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that the evidence was overwhelming that laborers employed by utility contractors had installed many thousands of feet of conduit over the years, the electrical licensing board determined that only "licensed" electricians were qualified to install the conduit, the result of which was to create a monopoly in favor of licensed electrical contractors and licensed journeyman electricians. It was only after lengthy and expensive litigation that the courts of New Jersey upheld the right of utility contractors, employing laborer-pipelayers, to bid and perform jobs in connection with the laying of conduit without the pre-bid and pre-performance requirement that a license be procured.

The situation is even worse with respect to plumbing codes. Nearly every plumbing code is administered locally by a board of plumbing contractors and officials or members of local plumbers' unions. In the interpretation and enforcement of these codes, the provisions are expanded-for reasons which in no way relate to the public health or safety-to preclude laborers or other unlicensed individuals from installing pipe. For example, nearly every code-national, model, state, county or township-provides that "drainage" or "storm drainage" is included in the definition of plumbing and must be installed only by a licensed plumber. Yet, there is absolutely no danger to the public health or safety for laborers to lay drain tile end-to-end, to drain rain water from parking lots or to lead runoff water from the rain gutters and downspouts which are common to all houses and buildings. Nevertheless, the application by local plumbing boards of this definition to require such drainage lines to be installed only by licensed plumbers has resulted in literally billions of dollars of utilities and drainage contracts being barred to utility contractors, and countless laborers who would otherwise normally be employed by such contractors are thereby precluded from reaching this threshold of employment.

An even more heinous situation has been spawned by the continuing inclusion in nearly every plumbing code of a definition essentially stating that plumbing covers all piping "within or adjacent to any building, structure or conveyance." This language is deceptive by its apparent simplicity. As local plumbing boards interpret the term "within or adjacent to" any building, the term "adjacent" is extended to mean the same thing as "property lines" and, since all land is defined as "property," the local boards have determined that only licensed plumbers can make any installation within the property lines surrounding any building. To illustrate, during the early 1960's, a jurisdictional dispute occurred between the plumbers' and laborers' unions over the installation of exterior drainage and water lines which were then being installed at the Andrews Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. Among other arguments raised, the plumbers' union relied upon the plumbing code in effect for the District of Columbia, and argued that by virtue of the definition contained therein, which required licensing for work performed "within property lines," the plumbers were exclusively entitled to install any and all pipe within the entire five-thousand acre Air Force tract. The NLRB, after some eighteen weeks of hearing evidence on the matter, rejected the plumbers' arguments and determined that the laborers in the employ of utility contractors were entitled to install such pipe.