Comparison of various bills to amend the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act (supplement to include S. 2987) Maximum weekly benefit amount.. Duration.. Successive claims for 2 benefit years without intervening employment. Disqualifications. Voluntary retirees. Voluntary contributions.. Amendment reducing rate requirements.. Qualifying provisions... Yes. Reduces the reserve ratio requirements in some steps Crediting of interest, which is received from Contains a formula for the crediting of the entire interest the Treasury, to employer accounts. Estimated annual cost.. received from the Treasury to the accounts of all employers having a positive reserve. This provision differs from that of the present law in that each employer account now receives only that interest actually earned by it without regard to interest earned by out of business accounts. $815,000. Senator MORSE. (5) An explanatory chart entitled. "Common Definitions in the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act" prepared by the D.C. Unemployment Compensation Board. (The chart referred to follows:) COMMON DEFINITIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT Benefit year section 1(h)-means the 52 consecutive-week period beginning with the first day of the first week with respect to which the individual first files a valid claim for benefits. Base period-section 1(f)-means the first four out of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the first day of the individual's benefit 2བ་ ཐའ་ 1 qt 2 qt 3 qt 4 qt 1 qt 2 qt 3 qt 4 qt 1 qt 2 qt 3 qt 4 qt 1 qt 2 qt 3 qt 4 qt t 2 at 3 Base period (4 qtrs.) Claim filed: Feb. 10, 1960. Benefit year Benefit year: Feb. 7, 1960, through Feb. 4, 1961. Base period: Fourth quarter of 1958 and first three quarters of 1959. Senator MORSE. Now, may I make a very brief comment on another table that I am going to insert in the record entitled, "Comparative Provisions of S. 3493, 85th Congress, and S. 1074, 86th Congress.' S. 2393, introduced on March 14, 1958. It was reported with amendments by the committee May 27, 1958, Senate Report No. 1639, it passed the Senate August 1, 1958, and was referred to the House District Committee on August 4, 1958. (The document referred to follows:) Comparative provisions of S. 3493, 85th Cong. and S. 1074, 86th Cong. [S. 3493, introduced by Senator Morse on Mar. 14, 1958, was reported with amendments by the committee, May 27, 1958, S. Rept. No. 1639, passed the Senate Aug. 1, 1958, and was referred to the House District Committee on Aug. 4, 1958] 1 One twenty-third of $100 a week salary times 13 weeks in quarter equals $56.51 weekly benefit under S. 1074. Senator MORSE. I think everyone participating in these hearings knows full well that undoubtedly the final report of the subcommittee and the final report of the full committee will represent conscionable compromises of the various bills before the committee. That is the nature of the legislative process, and that is the way a parliamentary body of a free people works. Therefore, I want everyone participating in these hearings to know that this chairman is constantly going to be considering, as the hearings progress, and as he studies the record, the basis for fair, conscionable compromises of the differences that exist between and among us. I certainly would be less than honest if I didn't make the point clear at the very beginning of these hearings, so that all witnesses will have it in mind if they think they have some evidence that would justify a change of my opinion, that I would not find myself, as of this morning, of the opinion that I would favor anything less than the compromise bill, S. 3493, which was passed in the Senate on August 1, 1958. I note that some of the bills before the committee that the witnesses will testify on this morning will provide in some respects for less than the maximum weekly benefit of S. 3493, less than the duration of benefits of S. 3493, and more than the disqualification period of S. 3493. As far as I am concerned, the burden of proof is upon such witnesses to show me any good reason why I should agree to anything less than I agreed to in 1958, particularly in view of the increases in cost of living since 1958. I believe in always dealing with all my cards above the table, so to speak, in hearings of this type. On the other hand, I have demonstrated in 16 years in the Senate that my mind can be changed in 15 minutes if somebody can present to me evidence that shows me a previously held opinion is a mistaken one. I want to say that the attitude of the chairman, as we start these hearings, is one in support of the bill that he introduced this year, and certainly one that does not incline him to support anything less than he was willing to accept as a compromise in August 1958. Now, it should be pointed out that the compromise of August 1, 1958 that passed the Senate provided a maximum weekly benefit of $48 a week. It provided a duration of benefits of 34 weeks. It provided a disqualification of a uniform 6 weeks, which is the position taken by the Bureau of the Budget at the present time whose statement the chairman has just previously read into the record. The bill S. 1074, which I have introduced this year, provides for a 66% average wage formula up to a maximum of $69 a week, or one twenty-third of the highest quarter earnings, whichever is lesser. I find that some people already have missed that point in their consideration of my bill. One twenty-third of $100 a week salary on the basis of 13 weeks in a quarter would be $56.51 weekly benefit rather than $69. Therefore it would be a mistake, it seems to me, for those testifying on my bill to proceed with the assumption that $69 a week would be the fixed amount under this formula. On the basis of $100 a week salary, the top figure would be $56.51, and for a less salary correspondingly less. My bill this year provides for a 39-week duration of benefit as compared with the compromise bill of 34 weeks. My bill again this year incorporates a 6-week uniform disqualification provision, which I think is very important, and I am frank to say that it would take some argument to convince me that this provision ought to be modified. Also, I want to point out that in the bill this year I have a stepback provision which was included in the compromise bill of 1958, and the table that I will now insert in the record sets forth the facts about the step-back provision feature. (The table referred to follows:) Present Law-Unlimited 1 S-2407-2 Steps kizada Present Law Commissioner's 101809 S-1074 & Commissioner's-1 Step from $1 to $35, 8201 S-2407 1209 9S-1074 Uin 2 Steps from $36 to $70 Maximum under present law Maximum under S-2407 essessssseMaximum under Comissioner's (S-2988) Maximum under S-1074 ...Maximum under S-2987 Senator MORSE. On the basis of the information given to the committee, the cost of the 1958 bill, it was estimated, would have been $2 million. The estimated cost of S. 1074 this year is either $2,500,000 or $2,675,000. The latter being the Commissioners' estimate based on the application to the 1957 load. I also will insert in the record at this point the statement that I made in the Senate on February 16 when I introduced S. 1074. (The statement referred to follows:) [From the Congressional Record, Feb. 16, 1959] AMENDMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 1935, AS AMENDED Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to amend the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act of 1935, as amended. The bill I propose is the same as the bill which passed the Senate in the 84th Congress. In the 85th Congress, the Senate also passed an Unemployment Compensation Act change which provided for less in the way of benefits than does the proposed legislation. Since the House of Representatives declined to accept the modified version of the bill passed by the Senate in the 85th Congress, I feel, as do the proponents of the proposed legislation, that the Senate should again give consideration to the sounder concepts of unemployment compensation administration contained in the earlier measure. Mr. President, the major provisions of the bill 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 percentage– 67 percent of the average wage of all workers covered by the existing District unemployment compensation law, as well as that of Federal employees who are covered by other legislation, 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 tweny-third of his wages in a calender 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed at this point in my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill will be printed in the Record. The bill (S. 1074) to amend the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act of 1935, as amended, introduced by Mr. Morse, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 7(b) of the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act, approved August 28, 1935 (49 Stat. 946), as |