Mr. GOODELL. You mentioned covering employees without compensation for rendering services comparable to that rendered by Federal employees. This would seem to be fairly close to the particular one here. You have, apparently, people who are either not being compensated on a volunteering of their services or being compensated when they are performing services in other respects and they are serving, apparently, the Federal Government in the capacity comparable to what our Federal employees might do.

Mr. MCCAULEY. There is this distinction, sir, that we would only cover those rendering services without compensation or for nominal compensation, where that service is authorized by law; that is, the agency is authorized by law to utilize services of persons in that category or provision is made by law for the payment of their travel and other expenses while on such missions. The service would be to the United States directly and it would have to be comparable to the services rendered by other Federal personnel, regular Federal personnel.

Mr. GOODELL. In other words, if they are receiving any compensation from any source for the particular service they are performing we would not cover them under the Federal compensation?

Mr. MCCAULEY. I am not certain that that would be quite exactly the situation. I presume that if the Federal Government wished to utilize the services of, say, a member of the faculty of some university or college on a special mission, that person might continue to receive his pay from the university or whatever source he was paid from before. He could be covered.

Mr. GOODELL. Do you know what circumstances are involved where we have volunteer firemen performing services for the Federal Government?

Mr. MCCAULEY. I don't know of any situation where it is involved. I presume it could be called in any case of fire, in a community they probably would be called into action. That would just be a presumption on my part on some little knowledge of how they operate on the community here where we have volunteer fire departments.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say I am sure everybody else in the room can hear. I must confess I cannot really hear what is being said.

Mr. MCCAULEY. I am sorry, sir.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to also say and explain to Mr. McCauley that I am a new member of this particular subcommittee, so I am very ignorant about many of the problems in this area.

I would just like to ask you to repeat what principle you thought would be violated if we should adopt the approach of H.R. 433. You mentioned something about jurisdictional problems.

Mr. MCCAULEY. The principle we have followed is that the law should be restricted to persons who are within the jurisdiction or control of the Federal agency.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, now, in what way does not a volunteer, operating on Federal property, fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government?

Mr. MCCAULEY. My understanding of their method of operation is that the volunteer fire department performs that service but not under the control or direction of the agency that might maintain the property.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No. I assume it would not be under control or direction but it would be physically on the Federal property. Mr. MCCAULEY. It would be.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In other words, if I had a Federal installation and I have a number in my district, if a volunteer fireman went on it he would not be under the control of the general who ran the arsenal but he would be certainly physically on Federal property? Mr. MCCAULEY. That is true.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would that not be a possible ground for extending the protection of Federal law to the individual providing services?

Mr. MCCAULEY. I don't think so, because we are dealing now with employees. The law is intended to cover employees; a person in that category would not be an employee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The only justification for it would be to stretch this voluntary effort to mean that it is a form, in effect, of Federal employment, I assume.

Mr. MCCAULEY. That is the only way you could justify this.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is the intent of this bill?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WIER. I think, Mr. McCauley, in line with the questioning now we will get a little deeper into this subject when we come to the employees of the Civil Defense Agency.

Mr. MCCAULEY. You will.

Mr. WIER. There, too, again they are asking for coverage.

Mr. MCCAULEY. That is right. There is a bill in here on that subject.

Mr. WIER. So if there are no more questions we will pass 433 and get back into it again when we get to the civil defense bill.

Now we will go to 458, Mr. McCauley. I think it is safe to say here that insofar as the Department is concerned, you are rather reluctant about this bill.

Mr. MCCAULEY. On the one we have just discussed?

Mr. WIER. Yes; 433.

Mr. MCCAULEY. My views as expressed here this morning on that particular bill are my own views. The Department has not as yet had occasion to consider its policy, so I will have to qualify what I have said to that extent.

Mr. WIER. That brings up another question. Does this have to be approved by the Secretary of Labor?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Any reports submitted to the committee would have to be approved by the Secretary of Labor; yes, sir.

Mr. WIER. I see. So we know where we are going.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, an information question. Have reports not been requested from the various departments on these bills?

Mr. WIER. We are getting his verbal report.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I mean no formal request from the committee has gone to the Department on their position?

Mr. WIER. Not for written report and I suggested here when we started if there is any comment Mr. McCauley makes that is pertinent that you would like to have remembered, I also have a reporter, to make available to us his comment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is this supposed to be a substitute for a written report?

Mr. WIER. That is right.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A verbal report, a personal appearance. We will not ask for a formal comment in the form of a report.

Mr. WIER. That is to be determined by the committee Mr. Frelinghuysen. If the committee feels they ought to have a report on each bill, that will be provided, but we will practically have it here today. He has some reports, if I remember.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Some of these bills we have reported on; yes, sir. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On the basis of committee reports?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You will indicate which ones have already had reports sent in?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir; I will, as we go through.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you.

Mr. WIER. Will you try to speak a little louder, Mr. McCauley, it will help the reporter and members here.

H.R. 458, by Mr. Abernethy.

(H.R. 458 follows:)

[H.R. 458, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To extend the death benefits of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to the dependents of certain Reserve members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the case of Reserve members of the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard who incurred injury in line of duty while performing active military or naval service after September 8, 1945, and before April 29, 1952, or who contracted disease as the proximate result of that service, and who died before January 1, 1957, as the result of that injury or disease, their dependents shall be entitled to the benefits provided by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended, for the dependents of civil employees of the United States who die as the result of injury incurred in the performance of their duties.

SEC. 2. Notwithstanding any limitation upon the time imposed by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act for the filing of claims thereunder, any person entitled to compensation under that Act by virtue of the enactment of this Act may file a claim therefor within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, but nothing herein shall be construed to entitle any such person to receive compensation for any period prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. Any person who because of the death of a Reserve member of the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard is entitled to compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation under laws administered by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs and who because of the death of that same Reserve member is entitled to compensation under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, by virtue of the enactment of this Act, shall elect which compensation he shall receive. Mr. MCCAULEY. This may call for a little more detailed explanation of background, Mr. Chairman.

As I stated a moment ago, prior to January 1, 1957, members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces were entitled to benefits provided by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act for injury or death incurred in line of duty in time of peace. They were not covered during a period of war.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you when was the beginning of their coverage?

Mr. MCCAULEY. The coverage goes back many years. For certain groups it goes back to February 28, 1925.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. McCauley, in your presentation are you going to justify the original inclusion of the Reserve members in the

act and give the reasons why they were dropped, for the information of the new members? I would not know what the pros and cons are of either including them or excluding them.

Mr. MCCAULEY. I don't know I could be too informative for reasons of originally including them. My recollection

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As long as we have the reason why we dropped them from coverage we would know for what reason it would be advisable to include some of that group.

Mr. MCCAULEY. My recollection is initially members of the Reserve were not entitled to benefits provided for Regular personnel of the Armed Forces. For some reason, I am not clear on it, it was decided that instead of bringing them within the same type of protection and coverage, that the Regulars enjoyed, this medium was adopted. They were given benefits under the Compensation Act for peacetime service.

Mr. MILLER. May I just interject here?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Surely.

Mr. MILLER. I believe the reason these reservists were brought under our act was that they were in the main civilians, their regular work was as civilians. They were just Reserve as part time. Occasionally they went to camp on active duty and it was considered that if they were injured they should be paid upon a civilian basis rather than upon a military basis. They would go to camp maybe for the summer or various times and so they were considered as civilians who temporarily were in camp and they were considered as civilians for this purpose.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Was that because the high-ranking Reserve. officers had such a rate of injury they thought it would be better to pay them off as civilians rather than generals?

Mr. MILLER. No, I think it was because they were civilians and should be considered as such.

I also understand that the military would rather have these persons considered not along with the Regular military personnel, whether it was a matter of pride or what it was, but anyway, they also wished them to be considered separately and that was done.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Prior to World War II, the coverage was not too significant under the Compensation Act because the Reserve was rather limited in size.

Moreover, the benefits available to reservists under the veterans' legislation, prior to 1949, was more liberal than the benefits provided by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. When the Compensation Act was amended in October of 1949, the benefits were raised very substantially as the chairman will recall, and at that time compensation benefits became more attractive. They were higher than could be paid under veterans' legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. At that time were reservists able to qualify under either program?

Mr. MCCAULEY. They could take either one, whichever was more beneficial to them.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. They could take their choice?

Mr. MCCAULEY. That is right.

A situation developed following World War II which has caused a confusion which this bill seeks to correct. As you know, we continued in a state of war until 1952, April 1952. And technically and

51706-60- -2

actually these reservists could not qualify for benefits during that period of time. Congress, however, enacted legislation which provided that for the purpose of this coverage the war terminated at an earlier date. There were two different dates used. September 8, 1945, was one date and December 1945 was the date used with respect to the Navy and Marine Corps personnel.

In reinstating this coverage during the period that we were still in a state of war, the peace treaty had not been signed, there were two different coverages provided, one for the Army and Air Force and the other for the Navy and Marine Corps and Coast Guard.

There were no limitations on the service. The Army and Air Force, they could be covered whether they were called to active duty for a brief period of time or for an extended period of time.

However, in reinstating coverage for the Navy reservist and the Marine and Coast Guard, the coverage was reinstated only for service of 30 days, not in excess of 30 days. They were on extended service beyond 30 days; they were not entitled to benefits under the compensation act. Their benefits were entirely under the military or veterans' program.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But they did have those benefits?

Mr. MCCAULEY. They had those benefits. All of them had the option of those benefits. Ours being greater, they were more attractive than were the veterans' benefits at that time.

When the Korean hostilities began and large numbers of reservists were called back into active duty, that did not involve a state of war. It was still a peacetime operation. The Army and Air Force reservists who suffered injuries while on active duty in the Korean campaign and otherwise were eligible for benefits under the compensation law.

Incidentally, most of the cases we are dealing with are fatalities, men who were killed and the compensation benefits are being paid to their dependents.

On the other hand, Navy and Marine Corps and Coast Guard personnel serving in the same areas, and naturally they were called to duty for more than 30 days if they were engaged in hostilities, were not entitled to this coverage because of the extended service. So there was a difference between the benefits available to the two different categories. I don't know whether I make myself clear.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, was this difference in coverage inadvertent, do you know, or was it an intentional distinction?

Mr. MCCAULEY. Sir, it is in the same bill. They deal with the Army, Air Force group in one section of the bill and the Navy in other sections of the bill and there is nothing to indicate any rationalization for dealing with them on different bases.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Again to refresh my recollection on what you have already said, and I recognize you have already said it, the the increased benefits under your act, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act occurred when?

Mr. MCCAULEY. With the amendment of the compensation law in October of 1949.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I notice that this bill talked about service after September 8, 1945, but until 1949 the benefits under the veterans' legislation was more beneficial than under your act.

Mr. MCCAULEY. That is correct.