In the Chamber's judgment, the four model codes are best equipped to untangle the current code muddle. It feels these codes have the clear advantage of stimulating healthy competition in code improvement and help to encourage an interchange of opinion by local code administrators. While the building materials industry may differ on how code reform can be best accomplished, there is almost unanimous agreement that it cannot and should not be carried out through government interference. This was plainly evidenced last June when a Construction Industry Conference, sponsored by the U.S. Chamber, was held in Washington, D.C., so that industry leaders could mobilize and discuss the recommendations of a 15-man committee authorized by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to make a 16-month study into all phases of standardization in this country-including building codes. Officially called the Panel on Engineering and Commodity Standards, it became more familiarly known as the LaQue Committee-after committee chairman Dr. F. L. LaQue, vice president of International Nickel Co. The Washington meeting was held so that the construction industry might openly state its opposition to one committee recommendation in particular. This recommendation called for the creation of a national panel, made up of experts in the code field, to investigate and propose appropriate action needed for the establishment of a uniform national building code. On hand in Washington to voice the cement industry's disapproval of both the content and implication of this proposal was James D. Piper, senior vice president of the Portland Cement Association. He said in part: "Because the present system of code preparation has worked so well, the PCA opposes the establishment of a national uniform building code by the National Bureau of Standards or by any other federal agency. The Association believes that current methods encourage each code writing group to constantly seek new and better ways of meeting regional requirements and differences. Conversely, a single code-writing authority would not have the initiative to keep constantly aware of local needs, nor the inclination to modify its national work to allow for these special requirements. "The cement industry was disappointed to note that the tone of the LaQue report is one of pessimism with respect to present methods for code development in the U.S. Although the report contains words to the opposite effect, it strongly implies that present procedures are entirely inadequate. The summary even suggests that present codes are having a serious detrimental effect on the national economy and upon consumers." Dr. A. Allan Bates, chief of the Building Research Division of the National Bureau of Standards, served as secretary of the LaQue Committee and believes the recommendation regarding code reform has been largely misunderstood. Just before his retirement as 1965 president of the American Concrete Institute, Dr. Bates wrote in the ACI Journal that the LaQue panel was unanimously against any course of action which would imply or result in a building code written and promulgated by the U.S. government. In using the word "national," he explained, the panel meant "countrywide" and not the federal government. The most serious threat yet of possible federal encroachment into building code matters occurred this past January when the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations announced its adoption of an 11-point program on "Building Codes: An Intergovernmental Program for Reform." Set up by Act of Congress, the Commission is a permanent bipartisan body of 26 members. The 26 include three private citizens appointed by the President: three members of the U.S. Senate; three members of the House of Representatives; three officers of the executive branch of the national government; four governors; three state legislators; four mayors; and three county officials. According to the Commission, nothing short of a major overhaul and restructuring of intergovernmental responsibilities for building codes will suffice to meet future housing and commercial construction needs. To get this job rolling the Commission recommended that Congress authorize a national program for performance standards and building research, drawing upon recognized public and private efforts. It also recommended that the President appoint a group representing all levels of government to develop a model building code with the help of the model code groups and other interested public and private organizations. Further, the Commission suggested that each state develop a model building code of its own for adoption by all municipalities within it boundaries. Deeply disturbed by these latest developments, many segments of the building industry drew a heavy sigh of relief last month when it was revealed that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Robert Weaver had thrown a damper on a possible national building code. He is reported to have said code enactment and enforcement should be left to the states. Weaver went on to say that a national commission on codes, zoning and taxation will be created soon and will look into local code problems. Subcommittees of this commission will make detailed studies to shed further light on this allimportant subject. Meanwhile, important code revisions affecting the greater use of concrete products are being actively pushed in all sections of the country. For example, in Los Angeles efforts are being made to remove a 160 ft. (13 stories) height limitation for reinforced concrete from that city's building code. New York, too, is scheduled to replace its outdated code with one that finally permits the use of prestressed concrete in the nation's biggest metropolis. Break through can also be expected with respect to regulatory code which prohibit block loadbearing wall construction. Right now the National Concrete Masonry Association has one engineer who devotes at least 50 percent of his time to code matters, many of them concerned with loadbearing walls. For the moment, those in the concrete industry who oppose radical changes in the existing code structure can rest easier. But while fears of a monolithic national code have subsided, extensive changes in the present haphazard system are definitely in the offing. Despite fine efforts by the model code and other groups to reduce the multiplicity and confusion that plagues sensible code administration, these reforms are not happening fast enough. As Robert Weaver of HUD has indicated, perhaps now is the time to assemble all the facts and begin a meaningful dialogue among all the organizations having an interest in this complex and economically sensitive subject. [Copyright 1966 McGraw-Hill, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.] EXHIBIT 235 ARCHAIC, CHAOTIC BULDING CODES IMPEDE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY In a thick volume entitled 1967 STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), has made several controversial recommendations designed to accelerate building code modernization, to encourage uniformity, and to improve the quality of building department personnel. ACIR urges the drafting of a model national building code and promulgation of state model codes, based insofar as possible, on the national model code. To strengthen construction's perennially weakest link, inspection, ACIR recommends state licensing of inspectors. As a high-level group comprising representatives from federal, state, and local governments, ACIR is considered important enough to cause concern among opponents of its proposals. Early this year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, prodded by members who produce building materials, began mobilizing its dormant Construction Industry Advisory Committee to fight the national code proposal and other "threats" in the ACIR report. IN DIVERSITY, STRENGTH? Some of the familiar protests greeting these proposals come, of course, from the various owners of oxen that might be gored. Dissenters on the ACIR itself raise the specter of dictation by higher governmental authority-city officials fearing domination by state government, state officials fearing domination by the federal government. There are also less partisan objections, conservative views that, whatever shortcomings exist in our present system, things will get worse if the ACIR's proposals are accepted. The idea of a national building code inspires the most fear and suspicion among ACIR's opponents. The specter of a "federal takeover," a central government dictation to states and municipalities, lurks behind this suspicion. If we have a national building code, promulgated for voluntary adoption by state and local governments, we risk-these opponents claim-anything from totalitarian control to stultification of building technology. 83-453 0-67—pt. 17—7 Some opponents press the argument that code diversity promotes free enter prise; that the myriad code-writing bodies, by sharpening competition, somehow help the manufacturers contending for approval of products. They claim that code chaos at least precludes the rule of one strike and you're out. Transplanted to major-league baseball, this argument would have the suppliers of baseball equipment supporting individual rules for each city instead of uniform leagues rules. Each manufacturer could then compete more vigorously for acceptance of his products by the hometown club and the umpires. In Dodger Stadium the regulations might permit plank-sized bats, and baskets for outfielders. THE PRICE OF CHAOS Building codes, of course, are only one obstacle to technological progress in building, but they are basic and insidious. The more obviously ridiculous provisions that needlessly raise costs, generate red tape, and harass designers and builders are only the visible handicaps. But the potential innovations that die premature deaths in the minds of designers, contractors or manufacturers who are discouraged from trying them are incalculable. If we could focus efforts largely dissipated in repetitive investigations endlessly re-enacted by individual city, state and even national code-writing bodies into a concentrated national effort, we could make great improvements in our codes. Notwithstanding the disclaimers by defenders of the status quo, the costs of archaic codes are undoubtedly tremendous. In residential construction, generally agreed to be the worst hampered by code obsolescence, a House & Home study of a conventional house priced at $16,500 indicated an additional $1,000 was squandered in needless expense required by perhaps a majority of communities. A 1963 survey by the National Association of Home Builders revealed that, for example, nearly half of the 1,200 surveyed communities prohibited concrete post and grade beam foundation walls. Archaic codes are not confined to small cities or to residential construction. New York City's existing code, last revised in 1938, is basically a relic of the late Nineteenth Century. Estimated savings that might be realized by enactment of the city's newly written code range from $10 million to $100 million a year, depending on whether they are computed at 1% or 10% of the city's annual $1billion-plus building bill. The established modern building techniques banned under the existing New York code range from dry-wall gypsum partitions to precast, prestressed concrete. Sharing in this negative distinction of banning prestressed concrete is Boston, and until last year, when it lost a four-year court battle, Chicago stubbornly fought to deny the benefits of this long-proven material. One of the materials most handicapped by archaic building codes is masonry. Under the existing bearing-wall provisions of U.S.A. Standards Institute (formerly the American Standards Association), the basis for most U.S. building codes, masonry bearing-wall design has been frozen in the horse-and-buggy era. As a consequence, a structurally sound design permitting 8-in. bearing walls for a 25-story building designed to conform with Canada's National Building Code would have to have 20-in.-thick walls for the first eight stories in most U.S. communities. Until the battle is won to get the Structural Clay Products Institute's new recommended building requirements accepted by all the major code-writing bodies, and by the many localities that don't accept these code authorities, brick bearing-wall construction will continue laboring under severe, needless handi caps. In some communities the ultraconservative provisions in the building codes spring from willful exercise of local power as well as professional incompetence and timidity in their building officials and inertia in their legislative councils. Among other ludicrously conservative provisions imposed by the bulding code in Parma, Ohio, for example, is a ban on 2x4 roof trusses at 24-in. centers. An Ohio court, however, upheld the right of Parma to impose its archaic code in a decision against builders who sought to have the questionable provisions nullified as arbitrary and capricious. SYSTEMS BUILDING LAGS If codes are a drag on the present, they can be a virtually insurmountable barrier against the future. Lack of uniformity alone impedes the modest move toward prefabrication that has taken place to date. In comparing code standards for floor construction in 12 of his market areas, a home manufacturer cited in the ACIR report found that design live loads varied by 33%, and span limits by 32 in., for the same floor joists, and plywood subfloor thickness by 4 in.-from % to 5% in. To exploit the benefits of standardization, the fabricator must design components to meet the highest standard, at additional material cost and overhead administrative expense required merely to unravel the added red tape. Prefabrication techniques that are becoming commonplace in industrialized building systems of Europe would run into difficulty in most U.S. communities. Connections of precast concrete wall-and-slab panel construction, which is helping dent the Europeans' housing shortage, pose an obstacle in this country. Evaluation and approval of complete building systems for use throughout the nation is one future benefit promised by a national model code commission, according to the ACIR. Central approval by a prestigious national commission could accelerate progress by giving any builder, designer or manufacturer a convincing argument to present to a city council or building official. Perhaps the complacent members of the construction industry could profit from some words from A. Allen Bates, chief of the Building Research Division of the National Bureau of Standards. With the construction volume of decades now equal to the volume of past centuries, the tremendous demands on the construction industry can't be met by traditional methods. All other industrial nations are moving toward adoption of a single building code, and the United States can hardly follow a unique course, says Bates. For a variety of reasons, the U.S. is lagging in industrialized construction. Building code modernization and uniformity would remove a formidable obstacle. PROSPECTS FOR EMPLOYMENT IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Senator RIBICOFF. Last night Joseph Califano made a speech stating that 1 percent of the people on welfare lists are able to work. This figure isn't new. It comes, in fact, basically from the welfare report of 1966 entitled "Having the Power *** We Have the Duty." That is where those figures came from. I am concerned that we don't become the victims of these statistics and forget that there are 28 million people in this country who are underemployed and unemployed who want better jobs and employment. It seems to me we should concentrate on employment and jobs. Now what prospects do you see for giving employment in construction? Can we use more people? Can we use unskilled people, if we develop new technology, keeping in mind the testimony 2 days ago from the building trades on the question of who has the responsibility for apprenticeship and on-the-job training? Can you use unskilled workers, together with the skilled, in bringing down building costs? Does this make any sense? Mr. WEINER. We think that apprenticeship training programs need to be streamlined to meet the actual conditions of the present-day technology, and not be geared to the kind of technology which existed when skills that we are talking about were simply old craft guild skills. They have changed dramatically in the last 20 or 25 years, and the Federal standards for apprenticeship training are fantastically high for the training of these mechanics. I think there needs to be a complete overhaul in that area alone. FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS ARE UNREALISTIC Senator RIBICOFF. Do you think the Federal standards are unrealistic? Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir. Senator RIBICOFF. Then because they are unrealistic, what is the result? Mr. WEINER. The result is that when you try to get an approved apprenticeship training program you are faced with the fact that the Federal standards are confronting you, and you can't get an approved apprenticeship training program without conforming to those standards. Senator RIBICOFF. So basically this isn't just a question of discrimination. The standards are so high that the Negro and the Puerto Rican can't qualify for the program? Mr. WEINER. I find, Senator, that there are many people who were illiterate and who were excellent builders. This included my grandfather and my uncle. They knew how to do arithmetic and they knew how to think arithmetically but it wasn't necessary for them to be able to make a speech, or to write a paper, or to read extensively, in order for them to be good mechanics and do the job in our industry. Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, but they knew what a foot was. Mr. WEINER. They certainly did. Senator RIBICOFF. They knew what 1 inch was and what a yard was. Mr. WEINER. That is right. Senator RIBICOFF. They knew what a square was and what a circle was. Mr. WEINER. That is right. Mr. ROGG. We are, Senator, with the sponsorship and help of the Department of Labor, actually undertaking a major experiment in manpower training ourselves. We have a program underway to train a thousand carpenters. (Subsequently the following information on manpower training in the homebuilding industry was received for the record :) EXHIBIT 236 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS PRIME CONTRACT UNDER THE BUREAU OF APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING-MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT-PRIME CONTRACT Contractor: National Association of Home Builders, 1625 "L" Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Contract No: 09-7-0020-000 OJT Contract Cost: $455,865.25 Supplemental Instruction Cost: $174,161.86 Allowance Costs: $158,224.00 Total Cost of Project : $788,251.11 Average Cost Per Trainee: $788.25 Type of Contract: National Coupled Prime Contract with Sub Contracting Provisions Maximum Training Period for Individual Trainee-26 weeks Number to be trained-1,000 Location of Training: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Training Methods: Because of variance as to type of trainee to be trained, location of training, time of year during which training will be carried out, etc. provision is made in the contract for two basic types of training programs. Background. The NAHB by request of the local associations has sought various means to alleviate the manpower problems in carpentry that plagues the home builders today and that will cause them more serious consternation in the next decade. NAHB contacted the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training in Washington to see if they could help with this problem and after nine months of negotiations signed the prime contract. The total allotment from both the |