Compensation Act would tend, it is believed, to exclude such part-time workers from its provisions, and limit the payment of benefits to claimants substantially attached to the labor market, by adding to the act what might be termed a "twostep-back" provision, the operation of which might be described as follows: Finally Again referring to table A in section 7 (b), assuming that a claimant has earned between $460.01 and $483 during his high quarter, such claimant, if he earned at least $724 during his four-quarter base period, could qualify for benefits of $21 per week. If his total earnings were less than $724 but $690 or more, the claimant, although not qualifying for $21-per-week benefits, nevertheless could take one step back and quality for $20 per week. if his total earnings were less than $690 but $655 or more, the claimant might take two steps back down column C and qualify for benefits of $19 per week. But under the proposed change in existing law, such a claimant could take no more than two steps back down column C, and if his minimum qualifying wages were less than $655, the claimant would not be able to qualify for unemployment compensation benefits. The proposed change in existing law, the Commissioners believe, while it will remove the present limitation of unemployment benefits to one-third of the wages earned during the claimant's base period, nevertheless will have the effect of excluding from the benefits of the act those persons who would not appear to be substantially attached to the labor market. For this reason, the Commissioners have no objection to the proposed amendment of section 7 of the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act. With respect to the proposed amendment of subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 10 so as to establish the period of a claimant's disqualification at a flat 6 weeks, in lieu of the provision in existing law for a variable 4- to 9-week disqualification period, as the District Unemployment Compensation Board in its discretion may determine, the Commissioners believe it advisable that the District Unemployment Compensation Board continue to exercise discretion relating to the disqualification of claimants for periods ranging from 4 to 9 weeks, depending on the circumstances of each case. Accordingly, they recommend against the enactment of the proposed amendments of section 10 of the act. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection on the part of that office to submission of the report to the Congress. Yours very sincerely, ROBERT E. MCLAUGHLIN, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I will briefly state our position and then perhaps, for details, we should ask for further testimony from Mr. Mackall, who is counsel for the District Unemployment Compensation Board, and from the Assistant Corporation Counsel, Mr. Kneipp. The District Commissioners, as reported in this letter covering their bill, approved the increase of the maximum weekly payment from $30, as it is at present, to $40, and has approved the 26-week uniform payment proposal with the two-stepback feature which is also proposed in the bill introduced by Senator Beall, S. 1214. We have approved likewise a provision for permitting voluntary contributions to be made by employers prior to computation, which will redetermine the base and the future rates of the employers. Now if I may revert back to the bill introduced by Senator Beall, S. 1214, the Commissioners did not feel that they could recommend the amendment of our existing law, which permits cancellation of periods of disqualification for the circumstances under which employment is terminated, and we have therefore recommended that this provision in the Beall bill not be enacted. Now as to the bill introduced by the chairman, S. 3493, our recommendation is for a 26 weeks uniform period as distinguished from the provision in S. 3493 of a uniform duration of 39 weeks. We have not yet become enlightened enough, Mr. Chairman, to work along with the strong provision or method for future computations of these maximum payments. I think the provision in the chairman's bill would permit a maximum payment of $61 at the present time, as distinguished from our proposed $40. We have recommended the twostep-back type of provision as distinguished from the provision in the Morse bill. I believe I have just about touched on all the points. Now when we get more technical on this, I generally sit back and listen, Mr. Chairman. Senator MORSE. If you don't object, Mr. Commissioner, I think I will make a brief statement on my bill, because I think we ought to have it in the record at this point for the reference of witnesses. Had I not been involved in plane delays this morning, I would have made this statement at the beginning of the hearing. I will, without objection, have inserted in the record at this point the brief statement which I made in the Senate on March 14 in support of my bill. (The statement referred to is as follows:) AMENDMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 1935, AS AMENDED INTRODUCTION OF A BILL Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, out of order, I introduce, and send to the desk, for appropriate reference, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act of 1935, as amended. Mr. President, the growth of unemployment and the lag in purchasing power make action on unemployment compensation imperative. The bill is the same as the bill which passed the Senate in 1955. Its major provisions are: First. It increases the maximum weekly benefit amount. Second. It changes the duration period for all eligible claimants to a uniform maximum period of 39 weeks. Third. It changes the disqualification provisions to a straight 6-week disqualification, with no cancellation of benefits. The bill makes the maximum weekly benefit amount a specified percentage67 percent of the average wage of all workers covered by the law, computed annually, rather than a fixed dollar amount. In order to permit automatic adjustments in the maximum weekly benefit in line with wage trends, the bill provides for annual computation by the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board of the average weekly wage of workers covered by the law. This computation will be based on reports by employers, including the Federal Government agencies. It should be noted that the bill does not provide that all claimants shall receive the maximum weekly benefit amount or that any claimant will receive 67 percent of his own average weekly wage. Neither does it change the limitation in the present law, which limits the worker to no more than 50 percent of his weekly wage, or one-twenty-third of his wages in a calendar quarter. The bill provides that all claimants who are eligible for benefits will be able to draw 39 weeks of benefits if they remain unemployed for that long a period. During the period of unemployment, the worker would, of course, be required to be able to work, to be available for work, and to accept suitable work when offered to him. In short, the benefits will be payable for the full period only if the worker's unemployment is due to the lack of suitable job opportunities. Under the present law, 26 weeks is the maximum for most unemployed, although some get substantially less because of an earnings formula. In addition to lengthening the benefit period of 39 weeks, the bill will eliminate the limiting formula. A major problem in the District of Columbia, as well as throughout the country, is the plight of unemployed men and women who have exhausted their benefits. This is happening at an alarming rate. The 39-week period is in line with legislation proposed for the States under the McCarthy-Kennedy bill. Mr. President, I request the appropriate reference of the bill, and I also ask that it be printed at this point in the record, as a part of my remarks. Senator MORSE. I would add this brief comment at this time in support of my bill. In meeting and reversing the present recession, no action is more important than improving unemployment compensation, in my opinion. The bill under consideration, S. 3493, is really the work of this committee and the Senate. It was considered by the committee and passed by the Senate in 1955 in principle. In all respects, it is in the form in which it was passed, except for the extension of benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks. Unemployment in the District is up and so are exhaustions of unemployment insurance benefits. The local situation is not as bad as the national averages. This is no reason, however, for delay. The Congress should act to aid the unemployed and business in the District before the situation. becomes critical. Exhaustions for the first 2 months of 1958 were 40 percent greater than for the comparable period in 1957. The picture has not improved. Unemployment at the end of March was up about 50 percent over 1957. Prompt action to relieve the economic plight of the unemployed is imperative. Prompt action is required to put purchasing power into the hands of consumers. The bill contains provisions that increase the maximum weekly benefit amount. Second, it changes the duration period for all eligible claimants to a uniform maximum period of 39 weeks. Third, it changes the disqualification provisions to a straight 6week disqualification with no cancellation of benefits. The bill makes the maximum weekly benefit amount a specified percentage, 67 percent of the average wage of all workers covered by the law computed annually rather than a fixed dollar amount. In order to permit automatic adjustments in the maximum weekly benefit in line with wage trends, the bill provides for annual computation by the District of Columbia Compensation Board of the average weekly wage of workers covered by the law. This computation will be based on reports by employers including the Federal Government agencies. It should be noted that the bill does not provide that all claimants shall receive the maximum weekly benefit amount or that any claimant will receive 67 percent of his own average weekly wage. Neither does it change the limitation in the present law which limits the worker to no more than 50 percent of his weekly wage or 1/23 of his wages in a calendar quarter. The bill does provide that all claimants who are eligible for benefits will be able to draw 39 weeks of benefits if they remain unemployed for that long a period. During the period of unemployment the worker would, of course, be required to be able to work, to be available for work, and to accept suitable work when offered to him. In short, the benefits would be payable for the full period only if the worker's unemployment is due to the lack of suitable job opportunity. Under the present law 26 weeks is the maximum for most unemployed, although some get substantially less because of the earnings formula In addition to lengthening the benefit period to 39 weeks, the bill will eliminate the limiting formula. Legislation for the District of Columbia can lead the wav in providing a pattern for combating the recession across the country. The logical place to start, I think, is to aid the unemployed. Adequate and early action can help avoid heavier unemployment and heavier burdens it would bring to business and to workers. I wish to make very clear for the record that I am not married to this bill in the sense that I would not consider some modifications of it based upon the testimony given in this hearing. However, in my opinion the bill I have introduced offers a very workable approach to the problem that confronts us. I have a suspicion that what will happen is that when the committee marks up a final bill, it probably will consist of the best features, or what we consider to be the best features, of all the bills which have been introduced. At a later time expert witnesses who have the technical knowledge as to the working of the bill which I have introduced will make their record in support of the bill. I wish also to introduce for the record at this point the recommendations—the summary of the policy decisions, rather that have come out of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives to date in regard to unemployment insurance legislation. (The summary referred to follows:) (1) Provide temporary unemployment benefits for a maximum 16 weeks of total unemployment, at the rate payment under the applicable unemployment compensation law. (2) Benefits to be paid under State agreements only. (3) Benefits to be paid by Federal grant. (4) Benefits to be payable for weeks of unemployment which begin on or after the 15th day after date of enactment to individuals who exhausted benefit rights after June 30, 1957, and before July 1, 1959. (5) Include Federal employees and veterans. (6) Include administrative provisions from H. R. 11326 plus penalty provisions and regulation authority contained in H. R. 11679. Also include specific regulatory authority with respect to the determination of what constitutes exhaustion of rights. (7) (a) Provide temporary unemployment benefits to individuals who have been employed in noncovered employment. (b) Provide benefits for these individuals on the same basis as provided for individuals who have exhausted their rights. (8) The unemployment compensation law of the State in which the individual was last employed shall determine the weekly amount and the terms and conditions under which the benefits are paid. For this purpose (i) The term "wages" shall have the same meaning as when used in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, except that paragraph (1) of section 3306 (b) shall not apply. (ii) The term "employment" shall have the same meaning as when used in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, except that paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (67), (7), (8), (10), (11), (12), (16), and (17) shall not apply. Senator MORSE. I want the record to show that the Senate District of Columbia Committee filed with the Senate a report on the principles of the bill that I have introduced again this year, and we will make that report an appendix to the record but not part of the transcript. (The report referred to will be found in the appendix.) Senator MORSE. There will be inserted at this point an article from the Washington Post for April 10, 1958, "Area Employment Up, Fewer District Jobs," which sets forth comparative employment trends 1952-57, in the metropolitan area, District of Columbia and suburbs. I think those figures are rather important for the committee and without objection, I will insert them at this point. (The information referred to is as follows:) [Washington Post, April 10, 1958] AREA EMPLOYMENT UP, FEWER DISTRICT JOBS Employment in the Washington suburbs soared between October 1952 and A study of employment trends by the Washington Board of Trade during the Employment in the metropolitan area rose 2.8 percent from 639,800 to Employment in the District fell 4.8 percent from 462,000 to 440,200, a Employment in the suburbs rose 22.7 percent from 177,400 to 217,700, The survey covered 10 fields of employment, excluding agriculture, military, The greatest decrease in the District was in Federal Government jobs. Dur- Federal Government remained the largest field of employment in both the The greatest gain in the suburbs, 69.6 percent, was in the service and pro- Retail trade increased by 33.8 percent in the suburbs for a total of 42,000 jobs The accompanying chart shows the results of the board of trade study. Comparative employment trends, 1952-57-Metropolitan area, District of 1 Civilian only, excluding CIA. Nonagricultural employment excluding military, self-employed, domestic servants, and CIA. Senator MORSE. I will insert at this point in the record an article |