STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MULTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. This is H.R. 856?

Mr. MULTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WIER. Identify yourself, and the number of the bill.

Mr. MULTER. I am Abraham J. Multer, a Representative of the 13th District of New York.

I appreciate the opportunity this committee gives me to appear bere in support of my bill, H.R. 856.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, in order to save some time, I offer my prepared statement for the record, if you will take it that way, and I will give you a brief summary.

Mr. WIER. No objection? So ordered. We all have a copy of your report now.

(The information follows:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I first express my thanks to you and to the other members of this subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to appear here today in support of my bill, H.R. 856.

This legislation is designed to extend the coverage of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to include certain persons engaged in civil defense. Specifically, in the language of the bill, it would cover "part-time and full-time, paid and unpaid volunteers, auxiliaries, and civil defense workers subject to the order and control of State government or any political subdivision thereof engaged in, training for, or traveling to or from, activities relating to 'civil defense' ***". I-have introduced this bill because I sincerely believe that there are good reasons why the Federal Government should assume some responsibility for the welfare of these people if they are killed or injured while on duty.

As you probably know, the protection provided to many of the people working either full time or part time in civil defense is in many cases woefully inadequate. This has been the case ever since the Federal Civil Defense Act was approved in 1950, and I think it is high time that we take the necessary steps to rectify this. situation.

In past years legislation has been introduced to authorize the Federal Government to make contributions to assist the States in awarding death or injury compensation in these cases. However, no action beyond hearings has ever been taken by Congress on any of this legislation. Over the years, apparently, the idea has prevailed that any compensation to be paid to people injured in the performance of civil defense duties should be paid solely by the respective States. This plan may be satisfactory in theory, but in actual practice it has been demonstrated to have serious shortcomings.

Although it is true that many States have passed legislation to protect civil defense workers, it is also true that most of them have not done so. Even among

the States which have acted, the coverage is not uniform. This in itself is unfortunate.

Of greater importance, perhaps, than the inequity of uneven coverage among the States that have done something is the fact these workers in far too many States have no protection at all. These States have had 10 years to enact at. least minimal legislation, but they have not done so.

This situation is grossly unjust. Protection must be given to these people, and I think the Federal Government has a clear and compelling responsibility to provide it.

I know that I do not have to make a case for what might happen to all of the American people if we should become involved in another shooting war. The consequences of such horrors are beyond our capacity to imagine. We must, if we are to be realistic, recognize the possibility of such a conflict

In the event of any enemy attack, the civil defense workers would be the most. vulnerable group in our civilian population. They would be confronted with

what, to say the very least, would be hazardous, demanding, and highly important duties.

It is unthinkable that so many of them should be expected to serve under these circumstances without the benefits of adequate death or injury compensation. Yet, this is exactly the situation that has existed for 20 years, exists today, and will continue to exist unless and until Congress takes the necessary action to remedy it.

By the very nature of civil defense work, if the program is to have any value at all, a great many people are required to participate in it. You cannot accept just anybody for these jobs. The work requires people with intelligence, a deep sense of responsibility, and a profound concern for the welfare and safety of the United States.

The recruitment of persons of this caliber has always been a serious problem. And no wonder. We make heavy demands upon their time and upon their physical and mental energy, but, at the same time, offer them little or nothing in return.

The inadequacy or complete absence of any death or injury compensation is a most serious barrier to recruitment of civil defense volunteers. As long ago as 1953 the head of the Federal Civil Defense Administration wrote: "The Federal Civil Defense Administration continues to be seriously concerned over the representations by many State and local civil defense directors that the absence of compensation coverage for volunteer workers seriously hampers the development of a strong U.S. Civil Defense Corps."

There is every reason to think today that the assurance of compensation insurance would be of great assistance in this recruitment. The strongest argument for it is that it could correct a palpably unjust condition that can be measured in dollars and cents. But there are other arguments as well. As a moral factor, the knowledge that they were backed up by a program of Federal compensation insurance would demonstrate to the civil defense workers the genuine concern of the National Government in civil defense and in the welfare of all persons associated directly with it.

The recruitment and training of personnel and other aspects of civil defense is the prime responsibility of the Federal Government. It has been delegated in part to the States and local governments.

All of these levels of government have failed to deal adequately with this question of injury and death compensation for civil defense workers. I do think, furthermore, that under the circumstances, the Federal Government has a duty and an obligation to do something about this. It was for this reason that I introduced H.R. 856.

Let me, in conclusion, point out that this bill offers nothing in the way of compensation for unpaid volunteers or in the way of additional compensation for paid workers in the performance of their regular duties.

The cost of this measure, if enacted into law, is important, of course, but it should by no means be controlling. It is far more important that the few payments that might be made under its terms would be money well and justly made. The very least we can do for anyone who meets some accident or injury in connection with his civil defense work is to guarantee to him that he will receive some compensation as a result of his misfortune.

It is my sincere hope that the committee will see fit to report favorably a bill. In my opinion it deserves prompt consideration by Congress.

Again I thank the members of this subcommittee for the courtesy they have shown me in giving me this chance to appear in support of H.R. 856.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the. committee, most of the bills that you have before you, and Mrs. St. George's bill is one exception, are retroactive in effect in that they try to cover situations of persons already injured or families of those who have been killed or died as a result of injuries under various and differing circumstances.

I think the St. George bill, like my bill, is prospective in effect in that it attempts to remedy a defect in the law as to all and sundry who may come within the terms of the law if it should be amended.

I have been offering this bill since 1951, and I am very happy that the committee has seen fit to set it for hearing as it reviews the entire

act to determine how it can be brought up to date and made more effective.

Mr. WIER. I may say to you we have two or three other bills on the so-called civil defense noneligibility.

Mr. MULTER. I am glad that other members have also seen the need for this.

Mr. WIER. Congressman Fino has one in here.

Mr. MULTER. Yes. I think Mr. Fino's bill applies to persons who have heretofore been injured or the next of kin of persons who died as a result of injuries sustained in civil defense activities.

I do not think his is prospective in effect where mine would cover everyone and anyone who may be injured or dies as a result of injuries while working in civil defense.

The primary issue that the committee must determine is whether or not civil defense is a Federal obligation. My view is that it is. The defense of the country is the Nation's obligation.

While that portion of it which is referred to as civil defense has been delegated in part to the States and the municipalities, it is an unconstitutional delegation of power. I say that the U.S. Government cannot delegate its responsibility. While it can ask the municipalities and the States to assist in the program, it cannot pass on to them its responsibility to defend the country in time of peace and in time of

war.

While we talk of war in the old sense of the shooting war, the cold war is just as much a war as the hot war or the shooting war. While we prepare for the time that we hope will never come of a shooting war, it is that portion of that responsibility of the Federal Government that we address ourselves to with a bill such as mine.

The training of persons in the Armed Forces is training for defense and national security. The training of volunteers and others in the civil defense of the country is the same kind of preparation. We will not need them unless there is a shooting war or unless the country is attacked. We do not need our Armed Forces except to the extent they are a deterring effect upon an aggressor or potential aggressor. We will need them when the time comes to defend our country and its people and its property.

This bill has been prompted, in part, by my actual experience during the 1940's when I helped set up in the city and State of New York the air raid warden service and the police and firemen's volunteer auxiliary services.

Every time someone was in training in any of those programs and was hurt or they learned of somebody being hurt while going to and from a training center or in the training center, or while actually performing those duties, and they found that there was no way of their family being protected in the event of the death of the volunteer, and there was no way of even getting his medical expenses paid, if the volunteer was hurt, we lost hundreds of volunteers. The services almost disintegrated every time there was an injury or death, the reports of which were carried in the newspapers. We have the same thing today.

The New York State Civil Defense Commission as early as 1951 said the question of insurance protection for civil defense volunteers had arisen in every one of our 104 local offices of civil defense. The lack of proper coverage has definitely impeded our efforts to build up

a strong civil defense volunteer force. The same thing occurs even today. You cannot get these people interested to do the job when you are not going to give them some protection.

It is true that we pay our members of the Armed Forces. But historically it is the duty, not the privilege-it is the duty of every American citizen, every able-bodied American citizen to serve his country in its defense.

The U.S. Government as the sovereign has the right to call up these men and these boys and require their services without compensating them. We do it because it is the right thing to do, not because it is the legal thing. So with these civil defense volunteers. There is no obligation to pay them but it is our duty to at least compensate them for their injuries and give their families some compensation in the event of a death while performing this very necessary volunteer service.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Multer, I do not mean to interrupt you but you referred to civil defense volunteers. As I understand it, your bill would specifically include a full-time paid civil defense worker and presumably paid by the State government, or perhaps a municipality.

Mr. MULTER. Yes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What would be the justification for including in this protection that type of individual?

Mr. MULTER. I include part time and full time, and paid and unpaid volunteers.

The justification is this: We should have one system uniform throughout the entire country to cover all of these people.

There is one defect in this bill which you call attention to. There should not be double compensation or double payment to these people. If a paid employee, part-time or full-time employee, gets any compensation as a volunteer or otherwise gets any compensation on the local level I do not intend that it be supplemented. But he should get it. He should get it to the same extent throughout the country. If he is getting $25 a week payment under a local statute, and this will provide for as much as $500 a month or $100 a week, he should get the difference. But these people who are serving the country should be on the same basis and compensated on the same basis. If some locality thinks they cannot pay as much as the Federal Government does, give them the difference. If they are paying more he gets nothing from the Federal Government.

To that extent my bill needs amending. I do not want double compensation. I do not want supplemental compensation. I do think they all should be compensated, or their families in the event they are compensated, on the same basis from one end of the country to the other.

That I think presents the problem to you gentlemen for your consideration.

I am sure all of these bills that are before you are entitled to your sympathetic consideration and you will give them the deserving attention they need. You have a tremendous task before you to try to fill up the loopholes that exist in the law and correct inequities in the law.

I am sure you will bring out an overall bill that will encompass all of these situations.

51706-60- -7

I have no pride of authorship. I do not urge you must bring out my bill, or my bill is the only way to do this. I think you can bring out one comprehensive bill and include the provisions of mine to the extent they appeal to your sympathetic consideration and do the real job that has needed doing since 1940.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Multer, if I could think of anything that could be said about this bill or the need for it or lack of need, I will say that the State administrator in my State is a very, very good friend of mine, and he comes down here quite frequently to the Civil Defense National Committee meeting, that is, the representatives of every State come here for an assembly. Yet the only place that I learned of or have been approached for this is New York.

My administrator in Minnesota has never approached me and I would presume that there must be some accidents out there because the civil defense in the major sities, like Minneapolis, St. Paul, work at the football games where they are called out for traffic duty. When there is a big fire they respond for so-called policing. They have socalled police uniforms. That is limited. They are continually doing these things. They are not just waiting for somebody to shoot and start a war. They are doing State work. On the Fourth of July they are spread around the State as something to warn people that they are watching them.

But my friend has never approached me on this question of compensation for these men that serve in his department.

Mr. MULTER. I think, because your State has been much more forward looking than mine, your State has assumed the monetary obligation involved and enacted a statute that covers these men, so that they get compensation in the event of injury and the families are protected in the event of death.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Multer, the chairman pointed out that to some extent the functions of civil defense work are certainly not national in flavor. Supervising traffic at a football game would not necessarily create a Federal responsibility if the individual were injured I would think this could be used as a disastrous argument against your point of view.

Do you happen to know how many people would be included as possible beneficiaries under your bill?

Mr. MULTER. It is impossible to foretell how many might be injured.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How many people are engaged in civil defense activities, broadly?

Mr. MULTER. I do not have that number.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Many millions, I would assume.

Mr. MULTER. The Civil Defense Administration certainly could supply that information to you.

You will find that as of today it is comparatively few because you cannot get the volunteers on the local level to take up this national defense problem.

I have another bill which requires the U.S. Government to take over and do this job. I do not prohibit them from decentralizing. But you are never going to get a good national civil defense organization on the local level. It is a national problem and you cannot stir these people except in time of war.