The present average of all the States is $33.09 a week. It was because of liberalization of the laws in a number of States since the District of Columbia benefit provisions were last increased that we proposed in the bill introduced by Mr. McMillan-to which I have already referred to increase benefits in the District of Columbia to a maximum of $35 a week.

This amount would be above the average of the States and equal to or higher than the maximums of 36 States. This would place the District on the same level with the State of Maryland and $7 higher than the maximum in Virginia, which is $28 a week. The comparability of the laws in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia has been increasingly important and will become more so now that more of the people of greater Washington live in contiguous areas of these adjoining States and now that many employing enterprises are moving out of the District of Columbia as costs and conditions become more palatable outside the Federal city.

Incidentally, if I may call attention to the extension of the rate of the District of Columbia line which shows where the District of Columbia position will be under H. R. 10625 with only 12 of the 48 States then having a greater maximum.

The next chart shows the maximum number of weeks benefits will be paid or the duration of benefits in the 48 States. Here it will be noted that in only 2 States is duration longer than that provided under District law. They are Pennsylvania, the first on the list at 30 weeks, and Wisconsin, at 2612 weeks. Of the 26 States having a 26-week duration, Wisconsin with 262 weeks, and Pennsylvania with 30 weeks, only 5 have uniform duration laws.

24607-58--4

We think that these charts demonstrate that the District of Columbia law is certainly comparable with the best judgment of the States with respect to duration and is also comparable with respect to weekly benefit amount.

However, we recognize that the maximum benefit amount in the District should probably be increased as indicated by our proposal to Mr. McMillan.

We believe it is unwise to enact the provisions proposed in S. 3493 either in the District of Columbia or any other jurisdiction. To adopt now the benefit provisions of this bill would, we believe, be unwarranted rapid liberalization. No State has liberalized so rapidly, and we do not believe it is sound to expect the District of Columbia to do so.

Perhaps it would be appropriate at this time to read what was printed in the American Federation of Labor News Reporter on January 7, 1955. The Reporter said:

Unemployment insurance was never intended to be a panacea. It was planned to tide workers over the initial jobless period, and secondarily to help maintain purchasing power in the community.

To require that it cover more needs would be to increase the cost of the system and thereby make its continuance less likely. It would make the insurance of less value when the primary need arises. It would tend to reduce the system to a dole, to impose a means test. Ultimately it would end the unemployment insurance systems.

I am happy to have this opportunity of voicing our complete agreement with the AFL Reporter's philosophy on this subject.

Now, on page 4 of the bill it is proposed to amend the District of Columbia law by lessening disqualification periods for voluntary quits, discharges for misconduct, and failure to accept suitable work. In addition these proposed amendments would eliminate the benefit cancellation provisions of the present law.

I was very happy to hear that the Commissioners do not recommend that either, the doing away with this disqualification.