know is how is their liability for any war-risk hazard to be handled. We cannot handle it as an insurance matter. It seems that the only way it can be handled is in this way.

Mr. HILLINGS. Under general insurance laws, if the country for which these men are working is not actually in a state of declared war, it still would not be possible for them to get adequate insurance coverage; is that correct?

Mr. MORRISSEY. That is correct.

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Morrissey, do I understand the benefits provided under this statute apply only to casualties that are caused by attack by an enemy, or when taken by an enemy, or by action of the enemy; is that correct?

Mr. MORRISSEY. That is right. We provide for the regular compensation, that is, the occupational compensation hazards. We provide for that. That is the normal hazard that an insurance company will be confronted with. We provide for that with regular insurance.

Mr. PICKETT. In no event then would the ordinary occupational hazards while on the job be benefited by the provisions of this statute! Mr. MORRISSEY. No, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. But only by action of an enemy?

Mr. MORRISSEY. That is right.

Mr. HILLINGS. Following that up, suppose the United States were constructing an airfield in Alaska and a Russian aircraft with a Russian pilot proceeded to machine-gun the airfield and some of the employees working on a Government contract were killed or injured.

Then later the Russians would completely deny ever having taken part in such an attack and this country, barring a war with them or something of that nature, could not consider Russia as a technical enemy.

This provision would actually not take care of that kind of a situation; would it?

Mr. MORRISSEY. Yes; it would. The Bureau of Employees' Compensation Commission administers this. They would be the ones to determine whether or not it was a hostile act.

Mr. HILLINGS. Technically we are not at war with Russia.
Mr. MORRISSEY. We do not have to be at war.

Mr. HILLINGS. Technically, Russia is not our enemy, and the injuries or death probably could not be considered as arising from enemy action.

Mr. MORRISSEY. I think you will find that the act says that as a result of any war-risk hazard. That would be a war-risk hazard, whether an enemy or not.

Mr. HILLINGS. In other words, the injury does not have to result from direct enemy action?

Mr. MORRISSEY. There is nothing said in this, I don't think it is qualified down that close, that it has to be enemy action. It has to be what we would term "a war risk hazard.”

What is a war-risk hazard? I do not know. I think that you will find a definition some place here, such as a discharge of a missile. It is identified in such a way that we do not have to be at war with a country that is causing the disaster.

I believe that is true. I would have to follow that more closely. Mr. PICKETT. The very act committed by your illustration, Mr. Hillings, would certainly bring the episode within the purview of an

enemy action, even though we might not have declared war; would it not?

Mr. FORRESTER. I believe, in view of that question, it appearing in this statement that we have that that point is not made clear, it would be well to incorporate the statute into the record. Do you have the statute available?

Mr. HILLINGS. Was that the statute that defines the phrase "warrisk hazard"?

Mr. BURRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORRESTER. This statement says that "When Government employees suffer death or disability after capture, detection, or other action, by an enemy of the United States during war."

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. Chairman, it is the item just above that. It is a very similar item. We are going to take up the other one next. Mr. FORRESTER. That is correct. I was looking at another section. Mr. BRICKFIELD. May I ask a question?

Mr. FORRESTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. If a civilian employee of the United States Government, working on an airfield in North Africa at the present time were injured, would he come within the provisions of this act?

Mr. MORRISSEY. He comes within another act. He is taken care of in the same way under another act.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Could you tell me whether the rates of compensation under this particular act are the same as under our Federal Compensation Act? Are they comparable?

Mr. MORRISSEY. We use what we call the longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation benefits, which is administered by the Bureau of Employees' Compensation. It is about equivalent to the New York benefits.

Mr. FORRESTER. Is such statute, relating to 2 (b) (1) and page 28that is what we are dealing with-is that a short statute and is it available?

Mr. BURRUS. We have it here.

Mr. FORRESTER. Is it short?

Mr. BURRIS. It is fairly lengthy.

Mr. FORRESTER. We will dispense with the reading, but I would like to have it incorporated into the record.

Mr. BURRUS. It is our understanding we would incorporate every one of them into the record and read the ones that you asked us specifically to read.

The next item is on the same page, 2 (b) (2), item 310a, which is a similar statutory provision. It provides that where a Government employee suffers death or disability after capture or detection by the enemy, disability, or death shall have deemed to have resulted from performance of duty.

2 (b) (2) Item 310a

WHERE A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SUFFERS DEATH OR DISABILITY AFTER CAPTURE OR DETENTION BY THE ENEMY, SUCH DISABILITY OR DEATH SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM PERFORMANCE OF DUTY (5 U. S. C. 801)

When Government employees suffer death or disability after "capture, detention, or other restraint by an enemy of the United States during the present war" such death or disability shall be deemed to have resulted from performance of duty.

Termination would deprive civilian employees, who may be captured or detained by hostile forces, of compensation for injury, disease, or death incurred during detention and may raise a question as to whether World War II internees can continue to receive benefits. The Bureau of Employees' Compensation is now making payments to several hundred beneficiaries, the residue of 1,244 cases originally adjudged compensable under the act. There have been no reported cases of civilian employee internments in Korea. However, this legislation should be continued in effect in order to protect any that may be found to have been so handled and to protect persons in future similar situations. In a period when hostilities may take place, it is important that personnel be protected in the event of disability or death due to such hostilities. A lapse in this law would seriously impede the recruitment of qualified personnel. Section 801. Compensation for disability or death suffered after capture, detention, et cetera, by enemy during World War II; limitations.

In any case where an employee employed by the United States within the purview of sections 751-791 and 793 of this title or any extension thereof suffers disability or death after capture, detention, or other restraint by an enemy of the United States, during the present war, such disability or death shall in the administration of sections 751-791 and 793 of this title be deemed to have resulted from injury occurring while in the performance of duty, whether or not the employee was engaged in the course of his employment when taken by the enemy: Provided, That this section shall not apply in the case of any person (1) whose residence is at or in the vicinity of the place from whence he was thus taken, and (2) who was not living there solely by virtue of the exigencies of his employment, unless such person was so taken while he was engaged in the course of his employment: Provided further, That compensation for disability or death shall not be paid during any period of time during which the disabled person (or the dependents of such person, or any one of them) should receive or be entitled to receive any pay, other benefit, or gratuity from the United States on account of detention by the enemy or by reason of the same disability or death, unless such pay, benefit, or gratuity is refunded or renounced. (July 28, 1945, ch. 328, section 5 (b), 59 Stat. 505.)

Colonel HEARNE. This item and the preceding item are both the subject for processing for permanent legislation within the Department of Defense at the present time.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. MANGAN, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL DIVISION

Mr. MANGAN. I am Robert N. Mangan, Office of the Secretary of the Army, Civilian Personnel Division. This item is related to the two that were discussed immediately preceding, but covers a different group of people under a different contingency. The effect of this section would be to extend the act which is summarized in the House document for the duration of the emergency.

The act which it would extend is in itself a substantive extension of the coverage of the Federal Employees Compensation Act to cover injuries or death occurring during a period of detention while a person was in enemy hands. The Federal Employees Compensation Act is the workmen's compensation law, which applies to Government employees. Like the workmen's compensation laws in most of the States, an injury, to be compensable, must be incurred while in the performance of duty or while in the course of employment. A substantial number of civilian employees of the executive agencies did, of course, fall into enemy hands, particularly in Wake, Guam, the Philippines and a few other places.

While they were in a captive status, they received their pay and allowances under the Missing Persons Act, as outlined by a preceding

witness. When they returned to the United States jurisdiction through liberation in early 1945 for the most part, it was found that many of these people, through diseases, malnutrition, traumatic injury, or otherwise, during the period of captivity, had either died or had become permanently or temporarily, totally or partially disabled.

Mr. HILLINGS. Suppose under this provision a civilian employee is captured by the Chinese Communists, detained by the Chinese Communists, and subsequently dies as a result of the treatment received during his detainment. We are not at war with Communist China. The United Nations action technically is not directed at Communist China. It is directed toward the aggressors of North Korea.

The Chinese Communist Government maintains that its armies in Korea are volunteers, and not acting officially for the government. Under this provision, if that civilian employee is captured by the Chinese Communists and dies, do his heirs and assigns receive benefits under this section?

Mr. MANGAN. I cannot answer definitely. Again the Bureau of Employees Compensation administers this act. The effect to be given to the word "enemy" in here would of course be subject to their jurisdiction. I was going to mention a little bit later that fortunately, and very happily, we know of no Federal employees who have entered into a captive status-at least the Department of Defense employees; I am sure of that-during the Korean operation. What effect might be given to these words when an actual case arises, I do not know.

However, I can say that the permanent legislation which Colonel Hearne referred to, to put this into operation whenever an uprising occurs, placing Federal employees in jeopardy, that clarifies it to make it cover that type of situation. But we have not attempted to make any amendments to existing law here but merely to continue it for the situation just in case.

Mr. HILLINGS. All of this, Mr. Chairman, to my mind tends to show the very serious and far-reaching nature of the legislation before us. I know of no power that the Congress could give to the Executive which would be greater than the power to make war. In order to preserve that power from abuse, in order to prevent one man in this country from being in a position to involve the Nation in a state of war, we have the constitutional requirement that only the Congress can declare war.

Now we are engaged in a situation where we are at war without declaration by the Congress, and one man by Executive order has been able to put us in there. It may be rightly so, and that is not a point for discussion before this group. It seems to me a far-reaching and serious question. I think, in considering the legislation before us, that certainly somewhere along the line we are going to have to give a great deal of attention as to just how far we are going to be able to go under our continued development in the international scene, and our continuous involvement in it, without drawing the line as to how many emergency powers and how much authority we can give the Executive in the absence of a definite congressional declaration. Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Pickett.

Mr. PICKETT. I understand, Mr. Mangan, that there are no persons at the present time who are being compensated under this statute and are at the present time in the hands of some, we will call them, enemies.

In other words, there are no captured personnel now being benefited under this?

Mr. MANGAN. Mr. Pickett, this statute comes into operation only after the individual's release. We have some people who are still on the compensation rolls from World War II. Something slightly over 200, the last time I checked. That is the residue of some 1,244 cases. So far as we know, we have no potentially new claimants.

Mr. PICKETT. That is the point I wanted answered: That we have no potentially new ones, and those who are being compensated now are those who have been returned to the jurisdiction of the United States and who are entitled to the benefits as a result of their treatment by an enemy when they were captured or retained in World War II. Mr. MANGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. That is something over 200?

Mr. MANGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. To fail to extend this act, would that entirely remove those persons from the list of people who might be benefited in any way as a result of their injuries or disability?

Mr. MANGAN. I do not believe so. There may be some slight question of it, but I do not believe it would have that effect because the statute extends the Employees Compensation Act to situations or to injury or death incurred during captivity during World War II. I do not believe it would be given the effect of cutting them off.

Mr. PICKETT. It would not in your judgment terminate their present benefits?

Mr. MANGAN. I do not believe so.

Mr. FICKETT. Then the effect of a failure to continue this act would only be a potential deterrent to employment of personnel. Is that right?

Mr. MANGAN. This is exactly the same sort of answer that Colonel Schlanser gave. It is a "just in case" proposition, and we hope we never have to use it.

Mr. PICKETT. That same situation would obtain-would it not?under 2 (b) (1), discussed a few moments ago.

Mr. MANGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORRESTER. Do I understand your answer to Mr. Pickett to be that there is no exigency at the present time requiring this type of legislation? It is only potential?

Mr. MANGAN. It is only the threat of people being captured by an enemy sometime in the future.

Mr. FORRESTER. That leads me to ask you this question: Why are we proceeding to ask that this power be granted the President?

Mr. MANGAN. Mr. Chairman, this does not give the President any specific power. This is an enactment by Congress which says that this will come into operation upon the happening of an event, of the capture, injury, and release of an individual. I think there is no Executive discretion involved here at all. I think it is merely the continuance by the Congress, by its own enactment, of benefits to people who fall into a certain category.

Mr. FORRESTER. I would like to ask you this question: If the particular case that the gentleman from California outlined to you, about the person who might be captured by the Chinese Communists, if this act doesn't protect that type of individual, as a matter of fact is that not probably one of the greatest dangers that we can expect?