attendant's minimum to $100 but, if the committee does not desire to do that on a blanket basis for all people who are completely disabled, I certainly think that by the nature of the injuries to paraplegics that paraplegics should receive no less than $150 and no less than $100 for the attendant.

As I say, this same Congress for veterans had recognized that a veteran paraplegic needs $450 per month no matter what his compensation was in the service and, even if he was a peacetime veteran, that he needs a minimum of $360 a month no matter what his compensation was in the service and certainly a man who is equally conscientious in serving his country in a civilian capacity should get a minimum of $150 a month when his needs are just as great as are those who were injured in the military service.

That is my testimony, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. Are there any questions, Mr. O'Hara or Mr. Frelinghuysen?

Mr. O'HARA. I have no questions.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to ask Mr. Baldwin to explain again just how much a paraplegic gets. In his bill I notice a reference to, and I quote:

Where the disabled employee is a paraplegic, his basic compensation * * * shall be not less than $150 a month.

And then:

Where the injury causes the employee to be a paraplegic, the basic compensation *** shall not be less than $150 a month.

How are those two expressions related?

Mr. BALDWIN. Let me say that at the present time the Federal Employees' Compensation Act as it applies to paraplegics does not have any specific provision applicable to paraplegics. It is just the standard minimum of $112.50 in the act that would apply to any paraplegic who did not get enough compensation in his employment to obtain more than the minimum.

Do you follow me?

In other words, there is no specification in the present Federal Employees' Compensation Act that says "paraplegic." Probably a person who was employed in regular civilian service on the types of jobs that are now in Federal civilian employment would have received enough so that the 66% percent that normally applies would bring him above the $112.50.

My problem is to do something for a young fellow who was in the CCC Corps. The CCC Corps member, as you know, received a very minimum compensation and therefore 66% percent would give him hardly anything, so that he falls under the classification of the minimum in the act, $112.50.

In order to accomplish the objective that I have hoped to accomplish of putting a minimum for paraplegics of $150 per month, this bill proposes that this be spelled out, that the minimums for paraplegics will be $150 per month.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There seem to be two different things. One is the minimum for a paraplegic and the other is a minimum where the injury causes the employee to be a paraplegic.

I am just wondering how those two sections relate, why in one case we are talking about where the employee is a paraplegic and in another

51706-60

we say, "Where the injury causes the employee to be a paraplegic.' There might well be an additional Federal responsibility if the injury suffered caused him to be, but if he was a paraplegic at the time he suffered the injury, there might not be an additional responsibility. Mr. BALDWIN. I understand the distinction you are endeavoring to point out.

I asked the legislative counsel of the House of Representatives to draw up a provision that would cover employees who suffered an injury which caused them to be paraplegics.

This is the bill which the legislative counsel drew up to meet that definition.

If, for any reason, it is broader than that and you feel that it should be spelled out where it says where the disabled employee becomes a paraplegic as a result of his injury, I have no objection to having it spelled out.

The person I am trying to help is a man who was rendered a paraplegic as the result of an injury in Federal civilian service in the CCC Corps.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Baldwin, I probably should not admit it but the fact that I am asking questions shows that I am not basically well informed on the legislation we are considering amending. In other words, I am a new member of this subcommittee and I am trying to learn more about the basic act. I am not sure still about the meaning of your section 3:

Where the employee is a paraplegic, the additional sum payable under this paragraph shall be $100 a month.

Does this mean in addition to the basic allowance?

Mr. BALDWIN. That is the section that applies to an attendant. This goes back to paragraph 1 of subsection (b) of section 6 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act which states that any person who is completely disabled and requires an attendant is provided additional compensation for an attendant of $75 per month. That is the present act.

This would increase that to $100 per month, so that this bill would do two things. It would increase the minimum for paraplegics from $112.50 a month to $150 per month and it would increase the compensation for an attendant for those paraplegics from $75 per month to $100 per month.

May I say again that I do not see how a paraplegic could live on even that combination but certainly it would be an improvement over the existing compensation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is the basic thing that worries me. It seems to me that perhaps your best recourse would be a private bill to benefit an individual because I would assume that there might be nobody else who would specifically benefit under a provision such as this.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Frelinghuysen, the Judiciary Committee has a rule against private bills to benefit an individual as compared to a class in these compensation laws. It has to be done under general legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you happen to know whether there would be any one other than your constituent who would benefit under this bill?

Mr. BALDWIN. I understand that there might be 8 or 10 who came out of the CCC Corps with paraplegic injuries.

Mr. WIER. We have Mr. Goodell here now.

Mr. Baldwin is speaking on H.R. 698, which has to do with compensation in the case of a limited number of paraplegics that are on the rolls of the Federal compensation bill.

Mr. Frelinghuysen was just questioning him about the benefit that goes directly to the individual and then, because of the helplessness, the allowance that goes to the attendant. The Veterans Administration also allows this.

He is trying to raise the $112.50 for the individual to $150 and to increase the attendants from $75 a month to $100 a month. Those are the two objectives he has in this bill.

Have you questions, Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. I have none, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. We discussed this question with Mr. McCauley.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman.

Did you go into the question of why we are limiting the bill to the spine?

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Goodell, I appreciate your raising that point. I had no intention of making it that narrow and am perfectly willing to have the words "to the spine" stricken in the definition of paraplegic which would leave it "The term 'paraplegic' means an individual the lower half of whose body is paralyzed on both sides by reason of an injury."

Mr. WIER. Period.

Mr. BALDWIN. Period.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think that that would take care of your question because you asked about the early definition of where the disabled employee is a paraplegic but then the definition of the paraplegic spelled out that it must be by reason of an injury, so that this definition of a paraplegic would spell out that the man must become a paraplegic as a result of an injury.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My main concern, Mr. Baldwin, is that you are seeking relief for your constituent but it sounds to me as if, as a practical matter, it would not be anywhere near a sufficient amount to enable him to live as he should. If the amount which the Congress provides for veterans in the same circumstances is not grossly excessive, and I do not think it is, this $150 from the present $112 and an additional $25 for an attendant still does not sound like even a resemblance of justice.

Mr. BALDWIN. I am delighted to hear the gentleman state that. If this subcommittee desires to go further along these lines and raise it to a higher limit, I would be delighted, but this has to be done through an amendment to the Compensation Act. This is just a step to do what I think is justice.

I would like to urge that this committee take at least this step. If you want to go further and increase the minimums higher than this for paraplegics, I would be delighted.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman.

I have in my mind the question, what is there about paraplegics that should give them any preference over anybody else who is totally disabled? Is there any reason why we ought to give higher benefits to a paraplegic?

Mr. BALDWIN. The only way I can answer that is this: It seems to me that paraplegics have some very difficult problems. Congress has recognized that they fall under a different category in the veterans compensation. A paraplegic receives $450 per month under our veterans laws, and, if he is a paraplegic as a result of peacetime veterans service, entirely in peacetime, he receives 80 percent of that $450 or $360 per month as a result of laws passed by Congress. Those are higher than the amounts that other veterans receive who may have been rendered fully disabled. Congress has recognized that the problems of paraplegics in living are unusually complex because they have to be in wheelchairs at all times and require attendants.

If we have already recognized this fact and given added compensation to anybody who served in our Armed Forces, it seems to me as a matter of equity and justice we should give some recognition of that principle to those who served us in a civilian capacity, and this bill only proposes $150 as compared to $360 to someone who served completely in peacetime in the military service, both of whom suffered the identical type of injury.

Mr. WIER. Are there any further questions?

On behalf of the committee, Mr. Baldwin, we are very happy to have had your interest expressed here and your presentation to the committee.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. The next member who has appeared this morning is another colleague from California, Mr. Teague.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES M. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am appearing in support of H.R. 1967, of which I am the author. It is a very simple bill, as I understand it anyway, and would involve only a comparatively few people.

The situation is this. A man is working; suffers an injury, and his compensation, of course, is based on his then salary. He apparently recovers, returns to work, and suffers a recurrence of the same injury. In the meantime his salary has been raised either by a promotion or a general percentage pay increase.

The present law provides that, when he does suffer this recurrence, his compensation is resumed at the rate it was established at the time of his original injury.

This bill would provide that, if he has received an increase during the time he has come back to work and before he suffered a recurrence of the same original injury, the new compensation will be based on his increased salary rather than the original salary.

This seems to me to be fair and equitable.

It was brought to my attention by a case in my own district. I do not need to give you the details of that.

The bill has the full support of the American Federation of Government Employees, and I understand that that organization will file a statement in support of it.

There is one sentence I might read from a letter written to me by Mr. Campbell, the national president of the AFGE, an unsolicited letter:

I desire to express appreciation of AFGE members in your interest in this important phase of Federal personnel policy. The principle advanced in this bill has great significance for members of our Federation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. Are there any questions?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If I might, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask my friend, Mr. Teague, whether he has any idea how many people might stand to benefit? Has there been any survey made?

Mr. TEAGUE. Not that I know of, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I cannot imagine that there would be very many. It would be an unusual circumstance where a man is injured, returns to work, suffers a recurrence of the same injury and has received a pay increase in the

meantime.

I cannot imagine that there would be any large number of people falling under that category.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That letter from which you quoted indicated that it was an important thing.

Mr. TEAGUE. As a matter of principle it is, apparently, with the AFGE. They have not pressed it very hard maybe because there are so few involved but it does seem to me to be a simple matter of justice. I do not know of any good arguments against the bill. I did not hear Mr. McCauley's testimony. I will make it a point in accordance with your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that I find out what he did say about it and, if he had any objections, I will ask your permission to perhaps return and attempt to answer any objections that he made which might seem to me to be not without merit.

Mr. WIER. Mrs. Bosone, are there not two or three of these bills that refer to recurrences?

Mrs. Bosone. Yes, there are.

Mr. WIER. They are closely related to your bill.

Mr. TEAGUE. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that I do not provide in my bill that this shall be retroactive. It will only be effective as to the future should it be enacted.

Mr. WIER. Are there any questions, Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. I have no questions.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Goodell.

Mr. GOODELL. No, sir.

Mr. WIER. We appreciate your appearance here, Mr. Teague. We appreciate you making it brief.

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. Now Mr. Bennett of Florida.
Mr. Bennett has a bill in here.

STATEMENT OF HON CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. BENNETT. It is 715, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to appear here in support of H.R. 715 introduced by me on the first day of this session of Congress, January 7, 1960..

As the law now stands, a retired military man can receive salary for performing Federal civilian employment, but he cannot receive employees' compensation which is designed to substitute for his salary,