ing, of course, to the member's right, as distinguished from the dependent's right. Under the joint travel regulations there is existing authority today to move the dependents of service members under the following five conditions: When the member dies on active duty; When the member is officially reported as missing as a result of military or naval operations; When the members who are injured, when considered by the member's commanding officers as being in the best interests of the Government; Members interred in a foreign country; and Members captured by a hostile force. On that basis, I seriously doubt whether the Joint Travel Committee would even authorize in the joint travel regulations the transportation of dependents solely on the basis of the fact that the member in a healthy status was transferred to another duty station, unless the situation arose where the dependents were precluded from going to that duty station because there were no quarters available or it was a place where dependents could not be assigned, and then the regulations, as I understand them, are sufficiently broad enough to permit those dependents then to be transferred back to the States. Is that correct? Colonel GUNDERSON. I am not qualified as a witness on travel authorities. Mr. BLANDFORD. I think it is perfectly apparent when a member is transferred from, say, Turkey to Iceland, if it is a permanent change of station, and for reasons in the best interests of the Government, dependents cannot go to Iceland, that there is ample authority to move the dependents back to the States. Isn't that clear? Colonel GUNDERSON. I am sure Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the situation that would come up. Mr. HUDDLESTON. That is the case I brought up, and this bill would give them authority to have an escort accompany them. Mr. BLANDFORD. This bill could be constructed to give them authority to have an escort accompany them. I doubt whether the Joint Travel Committee would approve of that change in the joint travel regulations, but the bill is certainly broad enough to cover it. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Even though the hardship was created by the Air Force. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is correct. I just don't know what the joint committee would do. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Bennett. Mr. BENNETT. May I ask if at the present time the usual procedure is to assign some responsible person in uniform to accompany people under these circumstances? Colonel GUNDERSON. No, sir: it isn't. Mr. BENNETT. How is that handled? Colonel GUNDERSON. The three services have agreed on a special traffic handling code employing the name "Bluebark," which virtually guarantees point-to-point special travel attention to dependents, widows, survivors, returning after the death or missing status of their serviceman family member. In most cases that is quite satisfactory. It stops, however, when these dependents reach the port of debarkation in the States. Mr. BENNETT. If in those cases it is very satisfactory, then I assume even if we enacted this piece of legislation, the services would attempt to secure whichever services were most satisfactory and least expensive to the taxpayer to accomplish the objective? Colonel GUNDERSON. Oh, surely. This is soley aimed at those few urgent cases for which there appears to be no other solution than to seek legislation of this kind. Mr. KILDAY. Actually, this bill is to overcome a decision of the Comptroller General under certain stated facts in the particular case. I point out that this is not a self-executing provision. As a condition precedent to the payment of any of this would require regulations of the Secretary of the Department concerned. It just occurs to me offhand that maybe instead of saying the Secretary of the Department concerned, it should be tied to the Joint Service Regulations of the Career Compensation Act, and that then he would have to leave it as a matter of administration. We can't foresee all the things that would arise under it. What do you have to say about tying it to the Career Compensation Act? Mr. BLANDFORD. It is tied to the Career Compensation Act, as I understand the code citation. It should be an amendment to the Career Compensation Act, and as a result, section-I don't have the code citation, but section 303 (h) of the Career Compensation Act, I would assume, would control. Is that correct, Colonel? Colonel GUNDERSON. It is very definitely tied to the Career Compensation Act, as you mentioned. Mr. KILDAY. The only thing that I have in mind is the subsequent statute providing that the regulation should be made by the Secretary of the Department concerned as being at least a partial repeal of the provision of the Career Compensation Act, that is a condition precedent to hte payment of any of them. It would in this instance permit the Secretary of the Department to do it rather than the joint board. Mr. BLANDFORD. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the language of section 303 (h), which I believe has since been codified, now provides regulations shall be promulgated by the Secretaries of the uniformed services as provided herein. Such regulations shall be uniform for all services insofar as practical. That would apply to the regulations that each Secretary might issue with respect to this type of escort authority. Mr. KILDAY. We can relieve any doubt by providing "under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, in conformity to the Career Compensation Act." Thank you, Colonel Gunderson. Does Colonel Hill or Mr. Horn wish to be heard on the bill? Colonel HILL. I am Colonel Hill, Office Chief of Finance, and I do not care to be heard. Mr. KILDAY. The Army is in favor of the bill? 34066-59-No. 11- -2 Colonel HILL Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. And Mr. Horn? Mr. HORN. The Navy has nothing further to offer. We are in favor of the bill, however. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, gentlemen. We will take the bill up in executive session. (Whereupon, the subcommittee proceeded to further business.) H.R. 3320 Mr. KILDAY. The next bill is H.R. 3320, a bill to amend the act of June 21, 1950, relating to the appointment of boards of medical officers. (H.R. 3320 follows:) [H.R. 3320, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the Act of June 21, 1950, relating to the appointment of boards of medical officers Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Act of June 21, 1950 (ch. 342, 64 Stat. 249), is amended by striking out the last proviso and inserting the following in lieu thereof: "And provided further, That competent medical authority shall consist of a board appointed from available medical officers or physicians under his jurisdiction by the head of whichever of the following departments or agencies is providing medical treatment for the member, or by a person designated by the head of that department or agency : "(1) Department of the Army "(3) Department of the Air Force "(4) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare "(5) Veterans Administration If the hospitalization or medical care of the member is not provided by the United States, the board shall be appointed by the secretary of the department having Jurisdiction of the member. Each board shall consist of at least three qualified medical officers or physicians one of whom must be specially qualified in the treatment of mental disorders." SEC. 2. Section 3 of the Act of June 21, 1950 (ch. 342, 64 Stat. 249), is amended by inserting the words "and the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs" after the words "department concerned." Mr. KILDAY. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the head of the Department having jurisdiction of the hospital where a member of the uniformed services is a patient to appoint the required medical board in order to determine in appropriate cases the mental capacity of such patient. Under existing laws the Secretary of the Department to which the member of the uniformed services belongs may designate a person to receive active duty pay and allowances or any other amounts due for accumulated or accrued leave, or retired or retainer pay, if in the opinion of the competent medical authority that member is incapable of managing his own affairs. Also under existing law, competent medical authority is defined as a board of not less than three qualified medical officers, one of whom shall be specially qualified in the treatment of mental disorders, appointed by the Secretary of the Department concerned, from available medical officers. That law was passed in 1950. Since then, however, as a result of an Executive order, the responsibility for the hospitalization of many service personnel, including former members, has been assigned to the Veterans' Administration as well as to hospitals which are under the control of the Department of which the serviceman is not a member. The proposed legislation, therefore, would permit a board to be appointed not only by the Department head of the member concerned but also by the head of any one of the five Departments who may have jurisdiction over the hospital in which the serviceman is hospitalized. These Departments would be the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Veterans' Administration. There is no other cost involved to the Government, and actually the enactment of the proposed legislation should result in a saving. I believe Col. William A. DeFries of the Air Force is to testify on the bill. Have a seat. You may go ahead with your statement. Colonel DEFRIES. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Col. William A. DeFries, directorate of professional services, Office of the Surgeon General, Headquarters, United States Air Force. I am accompanied by representatives of the Department of the Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps. I appreciate this opportunity of appearing before you today on behalf of the Department of Defense to explain the need for enactment of H.R. 3320. H.R. 3320 will amend the act of June 21, 1950, which provides methods for the determination of the mental competency of active and retired members of the uniformed services for the purpose of receipt of Federal pay. When the mental competency of such a member is questioned, existing law requires that the determination of competency be made only by a board of three medical officers appointed by the Secretary of the service to which the member belongs. The intent of the existing law was to eliminate the delays and expense of resorting to the courts for the appointment of a guardian and to expedite payment of moneys due to the active or retired member. However, changes in the method of treatment of hospitalized members of the uniformed services have presented all of the uniformed services with a problem of administering the law, because of the requirement that the competency determination must be made by medical officers appointed by the Secretary of the service to which the member belongs. With the implementation of Executive Order 10122 of April 14, 1950, and Executive Order 10400 of September 29, 1952, the responsibility for hospitalization of those members and former members of the uniformed services permanently retired for physical disability, placed on the temporary disability retired list, or receiving disability retirement pay has been transferred to the Veterans' Administration when such members require hospitalization for certain chronic diseases. Also in a medical emergency a member of one uniformed service may be hospitalized in facilities belonging to another of the uniformed services depending upon what Federal hospital is nearest. When questions of mental competency arise, a Veterans' Administration hospital or a hospital of another service than that to which the member belongs is unable to take direct action under the terms of the existing law." The determination of competency requires either that the service to which the member belongs appoint a board of officers to travel, if necessary, to the place of hospitalization or that a board of officers appointed from the service to which the member belongs at least review and pass upon medical evidence presented by physicians actually caring for the patient. Neither of these two solutions is satisfactory. In either case there is duplication of effort; additional expense, particularly when travel is involved; and delay in disbursement of pay. H.R. 3320 would eliminate the unnecessary expense, inconvenience, and delay of the existing system by authorizing the determination of mental competency to be made by medical doctors assigned to the Federal agency which is, in fact, providing medical treatment for the service member. For those occasional instances in which hospitalization is nonfederally provided, the bill requires that the competency determination shall remain the responsibility of the service to which the member belongs. In summary, enactment of H.R. 3320 will avert delayed decisions as to mental competency, expedite the pay due to members of the uniformed services, and therefore lessen his hardships and those of his family. All of the uniformed services have experienced problems in the administration of the existing law. It is therefore urged that H.R. 3320 be given your favorable consideration. I shall be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Is it correct that the effect of the bill is to bring it in line with the present Executive orders so that the board will be appointed by whichever of the Departments, including the Veterans' Administration, or Health, Education, and Welfare, may have the medical care of the individual? Colonel DEFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. And to preserve the existing provision of law as to a service member who is receiving medical care from other than a Government agency? Colonel DEFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. The last provision, I take it, begins on line 7, page 2. If the hospitalization or medical care of the member is not provided by the United States, the board shall be appointed by the Secretary of the department having jurisdiction of the member. Each board shall consist of at least three qualified medical officers or physicians one of whom must be specially qualified in the treatment of mental disorders. That is the present provision as to all, so it is preserved for those not under a Government agency and goes to whatever agency may be providing medical care. Is there anything further? Mr. HARDY. Yes, I have this question, Mr. Chairman: Under this statute, does the existing board determine competency for anything more than the matter of receiving pay that may be due? The thing that I am raising the question about, I wanted to understand whether the proposal to permit the convening of a board in some-by some agency other than the service to which the member |