One of the most important issues before the Senate is the subject of unemployment compensation. Whether we are in a recession, a bottom, or a depression the plain fact is that 7½ percent of our working force is today unemployed, and every day brings additional hardships. In some areas of Massachusetts almost one out of every five workers are unemployed through no fault of their own, and this figure is still growing. The closing of the Berkshire Hathaway plants in Adams, which was recently announced, add to the 17 percent unemployment in that area an additional 1,000 persons.
This calls for direct and immediate action. One partial solution would be to channel defense contracts into this area. There is already in existence a procedure to do this, and I have repeatedly called attention to it and urged that it be used. So far, however, all I have gotten is reports showing a "business as usual" philosophy in a situation which demands prompt and immediate action. Although the Department of Defense has shown some concern with the problem, I have, quite frankly, been disappointed with the results. For instance, Adams and North Adams, which was officially listed as an "area of substantial labor surplus," has had a total of $49,000 in contracts awarded between July 1957 and the end of March, 1958. At least as much would have been awarded even if it had not been designated an "area of substantial labor surplus."
A second, at least partial solution to the economic problems faced by the unemployed would be the enactment of a satisfactory unemployment compensation law. The Senate Finance Committee opens hearings upon this next Tuesday.
One approach is contained in S. 3244, which I have introduced with 17 co-sponsors, Messrs. Clark, McNamara, Mansfield, Murray, Proxmire, Douglas, Green, Neuberger, Humphrey, Morse, Jackson, Carroll, Chavez, Payne, Pastore, Kefauver, and Magnuson.
The other approach is contained in H.R. 12065, passed by the other body and popularly known as the Administration's Bill. I cannot understand this label; I cannot understand why the White House embraces this emasculated measure as its own. I cannot understand why the minority leader considers this bill, as passed by the House, as representing the Administration’s program.
The Original Administration Bill offered a weak, ineffective solution to the present shortcomings of unemployment insurance. H.R. 12065 offers no solution whatsoever. Any resemblance between the two is one of form, not substance.
The Senate cannot fulfill its responsibility to the more than 5 million unemployed, their families and their communities, by approving this palpable fraud – a meaningless bill that offers only the pretense of concern and actual help.
Let us look briefly at the provisions of H.R. 12065, and ask ourselves why it is considered to be the Administration’s bill.
—The President in his message asked Congress for a bill extending benefits in each state for a flat 50 percent of the existing benefit period, so that where 26 weeks is the existing standard, it would during the emergency become 39 weeks. Where 6 weeks is the standard, it would become 9 weeks. But under H.R. 12065, this minimum has become a maximum, the standard is gone. A participating state may extend the benefit period for any length it desires – 1 day or 1 week, 5 percent or 20 percent – as long as it does not extend it more than 50 percent. This is a complete distortion of the President’s proposal. I fail to understand how he can take such satisfaction in the House action.
—The President in his message asked Congress for a supplemental program in which each state would automatically participate. Unemployed workers in even these states reluctant or constitutionally unable to enter into agreements would receive Federal supplementary benefits for the emergency. But under H.R. 12065, only those states so requesting can participate. Some may have no wish to accept this plan, with its harsh repayment provisions, even though their workers are in desperate need. Others may be prohibited by their constitutions from participating. But even in those states willing and able to receive Federal benefits and repay them later, will the Governor or Employment Security Administration take such a step – obligating the revenues of his state or its employers, to repay funds accepted for benefits not now granted by state law – without prior legislative approval? How many legislatures are now meeting to consider such a request? How many, if they are meeting, or can be summoned, will approve it, considering how little it offers on such harsh terms? And if the legislatures must meet and act, what time are we saving by rushing this through instead of permanent standards – why cannot most legislatures just as easily extend their own time period and use the funds now frozen in the state unemployment reserves? If that reserve is too low, the Reed Loan Fund enacted in 1954 is already available for exactly this kind of loan. In short, what have we in the Congress accomplished by passing a bill that permits each state legislature, if it so wishes, to use its own money or credit to extend the benefit period by anywhere from 1 – 50 percent – all of which it can do now anyway? This is hardly the original Eisenhower proposal.
—The President has long urged Congress to extend coverage to shops of one or more employees (instead of 4 or more under the present law). This bill does nothing about that request.
—The President has in the past favored the concept of a uniform duration period. This bill abandons that concept.
—The President has long urged improving permanent state standards for benefit levels (a minimum of one-half the worker’s wage, up to a maximum of two-third the average state wage), benefit periods and eligibility requirements. This bill ignores those problems and discourages action on them by the states.
In short, this so-called Eisenhower program is neither Mr. Eisenhower’s nor a program. Unlike S. 3244, the Kennedy Bill, it does absolutely nothing for the unemployed workers today who
—receive no benefits due to no coverage;
—receive no benefits due to unreasonable disqualification;
—receive a benefit so small their families cannot subsist on it; and
—practically nothing for those who have exhausted their benefit rights. For even if their states participate, which is doubtful, the increase in their benefit period is not only uncertain but strictly limited. Workers now eligible for only a 6-week period could at most receive another 3 weeks – workers now eligible for 26 weeks could receive another 13 weeks, but, in the state’s discretion, they could receive any lesser amount down to 1 day!)
That is why, Mr. President, I consider the bill wholly ineffective – and why I intend to give the Senate an opportunity to vote on some effective alternatives.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 901, "Unemployment compensation, Senate floor, 8 May 1958." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.