Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 9709, a bill to extend and improve the unemployment compensation program, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means and except that it shall be in order for any member of the Committee on Ways and Means to offer either or both of the proposed amendments printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of July 7, 1954, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order consideration by the House of the bill, H. R. 9709, and provides for 3 hours of general debate. It is a closed rule. It permits amendments to be offered by the committee, and also two specific amendments which were printed in the RECORD yesterday. Points of order of order are waived. The bill, H. R. 9709, is one which will improve and bring up to date, and to maturity, the unemployment insurance program of this country, which has not been substantially changed or improved in the past 20 years. The main changes or improvements in that program are as follows: In the first place, it would extend coverage to employers of 4 or more people in any 20 weeks, whereas under the present law it covers only employers of 8 or more within 20 weeks. This would add 1.3 million people to the coverage under this program. The second change is that substantially all Federal civilian employees are covered in under the unemployment insurance program. Third, this bill would extend the merit rating provision benefits to employees based upon a 1-year experience, whereas under the present law it is required that they have 3 years of experience before they are entitled to reductions under the they are entitled to reductions under the program. Finally, the quarterly installment provision in the law has been eliminated. The department has found that some 85 percent of the people never took advantage of the quarterly installment provision in any event, and it added considerable or would add under this program considerably to the cost of the administration of the program. That has therefore been eliminated. This bill was reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, as I understand it, with one dissenting vote. It was based upon the arrangement that at the close of the 3 hours general debate the Members of the House would be given an opportunity to vote on these two specific amendments which have been been printed in the RECORD and which, I understand, will be offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. FORAND]. Those two amendments, which were not agreed to by the Committee on Ways and Means, if adopted, would for the first time put the Federal Government in the position of dictating to the States the amounts they are to pay in benefits under this program and the number of weeks these benefits would be paid. This would obviously do violence to the principle that the Federal Government should leave to the States the actual operation of the unemployment insurance program, based upon the very good reason that conditions of labor and employment differ in various States. There will undoubtedly be opposition to those two amendments. The Members will have an opportunity to vote on them very shortly after the close of the 3 hours general debate. I hope this resolution will be adopted. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MADDEN]. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, the rule on H. R. 9709 now under consideration, will give the Members of Congress an opportunity to act on much needed Federal legislation which will expand and equalize throughout the various States, our unemployment compensation legislation. Under the rule, it shall be in order to accept amendments offered by order to accept amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means and any member of that committee can offer either or both of the mittee can offer either or both of the proposed amendments which were inproposed amendments which were inserted and printed in yesterday's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Furthermore, under the rule, the amendments which I understand will be offered by our colleague, AIME FORAND, of Rhode Island, shall not be subject to further amendment. AIME FORAND, of Rhode Island, shall not The bill as reported out by the majority members of the Ways and Means jority members of the Ways and Means Committee, does not provide for necessary increased unemployment compensa tion benefits either as to amount or as to duration of time. This bill does not comply with the recommendations made by President Eisenhower when he asked that the primary maximum benefits payable in under State unemployment insurance laws should not be less than 66% percent of the State's average weekly wage. The President further said that subject to this maximum, each individual's primary benefit shall not be less than 50 percent of his weekly wages. The original intention of the supporters of the Social Security Act of 1935 was to provide unemployment compensation payments equal to at least 50 percent of full time weekly wages and up to a maximum of two-thirds of such wages which even at that time was in effect in the compensation laws of a great number of States. The amendments which will be offered by the minority members of the Ways and Means Committee will also clarify the provisions wherein certain employees have been disqualified from receiving just compensation for personal reasons, misconduct charges, work stoppages, etc. Standards of suitability of work would be spelled out in the proposed amendments along the lines of the standards contained in section 1603 (a) (5) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the amendments would set further general criteria which would have to be taken into account in determining whether the disqualification for refusing or leaving work should be applied. The amendments would further extend the coverage to employers who have one or more individuals in their employ at any time during the taxable year. Furthermore, States would be permitted to provide for uniform rate reductions to all employers as well as individual experience-rated reductions. Further, the proceeds of the Federal unemployment tax will be earmarked in a Federal unemployment insurance account in the Federal Treasury. Such account will be used for paying the Federal and State administrative expenses, including the establishment of a contingency fund and also provide reinsurance grants to certain States which are in financial difficulty because of high rates of unemployment. I am satisfied that after the Members learn, during the 3 hours of debate, the provision set out in the Forand amendments, that the same should be adopted. Satisfactory and expanded unemployment insurance is our greatest barrier against depression. Unemployment insurance will provide purchasing power for millions throughout the country and that in turn, will aid business and help restore normal prosperity generally. In other words, it is the chief line of defense against recession. In January, the Federal Advisory Council on Unemployment Security supported the President's recommendation on improved weekly benefits. The Council recommended that in each State, the maximum weekly benefit amount should be equal to at least 60 to 67 percent of the States average weekly wage. President Eisenhower further urged that all States provide 26 weeks of benefits uniformly to all eligible claimants in order to assure that even in a minor business recession, most workers would remain protected by the program until they could find jobs. If these recommendations had been carried out, our economy today would have received a beneficial result and relieved a great deal of unemployment. The 20th National Conference on State Legislation which was called by the Federal Government and to which governors delegates from 41 States unanimously adopted a resolution supporting President Eisenhower's recommendation with respect to unemployment compensation benefit levels and also the extension of uniform weekly payment duration. A couple of years ago Newsweek magazine, in a splendid article, stated that economically, our country could not hit the far depths of depression like we experienced from 1929 to 1934. In detail, this article stated that legislation passed in the last 20 years like social security, protection of bank deposits, housing, home loan, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and other measures have provided a cushion of economic stability which would prevent another devastating depression. If the House adopts the Forand amendments to the bill under consideration, it will be a further step to curb the danger of another serious depression. The Congress must realize that they have a responsibility to act now against the threat of unemployment and decreasing buying power throughout the country. This is a national problem that is on our shoulders and we should act now. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from New York has stated, this is a closed rule for the consideration of this bill to increase and extend and enlarge the unemployment insurance program. I opposed the rule in the Committee on Rules because I do not think that this bill should have a gag rule. Now, we have gag rules, and we necessarily have to have them on matters pertaining to the revenue act, that is, tax measures. We have them for the reason that it is impossible to write a tax bill on the floor of the House. But, this is an entirely different matter, and it seems to me that the House ought to have the freedom and the opportunity to express itself on this bill, to offer amendments to it, and to work its will on it. For that reason I am opposed to the rule in the form in which it is written. As to the bill itself, I think serious consideration should be given to the fact that this bill undertakes to cover a number of employees that will make the employer subject to this tax of 3 percent upon his payroll. We have a lot of little struggling businesses in the country that employ 4 or 5 or 6 people. We have a lot of miscellaneous small businesses in this country who are struggling pretty hard now. We have a lot of little sawmill operators; all those little businesses for which we have from time to time expressed our sympathy. I hope we can do something to help them. C633 What we are doing to help them now, we might as well realize, is that we are putting a 3 percent tax on their payroll in addition to the 4 percent already on those payrolls. I do not know that our people are going to like that too much. When you hit big business, when you hit the manufacturer, he has somebody here in Washington who knows what is going on and who advises him; and you get their reaction pretty quickly. But the fellow back in the sticks who is running a little sawmill, the fellow who is tending to his small business establishment, who gets up at 4 o'clock in the morning and goes to bed with the chickens at night, because he is too tired to read the newspapers, he does not know what you are doing up here and he does not realize what has been done until after you have done it. You do not get the reaction from him as soon as you get the reaction from the ordinary big businessman. I think you are going to find a good deal of chagrin and regret and opposition to this proposal which will hit position to this proposal which will hit your little businessman and your little sawmill operator who are now struggling with about all the tax that they can bear. I realize that it is a very nice thing to do; it is nice to have these people get some unemployment compensation, but I think we should look at both sides of the picture. I think we should consider the tax burden that you are putting on thousands and thousands of small em ployers who are now carrying about all the load and paying about all the tax that the traffic will bear. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consider ation of the bill (H. R. 9709) to extend and improve the unemployment compensation program. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 9709, with Mr. HOEVEN in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 minutes. Mr. Chairman, H. R. 9709 extends the unemployment insurance system to almost 4 million workers to whom this protection is not available today. Thus, the bill provides the first major extension of the unemployment insurance system since its inception in 1935. With the exception of relatively minor adjustments, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act has remained substantially unchanged in the almost 20 years which have elapsed since its enactment. However, it is no longer appropriate to deny the basic protection of this system to any segment of our working population to whom extension of coverage is demonstrably practical, and to whom coverage can be extended without doing violence to the need for recognition of State and local variations in employment conditions. This objective is achieved by H. R. 9709. The Ways and Means Committee has recently recommended the extension of the old-age and survivors insurance system to approximately 10 million persons now excluded from that program. While these two proposals for broad extension-first with respect to old-age and survivors insurance and now with respect to unemployment insurance-are in no sense dependent upon each other, our committee conceives of them as part of a broad program to bring our socialsecurity system to maturity. Historically, unemployment insurance has been primarily a State program. H. R. 9709 continues this basic pattern. While the problem of unemployment must always be one of national concern, geographic variations both in economic conditions and in employment practices make it essential that actual implementation of an unemployment insurance system be carried out by State action. As a result, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act has never concerned itself with the amount of benefits or the duration for which benefits may be paid. These have always been matters for State determination. In his economic report transmitted to the Congress on January 28, 1954, the President described the present level of benefits as inadequate and the duration of benefits as deficient in many States. He urged State action to correct these defects. The Ways and Means Committee agrees with the President that these matters should be left to State determination. be summarized as follows: The major purposes of H. R. 9709 may Act is extended to employers of 4 or more First. The Federal Unemployment Tax employees in each of 20 weeks instead of 8 or more in 20 weeks as under the present law. It is estimated that this provision will make unemployment insurance protection available to approximately 1.3 million workers not now cov ered. Second. Unemployment insurance is extended to substantially all Federal civilian employees, an addition of approximately 2.5 million workers. Third. States are authorized to extend experience rating tax reductions to new and newly covered employers after they have had at least 1 year of coverage under the State law instead of 3 years as required today. Fourth. The bill eliminates the privilege of paying the Federal unemployment tax in quarterly installments. As I have just pointed out, the bill extends the Federal Unemployment Tax Act to employers who employ four or more employees in each of 20 weeks during the year. The present law limits the tax to employers of 8 or more in the same period, although a number of 1 When 2 amounts are given, higher includes dependents' allowances, except in Colorado where higher amount includes 25 percent additional for claimants employed in Colorado by covered employers for 5 consecutive calendar years with wages in excess of $1,000 per year and no benefits received. 2 If the benefit is less than $5 benefits are paid at the rate of $5 a week; no qualifying wages and no minimum weekly or annual benefits are specified. Mr. REED of New York. From the From the standpoint of the individual worker, unemployment insurance protection is as important if he works for a small employer as if he works for an employer of thousands. Moreover, it is as important to maintain the purchasing power of employees of small firms as of large firms. In this connection, the extension of coverage provided by this bill would particularly benefit small communities where a large proportion of workers are employed by small firms. It is believed that the administrative difficulty is no longer a substantial obstacle to extending coverage to small firms. On the other hand, the further coverage is extended into this area, the further the Federal Government is moving into an area where differences in State and local conditions become a significant factor. 3 Employers of less than 8 outside the corporate limits of the city, village, or borough of 10,000 population or more are not liable for contributions unless they are subject to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. Source: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Division fo Actuarial and Financial Services, June 7, 1954. There is a twilight zone where needed Section 2 of H. R. 9709 allows re- employer who has received such a reduction is credited with the difference between the amount actually paid and the amount he would have been required to pay if he had not received the reduction. The Federal law grants this additional credit, however, only if the State law requires an employer to have at least 3 years of experience before he can be given a tax reduction. This means that a new or newly covered employer is required to pay the full tax for at least these initial years even though his experience in those years is as favorable as that of an established employer. In many States, this means that new employers carry a very large proportion of current unemployment taxes. They are thus put at a competitive disadvantage with established employers and are required to carry an extra financial load at a time they can perhaps least afford it. The President, in his economic report of January 28, 1954, recommended that "Congress allow the shortening from 3 years to 1, of the period required to qualify for a rate reduction." Section 2 of H. R. 9709 carries out this recommendation in its entirety. In effect, during the first 3 years of an employer's coverage, the amendment will permit a State to tie the period of experience required before rate reduction to the period of time the new employer has had experience under the law. In other words, the rate for an employer who has had 1 year's experience may be based on 1 year's experience, the rate for one who has had experience for 2 years on the basis of 2 years' experience. It would be emphasized that this amendment merely permits a State to extend a rate reduction on the basis of 1 year's experience if it desires to do so. It does not require such State action. The amendment is not intended to give new and newly covered employers any competitive advantage over established employers, but merely to equalize as much as possible the opportunity for rate reductions between new and established employers. The factors used to measure the experience of employers vary from State to State. Under the amendment, it is intended that the State measure the experience of new and newly covered employers by the same factor or factors that it uses to measure the experience of established employers. For example, one of the most common factors is a reserve balance the excess of contributions collected over benefits paid and charged to the employer's account. Thus a State which uses a reserve balance for established employers must do so for new employers. However, in some States an employer who does not have 3 years of experience, as the Federal law now requires, could not attain the reserve balance now required of established employers. In these States, therefore, a proportionate reduction would have to be made in this reserve requirement to enable new employers with less than 3 years' experience to take advantage of the permission granted by the bill's new rate-reduction provision. Since the bill does not intend to give new employers any greater advantage than established employers, any difference in reserve requirements granted to new employers would, therefore, have to bear the same proportion to the requirement placed on established employers as the period of coverage required of the two groups. For example, if a 6 percent reserve requirement is required of established employers with 3 years' experience, at least 4 percent must be required of employers with 2 years' experience. Section 3 of the bill provides for the elimination of the quarterly installment privilege. The bill eliminates the right to pay the unemployment tax in quarterly installments. This amendment is This amendment is designed to relieve the Government of an existing administrative burden. Moreover, this administrative burden would be somewhat increased if the new employers covered by this bill were per mitted to pay their tax in quarterly instalments. Elimination of this provision should not impose an undue burden on taxpayers. This is indicated by the fact that some 85 percent of the total taxes due are now paid at the time of filing the return without using the installment-payment option. Furthermore, unlike the old-age and survivors insurance tax, the unemployment tax is not due until the year after that in which the taxable wages are paid. The oldage and survivors' insurance tax, on the other hand, is payable in quarterly installments during the year in which the wages are paid. Section 4 of the bill before the House today provides for coverage of Federal civilian employees. In his economic report the President stated: A worker laid off by a Government agency gets no insurance benefits despite the fact that in many types of Federal jobs he is as vulnerable to layoff or dismissal as the factory worker. It is recommended that Congress include in the insurance system the 2.5 million Federal civilian employees, under conditions set by the State in which they last worked, and that it provide for Federal reimbursement to the State of the amount of the cost, estimated to be about $25 million for the fiscal year ending in 1955. H. R. 9706 carries out this recommendation. Federal civilian employees as a group are subject to the risk of unemployment on nearly the same scale as nongovernmental workers in the same type of work. In recent years, particularly, several extensive reductions in Federal personnel have demonstrated the real need for extending unemployment benefits to Federal employees. From a wartime peak of well over 32 million employees in June 1945, Federal employment dropped by a million between 1945 and 1946 and dropped considerably more in the next few years, leveling off at about 2 million in June 1950. After a new increase due to the Korean conflict, Federal employment again fell off by nearly 247,000 between June 1952 and December 31, 1953. Total annual separations of Federal employees are substantial. They have approximated around half a million each year. Of this total, the percentage which constitute involuntary separations, that is, reductions in force and terminations of temporary appointments, has varied from approximately 17 to 50 percent of total separations. The Federal Government should not be in the position of providing less favorable conditions of employment than are required of private employers. Yet, since Federal employees now have no unemployment insurance protection, involuntarily separated Federal employees have been forced to rely upon accrued annual leave and refund from their retirement accounts while looking for other jobs. Not only does this defeat the purpose of annual leave, but also, in many cases, the employee may have no such leave accumulation at all. Even where leave has been accumulated, there is evidence that it has been inadequate to cover the duration of Federal workers' unemployment. Moreover, it is be lieved that withdrawal of an employee's retirement fund accumulations is undesirable and a defeat of the purpose of the retirement program. H. R. 9706 provides for unemployment insurance for Federal civilian workers, with minor exceptions, who are employed in the United States, including Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and elsewhere, if citizens of the United States. Nearly all of the exceptions to coverage are identical with the categories of Federal workers excluded from the Social Security Act for purposes of old-age and survivors insurance. Unemployment compensation will be payable to such Federal workers who are unemployed after December 31, 1954. A Federal worker's rights to benefits are to be determined under the unemployment compensation law of the State to which his Federal services and wages are assigned. Usually, this will be the State in which the worker had his official station when he became unemployed, or, if he has been in Foreign Service, the State in which he resides when he files his claim. Compensation will not be paid for the period with respect to which accrued annual leave is paid upon separation. The Secretary of Labor is authorized to enter into agreements with each State, under which the State unemployment compensation agency will make benefit payments as agent for the United States and will be reimbursed by the United States for any additional costs of such payments. If a State does not have such an agreement, the Secretary will make the unemployment compensation payments and will apply the benefit standards and other provisions of the law of such State. Unemployed workers filing a claim in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands will be paid according to the benefit standards and other provisions of the unemployment compensation law of the District of Columbia. Any estimates of the cost of the proposed unemployment benefits for Federal workers must necessarily be rough, since there is no experience in the payments of such benefits to Federal workers upon which to base the estimates. The cost will depend to a great extent upon governmental employment levels and turnover, and to some extent upon the overall economic and employment situation prevailing in the country. The Department of Labor estimates that for the last half of fiscal year 1955 the cost will be approximately $25 million. Thereafter, for a full year of operation, based on estimated separations in 1955 of 145,000, the cost will be approximately $35 million. The relatively larger cost for the first 6 months of operation will be due to a backlog of claimants at the start of operations. The backlog will consist of those Federal workers who have been separated by reduction of force or terminated prior to the date when benefits commence, who are unemployed and still eligible for benefits at that time. This bill which I have presented to the House today is an administration bill. I think it is a sound bill. I know many of the Members have perhaps seen what I have seen in my hometown in small industries where there are only four employees: sometimes they are forced to cut down and lay a man off. He is unemployed. He cannot help it. He goes to his little home, to his wife and family. What happens? He walks in at evening where his wife and his family are there gathered at dinner. He knows that he has to break some very unpleasant news to them. He has been paying on a mortgage to the loan association trying to save his little home, and they are proud of it as good Americans. He is tied to that home. His sons are willing to defend the country in order to protect it. They have been sending one of their sons to college. But the husband is forced to say to his wife: "I am afraid John is going to have to come home to get a job to supplement what we can possibly earn. I cannot get unemployment insurance under existing law. We may lose our home.' Yes, it is a sad and serious thing. The small corporations, the little partnerships should do something to protect the men who are working for them. The present plan of the administration is expanded coverage so far as possible. I think it is a sound program and I hope the House will not be misled by any amendment which may be offered here to impose Federal standards for increasing benefits, to impose Federal standards for the duration of benefits. I submit to my colleagues in the House that the President has submitted a good program for improving our unemployment insurance program without preempting to the Federal Government any rights that have historically belonged to the States. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert a table and also a background history of unemployment in They Unemployment insurance and employment services are State-Federal systems. are designed to protect wage earners and their families from wage loss through involuntary unemployment by referring unemployed workers to other suitable jobs and if none is available by paying, for a period, weekly benefits related to their prior wages. Each State enacts its own unemployment insurance law and operates its own program, and the Federal Government cooperates through grants to the State to pay the cost of administering its system. As a condition of such grants, the Social Security Act sets up certain minimum specifications designed to assure that payments are made to unemployed workers whose previous earnings or employment entitle them to such payments under the State law, and to safeguard a worker's rights to benefits where he does not take a job that fails to meet certain labor standards. One of these specifications is that benefits must be paid through public employment offices, at which unemployed workers must first register for work and to which a worker must continue to report regularly for a possible job during the time he is drawing weekly benefit payments. The United States Em ployment Service, a part of the Bureau of Employment Security in the Department of Labor, administers the Federal aspects of the Public Employment Service system. more workers in each of 20 weeks. A majority of the State laws cover smaller firms but all but six have some size-of-firm restrictions. About 48 million different workers earned some wage credits toward unem dar 1952, and about 39 million had enough credits to be insured. During the fiscal year 1952-53, 7,318,200 new job applications were filed with the employment services and local employment offices made 15,354,400 placements. Of this total 6,606,900 were on nonfarm jobs. Some 3,989,000 unemployed persons received benefits under the 51 State systems. These payments totaled $912,898,000 representing compensation for 40,850,700 weeks of unemployment at an average rate of $23.32 per week. The average beneficiary drew benefits for 10.2 weeks as against 10.4 weeks in the same period during the preceding fiscal year. Another part of this Bureau, the Unemployment Insurance Service, carries the Fed- ployment benefits under State laws in caleneral responsibility for renewing the State laws and their administration to determine whether the States qualify for grants for unemployment insurance administration. Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, a tax is levied upon employers throughout the country and a credit is allowed them (up to 90 percent of this tax) for the contributions they pay to their State unemployment funds or for the amounts they would have contributed to such funds in the absence of experience-rating reductions allowed under the laws of all States. Unemployment benefits are financed by these contributions from employers subject to a State unemployment insurance law (except in Alabama and New Jersey where employees also contribute). Each State determines coverage of its law and sets the contribution rates. In general, the Federal tax and the State laws cover employment in commerce and industry. Railroad workers are covered under a separate system administered by the Federal Railroad Retirement Board. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act is limited to employers who, within a year, had 8 or In the fiscal year 1952-53, the States received a total of $194,800,000 (excluding grants for postage) in Federal grants for administration of their unemployment insurance laws. They collected $1,367,806 in contributions, which they deposited to their accounts in the Federal Treasury, and received interest on their accounts totaling $188,586,800. On June 30, 1953, the balance in the trust fund amounted to $8,559,296,700 as compared with $7,907,967,800 on June 30, 1952. Employment security: State accounts in the Federal unemployment trust fund1 and Federal grants for State administration 2 by State, fiscal year 1952-53 Source: Except for Federal grants, all data are compiled from data furnished by the Treasury Department, Division of Investments. (In thousands.) Alabama... Alaska.. Arizona.. Arkansas.. California. Kansas Kentucky. Louisiana. Total, 1952-53____ $7, 907, 968 $1,371, 184 $188, 587 $97, 442 $8,559, 297 3 $197, 546 69, 222 15, 444 1,643 11, 775 7,926 74, 535 4,075, 189 2,863 5, 150 5, 914 7,040 663 918 40, 814 1,785 8,097 42, 508 986 1,685 Colorado... 692, 908 5, 550 161, 150 44, 347 17, 135 1,960 91, 025 Connecticut. 780, 168 1,538 19,920 Delaware.. 194, 168 1,560 32, 725 69, 560 4,793 1,510 District of Columbia. 16, 179 8,575 1,835 223, 110 384 3, 018 Florida... 52, 293 949 3,573 17,449 1,230 431 Georgia.. 80, 957 1,905 9, 578 1,874 Hawaii.. 121, 961 7,575 16, 710 84, 834 2,907 3, 191 Idaho.... 23, 272 9, 280 2,176 132,299 533 Illinois.... 31, 409 2,730 4,634 23, 250 755 Indiana.. 481, 327 3, 165 74, 315 33, 634 11, 420 972 Iowa.... 219, 343 50, 020 517, 043 9, 358 105, 653 3,365 71, 938 4,800 9, 040 108, 527 1,724 1,656 135, 611 4,770 20, 050 77, 933 3, 174 1, 513 Maine... 108, 697 16, 750 20, 377 142, 084 2, 641 2,349 11, 250 Maryland. 120, 465 953 2,829 Massachusetts.. 123, 359 4,725 42, 873 Michigan... 151, 815 10, 485 1,059 100, 152 130, 393 4, 168 3, 210 Minnesota.. 361, 868 43, 900 83, 923 212, 235 8, 735 8,938 39, 460 415, 066 2,934 8,886 42,754 9, 975 130, 671 3, 134 216, 517 6, 525 13, 225 42, 579 5,020 2, 102 36, 433 3, 475 39, 205 2,320 2, 403 39, 957 913 1,033 13, 808 958 1, 120 20, 589 15, 879 586 457, 191 4,928 72, 598 22, 157 10, 815 949 52, 760 487, 843 730 8,935 1,099, 692 281, 629 171,985 10, 074 20, 449 1,983 26,848 4, 011 240 3,755 591, 465 1,970 77, 307 10, 327 14, 199 29, 100 653, 871 1,207 74, 957 6,500 680 8,752 11, 597 54, 201 1,712 2, 149 16, 900 71, 366 12, 699 2,400 19, 918 104,000 16,734 550, 661 522 15, 116 11,820 25, 354 1,489 1,723 11, 852 7, 200 1, 303 68, 947 285 2, 332 710 102, 577 20, 186 12, 730 2,432 257,080 15, 300 21, 147 109, 895 6, 104 523 3,030 32, 988 9,165 15, 718 3,971 2,337 275, 166 782 367 7,358 Mississippi.. Missouri.. Nebraska.. Nevada.. New Hampshire.. North Carolina.. Oklahoma.. 34, 892 16,622 1 Trust fund maintains a separate account for each State agency, in which are held all moneys deposited from State unemployment funds and from which State agencies withdraw amounts as required for benefit payments. Deposits include those not cleared by the Treasurer of the United States; interest includes accrued interest receivable; withdrawals include outstanding checks. 2 Advances for administration of unemployment compensation, employment service and veterans unemployment compensation certified to State agencies during fiscal year. 3 Includes $621,000 granted to Puerto Rico and $29,000 granted to Virgin Islands for the administration of employment service and veterans unemployment compensation. |