Thus, in jobs where accuracy is more important than speed, older persons have proven themselves most capable.

2. Illness, industrial accidents, and absentee rates are frequently cited as factors in not hiring older persons. The fact of the matter is that older workers have fewer accidents, although when they do have an accident, their recovery periods are longer. The net results, according to this study, is that the overall absenteeism rate falls steadily up to age 60, rises slightly thereafter, but nevertheless employees between 65 and 75 are absent only two-thirds as much as those less than 30 years of age.

3. Industrial welfare policies are also cited as a factor employers cite as being against older persons, the claim being that the cost of health and welfare plans is higher for an older work force. This study brings out the fact that this depends on the terms and coverage of the plans. For example, while the incidence of long illnesses and hospitalization is greater for an older employee, maternity care for employees and dependents is costlier with a younger group.

The report concludes that while the cost of group life, hospital and medical-surgical benefits is generally higher for older employees, "the difference is very minor when viewed in light of aggregate employment

costs."

4. Some employers have considered it uneconomical to train middleaged applicants who have only 15 to 20 years remaining before retirement age. The study reveals that offsetting this is the high turnover rate among the younger workers. "If a company should hire and train 100 workers at the age of 20 and another 100 at the age of 45, total years of service might well be greater for the latter," the study concludes.

Mr. Chairman, I cite these examples of employer misconseptions concerning older workers to dramatize the belief I hold that this is not a closed area where education and further study would be a waste of the taxpayer's dollars.

For these reasons, I support H.R. 3651, introduced by the distinguished chairman of this committee. I am particularly pleased to observe that the bill provides for research in this area "with a view to reducing barriers to the unemployment of older persons, and the promotion of measures for utilizing their skills ***." The studies I alluded to strongly suggest that further research into this area would be most rewarding and proper publication of the findings highly advantageous to employers and employees of advanced years.

I should add that the Federal Government continues to be one of the biggest offenders of discriminatory hiring practices based on age. Although an Executive statement of policy was issued on March 14, 1963, relative to doing away with discrimination in hiring based on age, it appears that stronger action is needed. Legislation embracing Federal hiring practices should be enacted to give the effect of law to the declaration of policy so as to make certain that the Federal Government gives older workers an equal opportunity to secure employment.

It is my objective to assure senior citizens an equal opportunity with

mentally able to perform and to enable senior citizens to achieve a retirement income sufficient for healthful living on a reasonable standard and for participation in community life as happy, self-respecting citizens.

Passage of legislation outlawing discrimination in employment because of age will be a giant stride in obtaining these goals.

Mr. DENT. Congressman Cramer, it has been a pleasure to hear your testimony. Thank you for appearing here today.

At this time we will call upon the Hon. Melvin Price, Representative from the State of Illinois, who will present testimony on this legislation. Mr. Price, we welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN PRICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the General Subcommittee on Labor, I appreciate having this opportunity to express my support for remedial legislation dealing with age discrimination in employment.

Discrimination in employment because of age is a serious problem that must be confronted. It is a cruel hoax that is perpetrated at the expense of our workers age 45 and over who are forced to seek employment solely because their age is considered a handicap. Ironically, and tragically, these individuals seeking employment do so in a society that professes a commitment to the concept of full employment, as expressed in the 1946 Employment Act.

The time has come to meet this problem, and I am glad this committee has focused its attention on a situation of longstanding concern to me. Since 1958 I have sponsored such antidiscriminatory legislation. My original bill sought to prohibit age discrimination in the hiring and employment practices by Government contractors. I further sponsored in the 89th Congress H.R. 11915 to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act making discrimination because of age an unlawful employment practice. My present bill, H.R. 1094, is identical to H.R. 11915.

In this age of rapid technological progress, we find that increasingly higher educational achievements are needed for personnel advancement. Thus, more and more men are facing the problems of maximum hiring ages and mandatory retirement policies. What is to be done to create more available jobs for the unemployed over 45 years of age? Although these older workers are regarded by their employers as more stable, reliable, and responsible, the older individual is constanty confronted with the misconceptions and inaccurate generalizations about his lack of ability due to age. The burden is now upon him to convince a prospective employer that he has skills and qualities which will compensate for his lack of youth. This is difficult for many of these displaced workers because they are unaccustomed to personal interviews, employment tests, and the competition of the younger educated workers. It is also frequently economically and emotionally difficult to relocate to areas having better employment

This ever-increasing problem is not one that can be set aside for future consideration, for, by that time, it might be uncontrollable. As reported in the Older American Worker, a report of the Secretary of Labor to the Congress pursuant to section 715 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on age discrimination in employment, the "older" persons category includes approximately 55 million Americans aged 45 and over, which is one-fourth of our total population. Out of that 55 million, 29 million are employed and 750,000 are seeking employment. However, the 3 percent unemployment rate is higher since unemployment figures do not include those individuals who have relinquished seeking jobs because of repeated failures in locating employment, but actually want to work.

Unemployment of these "older" persons lasts an average of 192 weeks as compared to 11 weeks for those under 45. Older persons represent about 25 percent of the labor force, or roughly 30 million, and, of those 750,000 unemployed, 150,000 make up about 35 percent of the long-term unemployed (6 weeks or more). Moreover, a significant portion of those unemployed are faced with the termination of unemployment compensation benefits because their eligibility period expires. The older workers' plight should not be destined by gross misconceptions. These statistics must be reduced in order to save the fate of the older workers, for they are more needy than those in any other age bracket today. The poverty rate among heads of families is directly correlated to the age of the person. Nearly one-third of those over 55 are living in poverty with a family to clothe, feed, educate and protect. Our society cannot economically afford this unemployment problem. I urge that we move now to recognize this unfair discrimination. The misunderstanding of the relationship of age to usefulness and the deliberate disregard of a worker's value solely because of age must be reevaluated and understood by the employers. The answer to any solution here must be administered by the use of education, information, and research into the problems of age discrimination in employment. There must be a realization of the older worker's potential and ability to be retrained and educated. They are still productive at age 45 and must not be relegated to the ash heap because of the older worker syndrome.

We must deal with this problem which stigmatizes the worker as he reaches the relatively young age of 45. One approach is with the Manpower Development and Training Act. It can be enlarged and expanded to further the needs of our society. We should learn by the examples already laid down in other crises of employment. When the Packard plant shut down permanently in 1956, the "Big Three" automobile companies in Detroit hired 60 percent of the young workers and only 20 percent of the older employees. Today one-half of all private job openings are barred to applicants 55 and over and one-fourth are barred to those 45 and over. Dr. Harold L. Sheppard recently testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor that the reason for such excellent reemployment of workers regardless of race could be attributed in part to Michigan's Fair Employment Practices Law which does prohibit job discrimination on the basis of race-unfortunately there is no parallel legal prohibition of discrimination due to

After the Studebaker plant shutdown, the National Council on Age in South Bend, Ind., found, among 4,500 workers aged 50 and over left unemployed, that two-thirds had dependents under the age of 19. Thus employment was essential for economic reasons to these workers. The concerted efforts of the South Bend Community Council, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the National Council on the Aging alleviated the problems of unemployment through intensive job counseling, development, and publicity. As reported by Norman Sprague, director of the employment and retirement program of the National Council on the Aging, the average age of the long-term employees of the Studebaker company was 55. Of the approximately 4,500 persons over 50 that were left unemployed by the shutdown, 4,000 were serviced by the combined programs and, as a result, 66 percent were soon reemployed or in the MDTA training program and only 8 percent were still looking for jobs.

My bill, H.R. 1094, amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish prohibitive measures in employment discrimination due to age. I proposed it to focus attention and to use it as a vehicle toward developing a solution to this problem. I certainly do not oppose any provisions in the pending legislation that encourage research and study activities of this situation. Our thinking about age as a factor in job performance can only be clarified by empirical studies of a variety of types of occupations. The correction of this problem will provide a valuable addition to our human resources and manpower development programs. I am not offering a panacea to these problems but an opening of roads to new hope for the "older" persons, and so I steadfastly support urgent passage of this legislation.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Congressman Price, for appearing before this subcommittee.

At this time, I would like to have the testimony of a very valued Member of the Congress of the United States, one who has long been interested in the problems we have in this legislation, the Honorable James A. Burke, Representative of Congress from Massachusetts. We are happy to have you with us, Jim.

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

STATEMENT OF THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

This statement relating to legislative proposals to prohibit arbitrary discrimination in employment on account of age, to wit, H.R. 3651, H.R. 4221, and H.R. 3768, is submitted by the Air Transport Association of America on behalf of its membership which is composed of virtually all the U.S. certificated scheduled carriers by air.

The air transport industry herewith submits specific recommendations which, in its judgment, would improve the legislative proposals under consideration. The amendments recommended have a direct bearing on the operations of the air transport industry, but would not, in any way, alter the purpose of the bills being considered. Adoption of the recommendations would not mitigate elimination of unjustifiable arbitrary age discriminaiton which deprives older workers of opportunities for employment when they have the capacity to be productive participants in the national economy.

The basic recommendations of the air transport industry are as follows:

1. Any Federal age discrimination legislation enacted should preempt the jurisdiction of the States and be applicable to the air transport industry on a uniform nationwide basis, unencumbered by multiple and divergent State or local restrictions—at least as far as operating employees are concerned.

2. The age group to which any Federal age discrimination legislation would apply should be established by Congress. The Secretary of Labor should not be given discretion to adjust the age limits.

3. Enforcement of any Federal age discrimination legislation enacted should be under the same procedures now provided under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The reasons for the above recommendations are as follows:

The practical necessity for Federal preemption and uniformity of regulation

If a Federal age discrimination statute is enacted, it should preempt the jurisdiction of the States. Any age legislation applicable to the air transport industry should provide for uniform national regulation as to operating employees such as flight crews of air carriers engaged in interstate and/or foreign air transportation. Preempiton is necessary because of the very nature of the air transportation business whose operating employees, in the performance of their duties, regularly and frequently cross State boundaries. It has long been recognized, ever since the celebrated case of Gibbons v. Ogden at the outset of our national history, that uniformity of treatment is peculiarly appropriate to the transportation industry. Conversely, subjection to a multiplicity of State or local restrictions relating to a subject susceptible to uniform rule is an inappropriate and undesirable burden upon interstate commerce not compatible with the public interest.

Whatever may be the merits of concurrent Federal and State age discrimination jurisdiction over employer and employees generally. multiple overlapping and divergent laws concerning conditions of employment create nothing but jurisdictional chaos and operating confusion when applied to interstate air transportation. It is therefore respectfully submitted that section 14 of H.R. 3651, and identical measures under consideration, which otherwise specifically preserves multiple State jurisdiction over all employees in interstate air transportation, be amended by adding at the end thereof a proviso as follows:

Provided, That operating employees who in the normal performance of their duties are required regularly to cross state or national boundaries in the employ of a carrier subject to the Railway Labor Act, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission. or other agency of the Government of the United States, with respect to the transportation of persons or products in interstate and/or foreign commerce shall not be subject to any state or local legal prohibition or restriction with respect to discriminatory employment practices on account of age if the said carrier is subject to this Act.

The scheduled airline industry is a totally interstate or international industry. The various air carriers maintain bases in different States, provide service to cities in many States, and fly over a variety of States.