essential human needs, for it provides compensation for disability and death, and medical care for civilian employees of the Government who are injured in the performance of their duties.

Several of the amendments to the Compensation Act are in the nature of removing shortcomings which have become evident in its administration. Of such

is that in section 101 which would add a proviso to subsection (a) of section 5 of the act to permit payment of benefits for a nerve injury, for example, in the chest or shoulder which might result in the impairment of the use of a hand. Presently payment must be made on the basis of loss of earning capacity and not as a scheduled payment for the functional loss of an anatomical member because there has been no direct injury of the member involved. The practical effect is of course the same as if there had been a direct injury.

There is a further proviso to permit continuation of payment of compensation for scheduled disabilities even though the person is receving a Federal retirement annuity.

The amendment to subsection (c) of section 6 of the act would double the present minimum monthly rate of compensation for total disability. This restores a realistic dollar value to a payment intended to take the place of regular earnings. Certainly, at present-day rates of pay, $1.30 an hour is the least that should be offered as compensation for total disability incurred in line of duty.

Section 103 of the bill would add a provision to section 9 of the act to permit the Government to continue to furnish services, appliances, and supplies to an employee who has been injured after he has been placed on the Federal retirement rolls. This is a matter of simple justice and the proposal recognizes the great need which may exist for an employee whose income has been reduced somewhat below that of former years.

We favor the next amendment to section 10 (A), which provides for the payment of 2 years' compensation in a lump sum to a widow upon her remarriage. It would remove an obstacle to remarriage. It probably would not involve any sizable cost. It is understood that there are now few remarriages. There is a precedent in the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for the payment of a lump sum to a widow upon remarriage. That law provides for a payment of 2 years' compensation in a lump sum upon remarriage. The increase of the minimum compensation base in section 10(K) of the act from $150 to $300 to be used in computing compensation in case of injury resulting in death is another instance of recognition of the depreciation of the dollar.

A similar reason underlies the amendment of section 11 of the act provided in section 106 of the bill. The change to be made here is to increase from $400 to $800 the amount which may be paid for funeral and burial expenses if the injury to an employee results in death. This increase is well justified.

The proposed amendment to section 12(b) of the act would consider premium pay as part of normal income when an employee is usually employed more than 40 hours a week. At present payment for overtime which is regularly scheduled may be included in determining the wage basis for compensation payments, but not irregular overtime.

This change would benefit those employees whose performance of overtime duty is irregular and cannot be anticipated so as to be counted as part of regular compensation. This change was intended to benefit firefighters and other employees whose overtime duty is now compensated by an additional payment which may not exceed 15 percent of that part of basic salary which is not in excess of the minimum rate for grade GC-9. This type of payment, however, may be compensable under present law.

The bill provides (in sec. 108) for the rewording of the present section 13(b) of the act dealing with the determination of wage-earning capacity in cases of partial disability. The amendment would remove from the present law the stipulation that actual earning "fairly and reasonably represent" wage-earning capacity. The test would be principally that of actual earnings.

Under present law the Bureau could base its determination of a compensation payment on the present earnings of an injured employee. If those earnings were not reasonably representative of his wage-earning capacity, the Bureau could go beyond present actual earnings and decide what would be the individual's earnings if he had not been injured or if he was performing duties which were within his capabilities.

This provision is related in practice to the difficult requirement of establishing earning capacity of an older person who cannot return to the job formerly

held but who could perform other duties provided they were available. Because of this discriminatory attitude of many employers concerning the older workerincluding Government supervisors he would not in many instances be employed though he may have the capacity to do the work. A younger employee could be retrained and placed in another position with no difficulty.

Section 109 of the bill adds a criminal section to the law to provide for punishment of persons who would in any way become involved in dishonest dealings or practices. Such a provision may at times be a protection to the honest employee who endeavors to avail himself of the benefits of the law.

Section 110 of the bill includes one of the most important and sorely needed amendments. This would make it possible to base the compensation payment to an employee on the wage or salary he is receiving at the time his incapacity for work begins or at the time of a recurrence of a former incapacity. An employee may have been injured 5 years ago and only developing now a disability which prevents him from performing his regular duties. Or he may have been disabled and apparently recovered, only to suffer a recurrence some years later. Meanwhile the employee has advanced from a GS-9 salary of $5,060 based on the 1951 Classification Act schedule to $7,270, the second step in GS-11.

Present law requires payment based on $5,060 if that employee today experienced a recurrence of a disability manifested nearly 10 years ago. This is evidently unjust from any situation. It is only reasonable to view the compensation payment as replacing current earnings. It is the fact he must stop work today that should control and not the fact that an injury occurred 10 years ago.

The bill would authorize the Civil Service Commission to provide by regulation for the reemployment of an employee who has recovered within a year from a temporary or permanent total disability or partial disability sufficiently to perform his former duties. We believe this proposal is quite worthwhile. If an employee suffers permanent disability which is likely to cause a serious handicap and result in payment of compensation for loss of 10 percent of wage-earning capacity or more, the bill would entitle such an employee to similar preference to that accorded disabled veterans. It would not include the preference provided in section 14 of the Veterans' Preference Act, which affords a veteran the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission if he is discharged, suspended, furloughed without pay, or reduced in rank or compensation. We be lieve it is highly desirable to make this provision for employees who have been handicapped in their work because of a physical disability. It is in our opinion a necessary and equitable addition to the law. This type of preference would be especially desirable and helpful to an employee who became involved in a reduction in force.

The increase provided in section 201 of the bill of compensation payments already in effect is especially desirable and could well be a larger amount, inasmuch as payment in cases adjudicated some years ago are quite small by present-day standards of value. There were similar adjustments included in the broad revision of the law in 1949, but none has been provided since. This fact is evidence that there is urgent need for such revision now.

Altogether, Mr. Chairman, these amendments to the Employees' Compensation Act are equitable and beneficial to the employee who may be injured and because of incapacity unable to continue his work. We believe they should be enacted at an early date. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to state our views on this bill.

Mr. WIER. If there is no objection I have a statement here from a Mr. James E. Warfel of the National Association of Special Delivery Messengers. This will be made a part of the record.

The statement of Everett G. Gibson, legislative director, of the National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees, AFLCIO, without objection will be made part of the record.

The statement of Ross A. Messer, legislative representative, National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees, without objection will be made part of the record.

The statement of Paul A. Nagle, president of the National Postal Transport Association, without objection will be made part of the record.

I have another statement here from Mr. Nestor together with the statements of Rev. Russell T. Loesch and others for consideration of civil defense workers in support of H.R. 3719. If there is no objection these statements will be made part of the record. This will include the entire file.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF EVERETT G. GIBSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE MOTOR VEHICLE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, my name is Everett G. Gibson, and I am the legislative director and secretary of the National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees, AFL-CIO. Our headquarters is located at 412 Fifth Street NW., Washington 1, D.C. Our membership is composed of employees within the Motor Vehicle Service of the Post Office Department.

I want to express our sincere appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee in scheduling hearings on bills that will amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act of 1949.

We appear before this committee to support H.R. 10705, introduced by the chairman of this subcommittee, Congressman Roy W. Wier, of Minnesota. We believe H.R. 10705 will correct certain inequities in the present law and will provide adepuate compensation necessary to insure security to our members and their families, during the period of disability or rehabilitation.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this committee, for allowing me to appear before this committee and express the views of our organization on this most important legislation. We sincerely hope that H.R. 10705 will be reported from this and the full committee, so that it can be enacted into law during this session of Congress. Thank you.

[From the Postal Transport Journal]

ARE WE PROTECTED?

(By J. A. Jones, Greenville, Clinton, and Columbia Highway Post Office) I aim this question to all personnel working in highway post offices. The answer is "No." I am the unfortunate victim of a wreck while on duty and have found out the hard way that I have little chance of collecting damages for my injuries. I have been informed by the U.S. Compensation Commission that proof of negligence against the driver must be proven before I would have a claim against the contractor.

You may think, like I did, that we are in the same status as railway postal clerks, but I have news for you. Again the Commission has ruled that our status is uncertain as it has never been ruled upon by a court of last resort. You may say that I am wrong but let me quote a few paragraphs from letters I have from the Commission. "The law is somewhat uncertain concerning the status of employees who work on highway post offices. We have taken the position that they are in the same status as a passenger in a public conveyance and that accordingly the operator of the highway post office owes the highest degree of care for their safety and some breach of his duty must be shown in order to establish his liability for any injury that may incur." From another letter: "There are conflicting views as to whether or not post office employees on highway post offices have the status of passengers at that time. Post office employees working on trains in the railway mail cars do have the status of passengers and accordingly the railroads owe them a degree of care greater than ordinary care. In our opinion, post office employees employed in highway post offices occupy the same position but unfortunately we do not yet have an authoritative court decision to support this view. Highway post office operators are required to carry liability insurance, but such insurance is intended to cover only the payment of claims against them based upon a showing that such operators were negligent. There can be no payment unless negligence is shown." If you are still unconvinced let me quote an excerpt of a letter from the General Counsel of the Post Office Department, "We doubt whether the contractor would be held to be an insurer of the safety of the injured clerk. If that be so, the general legal principles relating to liability for negligence would be applicable."

These excerpts may seem to be as clear as mud but I am of the opinion they are telling me that operators' liability coverage does not protect personnel employed in a highway post office. I may be able to convince a jury that there was negligence on the part of the driver and get a settlement. My injuries are permanent and it appears that I may soon have to "step down" but before I go I would like to have the personnel on highway post offices in the same status as personnel on railway mail cars. How can this be done? What has a solution?

STATEMENT OF REV. JOHN W. THOMAS, D.D., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL ON CHRISTIAN SOCIAL PROGRESS OF THE AMERICAN BAPTIST CONVENTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am writing to support the bill H.R. 3719. This bill, it seems to me, fulfills a duty which is ours in providing assistance for civil defense volunteers during World War II, who were killed or suffered or sustained serious or permanent disabilities while in course of and during the performance of their duties as civil defense workers.

It seems to me that these folk deserve consideration just as would be true of those who were injured in regular frontline duty. They were called upon to share fully in the defense of our country, when attacked by the enemy. It is a valid obligation for which they were called by the U.S. Constitution for common defense for the Nation.

I feel that to deprive them of disability benefits is to be disloyal to the whole democratic principle. Having known many civil defense workers I think I can say from experience that they acted with courage and with unselfishness as they sought to make the entire country safe in the hour of its peril. I am, therefore, writing urging that your committee report out for consideration by Congress as a whole, H.R. 3719.

Re H.R. 3719.

EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

MARCH 21, 1960.

GENTLEMEN: I have previously written to your committee with respect to the general intent of the above bill which has been reintroduced during this session of Congress.

As I previously stated I believe this bill will provide just compensation to many who served during the World War II period in the civil defense activities of our country.

I was personally in charge of one of these activities and I know that these men and women made great personal sacrifices and it is unfortunate that some of them should have been injured in the line of their duty, for which no compensation is granted to them.

May I request that you give favorable consideration to this bill which I believe will right many of the wrongs which were unintentionally visited upon those who served so well during the period of emergency.

Respectfully,

J. F. CROSs.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. WARFEL, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL DELIVERY MESSENGERS

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the record my name is George L. Warfel, president of the National Association of Special Delivery Messengers of the U.S. Postal Service.

This opportunity to appear before you and to wholeheartedly endorse the provisions of H.R. 10705 by Mr. Wier, is greatly appreciated.

The increase in the cost of living during the past 11 years since amendments were made to this basic law, makes it mandatory that this bill be enacted in order to adequately and fairly provide compensation for injuries sustained by employees while on duty. It appears to us that every amendment offered is fully justified and that enactment of the bill either provides greatly needed increase of benefits under present law, or additions which experience has shown to be badly needed in order to insure proper administration in accordance with the clear intent of the act.

We, therefore, trust that the committee will be able to make a favorable report, and that early enactment will follow.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE NESTOR

Honorable Chairman Roy W. Wier and members of the committee: I am Lawrence Nestor, 3070 Roberts Avenue, New York City, one of those who were injured and an active member of the U.S. Defense Corps, of the Office of Federal Civil Defense as a special patrolman.

It is a great honor and privilege to me to be here in this committee hearing.. May I first express my thanks to you and to the other members of this subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to appear here today in support of H.R. 3719.

Federal Civil Defense-like our military forces, was called upon in those dangerous times to share fully in defense of our country when it was attacked by the enemy and found us generally unprepared during World War II in 1941. We recognized that danger of attack-attack is a danger to the entire Nationbecause for us the protection of our country came first. We did not fail and proudly answered the call-with deed, not word-and joined the U.S. Defense Corps of the Office of Federal Civil Defense as a special patrolman, to stand the lonely vigil against sabotage and crime-crime takes no holiday and time off. It is always fighting on the side of our enemies.

While we performed our hazardous officially assigned duties, 225 sustained "serious lasting bodily injury." My actual physical, mental, and financial impairment resulted from injury which was sustained by me on March 17, 1943. On March 18, 1943, Dr. Joseph Hollos, M.D., after examination advised me to wear a truss with the view of possible recovery by this method.

On March 17, 1945, Dr. Joseph Hollos, M.D. and Dr. Albert Speed, M.D., advised me that the only solution for me was an operation. Copy of certificate No. 1 and No. 2 are submitted in proof.

On July 20, 1945, Dr. Joseph Hollos was requested to fill out the questionnaire and service charges rendered. Copy of certificate Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6-proof. On January 13, 1946, I reported to the medical officer in charge of the U.S. Marine Hospital, to Dr. Dolton, with a letter from Federal Security Agency dated December 7, 1945, for examination and treatment. He advised me to come back at a later date when I would be notified. Copy of letter No. 7-proof.

On August 6, 1947, with the same letter (No. 7-proof) I reported to the medical officer in charge of the U.S. Marine Hospital for examination and treatment to Dr. Boswell and he told me very arrogantly and abusively "we only take certain categories." I asked him to write down the explanation for what he told me. This he refused to do. I was there all day long when they sent me to one room after another. The Bureau has on record that: When the Bureau asked the U.S. Marine Hospital for the record of my report, the U.S. Marine Hospital then stated: I never was there. It took me 31⁄2 years to prove I was there.

Dr. Dolton and Dr. Boswell, medical officer in charge of the U.S. Marine Hospital, delayed the operation, causing me to wear the truss 4 years longer. This caused a very serious event. It is hard to explain in words. Nothing I can say will adequately explain the agonies of wearing a truss that presses against one's spine all day long for 4 years. This not only caused me pain but: "There is considerable density in the 4/5 intervertebral disc. Slight arthritic changes in lateral bodies of 4th lumbar vertebra. The ccocy is bent to the right." Copy of certificate No. 8 and 9-9 in proof. I paid $10 for X-ray and for 10 treatments $5 each treatment which was a result of the injury of March 17, 1943. I never was compensated for this. This injury still plagues me 17 years after.

1. On March 10, 1948, with the form CA 33, I reported to the medical officer in charge of the U.S. Marine Hospital, Staten Island, N.Y., to Dr. Feur for examination and treatment. After examination he instructed me to return for further treatment on March 16, 1948.

On March 16, 1948, in accordance with the instructions of Dr. Feur, I reported to him at the U.S. Marine Hospital, Staten Island, N.Y. Dr. Feur called Dr. Skinner medical director, USPHS. After examination a report was made recommending physiotherapy for several months before any other treatment was