elapsed since the law was passed there is room for change although I think possibly we will have a little trouble with the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. SILVERGLEID. May I emphasize this, that based on my actual experience in the last many years involving injury while on duty, the one thing that strikes a harsh note and I think is completely unjustified is that when a man has a recurrence of an injury which may have occurred 3 or 4 years back that any time he loses after that is at the old rate of pay.

Mr. WEIR. We are aware of that. as much as any provision.

That has probably been stressed

We will hear now from the next witness, Mr. Daniel Jaspan of the National Association of Postal Supervisors.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL JASPAN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS

Mr. JASPAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement. My name is Daniel Jaspan. I am legislative representative of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, representing 24,000 employees, supervisors of postal service. I do not have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.

As far as going over the bill you have had witnesses at the last session and this session who did an excellent job of outlining the provisions of the bill. I just want to stress certain parts. I think it is generally an excellent bill but we are particularly interested in what was just mentioned about the compensation at the higher rate of pay for those injured some years ago who have recurrences. Our Association of Postal Supervisors has more people in that bracket than the ordinary organization because our people come from the clerkscarriers ranks generally. Many of them were injured years ago when they were clerks and carriers and have recurrences and are compensated at a lower rate of pay. We just had one recently who did not realize when he had a recurrence of injury how little he would get. When he found out how little it was, he had some sick leave left and went back on sick leave immediately, because he could not have lived on the rate he would have gotten on his recurrence. I have been trying to get some legislation enacted since I have been here on that one item. That is probably the most important item to our people because they cannot live on that. After all, even among our members, even though we are generally the higher paid postal employees the salaries are not high enough for them to put money away for a rainy day. When they have a recurrence of injury and have to try to survive on that amount they are really hard hit.

We have had a lot of people like that. Another section, Mr. Chairman, that concerns our people is also on page 5, line 15 when they recover within a year. I do not know whether there is a reason for within a year. We have had some people who have been out more than a year and have tried to come back to work, they have been declared fit for duty and certified fit for duty but it is up to them to get their job back. And if they cannot have the postmaster reemploy them they are just cut off from any income. Some of them have gone several years before they were completetly recoved enough to go back

to their jobs. We realize that that could cause a lot of dissatisfaction among people who have been promoted in the meantime to fill those jobs and we do not ask that they be given the same job. That could upset the whole working arrangement in the post office but we would like some consideration being given to making it mandatory to reemploy those people so they would have some steady income as long as they can perform duties. That is important to us.

Another thing we would like is to have some consideration given to the employees who are injured on duty earning their sick and annual leave while they are receiving compensation, particularly the sick leave because in many cases when they do report back to work it is more necessary for them to use sick leave than the person who has not been injured. We would like some consideration given to credit for sick leave in particular, annual leave if possible. Of course, we do not want to clutter up the bill with possible amendments. We would like to see some action as soon as possible but we hope that before you decide finally that you will give consideration to those items.

One more thing, Mr. Chairman, that we have in mind is a moreis this whole situation should be explored more often than it is. Now it is 11 years and before that it was a long period of 10 years. or more and it would be good if there were some provision in the bill that would say every 5 years the subject would have to be reopened and reexplored but in these long periods of time there are many people who actually suffer because the laws have not been brought up to date and I think the Federal Government should take the lead in trying to bring these laws up to date.

Mr. Chairman, these are about the only suggestions I have in addition to those already in the bill except that we hope there will be, this year both in the House and Senate because this is a subject of vital importance to our people who have been injured in the past.

Mr. WIER. Let me make this statement to you: The changes probably should be initiated by the Department because of their experience; but apparently they do not initiate them. This subcommittee has five fields of effort, the mine safety field of metal and minerals, the longshoremen, the care of the aged, and compensation. I am confronted every session with those that want this committee to get busy on a mine safety bill. Then there are those in the West who want us to get on the mineral safety bill. Then we have the longshoremen. Last year I passed over compensation legislation because we took up a lot of our time last session on the care of the aged. We hope we make suitable improvements in the compensation act because of the 10-year lapse since it was amended. I think we can see our way clear on that, but I have served here in Congress for 12 years and they do not move very fast.

Mr. JASPAN. We are primarily interested in our members although all the things you mention are of very great concern. Of course, there should be departmental action, as you say. I have tried that but did not get very far.

Mr. WIER. Any questions, Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. No.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Goodell?

Mr. GOODELL. You mentioned this reemployment within a year. The objective that you discuss certainly is a good one, nobody wants

51706-60- -13

to see anybody lose their job permanently because of a personal or partial disability from which they recover. The problem is for instance in a post office in a small town, you cannot go on forever or actually it would seem perhaps maybe a year is a reasonable time to go on with some sort of temporary setup and then you fill it. It is all very well to say you do not require that they go back to the same position but if there are not many positions of that status in that area, if you have in mind that in Little Valley, N.Y. that they have filled all the positions in a year that they send them up to Silver Creek or some other area

Mr. JASPAN. You are talking about the person to be reemployed. Mr. GOODELL. This is a mandatory thing. If he is qualified to do the duties he shall be reemployed.

Mr. JASPAN. I would not suggest that it be put on an involuntary basis or it could be written in such a way if there is no opportunity at that office he could be given some rights at another place for some kind of reemployment, not necessarily at the same position if there is a great lapse of time."

Mr. GOODELL. I sympathize with your objective but I point out there are very definite obstacles. If you give them some kind of preference in another office you are running into veterans' preference and some other things at that office. If you have a disabled veteran in Silver Creek, N.Y. in my district and I am sending somebody from Little Valley who has been disabled for a year which one should have the preference?

Mr. JASPAN. This does pose more of a problem. All of those that have come to our attention have been in larger offices where there were plenty of positions. I can see that would be a problem.

Mr. GOODELL. In other words, you would think this would not be too much of a problem in a larger office?

Mr. JASPAN. That is right. Most of our cases have been in the larger offices.

Mr. GOODELL. Have you found a lack of sympathy or desire on the part of the Department to reemploy these people? My initial reaction would be if these people are qualified to start again the tendency would be in any department or agency to want to find a suitable place for them.

Mr. JASPAN. I know of one that just happened in the last couple of months where a man has been out for 4 years. He was certified as eligible to go back to his former duties. He went to the postmaster and the postmaster just will not reemploy him.

Mr. GOODELL. If you are talking about a postmaster in a given post office there may be a personality difference. Maybe he does not think him good even though he is certified and qualified. That does raise problems and I believe that is essentially why this "within a year" was put in. We felt it should not be put in as "indefinitely." Mr. JASPAN. You can run into the same problem in the small office where there is not much turnover generally.

Mr. GOODELL. Yes, but there we can put them on within a year and it is a temporary job. It does not seem fair to put somebody on a temporary job much longer than a year, however.

Mr. JASPAN. I agree with that although I would suggest that possibly it could be written in such a way that a position in another office

would be offered on a voluntary basis but not necessarily the same position again.

Mr. GOODELL. We could write in perhaps policy guidance of some kind.

Mr. JASPAN. It does not seem fair that a man injured in the performance of his duties should have the doors closed altogether. The fact that he may recover in 13 months enough to go back to work and still he cannot be reemployed and then after a period of time his disability payments are discontinued.

Mr. GOODELL. I might say I raised that very point when the bill. was introduced, with some of the other witnesses testifying as to this year, 13 or 14 months, if that was a fair law to draw and that was the answer they gave essentially, they have to draw it somewhere. Mr. JASPAN. It is difficult to have something that would cover everybody, naturally.

Mr. GOODELL. I have no further questions.

Mr. WIER. May I extend to you the appreciation of the committee for describing the views of the supervisors of the Post Office Department.

There is a gentleman in the room who has made at least 50 trips from New York to see me and appear before the committee. I have told him that when we had time we would hear him. He gave me his statement today which I introduced in the record. He is one of those injured in the performance of duty with the civil defense up in New York. I will say he is an insistent boy.

Can you make a brief statement? I just said you have been down to see me 50 times. I shall be glad to give you a few minutes now. You do not need to read your speech because it is in the record.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE NESTOR

Mr. NESTOR. My name is Lawrence Nestor, one of those Federal civil defense people who was a special patrolman. Now when I say that special patrolman, I was on duty when I was injured. And I will try to make it as short as possible but before you go to the doctor you have to fill out the compensation and if you fill out the complaint for compensation after they look over and if you are all right they send you the form, fill it out, the doctor, and the Federal agency send me a letter to go in the U.S. hospital, Staten Island, and I went there so the doctor told me, "You come back later on." He was a very nice gentleman, "and we notify you." Oh, one thing I left out. When I was injured I went to my private doctor. My private doctor. My private doctor said, "Use the truss for the hernia." I get hernia from my injury. "Might be improved if you use that." And when I went to this doctor, he said, "Come back later on when we notify you." I went there the second time about a year or so, waiting for the notice. I was there from early morning late. And later on he was very nasty. He said, "You don't belong there," because I was not in uniform. Very arrogantly he refused me. Say, "You don't belong here. You are not in certain categories." When he was finished I said, "I don't come here to bawl me out. Here is official paper. I have the copy of the paper here with me."

He said to me, "What you said to me put it down on paper."

He said, "I am not allowed to do that, not authorized." So I was wearing this belt 4 years because the doctor refused me and I had pain. I needed operation. I went to the private hospital for operation

Mr. WIER. Mr. Nestor, if I may

Mr. NESTOR. Excuse me one second. Here I am using the belt so I have the X-ray medical report using the belt. The spinal, I do not know the special word but here it is black and white and the X-ray showed the certain vertebral injury-even sitting down, I don't know you notice it or not, I have pain. I have treatment and it does not cure it. Later on-I try to make it as short as possible

if

Mr. WIER. Mr. Nestor, let me interrupt.

Mr. Nestor got Congressman Fino to introduce a bill. Mr. Fino sent in a report but did not appear in person. Mr. Nestor as a civil defense worker ordered out to do some work by what he thinks is a Government agency, and which is true, he finds himself not covered for this medical care that he needs.

I think what you want to know and what you have been down to see me about is why are not the civil defense employees covered, is that it?

Mr. NESTOR. Yes.

Mr. WIER. So there is no use in your going over your medical problems here.

Mr. NESTOR. No, sir.

Mr. WIER. What you are seeking is compensation?

Mr. NESTOR. Compensation but now this is very serious if I may to take this second. They give me authority to go to U.S. Marine Hospital and I had the operation there, May, I think, 17, 1948. I get infection. I was 3 months there, the pus coming out steadily and they don't do nothing because the head doctor, Dr. Skinner, does not come down, the rest of them can do nothing, so I got rotten in there. Now after 3 months I was there with this infection they said to me I need other operation, very serious, I ashamed to tell the nature of the operation. Now I had three operation, same spot, and several small one and now if I take a deep breath I have a pain, if I walk, swell up, I have a pain. Now I ask the medical director in U.S. Marine Hospital why I have a pain all the time. He said to me the cord is cut, the tissue rubbing the cut cord, this friction always give you the pain and can do nothing about it. Now in the compensation office here is the medical director saying in the paper, I have it here. He says, "Cannot be improved and cannot be cured." Now while I was under the treatment and the hospital, $85 a month. Now $85, I have to pay out $800. I went to the private hospital I have to pay the doctor $200 and I have to pay assistant $25, hospital about $245 and I have a home, that time was no compensation like they have today, no compensation at all so I have to, forced to, borrow money, I have all the National City, Manufacturers' Trust Co., how I get paid and I pay interest and if I pay later more, from the $85. Now here comes that. I am totally wrecked. How can I live? Here is one unbelievable. I have five doctors, medical officers in charge, black and white, say that I have it here, total disability. But because the medical director, they don't put it down on a certain piece of form paper I don't get it. And now here comes unbelievable. I had a