ence report to accompany H.R. 7969, the Technical Amendments Act to the Tariff Act.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request fo the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON SILK

YARN

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conferees on the part of the House have until Monday midnight, September 13 next, to file a conference report to accompany H.R. 5762, the suspension of duty on silk yarn. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

PROGRAM FOR THE BALANCE OF

THE WEEK AND NEXT WEEK Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time in order to inquire of the majority leader if he would kindly advise us as to the program for the following week.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished Republican whip yield to

me?

House Resolution 506, providing for the consideration of H.R. 10065, Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1965.

House Resolution 499, providing for the consideration of H.R. 7371, to amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. House Resolution 531, providing for the consideration of H.R. 7372, removal of investment company exemption from the Bank Holding Act.

House Resolution 528, providing for the consideration of S. 408, study of Federal financial assitance to natural disaster victims.

I must advise the House that the bills may not necessarily come up on Mon

day, even if the resolutions are agreed to.

For Tuesday and the balance of the week, the following bills will be called up:

H.R. 2091, relating to the establishment of concession policies in the areas administered by National Park Serviceopen rule, 2 hours debate.

S. 2042, extending and amending the Price-Anderson indemnity provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended-open rule, 1 hour debate, waiving points of order.

S. 1903, United Nations Participation Act amendments-open rule, 1 hour debate.

S. 2294, extension of Wheat Agreement Act-open rule, 1 hour debate. H.R. 9460, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965. H.R. 7371, to amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1965.

S. 2300, Omnibus rivers and harbors flood control bill.

This is subject to the usual reservations that conference reports may be brought up at any time, and that any further program will be announced later.

Mr. ARENDS. Why are the two bills under the 21-day resolution, that the gentleman has listed, at the bottom?

Mr. ALBERT. It is not expected those will be brought up on Monday, but will be brought up following consideration of the rules.

Mr. ARENDS. Monday, being District of Columbia Day, is not listed.

Mr. ALBERT. There is no request for legislation from the District of Columbia Committee.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, if these rules are adopted, may I inquire whether or not before this session of Congress adjourns, if it ever does adjourn, all of these measures will be called up for action in the House of Representatives, or are we going through an exercise here to get some resolutions adopted?

Mr. ALBERT. I am unable to answer the gentleman at this time, but I will state that these rules do make in order legislation that may be called up under the rules if the committees considering the bills desire to do so, and if they are recognized for that purpose by the Speaker.

Mr. GROSS. One other question: Is this not a most unusual procedure?

Mr. ALBERT. No. This is a procedure under the rules of the House.

ing under the rules of the House, but is Mr. GROSS. No question about it beit not unusual to schedule so many resolutions on 1 day?

unusual. I would say we do have a pretty Mr. ALBERT. I would not say it was heavy schedule for next week.

the request of the gentleman from OklaThe SPEAKER. Is there objection to

homa?

There was no objection.

DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR
WEDNESDAY

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order on Calendar Wednesday of next week be dispensed with.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Okla

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am still in a quandry as to the schedule of bills for Monday. Does the gentleman mean we are going to take up seven bills, including the pay bill in 1 day?

Mr. ALBERT. We are going to take up the resolutions making consideration of the bills in order.

Mr. GROSS. The resolutions only? Mr. ALBERT. I announced earlier that the bills themselves may not necessarily be considered on Monday.

There was no objection.

"THE PEOPLE CALL IT SPORT"

BOOK BY HARRY WISMER Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Rhode Island?

There was no objection.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, a familiar figure in Washington for several years-Harry Wismer, a coowner of the Redskins from 1950 to 1960-is still going strong. He has just completed a book about professional football called "The People Call It Sport." I have not seen the book and therefore can make no comment on it. However, I remember Mr. Wismer as one of the Nation's outstanding sports broadcasters for many years, and especially his handling of the annual golf matches sponsored by the Washington Star for the benefit of the deprived youngsters of this great city. This annual golf match, participated in by Members of Congress and the Senate, and members of the Cabinet and screen stars, raised thousands of dollars to help in this cause.

CELEBRATION OF ADMISSION DAY

FOR CALIFORNIA

Mr. DYAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my

remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. Mr. DYAL. Mr. Speaker, 115 years ago today California became the 31st State of the Union. Now the Bear State is first in population. Naturally, we Californians think of her as being first in many other aspects than population: in agriculture; in her natural resources; her climate; her citrus and her new aerospace technologies and her amazing Feather River water plan.

Lately our State has also been included in the social problems of this new era. Problems are not unknown to a California that weathered the gold strikes, the oil booms, the grapes of wrath era, and other difficulties.

Obviously we are going to need wisdom and understanding as well as firmness in holding to law and order to solve our problems, in both the humane as well as the legal aspects.

We love our State and we brag about her-possibly only taking second place to Texas in this regard.

This being admission day it is hoped that California and all that the name indicates; an adventuresome spirit will cause us to join with our sister States in bringing our Nation to its highest fulfillment in the destiny of mankind.

There was no objection.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has begun to debate the 1965 farm bill. As we know, efforts will

shipping agent subsidiaries in Argentina, West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, England, Japan, and Italy which simply rechartered foreign ships to U.S. based Cargill, Inc. ship

ments to Communist countries.

No wonder the powerful grain lobby wants to not only sell wheat to Russia, but ship it all aboard foreign lines.

I urge those who are concerned with upholding a strong U.S. foreign policy, and rebuilding a strong American shipping industry as well, to join in halting the sale of U.S. wheat, subsidied by the American taxpayers, to Russia and other Communist countries.

Red Cross specified foreign made wire for fencing to replace flood-damaged fences in the Northwest.

It is my understanding that the Amer

ican National Red Cross has been supply

ing fence for the flood victims in the Pacific Northwest all through the spring of 1965 and in every case they have specified "import wire."

It is also my understanding they have done such a land-office business that on some orders they have even used a rubber stamp "import only" to speed up their paperwork.

Mr. Speaker, this action is indeed ill considered. It damages the U.S. balance-of-payments position. It is also

INTO THE UNITED NATIONS

Mr. FINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. FINO. Mr. Speaker, nothing disturbed me more than the recent news that a number of African and Asian countries in the United Nations have formally requested that the question of admitting Communist China to the United Nations be put on the discussion agenda.

ganization that exists largely on the generous donations of business firms, including steel wire companies, to spend its money on foreign goods. It is working at cross-purposes to deny the business that its operations generate to the American firms that are its financial lifeline. The American Red Cross should be all-American-including buying American. Otherwise it may find itself a financial disaster area, in need of fiscal first aid.

CHARTING THE GREAT SOCIETY

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include a newspaper announcement.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

China out of the United Nations.

I hope that our new team at the United Nations will be able to reverse this trend, but I doubt it. This administration has failed completely in winning the Afro-Asian nations to support ning the Afro-Asian nations to support our position with respect to admitting Communist China to the United Nations. This despite the fact that Communist China is openly stirring up subversion throughout both continents. I hope that this is not the year we are to pay

There was no objection.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is

great Presidential programs throughout our history. They have all been based on deep insight into the Nation's needs and a bold vision of its destiny.

President Johnson's Great Society program is in that tradition. It is based on the clear recognition that the continued existence of poverty in this great Nation is the biggest barrier to our economic and social progress, and that we can no longer delay in the campaign to drive it from our midst.

Achieving the Great Society will be a

road-block against U.S. wheat sales to Russia; namely, the requirement that at least half such wheat be hauled in

American ships.

It must be brought out that only a few large U.S. grain dealers would benefit from selling wheat to Russia. Not only would these few dealers reap profits from the actual sales, but they have financial interests in foreign-flag shipping companies which would also profit from the removal of the 50 percent reserve set aside for American shippers.

For example, Continental Grain Co. of New York City, which figured prominently in the 1963 United StatesRussia wheat deal, is shown as connected with the United Steamship Corp. of Panama.

Cargill, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minn., prominent in 1963 sales of U.S. wheat to Eastern European Red satellites, has

munist China admitted to the United Nations. It would be a great blow to the strength of our position in Asia and

certainly a black day for America.

THE AMERICAN RED CROSS

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and angered to learn that the American Red Cross is specifying imported wire in its buying orders to dealers. A manufacturer of steel wire in my district has reported to me that its Seattle, Wash., branch complained that the

do it, but the time to begin is now. We we have the will. Delay would not only

have the power; we have the strength;

be self-defeating, insofar as our aims and aspirations are concerned, but it would be inhumane and heartless, for poverty and its evil consequences need not continue to afflict a substantial minority of Americans.

It is the people of this Nation who constitute its greatest wealth. Eliminating poverty and dependency is a double investment: it gets rid of a liabilitysomeone, who has to be carried along by other members of society-and, in its place, creates a producer who contributes his share of goods and services to the community. As the people of this Nation undertake to bring about the Great Society, we in the Congress must be vigilant in learning the dimensions of the job to be done and, even more important,

knowing where to place our greatest efforts. The Joint Economic Committee will do its part in helping to navigate the course ahead.

Members of Congress have expressed their interest in the Joint Economic Committee's undertaking in this regard and so, no doubt, many members of the public are equally interested in the committee's current activities in the field of human progress. For this reason, I would like to include in the RECORD a brief announcement describing in somewhat more detail the current and proposed activities of the Joint Economic Committee in respect to human resources and the Great Society programs:

WRIGHT PATMAN, Democrat, of Texas, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, today announced that the committee's Subcommittee on Economic Progress, which he also chairs, will investigate the basic economic problems that the Nation will face in achieving the Great Society.

"The biggest factor in economic growth is neither natural resources nor machinery,” said the Texan. "It's people. President Johnson's Great Society programs are designed to assure continued growth and prosperity of our society by stepping up the national investment in people. They are not only the ultimate consumers and beneficiaries of society; they are equally its pro

ducers.

"The subcommittee's economic investigations will focus on the new Great Society developments in order that the Congress and the public can have a more precise knowland their effect on the economy. Such information is vitally necessary to the Congress in making wise decisions on programs intended to reduce poverty and bring about economic and social improvement."

edge of their scope, their mode of operation,

Chairman PATMAN indicated that one study now underway will attempt to project the course of the economy over the next 10 years and assess the economic problems that will face policymakers in that period. He cited employment, tax policy, public expenditures, and technological change as issues involving big decisions with major implications for our economic development.

A second study will analyze the many Federal programs that are directly concerned with human resources, including appraisal of their effects on the economy and contribution to achievement of the objectives of the Employment Act. Mr. PATMAN noted that the coordination of such programs would come in for close scrutiny, particularly since the Employment Act requires that the Joint Economic Committee study means of coordinating programs to further the purposes

of the act.

A third subject of inquiry revealed by the chairman is the growing need for financing by State and local authorities to construct the schools, hospitals, and other public buildings needed to sustain our growth over the next decade. He pointed out that States and localities have been increasing their borrowing requirements by $12 billion a year and that their total outstanding debt is now over $90 billion. "They are more and more dependent on capital markets," he said, "and more vulnerable to interest rate increases. A community that builds a $1 million facility and borrows the money at 4 percent for 25 years, eventually has to raise $2 million twice as much. This is the arithmetic that weighs upon many a local official."

A fourth inquiry will concern itself with

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Mr. TODD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for remarks. 1 minute and to revise and extend my

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. TODD. Mr. Speaker, we look with dismay upon the mortal struggle in which two of our friends-India and Pakistanhave become engaged. The resolution have become engaged. The resolution by force of their dispute will leave neither stronger, richer, happier, or more capable of meeting the needs and fulfilling ble of meeting the needs and fulfilling the hopes of its citizens. The heads of both governments are educated and sophisticated leaders, great patriots, and deeply religious. And yet they are now engaged in a conflict which can have no happy outcome, and which, if left alone, they can only resolve by bleeding and exhaustion.

The cause of this fight lies in who shall ultimately exercise sovereignty over Kashmir, a province which has been in dispute since the partition of India, and dispute since the partition of India, and in which the forces of India and Pakiin which the forces of India and Pakistan have been kept apart until last week by United Nations teams.

The inability of the United Nations to maintain a truce, when it does not possess overwhelming force, when two national interests collide, is inevitable. tional interests collide, is inevitable. And yet short of an intervention, in this case by an alliance of major powers who are agreed upon the objective of stopping are agreed upon the objective of stopping this war, it may not end without the full peacemaking potential of the United Napeacemaking potential of the United Nations being imposed upon both sides. Should efforts of the United Nations fail, and should any single major power attempt to impose a settlement by threat of force, other powers would most certainly be brought in and a disastrous enlargement of the conflict would result. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I believe it imperative that Members of this Chamber reaffirm their conviction that the United Nations is the proper and best medium for resolving this conflict: That We back the administration in its determination to support the United Nations and its Secretary General; that we recognize that the full moral and perhaps physical strength of the United Nations will have to be used to convince India and Pakistan that a bloody war will only perpetuate and increase the causes of the hostility.

I hope that our energies will strengthen the United Nations, and that from this crisis can be developed methods and means of quickly and peacefully resolving the conflicts which lead to wars, as well as stopping the wars themselves.

INDIA-PAKISTAN CONFLICT

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to York?

rapid computerization of industry and com

merce.

The chairman said that as studies progress, hearings will be held.

There was no objection.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the hopes and prayers of hundreds of mil

lions of people around the world go with the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, as he travels to India and Pakistan in an effort to achieve a

cease-fire and a withdrawal of all armed forces to the 1949 cease-fire line.

His visit was of course authorized by two unanimous resolutions in the United Nations Security Council.

Those individuals and groups, both in the United States and elsewhere, who believe that Communist China should replace Nationalist China in the United Nations Security Council would do well to reflect on what the situation would

be today if that substitution had been made. Pakistan has so far indicated its opposition to these resolutions, and there seems to be no doubt that Communist China would have vetoed the resolutions if it had been sitting in China's chair as a permanent member of the Security Council.

Communist China's friends and admirers around the world would also do well to ponder the significance of Communist China's support of Pakistan. Obviously, this support is not based on any ideological considerations but represents nothing more than simple power politics. The fact that Communist China is an active partisan in the conflict, instead of joining with most of the rest of the world in deploring the conflict and seeking to end it, is a further proof that Communist China openly rejects the pursuit of peace, the basic premise of the United Nations Charter.

THE HUMAN INVESTMENT ACT OF

1965: A NEW APPROACH TO MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF UNEMPLOYMENT

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, America's greatest asset is its human resources. These constitute a kind of capital far more important than financial capital or physical assets, machinery, structures and equipment. In the human knowledge and human skills of our population rests a productive strength far more important than plant and equipment. We can be sure that if we were somehow to lose these physical assets the roots of our competitive economic strength would remain intact.

Thus today I and 43 other Republican Members of the House of Representatives are introducing the Human Investment Act of 1965. This measure will encourage individual firms-both small and large-to train workers to fill

the need for skills that exists in our economy. It will therefore help accomplish an important social objective without the administrative expense and waste of first collecting revenues and then directing

them back to the States to be used for federally financed programs, not to mention the Federal control inherent in these kinds of programs.

This badly needed legislation was originated by our able Republican colleague in the other body, Senator WINSTON L. PROUTY, who, with the help of many scholars, economists, labor experts and businessmen has produced a carefully thought out and well-drafted bill. Senator PROUTY is introducing this same measure in the Senate today.

Republicans have led in creating the philosophical framework for the national manpower training and retraining effort. We have realized that manpower development is a major means of spurring economic growth and creating needed human capital.

This Republican effort began with Operation Employment in 1961-62, a full-scale study under the aegis of the Republican Policy Committee which heard the leading authorities from all parts of the Nation on employment and unemployment. For the first time a groundwork of theory and data was laid for fully comprehending the problem of structural unemployment and the role of manpower development and training in our advanced industrial economy. I discussed many of the findings of this study in my book, published in 1962 by Duell, Sloan & Pearce, "87 Million Jobs." Much of this research and scholarship was incorporated into the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. No one can claim a greater and more intense concern with the welfare of the worker in our society than those of my colleagues who at that time participated in developing this body of knowledge and law.

Unfortunately, because of the manner in which it has been administered, the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 has not been as effective as it should have been. A more fundamental approach is thus needed. It has been proven that a substantial amount of our present unemployment is not because of too few jobs, but because a large portion of our manpower is untrained in the skills that are actually at this moment in serious demand. An estimated 2 million Americans are structurally unemployed. These structurally unemployed persons need only additional training to become employable. They constitute our most underutilized economic resource. The legislation being introduced today by Senator PROUTY in the Senate and myself and my colleagues in this body is thus a further milestone. No element in our society is better able to train those in need of skill upgrading than American business firms. Business has recognized that a rapidly advancing technology requires continuous programs of training and retraining. It conducts formal as well as informal training during business hours or after work in plants, offices, and classrooms. Instruction is provided by skilled supervisors and other staff, or outside experts and teachers. No one else is as capable both of teaching the skills business needs and of teaching those skills well and properly.

HOW THE ACT WILL WORK

Specifically, the Human Investment Act of 1965 provides a 7-percent tax credit to employers for six types of expenses incurred in training their employees in new job skills.

This is how the maximum tax credit under the Human Investment Act of 1965 would be computed:

The maximum amount of credit that a taxpayer may claim for 1 taxable year is $25,000 plus 25 percent of his tax liability in excess of $25,000.

Example: Suppose a taxpayer has a tax liability to the Federal Government of $425,000 for a tax year. The maximum amount of credit that he could claim under the act is $25,000 plus 25 percent of the tax liability in excess of $25,000. The tax liability in excess of $25,000 is $400,000-$425,000 minus $25,000. Twenty-five percent of this $400,000 is $100,000. The maximum that could be claimed is thus $25,000 plus $100,000, or $125,000.

The taxpayer then adds up his allowable employee training expenses. Case A: Suppose this figure amounts to $2 million. Seven percent of $2 million is $140,000. Since this is in excess of the maximum allowable-$125,000 the most the taxpayer could claim would be $125,000.

Case B: Suppose the figure for allow able training expenses is $1 million. Seven percent of $1 million is $70,000. Since this figure is less than the maximum allowable, the taxpayer would claim the full $70,000.

However, it is important to note that in both the above cases the total employee training figure-$2 million in case A and $1 million in case B-continues to be deductible as a business expense.

Many of the provisions of the bill will be explained by my colleagues during the debate.

IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN CAPITAL

Three years ago, the Congress enacted a 7-percent tax credit to spur investment in modern plant, machinery, and equipment. What the Congress failed to realize at that time is that a nation's most important kind of capital is its human capital-the skills, experience, and security of its workingmen and women.

machines. In light of the rapid obsolescense of human skills and the increased need for new and more technical skills, it is imperative that we modernize our tax approach. In 1965, when a person's skills can become obsolete in his own lifetime, sometimes more than once, a constant training and retraining process is needed in order just to stand still. Our job is to create the economic framework in which business can undertake the programs of training and retraining of human capital investment that our society needs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a capsule summary and a technical explanation of the Human Investment Act of 1965 appear at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PATTEN). Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection. CAPSULE SUMMARY: THE HUMAN INVESTMENT

ACT OF 1965

Purpose: To provide an incentive to American business to invest in the improvement of the Nation's human resources by hiring, training, and employing presently unemployed workers lacking needed job skills, and by upgrading the job skills of and providing new job opportunities for workers presently employed.

Method: The act offers employers a tax designed to train prospective employees for credit toward certain expenses of programs jobs with the company or retrain current employees for more demanding jobs with the company.

Amount of tax credit: 7 percent of the allowable training expenses, with a maximum of $25,000 plus 25 percent of the taxpayer's would be in addition to credits provided for tax liability in excess of $25,000. This credit by other parts of the tax code.

ALLOWABLE EMPLOYEE TRAINING EXPENSES

1. Wages and salaries of employees who are apprentices in registered programs.

2. Wages and salaries of employees enrolled in on-the-job training projects under section 204 of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962.

3. Wages and salaries of employees participating in cooperative education programs involving alternate periods of work and study.

4. Tuition and course fees paid by the em

ployer to colleges or business or trade schools for the training of employees and prospective employees.

5. Home study course fees paid by the employer to colleges or accredited correspondence schools for the training of employees and prospective employees.

6. Expenses to the taxpayer of organized group instruction, including classroom instruction, of employees and prospective employees, including instructors' salaries,

of trainees.

OTHER PROVISIONS

Thus, the language of the Human Investment Act is parallel to that of the investment credit provisions of the Revenue Act of 1962, amended in 1964. The bill requires that a trainee be on an employer's payroll for at least 3 months after the completion of training—except books, equipment, etc., but not the salaries in the case of death, disability, voluntary separation, or firing for cause. Thus, the bill helps to insure that trainees will be continued on the payroll and in the employ of the firm after being trained. This provision helps meet an often heard objection to Government-run training programs that trainees may be unable to find work even after completing training. In addition, this tax credit approach makes new Government regulations, redtape, and bureaucracy unnecessary. THE TAX LAWS SHOULD TREAT HUMANS AS

WELL AS MACHINES

Thus, we maintain that the tax laws should treat humans as at least equal to

1. Allowable expenses would have to be tax deductible under section 162 of the Code, trade or business expenses.

2. To claim credit for training a given individual, that person would have to remain

on the payroll for at least 3 months after completion of the training. Exceptions are made for death, disability, voluntary separation, and firing for cause.

3. The tax credit could be carried back 3 years and carried forward 5 years.

4. No credit would be allowed for the training of managerial, professional, or advanced scientific employees. The intent of the act is to encourage business to upgrade the skills of those at the bottom end of the

COMMENT

The Human Investment Act is patterned closely after the investment credit provisions of the Revenue Act of 1962, which permitted a 7-percent tax credit toward investment in certain depreciable plant equipment and real property.

This bill is an attempt to meet the increasingly serious problems of structural unemployment caused by a labor force illfitted for existing and developing job opportunities. Its intent is to advance workers up the skill ladder, thus opening vacancies at the bottom for the presently unskilled and unemployed. Its major premise 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. Instead of undertaking training programs of its own, with all the resulting bureaucracy, inefficiency, and expense, the Government would provide a tax incentive for private industry to apply its tested techniques in this field.

TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF HUMAN INVESTMENT ACT OF 1965

This measure is patterned after the investment credit provisions added to the tax law by the Revenue Act of 1962. It is analogous to that provision in almost every respect.

The Revenue Act of 1962 provided a credit against taxes for investment in certain depreciable property. The credit amounted to 7 percent of the qualified investment. There were, however, top limits of the credit measured by so much of the tax liability as does not exceed $25,000, plus 25 percent of the tax liability in excess of $25,000. Tax liability in this frame of reference meant the tax imposed without reference to personal holding company or accumulated earnings increments less credits against tax already provided for by law (foreign tax credits, dividend credit, tax exempt interest and retirement income credit).

In the case of a husband or wife filing a separate return the top limit is measured in terms of $12,500 of tax liability instead of $25,000 except where the spouse of the taxpayer has no qualified investment for or no unused carryback or carryover credit

credits for such earlier investment to that tax year. The effect of this limitation is to put the same limit on sole proprietorships and partnerships as would be imposed on

corporations.

Affiliated groups must reduce the top limit

available to them individually by apportion

ing the top limit among the members of the group. Once again, this provision provides that related corporations or business groups shall get no more than the credit allowed single business entities.

A carryback and carryover are provided for any year in which the credit exceeds the limitations imposed. The excess is carried

back to each of the 3 taxable years preceding the unused credit year and carried over to the 5 taxable years following the unused credit year. However, the top limit applies to the amounts allowable for credit for those carryback and carryover years. For example, if the tax credit for 1969 exceeded the limitation for 1969 by $10,000 then that $10,000 could be carried back to 1966. If, in 1966

the credit allowed amounted to $25,000 and the top limit for that year was $30,000 only $5,000 of the $10,000 carryback could be applied to the tax year 1966. The remaining $5,000 of unused credit could be applied to the 1967 tax year if there was any leverage between the credit for that year and the top limitation.

Where a net operating loss carryback causes an excess of credit over the top limitation

that year are not available. In other words, where a net operating loss carryback to 1968 from 1965 wiped out or reduced taxable income for that year and a credit for investfor that year, 1965, the loss of the credit for ment in qualified property had been allowed

that year because of its excess over the top limit (which was reduced by the application of the net operating loss carryback) cannot be recouped by a carryback to the 3 tax years preceding 1965, but can only be applied as a carryover to the succeeding 5 tax years. This restriction eliminates the possibility that tax returns would be subject to amendment for a full 6 prior years (3 carryback years for net operating loss plus 3 carryback years for unused investment credit).

To this point the Human Investment Act and the investment credit plan of the Revenue Act of 1962 for investment in certain depreciable property are almost identical. Under the Human Investment Act credit against taxes of 7 percent is allowed instead for investment in specified training programs for employees and prospective employees. Otherwise, the top limitation is computed in the same way. The same treatment is accorded married persons and affiliated groups. The same carryback and carryover provisions are made and the impact of next operating loss carrybacks which reduce or eliminate the credit allowable is the same. Unlike the provisions for phasing in the credit for investment in property over the first year of the plan, however, a full credit is allowed for training expenses incurred in 1966.

The sole difference of substance between

the Human Investment Act and the credit for investment in property is in the nature of the investment or expenditure for which the credit applies.

Under the Human Investment Act there are six categories of employee training expenses toward which credit may be claimed:

(1) the wages and salaries of apprentices in registered apprenticeship programs;

(2) the wages and salaries of workers enrolled in on-the-job training programs under section 204 of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962;

(3) wages and salaries of employees who are participating in cooperative work-study programs involving alternate periods of study and employment;

(4) tuition and course fees paid by the employer to a college or vocational, trade or business school for the training of an employee;

(5) home study course fees paid by the employer to a recognized home study school or college for the training of an employee; (6) the expenses to the employer of organized group instruction, including classroom

ity of expenses of training incurred merely because a credit is also available based on those expenses. Such qualified expenses remain 100-percent deductible while at the same time a credit against tax in the amount allowed. of 7 percent of those expenses is fully

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a list of the sponsors of the Human Investment Act, which I should like to place in the RECORD at this point:

SPONSORS OF HUMAN INVESTMENT ACT IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THOMAS B. CURTIS, MO.
JOHN B. ANDERSON, Ill.
JAMES F. BATTIN, Mont.
ALPHONZO BELL, Calif.
JACKSON E. BETTS, Ohio.
FRANK T. Bow, Ohio.
WILLIAM C. BROOMFIELD, Mich.
JOEL T. BROYHILL, Va.
HOWARD H. CALLAWAY, Ga.
DONALD D. CLANCY, Ohio.
DON H. CLAUSEN, Calif.
JAMES C. CLEVELAND, N.H.
HAROLD R. COLLIER, Ill.
SILVIO CONTE, Mass.
WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Fla.
BOB DOLE, Kans.
JACK EDWARDS, Ala.
ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kans.
PAUL FINDLEY, Ill.

PETER FRELINGHUYSEN, N.J.
CHARLES E. GOODELL, N.Y.
JAMES R. GROVER, Jr., N.Y.
EDWARD J. GURNEY, Fla.
CRAIG HOSMER, Calif.
MELVIN R. LAIRD, Wis.
CATHERINE MAY, Wash.
ROBERT MCCLORY, Ill.
CHESTER L. MIZE, Kans.
F. BRADFORD MORSE, Mass,
ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Md.
THOMAS M. PELLY, Wash.
RICHARD H. POFF, Va.
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minn.
ED REINECKE, Calif.
DONALD RUMSFELD, Ill.
HERMAN T. SCHNEEBELI, Pa.
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pa.
JOE SKUBITZ, Kans.
ROBERT S. STAFFORD, Vt.
J. WILLIAM STANTON, Ohio.
BURT L. TALCOTT, Calif.
JAMES B. UTT, Calif.
PRENTISS WALKER, Miss.
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, N.J.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois.

Mr.

Speaker, will the gentleman from Missouri yield?

Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the gentle

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have today joined the gentleman from Missouri, who is in the well, in introducing the Human Investment Act. I would not want this opportunity to pass without telling the House that I think the gentleman from Missouri deserves a

(3) prospective employees trained are hired upon the completion of training and kept on the payroll for at least 3 months;

(4) the training is other than that of a managerial, supervisory, professional, or advanced scientific nature.

Exceptions are made in items 2 and 3 above in cases of death, disability, voluntary separation, or firing for cause.

Finally, similar in spirit to the amendment of the investment credit provisions which appeared in the Revenue Act of 1964 and which eliminated a section requiring a reduction in the value of the property, when computing depreciation to the extent of the credit taken, the Human Investment Act in no way reduces or limits the deductibil

us for the initiative that he has shown in sponsoring this bill in the House and interesting other Members of this body to do likewise. I think it may well be one of the most, if not the most, significant pieces of legislation to be introduced in this 1st session of the 89th Congress. I congratulate the gentleman.

OUR EMPLOYMENT DILEMMA

of the ironies of our Nation's employMr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, one ment situation is that thousands of jobs

are going begging while many of our workers are unable to earn an adequate income.