Mr. GOODELL. Since your opinion and since this Court of Claims decision?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. Does the Mulholland case apply to pay of any type other than retainer pay?

Mr. MILLER. That is one question that comes up. I would say that it doesn't matter whether it is retainer pay or not because the Court of Claims went on to show that these were not dual payments, notwithstanding the retainer part. That was only one aspect of the decision.

Mr. GOODELL. Will there be any problem of retroactive now if we should pass a bill like this? Are you going to have them all coming in that have been denied in the past?

Mr. MILLER. The general rule of construction of course is an act applies only to future and not to past, and I assume that that probably would take care of it.

Mr. GOODELL. In other words, the way it is presently written raises no retroactive problem?

Mr. WIER. Would this not be the answer to this question: Up until this decision you had been denying them.

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. WIER. Now if these same people that had made application 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago, now realize that the court of appeals has reversed the position of your ineligibility, would they not be as much entitled to the court action as the case that was before the court?

Mr. MILLER. I believe they would.

Mr. WIER. Sure.

Mr. MILLER. If you did not want them to get it, I mean if you did not want him to go back you would have to put something in there that will say "This shall apply effective so and so."

Mr. WIER. Date of the court action?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes.

Mr. GOODELL. I wonder if we should not put an effective date, since the date of that court action makes all eligible?

Mr. MCCAULEY. An effective date should be written in there. Mr. WIER. You must have some knowledge of how many cases had made application in, let us say, 5 years, since Korea.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Frankly, I don't have, Mr. Chairman, but they I could state that.

are not numerous.

Mr. WIER. I see. Because that would be probably the complete number that did make application and that would probably cover all that had any rights.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WIER. We will pass on to the next one.

Mrs. Bosone, I notice in my file here a letter dealing with H.R. 811.

I do not have H.R. 811. This letter comes from Congressman Teague. Mr. O'HARA. It is identical to H.R. 715.

Mr. WIER. I see now. Yes. All right.

Mrs. BOSONE. Do you have it?

Mr. WIER. Yes. H.R. 856. I have two bills instead of one there. Mr. MCCAULEY. It is the same as H.R. 715.

Mr. WIER. H.R. 856, Mr. Multer.

(H.R. 856 and H.R. 3719 follow:)

[H.R. 856, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to extend coverage to certain persons engaged in civil defense

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 40(b) of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking out "and" immediately before "(5)" and by inserting before the period at the end thereof a semicolon and the following new matter: "and (6) part-time and full-time, paid and unpaid, volunteers, auxiliaries, and civil defense workers subject to the order and control of a State government or any political subdivision thereof engaged in, training for, or traveling to or from, activities relating to 'civil defense' as such term is defined in section 3(b) of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950". (b) Section 40 (f) of such Act is hereby amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end thereof the following new matter: "and except that each employee described in paragraph (b) (6) hereof shall be deemed to be receiving 'monthly pay' at a rate which would provide such employee and his dependents with the maximum benefits provided under this Act".

SEC. 2. Section 303(d) of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 is hereby amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end thereof the following: "except for the purposes of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended".

[H.R. 3719, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To extend benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act ot certain persons injured while engaged in civil defense activities during World War II

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who, on the date of enactment of Act, is receiving medical or hospital care or money payments under the civilian war benefits program described in the paragraph bearing the caption "Civilian war benefits" under the center heading "Salaries and Expenses, Office of Community War Services, Federal Security Agency" contained in the Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947 (60 Stat. 696), and the beneficiaries of any such person, may elect to receive the benefits prescribed under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act for civil employees of the United States who are disabled or die from a personal injury sustained while in the performance of their duties, and their beneficiaries, in lieu of any benefits to which such person, or his beneficiaries, may be entitled under such civilian war benefits program. The Secretary of Labor shall have jurisdiction in such cases and shall perform the same duties with respect to such persons as in the cases of such employees. For the purposes of this Act, each such person shall be presumed to have been receiving $300 per month at the time of sustaining the injury which entitled such person to benefits under such civilian war benefits program. Any payments made pursuant to an election authorized by this section shall be retroactive to the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 2. The periods of limitations prescribed in section 20 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act shall not begin to run with respect to such persons and their beneficiaries until the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. WIER. This man Fino has dozens of these bills here. New York City must have had some serious accident up there in connection with civil defense.

Mr. MCCAULEY. This bill, Mr. Chairman, involves the same principle we discussed a few moments ago in connection with the coverage for members of volunteer fire departments.

Mr. WIER. Mr. McCauley, may I ask you? As I said a minute ago we have the Multer bill on civil defense and we have the Fino bill on civil defense. Are they similar at all?

Mr. MCCAULEY. No; the Fino bill deals with another group, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. Does it? Go ahead on H.R. 856.

Mr. MCCAULEY. This would extend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to persons engaged in certain civil defense activities described in the bill, namely, part-time and full-time paid and unpaid volunteers, auxiliaries, and civil defense workers subject to the order and control of a State government or any political subdivision thereof engaged in training for, or traveling to or from activities relating to civil defense.

Obviously these are not persons under the jurisdiction and control of the United States. They are operating under the State programs. And many of the States, I do not have the exact number in mind at the moment, I would say a majority of the States have enacted some legislation to provide workmen's compensation or other similar benefits for civil defense workers under State jurisdiction.

I might note that the benefits this bill proposes to grant are rather substantial. It proposes that they shall receive the maximum benefit provided under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, which is section B. The maximum benefit for total disability is $525 a month. I daresay many of the people involved in this program would not be employed at wages of $525 a month.

Mr. WIER. Has your Department taken any position on this coverage?

Mr. MCCAULEY. No, sir; we have not been asked to report on this. It seems to me, though, that the same principle the Department has followed in other similar matters of not favoring extension of the Federal compensation law to employment outside the Federal Government would be applicable in this situation.

Mr. WIER. You leave me a little confused, now. I have had one or two little chats with Members of the House over this. I took somewhat the same view originally on this agency in discussing it with others. I find that the civil defense legislation is set up as a Federal agency and duties and responsibilities are assigned by the central Federal agency to State agencies under the direction of a State officer. I have been asked "Well, Wier, how do you defend any difference between a civil defense Federal agency and shall we say the Federal Department of Labor, the Federal Department of Agriculture, or the Federal Department of Commerce"?

Mr. MCCAULEY. The group this refers to as I understand it are the persons who are in organized civil defense activities under the jurisdiction of the State.

Mr. WIER. Under the direction of the Federal Government.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Only in the broad overall direction, but you will note that in Section 2 of this bill it states that

Section 303 (d) of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 is hereby amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end thereof the following: "except for the purposes of the Federal Employees Compensation Act as amended."

Section 303(d) of the Federal Civil Defense Act specifically provides that civil defense workers shall not be deemed to be employees of the United States.

Mr. WIER. Except for the purposes-

Mr. MCCAULEY. It is proposed to cover them. And I would be inclined to think that the Civil Defense Act itself might be reviewed first to see what position the Congress is going to take with regard to this very problem.

Mr. WIER. As of today your Department is declaring them ineligible?

Mr. MCCAULEY. They are clearly excluded today.

Mr. WIER. That is what I say. Your Department has taken the position that they are not eligible.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. WIER. I know you had applications for compensation and denied them.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes.

Mr. GOODELL. I take it that is based on section 303 (d) they are. deemed Federal employees?

Mr. MCCAULEY. They are not Federal employees.

Mr. GOODELL. Of course we have been considering this and other aspects and last year I think the House passed a bill that would set up matching funds to pay these people. We are getting closer and closer to a point where they may have a Federal status as employees. That passed the House but I don't believe it has passed the Senate. Mr. WIER. It has not.

Mr. MCCAULEY. It seems to me if they acquire Federal status by some change in the Federal Civil Defense Act, then automatically they would be covered by compensation.

Mr. GOODELL. That would have to be changing this section 303(d). Mr. WIER. What is the difference between this and the Fino bill, sir?

Mr. MCCAULEY. The Fino bill deals with another group of individuals. During World War II no provision was made for the proection of persons who were engaged in civil defense activities, not Federal statute was provided to cover them. However, the President allocated funds to the then Federal Security Administrator to set up a program to provide some measure of relief for a limited category of persons on civil defense activities. And they set up what was Mr. WIER. What do you mean by relief funds, money? Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir; money and medical aid.

Mr. WIER. Not public relief?

Mr. MCCAULEY. The plan was to provide disability and death benefits and medical care.

Mr. WIER. That is what I thought when you said relief.

Mr. MCCAULEY. But it was not under a statutory plan. It was under a plan set up in what was then the Federal Security Agency. The plan, as I recall now, provided for a maximum payment of $85 a month in any of these cases plus medical care. It made some provision for a continuing of payments during the period of disability in case of permanent injury.

And we inherited the program after the war was over and we are liquidating it now. We have about 30 or 40 cases left over in which we are still paying some benefits.

Mr. WIER. What did it cost? What was the money allocated to you.

Mr. MCCAULEY. I don't remember the original allocation.

Mr. WIER. $500,000?

Mr. MCCAULEY. It was several million dollars allocated.

Mr. WIER. Oh.

Mr. MCCAULEY. But not all of it was used. Our costs now run less than $25,000 a year.

Mr. WIER. Did you say that was for New York or the Nation? Mr. MCCAULEY. No, this was nationwide.

Mr. WIER. Nationwide?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir. The Department submitted a report on the Fino bill, incidentally, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. Did it?

Mr. MCCAULEY. We took the same position there that we have on these others. We don't like to extend the compensation act to cover groups that were not originally provided for under that act. If some liberalization of the benefits is required here it seems to us preferable to increase the benefits under the program we now have rather than to bring them in under this.

Mr. WIER. How do you go out and cover university professors that are given their ay from the university and have no connection with the Federal Government except probably doing some research?

Mr. MCCAULEY. The university professor would have to be called in to do a specific job for the Government.

Mr. WIER. I see.

Mr. MCCAULEY. The committee here might see fit on some occasion to engage the services of a specialist in some field to undertake a study for the committee but that person would operate under the direction of the committee.

Mr. WIER. But we are now discussing the bills dealing with injuries and death occurring to men or women engaged under the civil defense legislation. What I have here come from New York. I don't see any from any other Members except New York. There are two bills here, the Fino bill and Multer bill dealing with compensation. The Multer bill sets up a pretty high maximum of $500 and some dollars for the compensation. The Fino bill covers another group of employees.

Now, the Department is liquidating at the present time the fund set up by President Eisenhower to take care of some of these civil defense injuries and death cases. The position is not a favorable one, apparently, from this report. Is there any question? You reside near New York and New Jersey. You have civil defense up there. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, except to ask what has probably already come out. Has there been a formal report by the Department on these bills?

Mr. MCCAULEY. There has been on the Fino bill, H.R. 3719. There has not been on the Multer bill, H.R. 856.

Mr. WIER. The field is exactly the same in those two bills. You are moving over into the civil defense here. One bill has an objective. The other bill has an objective. But I think the same thing would be done in both of them. It would change the maximum here in the Multer bill but Multer desires coverage, too. They cannot get anything without coverage, eligibility, is not that correct? They both ask for eligibility.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Under the Fino bill it proposes to bring under the compensation law now a group of people whose activities long since ceased. They terminated in 1945. They have in the meantime received benefits under this plan that was set up in 1941 or 1942 to provide relief for them.

Mr. WIER. That is civil defense, too, is it not, Mr. McCauley, civilian war benefits? I would gather that it is.

51706 60