Senator HARTKE. Well, the triggering device in the House bill has two triggers, one statewide and one nationally.

Mr. MEANY. But there is no triggering device in the Senate bill. Senator HARTKE. Well, none in the Senate bill at all, no. What I am talking about is the triggering device in the House bill which, at the present time, is the one which has been receiving quite a bit of comment, and the one which some people, especially the State directors, indicated they wanted us to rubberstamp.

What I was wondering about was this, don't those people who lose their jobs in such a situation suffer just as much and don't their families suffer just as much as if there had been a nationwide recession with high unemployment?

Mr. MEANY. Well, this is one of the reasons, of course, we took in our statement for opposing the House bill, for that very reason.

Senator HARTKE. In other words, you really favor the Senate bill. Mr. MEANY. Where the individual stands on his own and he gets his benefit as an individual.

Senator HARTKE. You favor the individual approach that is in the Senate bill, rather than worrying about what happens in the overall picture so far as the national economy is concerned.

Mr. MEANY. That is right.

Senator HARTKE. It is something he cannot control.
Mr. MEANY. That is right.

Senator HARTKE. Well, now, maybe we do not have to worry about that triggering device so much if the present information which I have received is true; that is, that one of the major automobile suppliers, as I understand it, is preparing a little different approach toward the new 1967 automobile production. Under normal circumstances, the new models are stepped up over the number which are produced off the assembly line at the last of the old model year. Ordinarily, you would be producing in the first month, at least, more automobiles on an hourly and daily and monthly basis during the first run of the 1967 models than you did when you ran the last run of the 1966 models, I just want to bring to your attention. I hope you people are prepared for this. The new run is to be 40 cars less per hour for each assembly line for this major manufacturer. This indicates to me that we are facing a real cutback, at least, in automobile production. This will probably foreshadow the anticipated turndown in automobile sales even beyond what we have had so far. I might point out, and I think that probably you will agree to this, that in the homebuilding industry we are in a recession now, are we not?

Mr. MEANY. Yes, we think so.

Senator HARTKE. And yet for the Nation, since the unemployment has not reached that triggering device which was necessary in the House bill, these people who happen to be in an industry which is recession-hit at the moment, are just out.

Mr. MEANY. They are out, no triggering for them.

Senator HARTKE. No triggering except possibly the triggers of unhappiness of mom and the kids at home.

All right: I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see, I did have one other thing I wanted to mention. Where do we stand on this-maybe Andy Biemiller

knows-where do we stand on this minimum wage bill right now? Has the House passed that bill ?

Mr. BIEMILLER. The minimum wage bill has passed the House. It has been reported by the subcommittee of the Senate, and we hope to have action by the full committee of the Senate very shortly.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that minimum wage bill include farm labor? Mr. BIEMILLER. It includes farm labor where there is employment of 500 man-hours in any one quarter. As a rule of thumb, it would work out to about eight employees or more.

The CHAIRMAN. So now when that happens, that may very well result in an increase in farm prices.

It seems to me we should anticipate that that might occur in some areas. Would you anticipate that that would likely be the case?

Mr. BIEMILLER. It might mean a very slight increase. I do not think it is going to have any tremendous effect upon the market. The CHAIRMAN. Well, as a practical matter

Mr. BIEMILLER. It is only a dollar an hour.

The CHAIRMAN. As a practical matter, it seems to me, a minimum wage for farm labor is an unseen benefit to the small farmer because he is really competing with actually he has a small piece of property which is his investment that he is farming, and he has his investment in his labor. Most of what he has to offer is his own labor on his own farm, but he is competing with this farm labor that is being hired at these subminimum wages, so that it would tend to bring farm prices up somewhat in the area where he is competing, and that would give him a better chance to survive in competition if the person with whom he is competing had to pay a decent wage to his farm labor.

Mr. BIEMILLER. The Farmers Union, which as you know is composed primarily of family farmers, is enthusiastically behind the bill, and I have no doubt that your argument is one of the reasons that impels them to that position over and above the fact that they basically support sound programs.

The CHAIRMAN. I should think that is a good reason. But in view of the fact that these farmers who have eight or more employees are in for an increase in cost anyhow with this minimum wage bill, it seems to me this might be a good time to get it over with and let it all go into the pot at one time.

I have no further questions.

Senator DOUGLAS. Following that, you have been an advocate of equal coverage as between minimum wages, social security, unemployment compensation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. So it is your argument really that we should have the same coverage on farm labor for unemployment compensation as we develop it for the minimum wage.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that it is good to have, for purposes of making the law so people can understand it; it is good where you can try to have, all things being equal, to make the numbers and the standards parallel or try to equal them out.

One thing that makes it so difficult for housewives is when they had this fractional breakdown under social security where you had to figure out to the last penny how much you paid the maid, and then you had to go to work and multiply that by 3%, or some such thing.

If I do say it, my vote to include domestic labor in social security has given me some problems at home. [Laughter.]

I could solve half the problem by simply assuring Mrs. Long that I would pick up the tab for the difference between what she was paying in the past and what she would pay in the future. But the bookwork that is imposed on her has really given her some difficulty from time to time and created some complaint from the other half of my family. So if you can get these things where they are more understandable, other things being equal, it would seem to me to be a good thing.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MEANY. Thank you.

Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mrs. Elizabeth Wickenden, National Social Welfare Assembly, Inc.

We are pleased to have you, Mrs. Wickenden. Would you just proceed in your own fashion.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH WICKENDEN, TECHNICAL CONSULTANT ON PUBLIC SOCIAL POLICY, NATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE ASSEMBLY

Mrs. WICKENDEN. Yes.

My name is Elizabeth Wickenden, and I appear today in my capacity as consultant on social policy and legislation to the National Social Welfare Assembly.

Senator, if I may

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Wickenden, I believe that what we had planned to do was to limit witnesses to 10 minutes, allow them to summarize their statements, and print the full statement, and then allow such questions as Senators propose to ask.

Mrs. WICKENDEN. You anticipated what I was going to request, which was that I be permitted to file my statement with the reporter and simply highlight some points, and also submit certain documents for the record.

(The prepared statement of Mrs. Wickenden follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH WICKENDEN, TECHNICAL CONSULTANT ON PUBLIC SOCIAL POLICY OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE ASSEMBLY

My name is Elizabeth Wickenden and I serve as technical consultant on questions of social legislation and policy to the National Social Welfare Assembly and its Committee on Social Issues and Policies.

The National Social Welfare Assembly is the national planning and coordinating agency for the social welfare field. Seventy nine national voluntary and governmental agencies in the field are currently affiliated or associated with The Assembly. In addition, on questions of national policy and legislation it works in close collaboration with the five hundred local welfare councils affiliated with the United Community Funds and Councils of America. Its work in this area is largely spear-headed by its Committee on Social Issues and Policies of which Mr. Philip Bernstein, Executive Director of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, is Chairman. At its last meeting held on May 18th of this year, the Committee requested that we present testimony on the pending measure, which was reported by the House Ways and Means Committee on that very day. The voluntary welfare agencies in whose behalf I speak today have a dual interest in the subject of unemployment insurance. In the first place as employers of substantial numbers of employees not currently protected by the existing Federal unemployment insurance law, they are naturally interested in the proposals to extend coverage to this group. In the second place they are concerned

with all measures to reduce the extent of poverty and insecurity which affect directly the welfare of those they serve.

Two actions have been taken by The Assembly to assist its constituency in evaluating their position in this area. In the first place, anticipating that the question of coverage under unemployment insurance would shortly become an issue, a special Subcommittee on Unemployment Insurance Coverage for Employees of Nonprofit Organizations was set up in 1961. This committee decided to undertake a survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Employment Security of the U.S. Department of Labor, in order to secure a factual assessment of the amount of unemployment experienced by employees of voluntary organizations in this field and the possible cost of unemployment insurance coverage.

I am leaving with the Committee a copy of the report of this survey which was released in January, 1964. Without undertaking to summarize its methods and findings, I would like to state that it revealed-contrary to the general assumption that social welfare is a field in which involuntary unemployment is a rare occurrence a substantial incidence of involuntary separations. In the sample check that was made of unemployment experience in twenty-one organizations, a figure of 18% involuntary separations was found. Since many welfare organizations run seasonal programs such as summer camps, at least a part of this number can be attributed to this type of employment. However, a further follow-up spot check revealed that approximately half of this number or 9% did, in fact, suffer subsequent unemployment of some duration.

When the Administration's proposals for updating the unemployment insurance program were submitted in 1965 and incorporated in H.R. 8282 and S. 1991, a second step was taken by The Assembly acting through its Committee on Social Issues and Policies. Another subcommittee was appointed to study the issues presented by the proposal and a statement representing the consensus of the group was drafted. This statement, after review and approval by the full committee, was then circulated to all the national organizations affiliated with The Assembly and to all local united funds and welfare councils throughout the country with the request that they indicate whether they wished to endorse this statement as an organization or in the name of their executive. As a result of this rather hasty circulation, twenty-three national, statewide and local organizations endorsed this statement officially. In addition-because of policy or time limitations precluding organizational endorsement-fifty-three heads of such organizations signed the statement in their personal capacity. Since that time several additional national organizations, including the three national organizations representing the principal social welfare activities of the three major faiths, i.e.. The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, have adopted official positions which are substantially in accord with the views expressed in this statement.

I would now like to present this statement (I am appending to this testimony a list of its signatories) and subsequently will discuss its implications in terms of the pending bill:

"We the undersigned, associated with the voluntary social welfare field, wish to urge, either in behalf of our organization or speaking from our personal experience, favorable action by the Ways and Means Committee on amendments to the Social Security Act which will increase the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system in terms of wider coverage, more adequate benefit levels, extended duration of benefits and policies better adapted to current labor market needs. While most of our organizations have not taken a position on the specific detailed provisions of H.R. 8282, we wish to express our support for legislation which will carry out the following broad principles.

"1. Prevention of need. A primary objective in all welfare policy is the development of programs and policies which will prevent economic need and thus reduce the necessity for large public assistance caseloads. Public assistance is both a heavy cost burden to the tax-paying public and an unsatisfactory source of income to the individual, especially the able-bodied worker unemployed through no fault or choice of his own.

"Unemployment insurance was intended to prevent need and dependency by assuring to the unemployed worker an objectively determined income which, related to his former wage, would be sufficient to carry him through a period of joblessness without requiring him to apply for assistance or make drastic alterations in his way of life. At the present time, however, it is not fulfilling this purpose because its provisions have not been updated to maintain a dynamic

relationship to the economy as a whole or to the changing character of the labor market. Specifically:

"Its coverage is inadequate and should be extended to as many occupations as feasible, looking toward the ultimate protection of the total working force. We are especially concerned about the lack of protection for employees in agricutural occupations and small firms where the risks may be great.

"Benefit levels are inadequate whether measured in terms of wage replacement (by which standard its adequacy is substantially below what it was in 1939) or in relationship to the current concept of a poverty level. They need to be brought up to a higher standard both with respect to the average payment and the maximum limitations now imposed by states.

"Duration limits are inadequate by any standard and do not recognize the extent to which much current unemployment invloves long-time readjustments in skill, location, and occupation. As a result many workers who are exhausing their benefits before finding a new job or making these adjustments have no recourse but to turn to public assistance. Changes in the durational requirements of state programs and recognition of the distinctive character of long-term unemployment through a special program for this purpose are, therefore, urgently needed.

"Policies to encourage retraining, relocation and other longtime readjustments by the unemployed worker are also necessary if need, dependency, and demoralization are to be prevented.

"2. Federal leadership. Unemployment is necessarily a national problem to the extent that ours is a national economy in which both employers and workers must function in a national marketplace. The original provisions of the Social Security Act recognized this problem by combining state administration with a tax-offset system which virtually assured a nationwide system operating within common nationwide standards. But these standards can only be effectively adjusted to change in the economic situation through federal action, for no state can move very far ahead of the others in liberalizing its provisions without endangering the competitive position of its employers in the national market by adding to their cost of production. Only through changes in the federal minimum standards can they all act simultaneously so that all workers may be adequately protected without endangering their own jobs through competitive disadvantage. It is, moreover, obvious that unemployment falls unequally on the several states and that a high incidence of long-term unemployment affects adversely those state unemployment insurance funds least able to bear the cost of benefits adequate in amount and duration. Only the federal government through special financial aids to the states and through federally-financed long-term benefits can solve this major problem. ・・

3. Unemployment insurance for workers in non-profit organizations. In view of our general support for a more effective and broadly inclusive national unenployment insurance system, it would be obviously inconsistent not to favor the extension of protection against income loss due to unemployment to our own workers. A spot study by the National Social Welfare Assembly* showed that such unemployment, while not extensive, does in fact occur among the employees of voluntary non-profit organizations and that some of their employees move between covered and currently non-covered employment, thus endangering their benefit rights. On the other hand most voluntary organizations would be extremely hard-pressed to share in the costs of carrying the higher-risk employers without endangering their ability to perform the services for which they receive contributions from the public. We, therefore, predicate our support for the extension of compulsory coverage to the employees of non-profit organizations on a special financing provision, such as that included in H.R. 8282, which would permit states to limit the cost to employing organizations to the actual amounts of benefits extended to their own workers.

In interpreting this statement in the light of subsequent House action. I am obliged to speak as an individual assessing the House-passed bill in the light of general attitudes expressed by those for whom I speak in earlier discussions. On the question of special financing for the coverage of employees of non-profit agencies, H.R. 15119 is more responsive to our position than the Administration bill inasmuch as it eliminates the Federal tax and permits organizations the option of either reimbursing the State for unemployment insurance payments

*Submitted to the Committee for its information.