Before you know it, based on such encouragement and generosity, all States may conclude that they have no alternative but to spend most freely the gift which you have forced upon them. Under the conditions of this bill, a State could pay benefits of full wages up to a full year with no limits on what is paid. With the State keeping their own funds depleted, with the Federal Government continuously paying three-fourths of such State expenditure, a State might be tempted to use such a procedure or such a scheme to keep their economy going through the use of Federal funds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions. Mr. MORRISON. Our next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Bernard Teets, the director of the agency in the State of Colorado. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Teets, you are recognized, sir. Mr. TEETS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Bernard E. Teets. I am executive director, Department of Employment, State of Colorado. Your committee, Mr. Chairman, and yourself have been very patient. I had about 22 points that I was going to talk on. I am going to cut it down to about three. I think these three points are worthy of your consideration. First, in order that you may appreciate a little better my perspective with regard to the program, I want to say that I have been in it for about 23 years and I have watched it grow. So far as Colorado is concerned, we started out with $15 for 16 weeks. Our law presently provides for $42 for 3212 weeks, but this bill before you says in effect, if I understand it, that this is not good enough, and the question that arises in my mind, and I think in fairness to the people in our State that developed this program, is, Wherein have we failed? By any test, if we have failed at all, it is merely because we have not provided for flat duration, that we have not provided for the payment of benefits regardless of the amount of wages that a man has earned. I want to talk specifically for a moment about one of the provisions in this bill which says in effect that a State cannot have any disqualifications, and I say to you that this is morally wrong. This bill says in effect that a State can't have a provision in its law that will penalize a man for stealing from his employer. You can't have a provision in the law penalizing for voluntary quits. You can't penalize him, or if he is guilty of misconduct connected with his work there shall be no penalty, and I say to you that it is this sort of thing that has received most of the publicity regarding this program and has brought it into disrepute, and I say to you that if we are going to accomplish the objectives that people are talking about in trying to give more adequate benefits for a longer period of time to unemployed workers, you have to have disqualifications in order to keep the very relatively small number of people from chiseling on the program in order to provide these additional benefits. Regardless of what the need may be or what you feel a man ought to receive, there would seem to be no good reason for having a Federal standard saying that regardless of the fact that a man is solely responsible for his unemployment, there shall be no penalty. The other point that I want to comment upon is the matter of the application of Federal regulations on a State agency. I quote in part from the bill shall be made on such forms and contain such information and data, fiscal and otherwise, concerning the operation and administration of State laws the Secretary deems necessary or relevant to the performance of his duties hereunder. This throws a great big chill into me and I suppose most other people from other States, for under this guise Lord knows what would be expected of a State, and if you question this, may I call to your attention that at the present tiine under the guise of the regulatory authority given, the Secretary of Labor, for the maintenance and establishment of a public employment service throughout the United States, he is in the process of issuing standards affecting domestic migratory labor, in the areas of housing, transportation, and even wages. In conclusion, I want to say that it seems to me that much of the difficulty that has arisen with regard to whether or not the States have kept pace, whether or not they have filled their obligation to the people, hinges on this one point: the matter of flat duration. If you take that out, and that is where a man can earn a little money and draw a lot, a little difference exists. You know, initially in this program we gave a lot of thought and a lot of emphasis was placed on the fact that this was an insurance program, that a man ought to earn his benefits and be able to go in and draw them as a matter of right, that it shouldn't be a welfare program. We have subscribed to that. I still believe in it. I think it is important. I think it is important to the men and women that lose their jobs through no fault of their own and come in and can hold their head up and say "This is mine. I earned it." You can't do that if you go to this flat duration and say that if he works a little while he can draw a lot money. These people that you are trying to do this little thing for, this flat duration, are the minority and by incorporating it, you are destroying the integrity of the program for the majority. It is bad for the program. Thank you kindly. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, it is quite evident that we cannot conclude your full presentation, including questions and answers, before we have to adjourn for the noon hour, so if it is agreeable with you, we will adjourn and expect you back at the witness table at 2 o'clock this afternoon. Without objection, the committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Gentlemen, Mr. Machrowicz desires to ask some questions of you. Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Chairman, it is pretty difficult to ask questions of all four members, so I will direct my questions to Mr. Morrison. I believe he is the chairman of the group. If any of the questions relate to any other members, or if they care to answer, I would be happy to have it handled that way. First of all, may I ask whether or not you have assembled those figures which I have asked for as to the percentage of the labor work force? Mr. MORRISON. No. They are being assembled, Mr. Congressman. Mr. MACHROWICZ. You do not have them yet? Mr. MORRISON. I do not have them yet. I am assured that we will have them this afternoon. Mr. MACHROWICZ. I am sure you agree with me, do you not, that more important than numbers of States is the question of what percent of the work force is represented by these States? Is that not right? Mr. MORRISON. In the conference, of course, each member State has the same vote in that organization. Mr. MACHROWICZ. Of course; I understand that. That is probably the reason for my comment. As far as the practical effect is concerned, we would like to know what percentage of the labor force is represented by these people who have expressed their views. They think it is important. Mr. MORRISON. Yes, it is important. Mr. MACHROWICZ. You gentlemen, as I understand, are State officials, all of you, either appointed by your respective bodies or other bodies or elected by the State. Mr. MORRISON. Yes. Mr. MACHROWICZ. Do I understand these statements that you have made today represent the views of your State bodies? Or your personal views? Mr. MORRISON. Speaking for myself, sir, they represent the views of our agency. Mr. MACHROWICZ. Your agency? Mr. MORRISON. Yes. Mr. MACHROWICZ. You do not for a moment, in your field, state that these are the views of your Governor? Mr. MORRISON. I have not discussed them with the Governor. Mr. MACHROWICZ. I read to you, then, his telegram. Telegram from George Docking, Governor of Kansas: I respectfully urge the strengthening of the unemployment compensation system through Federal legislation which would standardize the minimum standards among all the States. Sincerely, GEORGE DOCKING, You recognize that those are his views, do you not? Mr. MORRISON. For the first time, since you have read it to me. Mr. MORRISON. I had not. Mr. MACHROWICZ. You feel that he, being the highest elected official of that State, is probably in a better position to speak for his State than you are; is that not right? Mr. MORRISON. Yes, of course. Mr. MACHROWICZ. I might state to you also that I have here telegrams, letters, or statements from 15 Governors of various States of the United States, representing 43.4 percent of the work force, each one wholeheartedly endorsing Federal standards as suggested in the bill introduced by Mr. Karsten and myself. And, Mr. Chairman, I think it is proper to have these telegrams and letters introduced into the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they will be included at this point in the record. (The telegrams and letters referred to are as follows:) Hon. JOHN F. KENNEDY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: TOPEKA, KANS., March 23, 1959. I respectfully urge the strengthening of the unemployment compensation system through Federal legislation which would standardize the minimum standards among all the States. Sincerely, GEORGE DOCKING, Governor of Kansas. LINCOLN, NEBR., March 23, 1959. Senator JOHN F. KENNEDY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.: We are heartily in favor of the strengthening of the unemployment compensation act as set forth in your telegram of March 21. Sincerely, RALPH G. BROOKS, Governor, State of Nebraska. DES MOINES, Iowa, March 24, 1959. Hon. JOHN F. KENNEDY, Washington, D.C.: I strongly support proposed legislation to establish minimum standards for unemployment compensation applicable in all States. Have requested permission to present testimony on House bills embodying these proposals on Monday, April 13. Warm personal regards. HERSCHEL C. LOVELESS, HARRISBURG, PA., March 24, 1959. Senator JOHN F. KENNEDY, Washington, D.C.: The only meaningful way to improve unemployment insurance nationally to combat future national recessions more effectively, to provide equal protection to workers wherever they live, to remove the tax handicaps now being suffered by employers in States with high standards like Pennsylvania, is to require agreed upon national minimum standard for unemployment compensation similar to those recommended by Federal Advisory Council to Secretary Mitchell and I understand embodied in your bill S. 791. DAVID L. LAWRENCE, Governor. ST. PAUL, MINN., March 24, 1959. Senator HUBERT HUMPHREY, Washington, D.C.: This is the text of the telegram which was sent to Gov. Leroy Collins: "I urge the passage of S. 791 to establish minimum Federal standards for jobless pay benefits. The effects of the 1957-58 recession still hang over nearly 5 million unemployed Americans. The hardships to the people and the depressing effect to the community as a result of the cutback in the flow of earnings call for positive action to strengthen unemployment compensation on a national level-thus ending the tendency to use low benefits as a means to encourage industry to move to those States with low benefits. Such action has been recommended by any number of important economic studies. Establishment of Federal standards will stabilize the unemployment compensation programs of States to enable the unemployed to find jobs without suffering disastrous loss of savings and property." Hon. JOHN F. KENNEDY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, COLUMBUS, OHIO, March 26, 1959. We are firmly of the opinion that minimum standards governing benefit provisions of the State unemployment compensation should be adopted by the Congress. For almost 5 years now, the President of the United States has urged the States to amend their laws so that the majority of workers can receive onehalf of their normal weekly earnings when unemployed, yet very few States have complied. Benefits fail to meet reasonable standards of adequacy in a majority of States. This, in turn, creates a competitive imbalance which has a depressing effect on each individual State which seeks to meet reasonable standards. We feel that this continues to defeat the intent and purpose of the unemployment compensation system and that the only remedy will be through congressional action. We urge this at the earliest possible moment. MICHAEL V. DI SALLE, CHEYENNE, Wyo., March 24, 1959. Hon. JOHN F. KENNEDY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Urgently request favorable consideration of H.R. 3547 and S. 791 to require each State to adopt same minimum standards and extend payment to a 30week period by amendment of Federal Unemployment Compensation Act. Higher benefits of longer duration is only solution for individual hardships created by loss of jobs. Senator JOHN F. KENNEDY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: J. J. (JOE) HICKEY, OLYMPIA, WASH., March 24, 1959. Endorse principles of Senate 791 and companion House bills but feel that time is needed for comprehensive study of impact of this legislation on our present State unemployment compensation law. Complexities of bills make definite stand difficult at this time. Specifically concerned about 39-week minimum duration and financing provisions. ALBERT D. ROSELLINI, Governor, Washington State. Senator JOHN F. KENNEDY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please convey to Members of the Senate my unqualified support for S. 791. The achievement of realistic benefit levels and duration have been held back by drum beating competition to hold down tax rates and benefits. Everyone agrees that we must preserve our Federal-State system but despite annual pleas by the President over the last 5 years State response has been less than sufficient and only the stimulation of Federal basic minimum standards will make our unemployment insurance practical and effective. While States are intimately involved, both the cause and effect of unemployment are national in scope as the last recession has only too well pointed out. Federal responsibility consequently is patent. Reinsurance provisions of S. 791 strengthen the partner |