[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The States are not complaining about those situations where cities have had some success. The States have been cooperative in these cases or success would not have been possible. I do not think we should be worried about who has the primary responsibility or jurisdiction here as much as getting the job done and getting it done quickly and effectively. Senator Javits. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you very much, Mr. Sviridoff. It is really a pleasure to have had you here and I commend

you for your splendid testimony and response to the questions. This concludes the hearing this morning. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:45 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 9:45 a.m., Wednesday, September 15, 1965.)

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]





Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, presiding pro tempore.

Present: Senators Kennedy of Massachusetts (presiding pro tempore), Pell, Prouty, and Javits.

Also present: Senator Hartke, of Indiana, and Congressman Curtis of Missouri. Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; William C. Smith, professional staff member; and Stephen Kurzman, minority counsel

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The subcommittee will come to order.

This is the second in a 2-day series of hearings on on-the-job training. Yesterday we heard from Stanley Ruttenberg, who is Manpower Administrator, and a panel of professors from the University of Wisconsin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Illinois, and Mr. Sviridoff.

Today we are continuing our hearings and we are delighted to have as the first witness, Senator Hartke from Indiana, to be follower by Congressman Curtis of Missouri. Senator Hartke ?



Senator HARTKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on holding these very important hearings encouraging on-the-job training. I come before you as one who believes firmly in the need for education of all kinds. Education is the hope of the future, and it must be pursued vigorously at all levels, whether elementary and secondary, higher education, or education for technical skills which lie so often outside the formal educational system. In many respects education today has been considerably altered by the developments of both scientific and social advancement. Physics and engineering, sociology, economics, and many other areas of formal study are radically different in their content and demands than in our own student days.

But perhaps the greatest change, or at least one which ranks high on the list, is the change in technology involved in industrial and manufacturing techniques. It has been well said that we are in an age when the plumber must be upgraded to the skills of a hydraulic engineer, when the electrician becomes competent in electronics, when new intricacies in all manner of crafts and occupations demand far more than the past.

The day of the common laborer is almost ended, as the statistics and projections of the Department of Labor make abundantly clear. Yet we have both unskilled and unemployed persons who need to acquire new skills for usefulness in society, and a shortage of persons with those skills. Our problem is that of securing the upgrading of those who could, with encouragement, secure it and supplying a skilled work force with the skills demanded today.

I believe it will serve the Nation well if we can devise additional means of encouraging both industries and workers to face up to these needs by enlarged retraining programs. Certainly one desirable result would be the reduction of unemployment. Certainly also, the results of Federal expenditures for retraining through the Manpower Development and Training Act, the Area Redevelopment Act, and the Economic Opportunity Act give promise of results which justify the expenditures of the large sums we have invested in public funds.

But I am here today as a cosponsor of the bill offered on July 29 by Senator Javits, S. 2343, which was referred to the Finance Committee. It is a bill which was referred there because it calls for making available an investment tax credit to employers who provide onthe-job training for more of the estimated 2 million unemployed whose difficulties result from their lack of the new skills needed. It is pertinent to the search of this committee for means whereby we may encourage upgrading of skills, because it would provide the employer with a new incentive for training people.

In 1962 we adopted the 7-percent investment credit, which provides a stimulus for the investment of industry in new machinery and equipment. The Javits-Hartke bill makes a logical extension of the investment credit technique to investment in training workers.

Training programs, to be eligible, would need approval from the Secretary of Labor, and they would have to meet certain criteria: provision of skills necessary for the national defense, replacement of skills made obsolete by automation or economic change, or retraining of workers dislocated by defense shutdowns.

This proposal would not enlarge the total now available for investment tax credit, nor the amount which would be available to any company. But there are many companies which have not used all of the 7 percent available, and which would be encouraged to institute training programs if the tax credit were available for human investment as well as plant investment.

As Senator Javits pointed out in introducing the bill, it has been estimated that the potential of unused credit which the bill would make available for training costs would run in excess of $3 billion, representing a total investment potential for the purpose as high as $12 billion.

The various Federal training programs are opening up new opportunity for some 460,000 persons. We could perhaps expand these

further. But certainly the use of the investment tax credit law for this

purpose would have the advantage of eliminating a good deal of administrative expense, while at the same time allowing the industries most in need to provide directly the kinds of training they find necessary.

The effect on unemployment should be more direct than the Federal training programs in many instances, since the employer making the investment will be doing so with his own needs and employment possibilities in mind, thus assuring jobs for those who are trained under the bill.

Consequently, I recommend to this subcommittee the consideration of the Javits-Hartke bill as one means whereby we may attack the problem you are considering. I hope you will find this approach worthy of comment when your conclusions are prepared, and certainly as a member of the Finance Committee I would find support from this committee in such a manner most useful.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Senator, we appreciate your taking the time to come to this subcommittee and indicate your position on this matter. As you probably know from the hearings yesterday and from the witnesses today, the subject matter of your bill is certainly on the minds of this subcommittee. Even though the jurisdiction for its consideration is in the Finance Committee, it is something in which I know Senator Clark, who is the chairman of this subcommttee, has manifested considerable interest.

Senator Prouty, as well, has legislation which is related to it and it is something which is on the minds of the members of this subcommittee and we intend to probe and question. I asked opinions about it and I know the subcommittee will continue its interest. We know of your interest and concern in this matter. Your testimony is extremely helpful to the members of this subcommittee and we appreciate your taking the time to come before us.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you, and I will go back to my own Finance Committee now.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Senator Prouty, do you have any questions?

Senator PROUTY. I have no questions, Senator. I would like to say, Senator, that I have not had a chance to study S. 2313 which you and Senator Javits introduced. While I am sure it has the same objectives as the bill I introduced last February and introduced a second time last Thursday in revised form, I think there are some significant differences; but since I have not had a chance to go into your bill recently, I have no question about it at this time. Certainly I am happy to have both of us in the same path. Senator HARTKE. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Our next witness this morning is Congressman Thomas Curtis from Missouri.



Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I have some materials I would like to supply for the record. I think they are per

« ForrigeFortsett »