SEC. 2. That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Member of the congressional delegation from North Carolina. SEC. 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its ratification. In the general assembly read three times and ratified, this the April, 1959. (The following material was filed with the committee:) Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. day of Tallahassee, April 10, 1959. DEAR MR. MILLS: I am enclosing copy of statement issued by the Governors attending the conference with President Eisenhower on the question of Federal law setting minimum standards for unemployment compensation insurance benefits. As is set forth in the statement, the views expressed are of the individual Governors signing and does not purport to be official action of the National Governors' Conference. With kind regards, I am LEROY COLLINS, Governor. (Following their meeting with the President, the Governors met and unanimously adopted the following statement :) The executive committee of the Governors' conference appreciate the President's invitation to meet with him to discuss the subject of unemployment compensation. In this matter, the executive committee is not authorized to speak for members of the conference not present. This expression therefore is a consensus of the views of the individual participating Governors. We believe that the States should exercise their responsibility in this field consistent with their respective needs without imposition of Federal standards, governing eligibility, duration, or the amount of benefits. We favor adequate Federal advances to meet emergencies where the problems of unemployment are beyond the ability of the affected State governments. The discretion now vested in the States to set eligibility, weekly benefit amounts, and duration of benefits is fundamentally sound and should be preserved. This is demonstrated by marked improvements in State laws in recent years. Unemployment insurance deals primarily with short-term unemployment and its purpose is to tide workers over between jobs. Rapid acceleration of technological improvements and resultant increase in productivity plus the normal increase in the size of our labor force require the expansion of private enterprise and long-range State and Federal planning of public works and resources development. Gov. LeRoy Collins, Florida, Chairman; Gov. William G. Stratton, (Gov. Robert B. Meyner, New Jersey, was not present.) ATLANTA, GA., April 15, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, I am seriously opposed to the provisions of H.R. 3547, which would force State unemployment compensation laws to conform to arbitrary miscellaneous Federal standards, and I am equally opposed to the implications of the Federal control over State functions which this bill invoices. I am firmly convinced that the individual States are fully qualified to deal with the unemployment compensation programs, and that they better than the Federal Government are equipped to determine, and to fill the needs in their respective areas. The Georgia unemployment compensation program has been well administered, well financed and well managed, and I respectfully urge that Congress not attempt to federalize this program by establishing Federal standards and restrictions to deal with economic conditions that vary so widely among the several States. S. ERNEST VANDIVER, Governor, Georgia. RALEIGH, N.C., April 10, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, In view of the current interest in the hearings now being conducted by your committee, I would like to state North Carolina's position with reference to Federal standards embodied in H.R. 3547. The general assembly of North Carolina has today passed a joint resolution which states in part "that the General Assembly of North Carolina hereby opposes legislation which would establish Federal minimum benefits standards and which would compel the States to take similar action, thus depriving the legislature of North Carolina of its rightful authority in such matters." I have consistently opposed this type of unwise legislation and wish to express my opposition to H.R. 3547. In my biennial message to the general assembly, I said, in part, "I do not think that the employment security program should be administered from Washington. I do believe that the States should always have a sound and adequate program of unemployment insurance benefits. In my opinion, the States should take the lead in this matter and should do whatever is necessary to cope adequately with periods of prolonged unemployment such as that experienced during 1958." Hon. WILBUR MILLS, LUTHER H. HODGES, Governor of North Carolina. COLUMBUS, OHIO, March 26, 1959. Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, We are firmly of the opinion that minimum standards governing benefit provision 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 one-half 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, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, Hon. AIME J. FORAND, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, Providence, April 22, 1959. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FORAND: The purpose of this letter to you, as a ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, is to communicate to you my endorsement of the objectives embodied in proposals which, through Federal standards, would bring about a degree of uniformity and liberality in the unemployment compensation programs of the States. I am hopeful that, drawing upon your own intimate knowledge of the economic picture in Rhode Island, you will also have an opportunity to discuss my position in this matter with your colleagues on the committee. I share the widely held view that at present the State programs generally do not afford workers with sufficient protection against the ills of unemployment. If an unemployed worker's existence is to remain supportable and dignified through unemployment insurance, the benefits of the program must be in sufficient amount and for a sufficient period of time to hold the hardships of involuntary idleness to an irreducible practical minimum. It must, however, be acknowledged that such a program is bound to be expensive. And, it is financial considerations which have impeded the efforts of the States to construct ideal programs. As you are aware, this has particular application to the situation in our State. Only recently the Rhode Island law was amended and, although improvements were made, our program still falls far short of the public expectations. However, it is clearly apparent that unilateral action in Rhode Island to liberalize unemployment compensation further would cause economic dislocation of such dimensions that the net effect of the action would be to harm our State. The imposition of further financial burdens upon our employers at this time is out of the question. It would obstruct our now promising efforts to inject new vigor into our economy. We are now engaged in an all-out effort to attract new industries. We are encouraging plant modernization and product diversification in our present industries. Our goal is more job opportunities, with a more stable, year-round employment pattern. These efforts have already produced heartening results and our industrial structure now has a broader and better balanced foundation than in the past. It remains for us now to build upon this foundation. We are hopeful of the future. But for the present we must continue to be concerned over the state of our unemployment insurance program. When all sides of the problem are examined, one fact stands out in bold relief. If we are to make further improvement in Rhode Island, if we are to offer our workers the protection they deserve, Federal financial assistance must be forthcoming. This appears to be true in a growing number of other States. For the reasons cited above, we are hopeful that the committee will initiate action which will assure Federal support to the State unemployment insurance programs. With best wishes, CHRISTOPHER DEL SESTO, Governor. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: WATERBURY, CONN., April 15, 1959. The city of Waterbury, Conn., is suffering from long-run unemployment, and has only very moderately shown any signs of recovering from the recession. The problem of unemployment is still very much with us. I urge Congress to establish Federal standards for unemployment compensation as outlined in Karsten-Machrowicz bill. It is one way Congress can help us on the road to economic recovery. RAYMOND E. SNYDER, Mayor, City of Waterbury, Conn. APRIL 15, 1959. Hon. WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: In supplement to my telegram of April 15, 1959, indicating that extenuating circumstances prevented my appearance before your committee concerning the Karsten-Machrowicz bill (H.R. 3547), which provides for Federal standards for unemployment compensation, I am submitting the following statement for inclusion in the printed hearings and respectfully request that the enclosed 60 copies be made available to committee members and the interested legislative and executive department staffs. The additional copies are for the convenience of the chief counsel, Mr. Leo H. Irwin, for distribution to the press and interested public. STATEMENT As chief executive of the city of Torrington, Conn., I am deeply concerned with, and in support of, legislation at both levels: (a) At the State level in order to raise Connecticut's benefits to the minimum standards proposed by President Eisenhower et al.; and (b) at the Federal level in order to put an effective floor under the unemployment compensation program throughout the country. WHY WE NEED THIS BILL FOR CONNECTICUT 1. Measured against the standards of H.R. 3547, Connecticut falls short on all three counts: (a) Average benefit measured against average weekly earnings in 1958 was 38.6 percent-the bill provides a minimum of 50 percent. (b) Average duration of benefit in 1958 was 22.8 weeks-the bill provides a potential duration of 39 weeks. (c) Coverage in Connecticut is compulsory for an employer hiring three or more employees-the bill provides coverage for one or more. 2. In all States, experience rating, now imposed by Federal enactment, has served as an incentive for the introduction of harsh and capricious eligibility and disqualification clauses. This bill would permit all States to develop alternative financial arrangements. Some of the States attempting to meet the unemployment compensation needs themselves have been pushed to the verge of insolvency. They need reinsurance grants that would be provided by this measure. In other States, competition for industry has kept benefits and tax rates down. Federal benefits standards would end competition in unemployment taxes among the States. WHY WE NEED THE KARSTEN-MACHROWICZ BILL FOR TORRINGTON 1. The Torrington labor market, in the northwest corner of Connecticut, includes the towns of Torrington, Litchfield, Harwinton, Burlington, Morris, New Hartford, Goshen, Cornwall, Sharon, Salisbury, North Canaan, Canaan, Norfolk, Colebrook, Hartland, Barkhamsted, and Winchester. We first felt the effect of the recession in this labor market area in December of 1957, when unemployment rose to 8.2 percent of the total labor force. Since January of 1958, unemployment has never fallen below 10 percent, with the exception of 2 months. The number of unemployed in March 1959 was 11.2 percent of the labor force, or roughly 3,000 persons (total labor market: 26,700). 2. Those who have exhausted their unemployment compensation benefit rights in Torrington during 1958 totaled 1,530 (770 men and 760 women). This exhausted figure represents 9.4 percent of the total number of workers covered under unemployment compensation in our labor market area. During the first quarter of 1959, 478 claimants exhausted their benefit rights. 3. At the same time that unemployment and exhaustions were maintaining record highs, total factory jobs were declining from 10,880 in October of 1957 to 9,800 in March of 1959. The population of the area increased by 1,000 over the same period of time (72,200 to 73,200). 4. It is apparent from the above that Torrington is suffering from long-run unemployment, and has not recovered from the recession to any appreciable degree. A multipronged attack is necessary to relieve the problem in Torrington and in other areas similarly distressed. The establishment of Federal standards for unemployment compensation represents one important step which the Congress can take to help us on the road to economic recovery. May Residents of Torrington were pleased to learn that 15 State Governors have joined in supporting this bill, including our own Gov. Abraham A. Ribicoff. I add my own support as mayor of Torrington for this vital measure. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the need and the urgency of a favorable report by the Ways and Means Committee, thereby providing for the hope and means of coping with the economic hardship directly related to chronic unemployment. It is the desire of the mayor's office to be of assistance to you in any possible way and if further information would be helpful, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, ANTHONY C. GELORMINO, Mayor. WHY DO WE NEED THE KARSTEN-MACHROWICZ BILL IN BRIDGEPORT? 1. The Bridgeport labor market includes the towns and cities of Bridgeport, Stratford, Milford, Fairfield, Trumbull, Monroe, and Easton. We first felt the effect of the recession in this labor market area in November of 1957, when unemployment rose to 6.1 percent of the total labor force. Since January of 1958, unemployment has never fallen below 9.3 percent. The average for all of 1958 was 10.9 percent. The number of unemployed in March 1959 was 9.6 percent of the labor force, or roughly 13,500 persons (total labor market in March 1959: 140,600). The Bridgeport area has suffered from curtailments in the machinery, aircraft, and electrical equipment industries. A number of plant closings have also left deep marks on the area. 2. Those who exhausted their unemployment compensation benefit rights in Bridgeport during 1958 totaled 9,560 (5,640 men and 3,920 women). This exhaustee figure represents. 9.8 percent of the total number of workers covered under unemployment compensation in our labor market area. During the first quarter of 1959, 2,648 claimants exhausted their benefit rights. 3. At the same time that unemployment and exhaustions were maintaining record highs, total factory jobs were declining from 69,360 in October of 1957 to 61,270 in March of 1959. The population of the area increased by 8,600 over the same period of time (307,700 to 316,300). 4. It is apparent from the above that Bridgeport is suffering from long-run unemployment; there is little indication of any marked recovery from the lows of the recession period. A multipronged attack is necessary to relieve the problem in Bridgeport and in other areas similarly distressed. The establishment of Federal standards for unemployment compensation represents one important step which the Congress can take to help us on the road to economic recovery. Residents of Bridgeport were pleased to learn that 15 State Governors have joined in supporting this bill, including our own Gov. Abraham A. Ribicoff. May I add my own support as mayor of the city of Bridgeport for this vital DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: The House Ways and Means Committee is currently holding hearings on legislation relating to Federal standards for unemployment compensation. The House version is H.R. 3547, and the Senate version is S. 791. I want to file this statement with your committee in support of |