fore, we oppose the extension of this period for 2 years thereafter. We believe that all the powers yielded by the States to the Federal Government upon the plea of the urgency of the present emergency should be returned to the States immediately upon its termination. We believe that this is an essential step in the preservation of private initiative under the free enterprise system and we still believe in private enterprise and free initiative.

We oppose section 304 because it apparently means the permanent taking over in toto of unemployment compensation by the Federal Government. The present system has worked satisfactorily but we are asked to surrender it because it may not prove adequate to meet an anticipated situation. The States have been induced to surrender many rights because of emergencies which have already arisen but here they are ordered to surrender control of unemployment compensation because an emergency may arise in 1945.

The Employment or Reemployment Service and the Unemployment Compensation Service should be administered by the same agency and by the unit of Government closest to the individual and to the job. Many returning veterans and war workers are unwilling to accept their old jobs. This is being demonstrated each day in my own State. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the acceptance or rejection of employment can best be evaluated by the local unit of the Government. Some State administrators might consider the refusal of such a veteran or worker to accept his old job sufficient reason for denying unemployment compensation. Some veterans or workers might decline the old job or a new one because of being required to pay initiation fees or dues to some organization. Administrators in some States might consider that a veteran or worker is justified in declining to accept employment where he is required to pay tribute for the privilege of working. This sentiment definitely prevails in my State.

Reemployment is going to be a problem for States, counties, towns, businesses, and individual employers, and reemployment and unemployment compensation go hand in hand. In view of the rising cost of living, some States have already liberalized the amount and length of time and in others, as in my own, it is being considered. Most States have built up reserves sufficient to take care of the requirements under their present laws.

If it is deemed advisable to fix a standard number of weeks and amount for each State in the Union, we suggest that this be done by making available to the various States a loan by the Federal Government for this purpose, leaving it to each individual State to avail itself of this privilege. This would induce the States to conserve their present funds and to administer the funds carefully, but no State administration would long stay in power if in a time of unemployment it did not provide the standard number of weeks and the maximum weekly benefit when the same was available through such a loan.

Mr. RIDLEY. We were very happy that the Senate passed S. 1718 because we think that will add as much to the objectives of S. 1730 almost as S. 1730 itself. We were very much in favor of it.

There are one or two other details of the bill outside of the unemployment compensation features which I would like to mention very briefly, if I may have the permission of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear your comments. Mr. RIDLEY. Under the bill, provision is made for a Director of the Office of War Mobilization and Post-War Adjustment to appoint certain advisory committees, and it is stated in that section of the bill that these are to be two representatives of labor, two of industry, and two of agriculture.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Ridley, that is not in S. 1730, is it?

Mr. RIDLEY. It is tentative.

Mr. RUSSELL. That is a Military Affairs Subcommittee print you have there.

The CHAIRMAN. That was not in the original bill.

Mr. RUSSELL. No; it was not.

The CHAIRMAN. But the subcommittee legislative committee is considering the bill and has presented a reprint which they themselves are urging. We will be glad to hear your observations.

Mr. RIDLEY. The thought is this, Mr. Chairman, that of course I know the bill has not been finally adopted but that some such provision will be in any bill adopted. We wish to make this suggestion and to place this thought in the record, that there is a great tendency in the creation of boards and commissions to appoint some representatives of labor, some of industry and some of agriculture. We think there are sufficient intelligent, courageous, honest, and judicially minded men to compose those boards without the act itself emphasizing the division between these segments of the population, that already

exist.

I simply wanted to get that in the record.

Also, there is a proposed section in that bill that provides that each war worker and his family shall be given up to $200 a month for transportation to his former place of residence or to the place of new employment accepted under the United States Employment Service.

The CHAIRMAN. Again let me say that was not in the original bill which I introduced. That is the rewrite of the subcommittee of the Military Affairs Committee. In other words, that is what they proposed to add to the bill rather than what was in the original bill.

I wish to make that plain because the bill, as introduced, did not have that title, nor did it have anything dealing with matters concerning unemployment compensation.

Mr. RIDLEY. My thought is this, that it applies only to civilian employees and my thought was that the members of the armed forces should be included in the same manner, if they accept employment under the United States Employment Service.

Now, I know S. 1767 is supposed to take care of all propositions like that, but there is no mention made in S. 1767 of such provision for returning servicemen. I have examined it two or three times and, of course, I realize that it is in conference now and is only tentative.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are correct on that point. That is probably one of the obligations of the Army anyway, the armed services, to get the men back when they are mustered out.

Senator TAFT. I think they have full power to see the men are furnished transportation to their homes. As to sending them some place where the Federal Employment Service is trying to put them to work, that would be another question.

Mr. RIDLEY. My thought is where a war worker or his family accept civilian war work under the United States Employment Service and this fund is provided to transport him and his family to the new place of employment, the same thing should apply to a veteran and his family.

The CHAIRMAN. We get your suggestion.

It rather looks to me under that provision, however, the Government would be moving a lot of people twice, moving them back from their war work to some prospective job and then when that gave out or did not materialize, move them to another job and then move them finally home. There is an over-all limitation of $200, I presume, that would apply there.

Mr. RIDLEY. I would not urge that provision, I was urging the veterans not be excluded.

The CHAIRMAN. I see your point.

Mr. RIDLEY. If such provision is made in the bill, it should not be made to apply only to civilian workers.

The CHAIRMAN. We get that suggestion.

Mr. RIDLEY. Our State employment service was loaned to the Federal Government, as all other States did for the duration. We feel that the administration of unemployment compensation and of the employment or reemployment service goes hand in hand and we think that immediately upon the cessation of the emergency the Employment Service should be returned to the States.

The Employment or Reemployment Service and the Unemployment Compensation Service should be administered by the same agency and by the unit of government closest to the individual and to the job. Many returning veterans and war workers are unwilling to accept their old jobs. This is being demonstrated today in my own State. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the acceptance or rejection of employment can best be evaluated by the local unit of the Government. Some State administrators might consider the refusal of such a veteran or worker to accept his old job sufficient reason for denying unemployment compensation. Some veterans or workers might decline the old job or a new one because of being required to pay initiation fees or dues to some organization. Administrators in some States might consider that a veteran or worker is justified in declining to accept employment where he is required to pay tribute for the privilege of working. This sentiment definitely prevails in my State.

Reemployment is going to be a problem for States, counties, towns, businesses, and individual employers, and reemployment and unemployment compensation go hand in hand. In view of the rising cost of living, some States have already liberalized the amount and length of time and in others, as in my own, it is being considered.

I wish to state that new legislation, both as far as veterans is concerned and as far as the unemployment and reemployment situation is concerned, has been widely discussed in my State, but it is thought advisable to wait before any new legislative action is taken to get the benefit of the position of the Federal Government, so that any new legislation can be coordinated with that.

My State is definitely opposed to any guaranty benefits by the Federal Government. It is opposed to a loan and it is opposed to surrendering the unemployment compensation administration to the Federal Government.

I wish to add this: My State belongs to the association for which Mr. Williams spoke this morning and the statement he made applies to us, but Governor Cooper considered it important enough to wish an individual representative for the State to be present in order that its position may be made known.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rolfe, you are executive director of the New Hampshire Unemployment Compensation Division?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. ROLFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DIVISION, CONCORD, N. H.

Mr. ROLFE. Yes, sir; I represent the Honorable Robert O. Blood, the Governor of New Hampshire.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to have you here and we will be glad to hear you on this question that is now under consideration by the committee.

91183-44-pt. 3- -21

Mr. ROLFE. I think, sir, that the most important thing to consider about this matter is what the people back home really want. I am convinced that the people of New Hampshire are opposed to that part of the demobilization bill or any other legislation which they think threatens the existence of their State unemployment compensation system and they believe that the State program will be destroyed if the Federal Government sets up any form of unemployment compensation benefit payments supplementing those now paid by the State. They know that Federal money brings with it Federal control. I think that is inescapable and perfectly proper. But they know that the next step and an easy one is complete federalization of the whole program.

I am also convinced that the people of New Hampshire do want a continuance of their present State unemployment compensation system and I would like to tell you why. I think they want a continuation of it because in the past it has paid benefits promptly and correctly. Since the unemployment compensation law was first passed in 1936, we have built up an unemployment compensation program in New Hampshire which pays benefits to people within the next week following the week for which they are being paid and we find from bitter experience that if we do not continue that program, if we do not continue that time payment, we hear from the people in no uncertain

terms.

It also pays benefits we think are adequate for the needs of our State. We have a maximum fixed duration of 18 weeks of benefit payments for all people who are entitled to anything. The benefit amounts range from $6 to $18 a week. We have a 1-week waiting period. We have had no objections raised suggesting that either the weekly benefit amount or the waiting period should be changed. We do have some pressure brought to bear indicating that some groups would like a longer duration of benefit payments. You might be interested that to know that in the last session of the legislature the bill providing for the benefits that I have just outlined to you was introduced by the unemployment compensation agency and received the unanimous support of all groups in the State, including the labor group. It was passed without a dissenting vote in the legislature. I think that indicates pretty well that for our people in the State of New Hampshire our program is adequate.

We have built up over this period of 8 or 9 years another thing that I think is very fundamental; that is, a philosophy and method of making benefit payments that is not what somebody else told us was good for us. It is a development of experience with actual New Hampshire thinking and New Hampshire needs; in other words, it is what the people want.

Just as they do in all of the other States, we have appeal tribunals in New Hampshire which hear appeals if the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision that has been given by the department. I am very glad to tell you that from those appeal decisions no case has ever been appealed to our courts, which is a pretty good indication, I think, that we have evaluated pretty well the thinking of the State, both from the employer's side and the employee's side and that we are paying benefits in a method that is satisfactory to everybody concerned.

We have a reserve fund in New Hampshire amounting to $17,500,000. Recently we have been making estimates to determine as nearly

as possible how adequate that will be in the post-war period. Even with a large margin of error allowing for possible underestimates-and we think we have estimated the needs of unemployment compensation after the war very conservatively-we find that only half our funds would be expended in a 2-year period if the war ended immediately.

I suggest to you from my knowledge of other States, that if you will analyze the situation in other States you will find it to be substantially the same as it is in New Hampshire.

I think the unemployment-compensation system, such as we have in New Hampshire, does not need any assistance or any interference from any other source. It works well as it is and it ought to be left alone. If you people have a problem with Federal employees, and we have some of them in New Hampshire at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, I think it ought to be worked out in such a way that it could be handled by the State unemployment compensation division and benefits paid on a basis which would be comparable to the basis we use in our several States.

I want to thank you, sir; for the opportunity of appearing here before you on behalf of myself and also on behalf of Governor Blood of New Hampshire.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Rolfe, for your appearance here.

Mr. Herrick, I believe you were not here this morning. You are executive director of the Division of Unemployment Compensation of Kansas. We will be very glad to hear from you, Mr. Herrick.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR A. HERRICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, TOPEKA,

KANS.

Mr. HERRICK. Senator George and members of the committee, I come before this committee today as a representative of Andrew Schoeppel, Governor of Kansas.

Some time ago we received a letter from Senator Murray, which letter was sent to all unemployment-compensation agencies, in which he outlined two proposals, each of which would provide for Federal subsidies to State unemployment-compensation systems. Upon receipt of this letter it was given thorough consideration, both by those charged with the responsibility of the administration of the unemployment-compensation law of Kansas and the Governor of Kansas. We examined the proposals in both the light of the fundamental objectives and purposes of unemployment-compensation laws and in the light of the solvency of our fund, which of course determines the continuing ability of the State to meet the obligations of our unemployment-compensation law respecting the payment of benefits.

After studying the proposals from these and other standpoints, we find ourselves unable to agree that either of them should be enacted into law, and I speak now not only for myself and others connected with the administration of our law but also for the Governor of my State, in advising the members of this committee that we are unalterably opposed to these proposals or any other Federal program whereby subsidies are paid to the State by the Federal Government.