HARRY HUGHES, Governor

3389

This bill proposes to modify the criteria for the
amount of wages which a claimant must earn prior to his
unemployment in order to be eligible for unemployment
insurance benefits. Under the provisions of the bill, if a
claimant's total base-period earnings are not equal to or
greater than the minimum qualifying wages as required in the
division of the schedule of unemployment benefits which is
appropriate to his high quarter wages, but are equal to the
minimum qualifying wages as required in any of the next five
lower divisions of that schedule, then the claimant will be
eligible for a weekly benefit amount as specified at that
next lower division. If the claimant's total base-period
earnings are not equal to those specified in any of the next
five lower divisions, the claimant is ineligible for
benefits.

Unfortunately, the provisions of House Bill 6 conflict
with the provisions of Senate Bill 655 which I have signed
into law today. Both Senate Bill 655 and House Bill 6 amend
Section 3(b)(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Senate
Bill 655 modifies the language, but not the substance, of
the same paragraph which is amended by House Bill 6. Most
importantly, Senate Bill 655 amends the schedule of benefits
by increasing the maximum weekly benefit amount from $106 to
$120. In contrast, House Bill 6 retains the current maximum
weekly benefit amount of $106.

If I were to sign into law House Bill 6 first and
Senate Bill 655 second, the provisions of the former would
be annulled by the provisions of the latter. House Bill 6
substitutes the word "five" for "three" in a sentence in
Section 3(b)(1). However, Senate Bill 655 deletes that
sentence from the statute.

If I were to sign Senate Bill 655 first and House Bill
6 second, then House Bill 6 would re-enact into law the
existing schedule of benefits. In other words, House Bill 6
would repeal the increased maximum weekly benefit amount
contained in Senate Bill 655 and would re-enact into law the
lower maximum weekly benefit amount of $106.

Because of the conflicts between the two bills, it is
not possible to sign both into law. The Department of Human
Resources informs me that Senate Bill 655 would inure to the
benefit of approximately 75,000 claimants during the next
fiscal year. In contrast, House Bill 6 would inure to the
benefit of only 1,500 claimants. Because of the comparative
importance of the bills, the Department has recommended that
Senate Bill 655 be signed and House Bill 6 be vetoed.

For the reasons stated above, I am obliged to veto
House Bill 6.