Mr. MANGAN. I believe that is true. I would not presume to answer for the people who will interpret this statute when the time arises. It is not my job to do it. I think personally I would feel that anybody who is shooting at you is an enemy. The statute is not tied to an actual declaration of war. But again I will not presume to answer somebody else's legal decision.

It is true that there is a question as to whether this particular act would cover the most immediate possible situation.

Mr. FORRESTER. That seemed to have been the opinion of the gentleman from California. It seems to be your opinion. I think it is my opinion. If that be true, should you gentlemen not address yourselves to giving us a statute which will be in line with your testimony? Mr. MANGAN. We are doing that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORRESTER. I mean, why not give it to us now?

Colonel HEARNE. We are not prepared to do that at this time. It has not been completely worked up and coordinated. We are coming up with permanent legislation on this very point. The purpose for including it in the joint resolution is to continue the benefit until that permanent legislation can be enacted and to relieve any doubt that may exist.

Mr. FORRESTER. We have been in Korea since 1950. How long would it be before we can assume that you will come up with permanent legislation covering all these matters, especially the ones that you reasonably anticipate are going to occur?

Colonel HEARNE. I am doubtful, Mr. Chairman, that it can be done at this present session of the Congress for the reason that after it is completed in the Department of Defense it must then be coordinated with other executive agencies, of which there are many, because many agencies are concerned with this. Then it must go to the Bureau of the Budget for over-all approval. I doubt that it will be ready for this present session of Congress, although it might be.

Mr. FORRESTER. Just why do you tell us it is expedient and necessary for us to pass this legislation now?

Colonel HEARNE. We feel, sir, that this is a saving provision, a maintenance of the status quo until we can come in with the permanent legislation which I have mentioned.

Mr. FORRESTER. I understood you that the status quo is that we have nobody operating under it; you do not anticipate anybody operating under it.

Colonel HEARNE. It is just in case, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORRESTER. And the ones that we think need coverage it will not cover?

Colonel HEARNE. There might be that case. We do not want to take a chance on not having this if such a case should arrive.

Mr. FORRESTER. I do not believe I follow that. Do you have any questions, gentlemen?

Mr. BOGGS. No, sir.

Mr. HILLINGS. No, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. No, sir.

Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Brickfield?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. No, sir.

Mr. FORRESTER. Gentlemen, it so happens that three of the members of this subcommittee have appointments that they have to go to at 11:30. It is not quite that time right now, but I believe it would

be well that we halt at this juncture so that we will not have is there something that you want to say?

Mr. POLLAK. May I ask one question for clarification?
Mr. FORRESTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. POLLAK. I am not clear whether your last statement, Mr. Chairman, refers only to this item 2 (b) (2), item 310 a, or whether you are also referring to the preceding item which was 2 (b) (1), item 263. Mr. FORRESTER. We are operating on the idea that we are proceeding on both. As I understood the gentleman's testimony, there was nothing now occurring on both of these, and nothing that was anticipated in the future. That was in answer to the question of the gentleman from Texas.

If that is not true, or if you want to say something to the contrary, I think it well to get it in the record now.

Mr. POLLAK. Is Mr. Morrissey still here?

(No response.)

Mr. POLLAK. The witness who testified on the preceding item has left. That was Mr. Morrissey. I asked my question because I had a suspicion that there might possibly be a misunderstanding between the witness and the committee. I was not clear

Mr. FORRESTER. I think it is well that you did. I think it is tied in there by some answer that we have had.

Mr. POLLAK. I think so. I think also that the witness might have misunderstood the committee in that respect.

Mr. FORRESTER. Is there some statement that you would like to make at this time?

Mr. POLLAK. No, sir, because I do not have the information. Mr. FORRESTER. If not, when we take up again we will take up at that point. I am glad you called our attention to that.

Mr. BOGGS. On these last two items, I have been discussing this with Mr. Hillings. In the event neither of these items were continued in this resolution, there is a remedy available through a private bill if any such case should arise.

Mr. MANGAN. Mr. Boggs, there is also the remedy which was used in the case which we are trying to extend now, and that is making general legislation retroactive.

Mr. BOGGS. That is right.

Mr. MANGAN. The difficulty in that case is that we had many people who came out of the camps in the Philippines who were in dire need of medical attention, who themselves and their dependents, once they were recovered, went off the missing-person rolls, naturally, and if they were unable to work they were under severe hardship for income. It happened that many of them had enough back pay coming to them under the Missing Persons Act to tide them over. We feel it ought to be a continuing proposition. I did not mean to give the impression to the committee that we have no anticipation of need. In our business in the Department of Defense we have to anticipate the worst, unfortunately. I would like to be in a job where we did not. Mr. FORRESTER. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. FORRESTER. If not, we will adjourn until Wednesday of next week, at 10 o'clock. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the meeting was adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m. Wednesday, March 5, 1952.)

(NOTE. The subcommittee did not meet March 5.-Clerk.)

EMERGENCY POWERS CONTINUATION ACT

MARCH 6, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10:20 a. m., in room 346, Old House Office Building, the Honorable E. L. Forrester presiding.

Subcommittee members present: Representatives Forrester, Pickett, Hillings, and Boggs.

Present also were Miss Velma Smedley, assistant chief clerk, and Cyril F. Brickfield, committee counsel.

Mr. FORRESTER. We now have a quorum and our committee will come to order. We stopped where at our last meeting?

Mr. BURRUS. We stopped on page 28, items in the bill 2 (b) (1) and 2 (b) (2). We were afraid that there was some confusion with respect to those two items, and we asked if we could continue with them this morning.

We have a prepared statement which Mr. Mangan will read, and he is here to answer questions, at least on one of the items. Mr. Morrissey was out of town. We were not able to reach him before he left.

I would also like to say that Colonel Hearne asked me to express his regrets that a long-standing assignment had come through which will call him out of the city and he cannot finish this job with us. But Colonel Lundberg, who has been working with him from the beginning, is going to take his place.

The first item we will take up will be 2 (b) (2), which is in the middle of page 28, and it is the item which has to do with compensation to a Government employee who suffers death or disability after capture or detention by the enemy; and that relates to civilian Government employees, nonmilitary personnel.

The other item which Mr. Mangan also will take up is the one that provides compensation for employees of contractors for injury or death or disease that occurs outside the United States.

Mr. FORRESTER. The latter would be 2 (b) (1)?

Mr. BURRUS. That is right, sir. But we will take up 2 (b) (2) first because that is the one Mr. Mangan is most familiar with.

Mr. FORRESTER. All right, Mr. Mangan, you may proceed to discuss 2 (b) (2).

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

Mr. MANGAN. Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the testimony on Friday, subsection 2 (b) (2) of the resolution was under discussion. While the Department's explanation of the provision has been com

pleted, our review of the hearing transcript indicates that members of the subcommittee remained in doubt as to the practical need for the continuation of the legislation.

We wish therefore to set forth in summary fashion the basic considerations which dictated that the item be included.

As the committee is well aware, there are civilian employees of the United States in every part of the world. According to recent statistics collected by the Civil Service Commission, there are 86.200 United States citizens so employed outside the continental limits of the United States.

Mr. FORRESTER. Excuse me one minute; how many, sir?

Mr. MANGAN. 86,200. That is United States citizens outside the United States.

Mr. HILLINGS. Where are the bulk of those employees?

Mr. MANGAN. If we were going to say in any general group, I would say most of them are of course in the Territories and possessions. We cannot of course divulge the numerical distribution by geographic location. For one reason, I do not have it; and for another reason, for many of the agencies it is classified for reasons of security and I would not be free to discuss it.

If we were to select any particular place, the Territories and possessions, of course, would have most because many of the departments carry on operations in those places that do not operate in foreign

countries.

The Department of the Army alone employs slightly more than 27,000 American citizens overseas. Of those, 18,800 are not residents of the area where employed, and would therefore fall within the coverage of this legislation; although the degree of hazard among those 18,000 would vary greatly between such places in the extreme as Puerto Rico on the one hand and Korea on the other.

It is sufficient to point out that some United States citizens are serving their country's interests in every nation where diplomatic relations are maintained. Many more are stationed in the Territories and possessions as the Alaskan frontier, Guam, and other Pacific bases.

Numerically important also are the critical groups in Western Germany, Okinawa, Japan, Turkey, Greece, Indochina, and other points in southeast Asia and similar places of evident danger.

It is true, as was brought out in testimony, that we know of no Department of Defense employees who have been captured in the Korean operation. In that sense there are no immediately potential beneficiaries of this legislation. We would be derelict in our duty, however, if we did not point out that present world conditions constitute an ever-present hazard to thousands of United States citizens who entered overseas employment with assurance that adequate provision had been made for the contingency of capture and attendant disability and death.

Their status as potential beneficiaries, though more remote than if they were presently in the hands of hostile forces, is nonetheless real. The conditions which make their position hazardous are the same conditions recited by the President in his proclamation of the national

emergency.