act provides subsistence and transportation allowances to persons undergoing training. Is not this act sufficient? Briefly, gentlemen, in my State, as an administrator, if this act is passed as it is presently written, I will be called upon to administer unemployment compensation programs in two benefit schedules, one approximately $60 a week, which I understand the terms of this bill would provide, average benefits, against my own State's regular program which averages approximately $30 a week. That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Adams, you have with you this morning to your right, I understand, Mr. Perry Brown, who is chairman of the Employment Security Commisison of the State of Texas; to your immediate left, Mr. Curtis Harding, who is the State administrator of employment security for the State of Utah; and Mr. Eldred Hill, State administrator of employment security of the State of Virginia. We appreciate these gentlemen accompanying you to the witness table. We appreciate your very fine analysis of the provisions of the bill that would relate to your operations. Are there any question of Mr. Adams or these gentlemen? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Byrnes. Mr. BYRNES. First, I received a copy of a letter which was addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, by the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, which administers our unemployment compensation act in that State, relating to the unemployment compensation features of H.R. 9900, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that that be inserted following the testimony of these gentlemen on the subject. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the material will be included in the record at that point. (The abovementioned letter is on p. 3232.) Mr. BYRNES. This letter says-and I am transposing a little bitin effect, H.R. 9900 proposes a new and rather complicated and remarkably different Federal unemployment compensation system. Do you agree? Mr. ADAMS. I certainly do. Of course, all our present State systems are based on State conditions. If I understand it correctly, in the proposed system in H.R. 9900, the benefits in all States would be based on a percentage of the national average wage. Mr. BYRNES. They also ask this question in this letter: Why give preference to those laid off for a selected reason by paying them higher and longer benefits? That would sharply discriminate against the great majority of jobless workers laid off for other reasons, such as automation, termination of defense contracts, U.S. tax or credit policies, or interproduct competition or intercompany competition, or even foreign competition. They suggest that there is no superior virtue in federally caused unemployment. "Even trade expansion layoffs may be partly due to out-of-date methods, location, and so forth." Do you agree with that statement? Mr. ADAMS. I do, sir, and I believe it is going to be very difficult for us as administrators to explain to claimants how this two-structure system was devised and why it exists. Mr. BYRNES. In other words, you can have a situation that exists under this proposal whereby some workers are laid off and become unemployed as a result, really, of increases in imports, but the imports are not damaging that industry to the extent that they qualify for what they call extraordinary relief, so that in the same State some would qualify for the extraordinary relief because of imports and others who are out of work because of imports who don't qualify for the extraordinary relief and receiving entirely different benefits; is that not correct? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; I believe that is absolutely correct. I think it can be pointed up that it might be in the same small community that some workers may be laid off because of this import business, while in the service industries in that community some people may be laid off for the same reason, but they may not be able to qualify under this act. Mr. BYRNES. Can you see anything other than almost a chaotic situation as far as unemployment compensation is concerned, where you have two levels of benefits and duration administered by the same agency and with overlapping areas? Mr. ADAMS. I can only say to you, sir, as administrator, that I can foresee tremendous difficulties explaining this to the claimants and also to the people who work in my agency whom I will have to call on to administer this program. Mr. BYRNES. As a Congressman, I am always interested in problems that relate to having to explain something, but I also get concerned with whether or not there is any basic justifiable explanation to begin with, and I am wondering here whether we don't create a situation that just has no rational explanation, much as we may try to rationalize it. Mr. ADAMS. If there is, I have yet to hear any, sir. Mr. BYRNES. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. Alger? Mr. ALGER. As we get the picture here, Mr. Adams, they could have under this bill 52 weeks plus 26 weeks and, of course those over 60 get 13 weeks, but that is a part of the 78 weeks; is that your understanding? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. ALGER. And then they can get a lump-sum payment of $230 plus such other relocation expenses as they may need. Is that, too, your understanding? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. ALGER. You stated, if I understand you correctly, that you felt the Manpower Retraining Act would be sufficient to take care of this, as you see it, tied in with the State's unemployment compensation. Mr. ADAMS. I don't believe I suggested that it would be enough, sir. I questioned the administrative difficulties that will be presented in administering these two programs side by side with their wide differences. Mr. ALGER. And in your State this makes about double what you now have in your unemployment compensation? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. ALGER. One other question. If I again understood you, you indicated there might be a similarity of this program to the earlier suggestions of the Federal Government in its request for Federal standards on unemployment compensation. Could you tell us what those similarities are? Mr. ADAMS. One of the major similarities, sir, is this 65 percent weekly wages as a standard against the standards in H.R. 7640, the upper standard of 663 percent, I believe. Mr. ALGER. Really, is there any doubt in your mind with these two systems side by side which one will prevail and engulf the other or eliminate the other? Mr. ADAMS. There isn't any doubt in my mind; no, sir. Mr. ALGER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. BYRNES. I would just like to clarify that. There is no doubt in your mind which one will? Mr. ADAMS. I think it is fairly obvious that you never give people something and then take it away from them, and if you pay a level of benefits in the $60-a-week area, you will find it very difficult to stop doing that and go back to an average of $30 to $40 a week. Mr. BYRNES. In other words, your statement is that the Federal system which is proposed under H.R. 9900 would engulf the current Federal-State systems eventually? Mr. ADAMS. That would be my opinion; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? If not, we thank you, gentlemen. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you. (The letter referred to by Mr. Byrnes follows:) THE STATE OF WISCONSIN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Re unemployment compensation features of H.R. 9900. Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, April 4, 1962. The proposed trade readjustment allowances-for jobless workers-are really unemployment compensation benefits. They should, therefore, be considered and appraised as unemployment compensation benefits-in relation to the benefits now being paid (a) under state unemployment compensation laws, and (b) under various Federal unemployment compensation laws. In effect, H.R. 9900 proposes a new-and rather complicated, and remarkably different-Federal unemployment compensation system, with more weekly dollars, and many more weeks, for a rather small group of workers. Why? Those workers who could qualify for the proposed trade allowances would have substantial jobless benefit rights under their own State unemployment compensation laws-even if H.R. 9900 made no provision for special unemployment compensation benefits. Such workers could then draw the same amount and duration of State jobless benefits as will apply to their neighbors, when laid off (for any reason) with a like record of work and wages. Why give preference to those laid off for a selected reason, by paying them higher and longer benefits? That would sharply discriminate against the great majority of jobless workers-laid off for other reasons, such as automation, or termination of defense contracts, or U.S. tax or credit policies, or interproduct competition, or intercompany competition, or even foreign competition. (There's no superior virtue in federally caused unemployment. Even trade expansion layoffs may be partly due to out-of-date methods, location, etc.) State benefit levels can properly apply to federally caused layoffs. They do now, in clearer cases than H.R. 9900 may produce. State benefit levels apply to laid-off Federal employees, by Federal law. So too with recent ex-servicemen, by Federal law. The same principle should apply here. Yet H.R. 9900 proposes a new higher Federal level of weekly jobless pay, for its chosen few: 65 percent of the individual's gross average weekly wage, figured by Federal formula, up to a national maximum of 65 percent of the national average weekly wage of production workers in factories. That formula would require a weekly Federal supplement, on top of any State unemployment compensation benefit check the worker might otherwise draw. Wisconsin's law expressly forbids any such double payment, or Federal (federalizing) supplement. So Wisconsin could not sign the administrative agreement intended by H.R. 9900. The State's unemployment compensation statute plainly specifies: “108.04 (12) (b) Similarly, any individual who receives, through the commission, any other type of unemployment benefit or allowance for a given week shall be ineligible for benefits paid or payable for that same week under this chapter. “(c) Any individual who receives unemployment compensation for a given week under any Federal law through any Federal agency shall be ineligible for benefits paid or payable for that same week under this chapter." As to the total number of weeks for which the proposed new Federal trade readjustment allowances might be paid, that total tops all previous figures. The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1961 permits a combined (State and Federal) maximum total of 39 weeks. H.R. 9900 proposals 52 weeks; but even that isn't all. For those over 60, it's 65 weeks. For those in long retraining courses, the total could be 78 weeks-11⁄2 years. Any new Federal unemployment compensation system of that sort, even for a small group, would surely be used as a springboard for federalizing all State unemployment compensation laws-in the same general direction. Is that what Congress wants? Is it a better answer than could be developed along retraining lines? MATHIAS F. SCHIMENZ, Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Masaoka, will you please identify yourself for our record by giving us your name, address, and capacity in which you appear? STATEMENT OF MIKE M. MASAOKA, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, ASSOCIATION OF JAPANESE TEXTILE IMPORTS; ACCOMPANIED BY SAMUEL ISHIKAWA Mr. MASAOKA. Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike M. Masaoka and to my left is my colleague, Mr. Sam Ishikawa. Today we are appearing on behalf of five organizations, the Association on Japanese Textile Imports, Inc., the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Southern California, the Japan Traders' Club of Los Angeles, the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Honolulu, and the American Committee on Japan. Four of them are concerned directly with trade. The fifth is a nationwide organization of American citizens who believe that this type of legislation will promote trade prosperity and security in the Pacific. Mr. Chairman, I have a rather lengthy statement which, with your permission, I would like to file for the record and then summarize it for the benefit of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included in the record. You are recognized. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT ENDORSING TRADE EXPANSION LEGISLATION Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Mike M. Masaoka, of Masaoka-Ishikawa & Associates, with offices at 919 18th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Today, I am appearing on behalf of the Association on Japanese Textile Imports, Inc., the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Southern California, the Japan Traders' Club of Los Angeles, the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Honolulu, and the American Committee on Japan, to endorse as vigorously as I can the objectives of H.R. 9900, a bill to promote the general welfare, foreign policy, and security of the United States through international trade agreements and through adjustment assistance to domestic industry, agriculture, and labor, and for other purposes, which was introduced by the chairman of this committee, and to urge the Congress to enact meaningful legislation that will truly expand international trade and commerce among the free nations of earth to the mutual benefit, profit, and security of all. The Association on Japanese Textile Imports, Inc., is a New York trade association whose members handle more than 70 percent of all Japanese textiles imported into this country. The Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles is composed of many Californians who are interested in promoting trade and commerce, as well as cultural and educational, relations with Japan. The Japan Traders' Club of Los Angeles is comprised of those who are responsible for most of the imports and exports from and to Japan that pass through the port of Los Angeles. The Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Honolulu, Hawaii, is the central trade organization of the 50th State, at the crossroads of the Pacific, whose members are especially involved in commercial and cultural relations with Japan. The American Committee on Japan is a nationwide nonprofit educational and consultative organization dedicated to improving understanding and cooperation between the United States and Japan as the most effective means of securing the peace and the prosperity of the Pacific. We, that is the five organizations that I am privileged to represent at these vital and historic hearings, strongly favor the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 for the many and persuasive reasons that have already been cogently advanced by the Secretaries of the several executive departments concerned and by the many public-spirited individuals and organizations that have endorsed this legislation in testimony during the past 4 weeks. We shall not, therefore, repeat or recapitulate most of the impressive testimony that has been presented previously at these hearings. Moreover, we shall try to avoid needless repetition in emphasizing several aspects of this issue that we believe have not been given the serious consideration to which they are entitled. We respectfully submit that this trade expansion program is urgently needed now (1) to provide the President with the necessary weapons to successfully wage economic war against the Sino-Soviet challenge everywhere on earth, (2) to accelerate the economic growth of our country, thereby strengthening American leadership of the free enterprise, so-called capitalistic system, and (3) to encourage a mutually helpful two-way flow of trade and commerce among the free world community of nations, recognizing that imports are equally important as exports to our Nation's welfare and, accordingly, should not be subject to restrictive penalties and practices on our part. And, as concerned laymen and not technicians, we shall comment on certain specifics in the bill before this committee, with the view of encouraging the meaningful implementation of the legislation's avowed purposes: “* * * by lowering trade barriers through trade agreements affording mutual benefits, to stimulate the economic growth of the United States, maintain and enlarge foreign markets for the products of U.S. industry and agriculture, and make available to the people of the United States a greater variety of goods at lower prices; to strengthen economic and political relations with the European Economic Community and (other) foreign countries through the development of an open and nondiscriminatory trading system in the free world; to assist in the sound economic progress of countries in the earlier states of economic development; and to counter economic penetration by international communism. In addition, it is the purpose of this act to provide appropriate assistance to enter |