The following is a list which identifies some of the largest unobligated balances as of June 30, 1961:

Department of Agriculture: Removal of surplus agricultural Appropriations... commodities.

1, 168, 725

446, 013

2,617, 149

557, 454

300,000

500,914 729, 436 868,881 1,798, 978

739, 665 473,438 366, 102 346, 466

442, 334

Mr. BLATNIK. Dr. Smith, we thank you for your statement. I want to say for the record, and I know the committee concurs, that Dr. Smith is not only an able, knowledgeable, and well-informed citizen, but also that he has devoted a tremendous amount of time without pay out of his deep concern over the whole broad spectrum of resource use and conservation of our bountiful heritage. Dr. Smith has come here at his own expense and his own time to speak in behalf of the National Citizens Committee on Natural Resources. We appreciate your effort and your contribution.

Dr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHERER. I could tell he was so capable and so informed that I didn't dare to ask him any questions.

Mr. BLATNIK. We have a statement from Mr. C. J. Haggerty, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFLCIO, a statement which was to be presented here, but because of other commitments and a conflict in time he asked that it be submitted for the record and inserted at this point in the record. Without objection it will be made a part of the record at this time.

(The prepared statement of C. J. Haggerty, president, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF C. J. HAGGERTY, PRESIDENT, BUILDING and ConstruCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman, my name is Cornelius J. Haggerty. I am president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, which represents more than 31⁄2 million building tradesmen in the United States, who are members of the 18 national and international unions affiliated with our department. About 1 week ago, Mr. Chairman, you heard from the president of the AFLCIO, Mr. George Meany, who presented, I am sure you will agree, a very cogent argument for the measures you are now considering. I do not want to waste your time or clutter up the record by covering the same ground. We support the position of President Meany, and we associate ourselves with his testimony. What I would like to do is relate the bills before you even more specifically to our particular field, the construction industry. From that standpoint, I think I can present some facts which may be helpful to you in your deliberations. First, let us all be aware that despite the intensive public attention directed to the great manufacturing industries, such as steel and auto, the construction industry in its less dramatic fashion occupies an extremely significant place in the national economy. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, construction expenditures are proceeding at an annual rate of $60 billion for new projects, and another $20 billion in alterations and repairs. This amounts to 14 percent of the gross national product, and places the construction industry well up among the leaders in total volume.

Therefore, it is obvious that an extraordinary level of unemployment in construction takes a heavy toll in general economic terms. It may come as a surprise to some members of the committee, who see new buildings springing up all around them, that unemployment among construction workers has indeed been extraordinary; in fact, far above the average for the country as a whole. While the unemployment rate on a national basis hovered around 6 percent during 1961, the monthly average in the construction industry, according to the Department of Labor, was 14.1 percent, or more than twice as high. The best month for construction workers was August, when 8.7 percent of them were jobless a greater percentage than the worst month for the total labor force. The monthly totals are shown in the table inserted at this point in the prepared testimony before you. I will not read the figures, but I ask that the table be included in the record at this point.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

I also want to draw your attention to the figures for the first 2 months of 1962: 19 percent unemployment in January, 19.8 percent in February. To be sure, these are 3 percent and 4 percent better, respectively, than the same months in 1961. But they do not suggest that we can anticipate a startling improvement in the months ahead.

It is perfectly true, of course, that under normal circumstances, even in prosperous times, unemployment is higher for construction workers than for the average worker in other fields of endeavor. Let me devote just a few moments to that point.

First, in construction we have a continuing problem that the economists call "frictional" unemployment-the kind that occurs when a worker leaves one job and looks for another. This is a built-in feature of our industry, by its very nature. The typical construction worker is employed by two or more different employers during the course of a year; and he may actually work on two or a great many more different construction projects.

Our unions try to minimize this "frictional" unemployment through hiring hall arrangements and through the efforts of local union business managers, but the problem is still with us.

Second, most construction projects, in most parts of the country, are directly affected by the weather. Construction is seasonal by nature. As the following table shows, the range in 1961 was 733,000 jobs from the low month, February, to the high month, August.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the table inserted, and with your permission I will follow the same procedure with the two others I will discuss later. TABLE II.-Employment by month in construction

As before, I ask you to note the figures for January and February 1962. In actual number of men at work, both were lower than the worst months of 1961-even though, as we saw earlier, they showed a percentage improvement over the previous year. Obviously, the percentage gain resulted from a shrinkage in the size of the construction work force. Percentages, no matter how favorable, does not fill pay envelopes.

Because these two types of unemployment-"frictional" and seasonal-are more or less chronic in construction, there may be a tendency to feel that our average rate for last year, 14.1 percent, is not as bad as it sounds. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While, as I have noted, our jobless rate traditionally runs higher than average, it has been getting worse as the years pass. Consider the third table.

TABLE III.-Percent unemployed in construction, 1955-61

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Whereas, from 1955 through 1957 the rate averaged a little above 9 percent, since 1958 the average has been above 13 percent, climaxed by the high figure of last year.

Nor can it be said that this came about because special factors in a few States such as high proportion of depressed areas-distorted the national picture. No, the high incidence of construction unemployment is truly national in scope.

The fourth and final table shows the percentage of construction workers, State by State, who were jobless during the best month of 1961-the month of August.

TABLE IV.-Percent unemployed (insured) by State in construction, August

NOTE.-Information was not available in several States-Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Source: Bureau of Employment Security, U.S. Department of Labor.

In only 22 States and the District of Columbia construction unemployment was 6 percent or less. And as you look at the list, you will find no consistent relationship between construction unemployment and the incidence of distressed areas. Sometimes they coincide, as in West Virginia; sometimes they do not, as in Louisiana.

With us, as for labor in general, matters are likely to get worse instead of better. We, too, are faced with sweeping technological changes, that vastly increase man-hour productivity and thereby decrease the number of men required.

Even the sidewalk superintendent can now watch a job in progress on a television screen instead of through a hole in the fence. That is an amusing triviality in itself, but it is indicative of the changes in the building and construction trades.

Mr. Chairman, if the construction workers were the only sufferers from high rates of unemployment; if we alone saw shrinking job opportunities for an expanding population, we would still be here, urging Government attention to our problem. But our appeal is far stronger because we have so much company in our misery. We are among the worst suffers, but the affliction is found in all industries.

It is in a similar spirit that we support the programs you are now considering-President Kennedy's proposal for an immediate $600 million public works program, and the standby programs in H.R. 10113 and H.R. 10318. Our members would be the first to gain, but their gain would quickly be reflected in the betterment of others.

In conclusion, we welcome the decision of President Kennedy that public works are needed to complete the recovery from the present recession, not just as a weapon against the next one. We further emphasize that public works built as a result of these bills should not be looked upon as expenditures, but rather as investments in the Nation's wealth.

We congratulate the committee for its prompt consideration of this much needed legislation.

We are heartily in accord with a Federal program of standby public works along the lines of both bills before you, and urge that as you iron out their differences into a final version, you choose those terms from each bill that will contribute to promptness when trouble looms.

83015-62-37