you the enclosed history of the position taken by the interstate conference over the past 11 years favoring this legislation, which I would appreciate your placing in the record of the hearings.

Yours very truly,

ARTHUR LARSON, Under Secretary of Labor.

HISTORY OF THE POSITION OF THE INTERSTATE CONFERENCE ON EXTENSION OF COVERAGE TO ONE OR MORE

1. Excerpt from the report of the subcommittee on coverage, collections, and reporting, October 19, 1943

"The Federal act as well as the laws of a number of States started with an eight or more coverage. This probably resulted from the feeling that the administrative problems involved in a coverage of one or more were such that the best course would be a more limited coverage in the initial stages of the program.

"A majority of the members of the subcommittee come from States that have a coverage of one or more, and all of the members of the committee are in agreement that problems of administration should no longer stand in the way of an extension of coverage. While all of the states have the opportunity of extending their coverage, at the present time the committee feels that the administration of unemployment compensation by the States would be facilitated by the amendment of the Unemployment Tax Act to provide for coverage of one or more It is not felt that it is necessary, at this time, to argue the social gains that might result from such action, but merely point out that extension of coverage is administratively feasible and an essential step to be taken in a sound social security program."

2. Resolution IV, adopted October 22, 1943, at seventh annual meeting

"Whereas a majority of States have extended unemployment compensation coverage to workers not included in the coverage provided by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act; and

"Whereas it has been found by actual State experience in covering workers in smaller firms that administrative problems need no longer be a barrier to such extended coverage; and

"Whereas such an extension of coverage is important in providing for postwar unemployment: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies that coverage should be thus extended by State or FederalState action."

3. Excerpt from report of resolutions committee in proceedings of ninth annual meeting, Otober 25, 1945

"The CHAIRMAN. Resolution No. VI.

"Whereas the extension of coverage to include many workers, now denied the benefits of unemployment compensation, is a necessary part of the Nation's program of social security: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the conference that since there are no longer administrative obstacles to a program of more complete coverage, that Federal legislation is favored extending coverage to certain Federal workers and that the Federal Unemployment Tax Act be amended to include employers of one or more.' "The committee unanimously recommends this resolution be rejected. "Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. I would be a little reluctant to have this vote on rejection directed for fear it might be construed we don't favor the extenuation of coverage, without it at last being said we are not reversing our past position on that. wonder if that is the sense of the resolutions committee, that the conference is definitely on record, by the past resolution, that we do favor extension of coverage by Federal or cooperative Federal-State action, and I would like, at least, to be sure we are not rescinding that by rejecting this resolution. If that explanation can be given, then I think the resolution we just passed covers the general subject very thoroughly.

I

"Mr. HAKE. Of course, the conference has gone on record extending coverage, and I don't think any of us have changed our minds.

"The question arose in the resolutions committee as to whether we were going to be specific, to try to tell the States that they should be in favor of covering Federal employees or maritime workers, or down to one or more, or whatever. That's a State matter. We have all agreed we are in favor of it, but we don't

want to pinpoint things here that there might be some disagreement on. There was no thought of reversing any stand.

"Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. As I understand it, it doesn't reflect a reversal?

"Mr. HAKE. Not in the least.

"The PRESIDENT. The resolution has been so rejected."

4. Statement of Milton O. Loysen, representing the conference at hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, June 6, 1946

"When the law was first passed, it was believed wise to exclude small firms on the ground of administrative feasibility, and the act has never been changed in that respect.

"In the poll that we took last week in the conference, all but four States replying favored an amendment to the Unemployment Tax Act, to extend unemployment compensation coverage to firms employing one or more workers at any time, exactly the coverage of the old-age and survivors insurance. Casual labor would, however, be excluded.

"This sentiment confirms resolutions passed by our conference at earlier dates. It reflects actualities, since most States now cover firms with fewer than 8 employees, and 16 States cover firms with only 1 employee. Nothing that we have observed in the 10 years of experience and which experience as I may remind you covers the end of a depression, recovery, war and postwar reconversion, nothing we have observed indicates there is any less need for unemployment protection for the man employed in the small store, than for the man engaged in a large public utility. And although not all owners of small establishments may be aware of it, their problem of obtaining adequate labor supply in competition with large-scale industry, would I think be somewhat alleviated if they provided the same social-insurance protection as large firms do.

"The States are now prepared, and administratively, to handle these additional accounts. In fact, the administrative advantages overshadow the disadvantages of handling a large number of small accounts. * * *

"It may be asked also why the States recommend amendment of the Social Security Act in this respect, when they are free to extend coverage themselves and in fact, many of them have already done it. We recommend it, and because it is our understanding that the original Federal interest was in coverage of the specified employments, and the limitation by size of firm was purely to spare the States an administrative problem, since this problem no longer exists, the Federal interests would seem to suggest repeal of a restriction for which there is no longer any need."

5. Excerpt from the minutes of the national executive committee meeting, February 13-16, 1950

"President Teets suggested four proposals that might have some chance of favorable action. These were:

"(3) Coverage of one or more. The last action on this subject placed the conference on record as favoring the extension of coverage to employers of one or

more.

"These four proposals were discussed at length by the committee. The committee recognized that it could not itself commit the conference to these proposals in their entirety as the conference legislative program, but would have to refer them to the individual States for action."

6. Excerpt from letter from President Teets to all State administrators, April 19, 1950 "With one exception, the States were unanimous in their expressed desire to join with the Bureau in getting the 'quickie bill' passed, to include:

7. Resolution IX, adopted November 1, 1951, at 15th annual meeting

*

"Resolved, That the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies affirms its support of the principles embodied in and reflected by H. R. 4133, the Employment Security Administrative Financing Act of 1951."

(Section 8 of H. R. 4133 provided that "The term 'employer' means any person who, at any time during the taxable year, has one or more individuals in employment.")

8. Excerpt from testimony of Marion Williamson, representing the conference, at hearings before the Subcommittee on Unemployment Insurance of the Committee on Ways and Means, April 2, 1952

"Enactment of H. R. 4133 would give effect to basic principles which would further strengthen and preserve the State systems. "These may be summarized as follows:

"(6) Redefine the term 'employer' to cover, under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, employers of one or more."

9. Excerpt from testimony of Bernard E. Teets, representing the conference, at hearings before the Subcommittee on Unemployment Insurance of the Committee on Ways and Means, April. 2, 1952

"*** the interstate conference feels that the lowering of coverage from eight or more to one or more is long past due. *** Congress has taken no action with regard to covering 31⁄2 million workers who have never had any coverage, workers who are subject to the same hazards of unemployment as all other workers, and it seems to me that there is a field in which Congress can well take some action."

10. Resolution II, adopted September 17, 1952, at 16th annual meeting

"Resolved, That the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies affirm its support of the principles embodied in and reflected by H. R. 4133, the Employment Security Administrative Financing Act of 1951; and be it further "Resolved, That it is the sense of this conference that securing favorable action on such a bill is to be the primary objective of the conference officers during the 1952-53 conference year."

11. Excerpt from first report of the 1953–54 legislative committee, May 14, 1954

"The following resolution was passed unanimously and referred to the conference president with the recommendation that positions indicated be presented as those of the conference to the House Ways and Means Committee at its hearings on the bill, H. R. 8857:

66 6

'Resolved, That (1) The provision of H. R. 8857 which would reduce employment covered under the Federal Act from 8 or more in 20 weeks to 1 or more at any time be amended so as to strike out "at any time," making the reduction, then, from 8 or more in 20 weeks to 1 or more in 20 weeks; provided that this reduction, amended as recommended above, is clearly recognized to be only a modification of an existing and already accepted Federal standard and not the creation in any sense of a new Federal standard in an area hitherto reserved to State discretion.'