Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Goodell

Mr. GOODELL. In pursuing that point a little bit further, it seems to me that you may get the situation under this bill where your volunteer firemen in some States are going to be better treated than your regular firemen. If the Federal Government has a responsibility because a fireman has come onto Federal installations, it would appear that the responsibility would find no distinction between whether they are volunteers or regulars.

For instance, if the Federal payment under compensation is larger than the particular payment under the State, we could have a volunteer fireman being able to collect the excess from the Federal Government while the regular fireman injured right beside him would not. Mr. BYRUS. The protection afforded to paid firemen is usually in excess of that provided by workmen's compensation.

Mr. GOODELL. Would that not therefore be covered-they would not get any Federal benefits if the regular firemen were going to get. more under the State?

Mr. BYRUS. That is right.

Mr. GOODELL. In the instance where under this bill they would get. more with Federal coverage than they would under State, would you not equalize it a little better if you covered them all?

Mr. BYRUS. The volunteer firemen in the State of Maryland would not benefit under this provision because the volunteer firemen in the State of Maryland are well and capably covered by State legislation regardless of where they go. Any time they are performing a service in connection with their responsibility as volunteer firemen they are protected in Maryland.

There are undoubtedly some States and unfortunately I cannot call to mind any, because I just received notice about representing Mr. Townsend yesterday, but there are some States that would protect the volunteer firemen perhaps when they are performing a service in connection with the State activity when they go on Federal property not under the jurisdiction of the State-then there is a question about their coverage by the State.

So this bill would spread the umbrella over the firemen when they are going to properties that are not within the responsibility of the State that they represent.

Mr. GOODELL. I recognize that. But I do think that if we should pass a law which would cover volunteers in a given situation and not cover regulars, and the volunteers would find they had a better deal out of this thing because they had Federal coverage, that would not be particularly fair.

Mr. KORNFELD. May I answer this?

Mr. GOODELL. Yes.

Mr. KORNFELD. I would like to give you some figures as to the compensation which would be given to a volunteer fireman under this. provision.

In the case of total disability without dependents, the volunteer fireman would receive $133.33 per month or $30.77 per week.

With dependents in case of total disability, it would be raised to $150 per month or $34.61 per week. I do not believe there are any paid firemen

Mr. ZELENKO. Will the gentleman yield for 1 minute?

Mr. GOODELL. Sure.

Mr. ZELENKO. You see there is a more serious problem here. The Federal employee as part of his salary gets this right to compensation. The volunteer fireman makes no contribution that way. This would be merely a gift or grant from the Government.

The entire theory is different under compensation.

Now, I just want to add one more point, and perhaps an answer. You see, under the question of assistance, I see no difference between somebody putting out a fire on Federal property or perhaps somebody going in to move an army truck or to help somebody turn a wheel, and perhaps suffering a herniated disk. We go right down the line for anyone assisting the Government.

That is why I agree with your idea of compensating people who help the Government, but I would much prefer that it be in the form of giving them a right to make a claim; but I wish you could answer Mr. Goodell, and perhaps myself, on the question of, Is there not a difference between somebody working for a salary and as part of his salary as one of the benefits getting compensation, and a volunteer?

Mr. KORNFELD. A volunteer fireman received no compensation for what he does. But the Federal Government, the State, or his next door neighbor receives a tremendous consideration for what he is doing, namely, giving of his time and energy and his own ability to earn a living for his family by dropping everything and without heed to his personal risk or risk to his family or children, going into a burning building or burning property, which is a far greater risk than that taken by a man trying to turn a wheel, possibly suffering a herniated disk.

The principle covering volunteer firemen has been this particular principle. It is not one of an employee being paid to do a job. Here is a man who willingly, voluntarily gives of himself and his family's fortune to help his neighbor.

This is one of the basic American tenets that we have in this country and one of the last true strongholds of American democracy that I think we have here where a man gives of himself without any thought of recompense.

That is the reason I placed at the beginning of my statement the fine statement made by the State of New York in saying thanks to the volunteer firemen for the wonderful job they are doing.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Kornfeld, there is no question but I think we all appreciate the role of the volunteer firemen in our society.

But our concern here is, as far as I am aware, we do not extend Federal compensation benefits to any group other than Federal employees at this point and this would be the first divergence from this.

Mr. Zelenko pointed out this would establish a precedent for a good many other types of activities that might, because they are performing a service on a Federal installation, and are injured while performing that service, become then subject or eligible for Federal compensation.

Whether we could draw a clear line, an equitable line, between these other people and volunteer firemen is another question.

I would segregate the question of replacing equipment perhaps from your compensation for injury. It seems to me there is an entirely different principle involved there where you go onto a Federal installation and your equipment is lost or damaged.

Mr. KORNFELD. I agree with that point. However, in most instances where volunteer fire service is required on Federal installations, it is under a mutual aid compact of one sort or another so that there is actually a contractual relationship now between the Federal installation and the volunteer fire department or fire district and the Federal Government has acknowledged that by giving the General Services Administration the right to enter into these mutual aid agreements so that now we find the volunteer firemen are not just John Smith walking down the road and sees a house burning and runs in to help somebody.

Actually here are, we might even say, independent contractors who under an arrangement have been called in to do a specific job.

If that is the line you need to draw, perhaps that could help you in drawing that particular line. They are not pure volunteers in that they are walking down the street and doing this. They are being called in pursuant to a prearranged understanding. This is in most instances the case.

Mr. BYRUS. Yes.

Mr. WIER. Are there any more questions?

Mr. ZELENKO. I do not have any except I would suggest that you draft a bill, as far as I am concerned, to give volunteer firemen or any person rendering assistance to the Government the right to make the claim regardless of negligence if he performs a service for the Government or loses his property or part of it on a Federal installation.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Might I just interject one thing there, Mr. Zelenko?

Mr. ZELENKO. Yes.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. You would include the property of these volunteer fire departments?

Mr. ZELENKO. I would rather have lives and bodies in first and property second.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Naturally. Some of the States already protect the lives, but after all, it is a very severe loss, as you very well know, for some of these small towns, if their equipment which they have gone to a great deal of trouble and a great deal of expense to furnish is destroyed on Federal property.

Mr. ZELENKO. I do not preclude the property. I would like to include the physical aspects.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Of course.

Mr. ZELENKO. Along that same general idea instead of a compensation idea.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Surely.

Then, of course there is only one thing I would like to say at this point, Mr. Chairman.

I think any of us who have worked on claims against the Government realize that that is an almost unending process. That was one thing I thought

Mr. GOODELL. May I ask one further question?

You spoke about in New York State the calling area being responsible for loss of property.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes.

Mr. GOODELL. As distinct from the responding area. Is this generally true on a national basis?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I think New York State is one of the few States that actually have in their statute a statewide mutual program established. In most instances these mutual aid programs are under local ordinance or local statute, not on the statewide statute.

Actually I do not know of any other State that has a statewide fire mobilization and mutual aid plan such as New York State has. Mr. BYRUS. No.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Possibly California. I am not sure.

Under our statutes the liability rests with the person who needs the help, not with the person who supplies the help. It works equally because one day one village needs help and the next day the other village needs help.

Mr. GOODELL. Presumably in the absence of a statute the responsibility for loss of property falls to the responding area as distinct from the calling area.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes, without a statute it would logically fall on the responding company.

Mr. WIER. Are there any further questions?

If not, thank you for the information you have supplied the committee.

We will now go on to the next witness.

Mr. O'HARA. Before you do, I would like to excuse myself. I will be back by 11:30 or shortly thereafter.

Mr. WIER. Without objection, so ordered.

What bill do you have?

STATEMENT OF ROSS BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, the number of my bill is H.R. 9765.
Mr. Chairman, I will try to be as brief as possible.

This is a very simple bill.

Mr. WIER. Would you give us a minute to get the bill out of here? Mr. BASS. This is a very simple bill, Mr. Chairman, which has the effect of raising the compensation of former employees of the Civilian Conservation Corps, known as the CCC back in the 1930's from a maximum of $50 a month to $125 a month.

Actually, I think an explanation of the bill and the committee would be better informed if I read a letter from a constituent of mine who actually inspired the introduction of this bill.

This gentleman is a former employee of the Civilian Conservation Corps and with your permission I will just read this letter, as it is addressed to me, in explanation of the bill after a conversation that I had with him while home last fall.

It is addressed to me.

DEAR SIR: I am writing you this letter and sending the information which I hope will help you in trying to get an increase in compensation.

I was injured while serving as a member of the Civilian Conservation Corps on June 20, 1934, and spent about 7 years in the hospital as a result of this injury. I had to undergo surgery on my spine in the form of an alba graft. As a result of this I was given an honorable physical disability discharge, being on September 30, 1935, from the Civilian Conservation Corps while still a patient in the U.S. Marine Hospital, Memphis, Tenn. I was awarded compensation in the amount of $4,000 for 100 percent permanent total disability which I drew at the rate of $28 per month until this award was drawn out, which was about November 6, 1947.

Then the Federal Employees Compensation Act, as amended by Public Law 357, 81st Congress, approved October 14, 1949, provided for increased compensation in the amount of $50 per month. This is the act I am still drawing on for 100 percent total disability.

Mr. Bass, I am truly grateful for this amount, but due to the high cost of living I just can't make ends meet on it. I have been trying to work part time doing light work and as of the 28th of June 1959, I have been forced to give up even trying to do light work.

I would appreciate very much if you could help me in any way to get an increase in my compensation. The operation on my spine tied six vertebrae together, resulting in permanent stiff back. I am unable to do stooping or bending. I return to the U.S. Marine Hospital once each year for a checkup. The last checkup stated I was not fit for any kind of duty and am to return again in October for another checkup.

Any additional medical information may be had by writing Federal Security Agent, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, Federal Security Building, Washington 25, D.C., or from the medical officer in charge from the U.S. Public Health Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.

Attached to this letter you will find a photostatic copy from the Commission addressed to the Department of State of Tennessee, which states I have a 100 percent total disability.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will make that photostatic copy a part of the record.

Mr. WIER. So ordered.
(The information follows:)

U.S. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION,

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Murfeesboro, Tenn.

New York, N.Y., March 6, 1944.

GENTLEMEN: Attention is invited to your letter of May 23, 1942, in reference to Roy H. Staggs, 1007 South Garden Street, Columbia, Tenn., who sustained an injury on June 20, 1934, while enrolled in the Civilian Conservation Corps at Vernon, Tenn.

An amended award has been made for $4,000 for 100 percent permanent total disability which will extend compensation payable at the rate of $14 semimonthly to approximately November 6, 1947.

The medical reports covering examination made on May 11, 1943, show the claimant completed course in photography and worked 2 months but was forced to quit work on account of his physical condition. On date of examination the claimant had made considerable improvement and gained weight. On the basis of the medical reports the claimant is able to do light work.

This office will appreciate any efforts you may make in behalf of the claimant in reference to obtaining employment which he is able to perform.

Very truly yours,

C. R. MIDDLETON, Assistant Chief of Section.

Official copy to: Mr. Roy H. Staggs, 1007 South Garden Street, Columbia, Tenn. Mr. BASS (continuing):

I am not speaking for myself alone, for I am sure that there are hundreds of other boys in the State of Tennessee that are in the same shape that I am, and we do not have any organization other than our Congressmen to help us. Anything you can do for us will be greatly appreciated.

Once again, the act under which we are now drawing compensation is 357, 81st Congress, approved October 14, 1949. I hope this will give you enough information to go on.

Mr. Bass, the statements are true, for most of them are taken from letters I have received from the Employees' Compensation Commission. Each letter plainly states that under the present law this is all we can now draw. So, you see, Congress will have to provide for us if we are to get an increase in compensation. I know, sir, that you are a very busy man. I sincerely hope you might find a few minutes to help me.

Sincerely,

ROY H. STAGGS,
Columbia, Tenn.