The CHAIRMAN. Did you appear before the Senate committee? Mr. STEWART. I did appear before the Senate committee and the "rush" atmosphere was present there too.

The CHAIRMAN. You see, it is not just this forum, there is another forum that they have access to. And we are in the position that each citizen of the United States has four people he can complain to, his own local Congressman, his two U.S. Senators, and the President of the United States, they are all elected by the people. And you have all four of them to get your message over to.

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do not belong to the other forum at the other end of the Capitol, I only belong to this forum, and I can only act for and on behalf of this forum. And I do not want to act on the basis of what this gentleman told the Senate. I do not know what he told the Senate. And if I am going to act here I want the full benefit of his thinking and subject him to some questions, perhaps.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has been a very faithful legislator. But he must remember that we cannot do everything that we want to do.

Mr. BLACKBURN. Well, we do not have to do things foolishly.
The CHAIRMAN. This is June 15. This is the release:

The hearings are expected to continue for at least two weeks. In addition to the standby wage and price authority, the legislation also contains a provision requiring defense contractors to abide by standards of accounting procedures in reporting their costs on defense contracts. The standards will be established by the General Accounting Office.

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, did I understand the press release to say that they were expected to last for 2 weeks?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BLACKBURN. This is the first week after June 15. When does this second week start, and why can't we schedule these witnesses during this second week?

The CHAIRMAN. That would include the Penn Central.

Mr. BLACKBURN. The Penn Central is out of the picture now.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the gentleman is a member of the party. Why

don't your members stay here and take an interest in it?

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, we do not control the scheduling of the witnesses. The only thing I can do is attend the hearings. There may be some witnesses I would like to bring in.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not your responsibility to prepare the agenda of the committee.

Mr. BLACKBURN. No, sir; it is not. But I want the benefit of full hearings before I pass on any legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. I am for that, too.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest

The CHAIRMAN. And the rules provide for members to offer wit nesses. You have not offered any witnesses.

Mr. BLACKBURN. We did not get notice.

Mr. STEWART. With due respect, may I make one final comment? The CHAIRMAN. Anyway, we will just have to go ahead as we started. And if the gentleman wants to add to his testimony it will be considered.

Mr. STEWART. May I add one sentence orally?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEWART. That one sentence is: I continue to suggest respectfully, because of the testimony you have received from industry, the complexity of this subject, the importance of it, including the ramifications with regard to defense production, that due consideration be given to separating this UCAS provision, deferring action on it until more time is available to you and the other members.

The CHAIRMAN. How much more time would you have? This has taken a year or two, hasn't it, 2 years?

Mr. STEWART. The Comptroller General's report is inconclusive. The CHAIRMAN. What is it that is left out?

Mr. STEWART. Proof is left out.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that?

Mr. STEWART. Proof, clear evidence, even clear definition is absent. The CHAIRMAN. The truth?

Mr. STEWART. No; proof.

The CHAIRMAN. Why don't you file a statement to refute it?

Mr. STEWART. We have on several occasions.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, then you have had your day in court. Mr. BLACKBURN. I doubt, it. Half the jury is not here, Mr. Chairman. I would hate to try a case with one-third of the jury in the room. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Naumann, chairman of the legislative committee, Associated General Contractors of America.

Mr. Naumann, you may proceed in your own way, sir.

You have a statement. It may be inserted in the record in full.
Mr. NAUMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. NAUMANN, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

Mr. NAUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement. It is a very short one. I would like to read it, if I might. And then I have a still shorter one with regard to the very controversial subject of uniform cost accounting standard.

My name is William E. Naumann. I am chairman of the legislative committee of the Associated General Contractors of America, a trade association of approximately 9,000 of the Nation's general contractors who perform the greater part of all highway heavy engineering and building construction done in the United States each year. I am also a member of the association's executive and labor committee.

We welcome this opportunity to appear before your committee, and to express our concern with the rapid rise in labor costs in the construction industry which, incidentally, is the Nation's largest single industry. It is responsible for 14 percent of the gross national product, and one out of every seven persons employed in our country is working directly or indirectly in the construction industry.

There are approximately 3.6 million onsite employees, and the annual payroll for onsite workers has been estimated by Government authorities and economists to be over $26 billion a year. This gives you some idea of how important this industry is, and how serious any increase in labor costs can be where it is not offset by an increase in productivity.

Our association has become increasingly aware of the seriousness of this problem and has, for the last several years, expressed its concern in statements in Congress, Government officials, to the unions, and the public in general. Over a year ago, our then president, Carl M. Halvorson, sounded an alarm over the serious trend in wage demands and strikes that were then taking place in our industry.

He pointed out that the demands and settlements for 1968 had reached unprecedented highs and that our industry would be in trouble unless something was done by the Government and the industry to exert greater control and responsibility over those engaged in local collective bargaining.

Employers were asked to resist, to the full extent of their ability, all unreasonable wage demands, and international union officials were asked to counsel with their local representatives to keep wage costs within reason. The Government was asked to provide leadership in modernizing our manpower training programs and to remove unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions in our apprenticeship and training programs.

We asked that archaic labor laws which favor organized labor be suspended or repealed during this period of emergency. One of these laws, the Davis-Bacon Act, insures that these high wage rates, regardless of how inflationary they are, are built into Government contracts. Thus, inflation is guaranteed for the life of the agreement, which could be from 2 to 5 years in duration.

There was some response on the part of the administration to this appeal for help, but the various Cabinet committees and collective bargaining commissions which were established were really powerless in doing anything effective to combat the tidal wave of inflation. that hit us in 1969.

Quite early in 1970, it became apparent that what we saw in 1969 was just a prelude to greater and more devastating wage demands. What we saw in 1969 was mild in comparison. Currently there are 173 strikes in progress involving 750,000. The average negotiated increase is running at the rate of 20 percent a year, and some of these agreements called for such increases each year over a period of 5 years. No doubt the worst case was $2.85 per hour increase for a 13-month contract. This is an increase of 66.9 percent a year.

I would like to file for the record, a complete report of the demands, strikes, and settlements for the year 1970 which, as I say, will call for the payment of like increases in the next 2 to 5 years by virtue of the terms of the contract.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be inserted at this point, with any other material you would like to insert in the record.

Mr. NAUMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The documents entitled "Strikes Now in Progress, May 31, 1970," a statement before the Republican Task Force on Labor Law Reform, November 5, 1969, and a report entitled, "The Escalation of Wages in Construction" follow :)