There has been, it seems to me, an unwarranted amount of opposition to it. First, that it would run to $20 to $50 billion. We cut it down in the bill. It could only amount to $500 million.

It just seems as if they don't want those unemployed by means of the energy crisis to get any benefits.

I had several letters from the wives of employees who were being laid off and saying that they were in trouble and that they didn't have things to live on and so forth.

In other States, we got a lot of letters saying that something should be done because they didn't seem to be eligible for the regular benefits. I couldn't understand why they weren't eligible for the regular benefits. You have explained a little bit of that this morning.

Since this is only a temporary matter, I don't understand the turmoil. There are so many who seem to be desperately opposed to it. It runs out when this bill run out. Certainly, if it helps a few families that are in need, and it would certainly help more than a few, I would hope that it would help many thousands, certainly we would have done something good for humanity. And we have set a limit on it.

Just because the administration opposes it, I don't believe that the Members of Congress should just come along blindly and say it is bad.

At this time, I would like to call on the gentleman from California, Mr. Van Deerlin, if he has any questions.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. No; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota ?
The gentleman from New York?

Mr. MURPHY. No questions.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes. I would like to ask a couple of questions and make a comment or two.

We seldom witness more serious human tragedy than to see people out of work or families dependent on the income of the breadwinner of the family, or the communities that are dependent on the payroll. It certainly is a human tragedy and we should all be concerned.

I want to emphasize again that my difficulty with this section is that I don't see how you can distinguish between those who are unemployed due to some reason which we call the energy shortage or for any other reason. I don't necessarily like the administration plan; I want to point that out. In fact, I would guess that the Ways and Means Committee, as it considers the administration plan and as they report a revision in our unemployment compensation law, will probably take another approach and I think I would approve another approach.

I agree with you, that the administration plan is somewhat unfair, too, because it would give special benefits to people in certain geographic areas whereas in other areas those unemployed would not be treated the same. You do create a double standard there. That is why I don't like the provision in this bill. You tend to create not only a double standard but, more importantly, it is a

32-544-74—17

terrific administrative burden to determine who will be eligible for benefits and who will not.

How do you, in the Employment Security Office, pick out those whose benefits would continue after their eligibility and those whose benefits would not. That is the problem, as I see it.

Mr. FAIR. In the bill before the committee, the language reads as follows and there are two ways I would look at it:

The determination as to whether an individual is unemployed as a result of such disruptions, dislocations or shortages within the meaning of such regulations shall be made by the State in which the individual was employed in accordance with such industry, business or employer certification process or such other determination procedure as the Secretary of Labor shall, consistent with the purposes of paragraph (1).

I would assume that the Secretary would set up a number of rules. In certain industries, for example, the plastics industry which needs oil, he may for certain States designate an industry for which the employer would have to certify that that unemployment was due to the crisis. He may even designate a type of industry in a

broader sense.

Now the State makes the determination and the reason for the State making the determination under the guidelines of the Secretary of Labor is because they do have employees in every corner of the State, in Maryland all the way from the Eastern Shore to the western limits that are a part of the peninsula almost of West Virginia, but they are there. The system is in operation.

When a person goes into an unemployment office, he fills out a claim. He is asked questions by the claims examiner. They will go through this process. There will be the results established by the State within the regulations established by the Secretary of Labor. Now, I won't deny there is not going to be some confusion occasionally. It is bound to arise. With every piece of legislation this is always true.

Mr. BROYHILL. There will be a great deal of confusion.

In other words, the examiner would have to determine at the outset the importance of energy as a cause of unemployment. The examiner would have to question each applicant and he would have to determine whether or not his employment was due to the energy shortage.

Now, every individual could come in and assert that they were laid off because of the energy shortage.

Mr. FAIR. No.

Let us say the textile industry of North Carolina is provided adequate fuel to maintain their plants. There is no way an employee can draw his unemployment compensation under the North Carolina law, using this bill, anything under this bill, because he is laid off by a textile mill.

Now, equally so, if I am working for a public utility, no one in that category-that is the point I am making-because of the regulations that can be set by the Secretary and then administered by a State, there is no reason for this to happen.

But I don't say that we can't get down to a case where we won't find something because I can't foresee all of the possibilities.

We talked about the gas station attendant. A gas station closes because it can't get gas. That is not hard for a claims examiner. You know, the employer has to fill out the form, too, because he is experience rated. He has a right to object to my getting UI. When he objects, he has to explain and he can be made to answer for his explanation.

Mr. BROYHILL. Excuse me, but there really would be nothing in here that would make it a hindrance for the employer to say the layoffs had occurred because of the energy shortage. In other words, the employer would gain nothing by making any contrary statement that the employee makes.

Mr. FAIR. A person can only draw if he has exhausted his benefits.

Mr. BROYHILL. That is correct.

Mr. FAIR. So, the employer's experience rating is rated obviously from his experience in unemployment.

Now you come to the additional weeks, you say. Why should he make any complaint? He still has to certify why he is unemployed. Mr. BROYHILL. It does not affect his experience rating.

Mr. FAIR. Except he has to certify something. If he certifies a fact that is not a fact, he is in a pretty bad situation.

Mr. BROYHILL. It means that someone is going to have to check those company records, check to see whether or not he is telling the truth. It may be bad management. Maybe layoffs occurred because of high interest rates. There may be other reasons.

Mr. FAIR. When I walk into the unemployment office, suppose an employer insists I quit; that has to be certified.

Mr. BROYHILL. We understand.

Mr. FAIR. So, we are going to go through that process in the same way, Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHIL. Really, the question I am asking is: Why do we want to expend our energies here in the Congress passing legislation like this when it seems it would be far more beneficial, not only to the individuals involved who may lose their jobs because of energy problems or shortages, but to help everyone? Why don't we get behind a program that would revamp our unemployment compensation laws that would help everyone rather than having a special unemployment compensation provision like this?

Mr. FAIR. This bill has a moving force behind it right now. The administration wants the bill; I think the Congress wants a bill. Mr. BROYHILL. I don't know.

The administration witness yesterday was not too enthusiastic about it.

Mr. FAIR. This goes into effect one week after. We know the bills before Mr. Mills are not coming up for 3 weeks. We know the Senate still has to act on it. It will be in June before that goes through.

Mr. BROYHILL. The chairman and I are more enthusiastic about passing a bill than the administration.

Mr. FAIR. That may be.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say, in answer to that, the situation is just like a man who is lying beside the highway desperately ill.

Here comes a doctor. He says, "I am not going to treat him. I will let a specialist come along and take care of him."

By the time the specialist comes along, the man is dead.

I think the opportunity is here to take care of the man while he is living.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Moss.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to hold the record to receive some statistical information I intend to request. I tried to get the transcript of yesterday's hearing. I am informed it has not yet been delivered to the committee. I wanted to check a couple of statements.

My recollection may be faulty but I recall a statement being made that we had not suffered any serious shortages that were crippling in the winter months of this year.

My recollection is, taking first the Pacific Slope where for a number of years we have had drought conditions. we cracked it. this year and we had a bonus of rain and snow pack that has filled dams. We have had excess spillage of water far beyond the capacity of generators to take it and, as a result, we have lessened very dramatically the impact on fuel supplies in the area. For the first time in a number of years the Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie is functioning. We have had the movement of substantial amounts of energy up and down the Pacific seacoast. So, there has been a significant saving there.

Additionally, we probably have had revival of employment opportunity in some of the light metal industries located in that area, particularly the northwestern area of the Pacific Slope, because of the ready availability of large amounts of hydro power.

Had we been dependent, as in more recent years, on thermal generation, the problem might have been one of dramatic increase in unemployment directly attributable, and I am going to place in the record studies I have requested from the Weather Bureau, but I think that generally throughout the United States we have had a mild winter which has been a most valuable assist in reducing the number of job losses due to the energy shortage. [The material referred to follows:]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

HON. JOHN Moss,
Rayburn Building,
Washington, D.C.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., April 11, 1974.

DEAR MR. Moss: This is in response to your recent request to Mr. Bill Sargent, Department of Commerce Office of Congressional Affairs concerning weather conditions in the United States and the Western States during recent years.

Attachment No. 1 is a tabulation which shows for each State in the coterminous United States and for the Nation as a whole the normal heating degree day totals for the season July through February and the totals for the last 5 years in percent of normal. Normal is based upon the 30-year period 1941-70. Heating degree days are derived from temperature data and are considered to

be direct measures of heating fuel demand (heating fuel requirements increase with increasing degree days). Assuming a constant economy and comfort levels, these data can be used to make year to year comparisons of heating fuel demand. The methodology for deriving these data is described in attachment No. 2, "Variability of Seasonal Total Heating Fuel Demand in the United States" which was prepared for the Energy Policy Office, Executive Office of the President in September 1973. Attachment No. 3, Environmental Data Service, January 1974 issue, contains on pages 5 through 9 a condensed version of attachment No. 2.

The State and national data show that the 1973-74 heating season through February, the latest month for which complete data are available, has been warmer than normal in most States; the July through February total for the Nation as a whole is 93.5 percent of normal. This is the smallest percent in this comparison. Preliminary data for March 1974, shown on page 9 of attachment No. 4, Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin for April 2, indicate the warmer than normal trend continued in almost all areas of the United States. We are having your name added to the mailing list for this publication to afford you current information about the weather and its effects upon heating fuel demand in the United States.

The percentage values shown in attachment No. 1 may be interpreted in terms of heating fuel demand. For example, the 103.5 percent for the July 1973-February 1974 period in California means that the fuel demand was 3.3 percent greater than normal for this period; i.e. the weather was colder than normal. The 88.5 percent for the July 1969-February 1970 period in California means that the heating fuel demand was 11.5 percent less than normal (100.0 88.5 = 11.5).

We understand from Mr. Michael Lemov your interest in precipitation data is in connection with the production of hydroelectric power, particularly in the Western United States. Since streamflow information is a better measure of hydroelectric power generation potential, we are enclosing the January, February, March and April 1970 through 1974 issues of Water Supply Outlook for the Western United States. [Precipitation data from page 2 of publication is attached.] This material contains predicted streamflow volumes and comparative streamflow data as well as descriptive information about precipitation. The materials included in the Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin will also afford you a means for staying current on the precipitation conditions in the United States.

If you have need for additional information about temperature and heating degree day data, please contact Mr. Frank T. Quinlan at Environmental Data Service's National Climatic Center in Asheville, N.C. (Telephone: AC 704-2540961, Ext. 255). Further information about the Water Supply Outlook may be secured from Mr. Ralph F. Kresge, national weather service's office of Hydrology in Silver Spring, Md. (Telephone: AC 301-427-7659).

We hope that the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee will find this information useful.

Sincerely,

Note.-Attachments 2, 3, and 4 not printed.

THOMAS S. AUSTIN, Director.