This approach to meeting the Nation's training needs is a sound one, and I am happy to add my name to the list of Republican Members of Congress who are supporting it.


Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize one point not heretofore brought out in this presentation: For several reasons private enterprise is uniquely equipped to provide the most modern and useful training to persons seeking to upgrade their job skills.

The instructors in on-the-job training programs are directly involved in the latest day-to-day developments in the field. Unlike instructors in schools, they are in the forefront of innovation and technological change, and thus can give, by and large, more up-to-date instruction to trainees.

Private industry can train workers on the latest models of machines without investing in new equipment for the purpose. Faced by the rapid pace of innovation in many training fields, schools too often are left with the choice between trying to train people on obsolete equipment, or obtaining new equpiment, with a resulting increase in the cost of the training program. This fact accounts for a large part of the cost savings that can be realized by utilizing the resources of private industry for job training.

These reasons, I believe, augment the already strong case for emphasizing the role of private business in job training, which the Human Investment Act is designed to accomplish.


Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing today is a sound and carefully conceived piece of legislation. I welcome it and am glad to join as a sponsor because I believe it will do much to reorient badly needed training programs in the direction of the private sector of our economy.

By training the trainee in the context of an actual job situation, private industry provides a more realistic preparation for continued employment. The trainee is spared the problem of making what may be a difficult adjustment from a simulated to an actual worksite. To many trainees at the bottom end of the ladder, the prospect of regular employment with a company is a strange and bewildering experience. To have to adjust to this situation at the moment of maximum subconscious anxietv—just when training in an institutional program has been completed-puts an additional psychological burden on the worker, which may be reflected in poor performance. This factor does not apply, of course, in the case of longtime workers who are merely changing from one line of employment to another via retraining. In the case of a hard core unemployed person, however, it merits consideration.

I commend the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Curtis, and our colleague in the other body, Senator Winston L. Prouty, for their initiative in this very important



Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Curtis, has made another outstanding contribution to the field of employment and manpower studies by spearheading this presentation on the Human Investment Act of 1965.

I am attracted to this bill, Mr. Speaker, not only because it properly places reliance for training on the free enterprise system, but because the on-the-job training it will encourage poses several advantages over programs conducted in institutions.

On-the-job training has conclusively proven to be more economical than the equivalent institutional training. Experience of the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training in comparing per hour costs of trainees in institutional and in onthe-job training programs shows that where the average cost of the former runs over $5 per hour, the latter cost the taxpayer only 55 cents per hour. Even when the wage of the trainee paid by the employer, is added on, it is still obrious that the on-the-job programs are more than twice as economical as the school programs.

On-the-job training is adaptable to any size training class and to any location, urban or rural. Institutional classes are limited to minimum numbers which may not exceed the required number of workers in a given occupation. Institutional facilities are not often available at all in rural areas; private business, however, can design programs for even one traineesmall firms with one

apprentice in training are not uncommon. In fact, as of spring, 1962, more than half of the apprentices surveyed in a national survey conducted by the Labor Department were employed in establishments with fewer than 100 workers.

This act is well conceived, Mr. Speaker, and it stands as a genuine Republican contribution to the continuing dialog over our Nation's unemployment and manpower problems.


Mr. Edwards of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I join enthusiastically with other Republican Members today in advancing this proposal for the purpose of providing an incentive for added investment in our Nation's human resources. It is entirely proper that we use this tax credit system in developing new job skills. I have direct knowledge of how the same type tax credit system has been used in private industry for the purpose of replacing equipment with the purchase of new essential equipment.

I believe there is an important philosophical advantage in placing reliance on private industry in this matter of job training.

Increasingly the advocates of strong Central Government are urging that we shift greater reliance from non-Government elements into the hands of the bureaucracy. We are told that only in this way can the task be accomplished.

Far too often and for far too long we in Government have yielded to this risky concept, and have brought the Federal Government into extensive control over matters which rightfully ought to be in the hands of individuals, of families, of private enterprise, or State and local goverment.

It is time we move back again in the direction of recognizing the great resources available in the private sector of the economy-resources in terms of ability, tledication to the public interest, imaginationi, energy, and wisdom.

Enactment of this Human Investment Act would, I believe, add new emphasis to the undeniable fact that the principal source of America's strength today has not been Government, but rather has been our systein of private enterprise, the most productive system known to man since the dawn of history.

This reliance on individuals acting free of bureaucratic management is the cornerstone of Republican political and economic thinking. It is a great satisfaction to me that Republicans in both bodies today, and representing all parts of the country, are joining in this demonstration of common purpose.

I hope this proposal is given the consideration it deserves. I look forward to working with others, both in Congress and in the executive branch, toward the enactment and the implementation of this legislation as a significant step forward in derelopment of our Nation's human resources upon which our continued economic strength rests so heavily.

Mr. Poff. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to in today with a number of Republican colleagues in the introduction of a bill which, if enacted, would be entitled the "Human Investment Act."

This legislation, the fruit of many long hours of toil spent in draftsmanship. modification, amendment, accommodation, and compromise, is aimed at one of the chronic ills of our body politic, the disease of unemployment and underemployment in both urban and rural areas of the country.


America's riches are America's natural resources. The chief among these is human capital. When I speak of human capital, I speak of individual intellikence and individual talent. The trained minds and skilled hands of America's Working men and women constitute assets more valuable to the security and progress of the Nation than any other commodities. To the extent we neglect the utilization of that asset, we neglect the future of America.

The Nation must be prepared now to make an investment in that asset which will insure its proper utilization. The bill we have introduced is designed, through a tax credit incentive, to encourage private business establishments, including both big business and small business to invest in manual skills training program. These programs will not only train young people entering the Nation's labor force, but will offer older workers handicapped by technological changes and otsolescence an opportunity to learn new skills and upgrade their job status. Justead of undertaking training programs of its own, with all the resulting inefficiency, bureaucracy, and expense, the Government would provide a tax incentive for private industry to apply its proven techniques in training and retraining workers.

[ocr errors]

This bill would allow an employer a credit against his Federal tax of 7 percent of sums expended by him with a maximum credit of $25,000, plus 25 percent of the amount of liability for taxes that exceeds $25,000 for the taxable year—in training or retraining any of his employees about to be displaced by automation or mechanization or for the training of new employees for job skills needed within that particular industry. This credit could be carried back 3 years and carried forward 5 years.

There is no precise way to estimate revenue loss. There are too many pariables and too many imponderables. In any event, however, this system spares the taxpayers the financial burden of Federal administrative expenses, and it energizes the most powerful economic force in our American way of life, the free enterprise system.


Mr. REINECKE. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to join with so many of my Republican colleagues in introducing this important Republican bill, the Human Investment Act of 1965.

Charles Hanna, who is chief of the division of apprentice standards for the California Department of Industrial Relations, has aptly written :

“The relationship between training and employment is of special concern to the State of California, where in spite of unprecedented economic growth unemployment has held stubbornly at near 6 percent. * * * California's industrial base is becoming increasingly technical. More and more of our industry is directed to defense, to electronics, and aerospace research and development. California needs and will continue to need more and more skilled workers. The question is whether through training we can mesh the needs of industry with those of the new labor market entrant and the worker displaced by technological advance. * * * It can be said without any hesitation that the challenge will not be met unless we are willing to triple our present efforts in developing apprenticeship and other on-the-job training opportunities.”

Mr. Speaker, the Human Investment Act is directed specifically to meeting California's pressing needs, and I am happy to be a sponsor of it.


Mr. RUMSFELD. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill which I believe to be a sound approach to an aspect of the Nation's continuing problem of unemployment and job retaining.

The Human Investment Act of 1965, which I am introducing-as well as my remarks under a special order requested by my able colleague, Representative Thomas B. Curtis of Missouri, is intended to help provide an incentive to American business to invest in the improvement of our Nation's human resources by hiring, training, and employing presently unemployed workers who lack needed job skills, and by upgrading the job skills of and providing new job opportunities for workers presently employed.

This bill offers employers a tax credit toward certain expenses of programs designed to train prospective employees for jobs with the company or to retrain current employees for more demanding jobs within the company.

In passing the Manpower Development and Training Act, with my support, the Congress indicated its awareness of the need for meeting the increasingly serious problem of structural unemployment caused by a labor force ill fitted for existing and developing job opportunities. The Human Investment Act will link private enterprise efforts with those efforts being made by Federal and State Governments in this important area. The major premise of the proposal which I am introducing is that private business has over the years learned how to obtain the most results per training dollar and should now be encouraged to expand its training programs to meet this national need.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will seriously examine the merits of this bill.

HELPING YOUTH GET A START Mr. Bow. Mr. Speaker, I have great hopes for the success of the program proposed in the Human Investment Act of 1965, and I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Missouri and others in sponsoring this legislation.

The 16th District of Ohio is one of the most diversified industrial centers in the Nation, and I know something of the problems of apprentice and on-the-job training which make it difficult for young men to get a start and advance within

an industrial plant. Although we have made great progress in Canton, we are all aware that current labor training practices do not meet industry's need for trained workers, nor do they serve adequately the young people who aspire to work in our growing industries.

The incentives provided in this bill should go far toward solving these problems, and I trust that the legislation will have the early and careful consideration of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Congress.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. Speaker, I join today with a number of my colleagues in introducing the Human Investment Act of 1965 to provide tax credits to employers who pay for the job training of unemployed workers or the retraining of employees about to be displaced by automation or mechanization.

This legislation would provide employers with a 7-percent tax credit toward wages for training employees in registered apprenticeship programs, on-the-job training programs under the Manpower Development and Training Act, and coóleratire work-study programs.

In addition, the 7-percent tax credit could be applied by the employer against tuition and course expenses paid to colleges, or business, trade, and correspondence schools for the training of employees and prospective employees. Expenses for organized group instruction would also be covered.


The Human Investment Act will make possible the utilization and development of our Nation's most valuable resource_its human capital. I can think of few more worthwhile efforts than to invest in upgrading the skills and abilities of our country's labor force.

This bill would give employers the incentive to expand their training programs. It would give employers the incentive to initiate new programs for employees and prospective employees men and women currently unemployed because they do not have needed skills. Unemployed workers would be given the training and skills needed to make them employable. The Human Investment Act offers Dew hope to workers whose jobs are threatened by automation or shifting defense contracts.

I join with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Curtis] and with my other colleagues who have today introduced the Human Investment Act of 1965, in urging that the House move forward to make this most worthwhile investment in our labor force a reality.



Mr. WALKER of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to introduce, along with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] the Human Investment Act of 1965.

The gentleman from Missouri is one of Congress most learned scholars in, among other things, the field of manpower and training problems. It is my privilege to serve with him on the Republican Coordinating Committee's Task Force on Job Opportunities, whose chairman is Mr. Charles Percy, of Illinois. The Human Investment Act that we introduce today is in at least one respect a means of advancing a proposal made by the Percy Task Force to the full Republican Coordinating Committee at its meeting last June. At that time the Task Force recommended a 9-point program, including expanded apprenticeship training. This bill will give a direct financial incentive to employers to expand apprentice training programs. I am happy to join with other distinguished Members present today in introducing this constructive Republican effort to cope with the critical job training needs of the Nation not through increased governmental bureaucracy, but through tax incentives to the American free enterprise system. I am strictly a believer in the free enterprise system and I wholeheartedly support any legislation designed to maintain and encourage this system.


Mr. MOCLORY. Mr. Speaker, the vitality of America's competitive free enterprise system is a traditional source of our Nation's great economic strength. Today, I am proud to associate myself with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Curtis) and my other colleagues in support of the Human Investment Act

of 1965. This is a measure which——if enacted-will further stimulate, strengthen, and provide impetus to our economy.

Rapid technological changes, accelerated by automation, have left growing numbers of our Nation's workers displaced and unprepared for skilled employment. As a result, unemployment and a chronic shortage of needed skills continue to be a nagging national problem.

The Human Investment Act, which will provide tax incentive to private employers who retrain displaced employees and set up apprenticeship training programs for teaching needed skills to new workers, appears to be a sound solution to this problem.

Encouraged by the tax credit incentives of this measure, private industry will respond to the obvious need for action and solve this national problem at less cost, too, than Government programs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with those Members of the House and Senate who are introducing this wise and necessary remedial legislation, A sound and economical solution is offered by the Human Investment Act, which also places the responsibility in reducing unemployment upon those who properly should take the lead in on-the-job training-America's business leaders and private employers.


Mr. Don H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to sponsor the Human Investment Act today because, it seems to me, the tax credit approach to meeting our job training problems is one with a number of unique advantages.

Gerald J. Robinson, a lawyer and author of New York City, has written one of the earliest articles advocating the use of the tax credit approach to spur private industry retraining efforts. In the spring 1964 issue of Michigan State University's Business Topics, Mr. Robinson said :

"Industry itself is the best qualified to carry out the retraining job. It knows its own needs, has the essential know-how, and has many of the facilities needed * * * this combination of circumstances points clearly to the solution: a liberal tax credit to industry for worker retraining. Using the tax credit as a stimulant places the financial burden for retraining where it fairly belongs-on the entire Nation. The credit also has the virtue of allowing industry to do the retraining itself. Thus it is twice blessed, by equity and by efficiency."

Mr. Robinson goes on to make a point which certainly appeals to me:

“For those who believe the best government is the government which governs least it has the attribute of getting Washington out of the retraining business by putting the job in the hands of industry."

Under the general leave to include extraneous matter, Mr. Speaker, I include the entire article by Mr. Robinson at the conclusion of my remarks today.

I wish to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Curtis) on his able organization of this special presentation today. I hope this Republican effort gets the wide circulation and coverage that it deserves.

The article referred to follows:


(By Gerald J. Robinson) "A proper objective and responsibility for the American people is the maintenance of full employment. In a civilization which values efficiency, justice, and humanitarian ideals, nothing less can long be tolerated. But the workers' ancient nightmare of job-destroying machinery is becoming a reality in the latter half of the 20th century. The full implications of automation are now becoming discernible. The president of a company manufacturing automation equipment has recently estimated that automation is eliminating more than 40,000 jobs a week, a figure higher than the Labor Department's own estimates. Yet in many areas of our technological economy there is not a shortage of jobs but a shortage of people to fill them. This combination of circumstances points clearly to one of the solutions to unemployment-worker retraining. A substantial part of the net decrease in unemployment could be offset if workers displaced by automation could be educated and trained in the new technology.

"How can this be done? Retraining is a costly process and, disturbed as our corporate managers may be about the problem, they cannot freely devote corporate resources to retraining. This is a problem of national welfare for which

« ForrigeFortsett »