Secretary WIRTZ. Well, in absolute terms I don't suppose. In relative terms, yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. The relationship to the cost of living.

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Senator HARTKE. That is what I am speaking about. In other words, in relation to the cost of living, of how he has to live and his general standard of living, he suffers greater now than he did during the time when we first experimented with this program.

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, I think so.

Senator DOUGLAS. Assuming no more reserves.

Senator HARTKE. That is right.

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes.

Senator HARTKE. If he had reserves that is good, that is fine.
Senator DOUGLAS. Yes.

Senator HARTKE. But, that is not due to the law.

Senator DOUGLAS. That is right.

Senator HARTKE. The law has just failed to keep pace. This is what I am trying to bring out. I would like to point out that Mr. Martin Gronvold-I don't know who he is, I have never met the gentleman-Unemployment Compensation Division of North Dakota, points out that although something is done along the line, and that their State has taken steps, they are not lagging behind in benefits, and unless there is some type of overall approach to making some uniformity throughout the Nation, that they will have to cut back.

Secretary WIRTZ. That is right.

Senator HARTKE. In other words, unless something is done along the lines which are being suggested here today, of a material benefit to raise the actual percentage of benefits which are received, the amount of the benefits received, then those States which have been progressive enough to try to meet this problem on a local level will find that in order to be competitive with other States they are going to have to turn the clock back.

Secretary WIRTZ. That is still right, and this is why, Senator, we are just so hopeful that there won't be just some easy settling on H.R. 15119, because if there is, it will leave out all that you are talking about here.

Senator HARTKE. Then I would like to come back to the difference in the duration proposal, and I was hoping that the Senator from Delaware would have stayed, because I wanted to take that quotation which is made by Mr. Rosbrow of the Delaware Employment Commission, and he testified that:

We in Delaware have had our share of casualties due to technological change. Garment plants, paper equipment manufacturing, a steel fabricating plant, iron works, in our generally prosperous State. The toll, not men in between jobs, but men in new occupations and new opportunities to utilize skills required and sharpened over decades of conscientious effort. Neither the State of Delaware nor its employers—

And I think this is an important factor

Neither the State of Delaware nor its employers are responsible for the changes of this nature.

This is a factor which we must take into consideration.

We believe it appropriate that unemployment of this type extend beyond 26 weeks. The Government of the United States should step in to meet some of the cost of a national phenomenon.

I wanted to get that statement in this testimony early before we go off into those other tangents.

Is there at the present time a tendency on the part of the States to be fearful that their funds may become insolvent, and, therefore, that they hesitate, and frequently say that "We do not want to increase the benefits too much because of the danger of insolvency"? Have you run into this at all?

Secretary WIRTZ. Is there a hesitancy on the part of the States to improve their provisions?

Senator HARTKE. Improve their provisions for the benefits.

Secretary WIRTZ. Well, there is that, but there is another very strong factor involved, too, and that is the pressures in that direction that come from employers because of the experience rating system. Now, we don't mean to go into that here.

Senator HARTKE. I understand that.

Secretary WIRTZ. But, it is certainly a realistic part of the answer to your question, and if the broad question, Mr. Chairman, is whether there is timidity, a tendency to draw back, a tendency not to keep pace with a developing economy as far as the State administration of these systems is concerned, you will know that my feeling is that there is.

Senator DOUGLAS. Will the Chair permit me to break in again. This was one of the grievances which some of us saw in the Labor Department bill back in 1935. By providing for merit rating you gave a financial incentive to the employers to try to keep the benefits down, not merely on individual cases, but on the scale of benefits. As I say, I congratulate the Department of Labor for being able to learn over the span of 30 years. You have learned much more quickly, Mr. Secretary.

As I say, a lot of this trouble could have been avoided if the experts of the Department of Labor had thought this problem out in 1935 instead of adopting the idea that unemployment was the fault of the employer. That if you just penalize him for it, he would eliminate unemployment as it was said he would reduce accidents.

Accidents are only partially under the control of the employer. They are under the control of the employer only to a very limited degree.

You will forgive me if I raise these points. I don't want to be put in the position of point scoring, but I have waited 31 years to say this. Secretary WIRTZ. I want to be clear in my answer, Mr. Chairman, that I don't mean to reopen the question of going into experience rating further.

Senator HARTKE. I understand.

Secretary WIRTZ. We subscribe to the House approach to that entirely, but your question is whether there are forces committed, or whatever you want to call them, as far as the State administration is concerned that is part of the answer.

Senator DOUGLAS. I would agree that this is part of life.

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. That the experience rating is embedded and you can't change it.

Secretary WIRTZ. Sure.

Senator DOUGLAS. But it results in powerful pressures being exerted to keep the scale of benefits down. I commend the Senator from Indiana for bringing this point out.

65-992-66- -8

Senator HARTKE. Thank you. I don't have 31 years of experience to look back to, to point to, but I want to say that I am glad that the Senator from Illinois is now able to say, "I told you so."

Mr. Secretary, we have taken a long time, and I want to thank you for coming. I would hope-and I say this on my own behalf—that you will make sure that as we proceed through the testimony, you would at least have some of your competent staff present so that in the event there are any questions which can be answered by your staff, we will have them available.

Secretary WIRTZ. They will be here at all times, Mr. Chairman, and there will be somebody here with full authority to speak for the Department, so if at any point the committee wants to raise a question, it will be covered.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has been most gracious and I regret that I have not been here during the major portion of the hearing.

With your permission, I would like to ask one final question, if I may. It is this. My experience goes back not 31 years, but 46 years, because in 1921 I started advocating unemployment compensation. Secretary WIRTZ. That is right.

Senator DOUGLAS. Which was called unemployment insurance. We had quite a time for 15 years trying to get it on the books. I want it to have complete success. Now, this refers to the practical definition of unemployment. I have always believed that unemployment is where a man was able to work, is willing to work, is seeking work, but unable to find suitable employment. These were the true cases of unemployment.

Now, I was always aware that there is a possibility that some would not really seek employment, and there was danger of an overrigid definition of what was suitable employment.

I would like to ask you this. Do you find the tendency for men who are unemployed, particularly single men, or people who are careless of their family responsibilities, to content themselves with merely registering as unemployed at the employment office, but not really seeking employment, except as the employment office may refer them to jobs? In other words, is there a tendency for a man to register and then passively submit, and is there a tendency for the public employment offices, either through failure of industry to refer jobs to them, to content themselves with paying out benefits without actually really hunting for jobs for the people?

Secretary WIRTZ. Two answers, Senator. If the question relates to the overall statistics, which I think it does not, but which I want to include in the answer to make it complete, there are more people today outside the unemployment figures than the Nation realizes at all because they are not looking for work.

Our question each month is "Are you looking for work and can't find it?" And so the unemployment statistics leave out some place between 400,000 and 1 million people who aren't trying hard enough. We leave them out in our statistical approach. But, I don't believe that was your question.

Senator DOUGLAS. No. The question was whether people drawing benefits are not really seeking employment.

Secretary WIRTZ. We think that there is room for improvement as far as the administration of this program is concerned. That is the

reason S. 1991 and the House bill do include the provision for additional training.

Senator DOUGLAS. Can they be denied unemployment benefits if they refuse to take additional training?

Secretary WIRTZ. Well, additional training? No; not under H.R. 15119. Under our proposal, under the S. 1991 proposal and under the proposal we now make to you, they could be denied the extended benefits. (See Sec. 204 (b) of "Amendments Recommended by the Labor Department to H.R. 15119," p. 61.)

Senator DOUGLAS. I think that is all right. The original benefits you say covers a right.

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Senator DOUGLAS. But the extended benefits will come upon the condition of trying to prepare themselves for other jobs.

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. Now, are you going to enforce that, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes; certainly as far as the extended benefits are concerned we want to do everything we can to move these claimants back into employment. We contemplate Employment Service counseling of these long term unemployed and their referral to training where it is appropriate. (Note: Under the Administration's bill as introduced, S. 1991, extended benefits could be denied for refusal to accept training without good cause, as well as under the amendments of H.R. 15119 the Department of Labor has recommended. See p. 61.) Beyond that the idea of training of the State administrative people would help meet this kind of need.

Senator DOUGLAS. I was not here. Is one of your staff in charge of the Employment Service, one of the men who accompanies you? Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, Mr. Cassell is not here, the head of our Employment Service, but the Manpower Administrator is and the Administrator of Employment Security.

Senator DOUGLAS. This is terribly important. I have been out of touch with developments for 25 years really, but as I go over the country, I pick up a great many complaints which are not purely prejudicial, that the Employment Service is not hunting for jobs very hard, and that the preparation of the unemployed for jobs is not very good.

Secretary WIRTZ. Well, there is a problem. That is part of the reason, really it is a large part of the reason, that lies behind our pressing at the current point for an Employment Service bill. The Wagner-Peyser Act, you know, has never been amended.

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes.

Secretary WIRTZ. Just as this one has not been. We have presently before the Congress the amendments to that bill, which reflect the kind of concern that you are talking about. Now it gets into the manpower development training

Senator DOUGLAS. Is that in this bill or is it a separate bill?
Secretary WIRTZ. It is a separate bill. What is that number?
Mr. NORWOOD. S. 2974.

Secretary WIRTZ. S. 2974.

Senator DOUGLAS. That is before the Labor Committee?

Secretary WIRTZ. That was before the Labor Committee. It has already passed the Senate.

Senator DOUGLAS. Couldn't it be brought before this committee so fas as extended benefits are concerned? Couldn't it be an amendment to the extended benefits feature of the bill? This section of the bill deals with extended benefits.

Secretary WIRTZ. It has been passed by the Senate and it is now before the House.

Senator DOUGLAS. Very good. Well, I think this is crucial. Secretary WIRTZ. It is, and the answer to the general attacks on the unemployment insurance system, and there have been a number of them, the answers to them very often lie in the better administration of that rule of availability and these related matters.

Senator DOUGLAS. We have kept you much too long.
Secretary WIRTZ. No; to the contrary.

Senator DOUGLAS. I used to review the decisions of the English referees in these cases, the definition of suitable employment, leaving employment without just cause, and so forth. There is always a tendency for a great softening of the rulings over time. This is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and is in the hands of the States?

Secretary WIRTZ. No, I don't count it that, Senator.

Senator DOUGLAS. You don't?

Secretary WIRTZ. I think it is part of our responsibility to see that those practices are as exemplary as possible.

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you have any control through control over

the administration funds?

Secretary WIRTZ. Control is the wrong word. We are working together on it. Part of the reasons for the training provisions in the bill here is that

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you have any teeth that you can use?

Secretary WIRTZ. I don't know how to answer that question Senator. The relationship is better than it used to be. I don't think it is as good as it should be. I don't think the answer lies in teeth or control. I think it lies in improved coordination. I don't know what the right words are.

Senator DOUGLAS. You are a very gentle man, Mr. Secretary.

Senator HARTKE. What the Senator from Illinois is referring to is what I think I was referring to a moment ago, and that is the so-called way of life.

Secretary WIRTZ. Sure.

Senator HARTKE. That you live with unemployment compensation. I think the same problem exists in the administration of our welfare departments, and although personally I am a great advocate of both of these programs, I find it very difficult to sometimes get enthused about a continuation of a program which doesn't try to alleviate the condition and really takes it as a matter of trying to say, well, these people are not entitled to money, but we are just going to give it to them because the Federal Government has got a lot of money anyway and we might as well take it away from them, never knowing where it is coming from.

Secretary WIRTZ. Anything that was put into this bill to make clearer the importance of the availability for work requirement would in our judgment represent an improvement in it.

Senator HARTKE. Let me ask what was the name of that bill you said passed the Senate, the number.