he would have been promoted. That is the present law and we suggest that it be continued in this bill.

We recommend, also, that provision be made for retirement at the advanced age of an officer who has held the position of Surgeon General or Deputy Surgeon General for 4 years or more. This would be in accord with Army practice.

I may say that if a man is Surgeon General or Deputy Surgeon General at the time he reaches retirement age, or at the time he incurs disability, he would, under the language of the bill, I think, automatically be retired at that advanced grade. The gage of the retired pay is the active pay that he was receiving immediately before his retirement. What we have in mind here is the case of a man who has held one of these advanced positions and then has dropped back in the Service. That would be a provision, in some sense, corollary to the suggestion made by Mr. Priest the other day, that some provision be made in regard to the status of such officers in the interim.

In order that the committee may have a complete picture of the retirement provisions, I should refer again to section 210 (c) (2). Section 210, you will recall, relates to promotion and separation of commissioned officers. It is provided that if an officer in the full or senior grade fails of promotion he shall be retired and paid at the rate of 22 percent of his active pay for each full year of service, but not to exceed 60 percent. This provision is taken from 42 U. S. C. 37 (c) (3), the only change being the substitution of the word "retirement" for the words "waiting orders."

Section 9 of Public Law 184 brought all commissioned officers of the Public Health Service under the United States Employees' Compensation Act, with the qualification that those entitled to any other benefit on account of the same injury or death should elect which benefit they wished to receive. We recommend no change in this provision. I do feel, however, that I should call to the attention of the committee the somewhat anomalous result that officers of the regular corps may be more favorably treated in this respect than either commissioned officers in the other services or civilian employees of the Government. If a man is injured in line of duty he will normally elect to receive retired pay, which is more generous than disability benefits under the Employees' Compensation Act-that certainly is normally the case at least-if, on the other hand, he is killed as the result of injury in the course of his employment, his survivors can receive the benefits of the Employees' Compensation Act. In the other services, survivors would not ordinarily be entitled, in case of a death occurring in time of peace, to anything more than 6 months' pay.

I will come back to that in a moment.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Unless there is a bill introduced and referred to the Claims Committee of which we have had quite a number.

Mr. WILLCOx. You mean individual relief claims?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Individual cases.

Mr. WILLCOX. That might occur; and to some extent, the 6 months' pay provision, which I will come to in a moment, is an offsetting factor. I am not suggesting any objections to the situation. I thought it merely should be called to the committee's attention.

Before leaving the subject of retirement, I should mention a provision of existing law which applies to those dentists, pharmacists, and

sanitary engineers who were brought into the commissioned corps under the Parker Act. In connection with section 210 (a), I explained that we had omitted in this bill the special provision for that group of officers insofar as it related to promotion, since to that extent it is already an executed provision. In the matter of retirement, however, the special provision now contained in 42 United States Code 66 should be added to the bill. This provides that active service in a civilian capacity in the Public Health Service should be counted in computing the retirement rights. This provision has no effect except for those officers who were over 45 years of age when they were commissioned, and it is limited to that small group who were taken in under the Parker Act and first became eligible by reason of that act.

The next subject I should like to take up is retirement of Reserve officers. Here we recommend considerable change in the bill.

I may say at the time this bill was drafted, there was some thinking in terms of a greater peacetime use of the Reserve Corps than is now contemplated. These changes are the result I think of that change in thought, and the changes we are suggesting are in accordance with the views that have been expressed by the Bureau of the Budget as incorporated in their letter which is now in the record.

The effect of Public Law 184 is to give reserve officers on active duty in time of war the same rights of retirement for disability as regular officers. This we recommend be continued.

We recommend, also, continuation of the coverage under the United States Employees' Compensation Act provided by section 9 of Public Law 184. Section 605 of the bill would accomplish this. The section may need some technical revision and probably it should be transposed to title II of the bill.

Here, again, I should call attention to the fact that in time of war those reserve officers may get greater rights than either military or civilian personnel; although for those entitled to veterans' benefits the option to claim under the Employees' Compensation Act adds relatively little to their substantive rights.

With respect to all retirements of reserve officers in time of peace, however, and to retirement for age even in time of war, it seems fairly clear that section 8 of Public Law 184 did not confer any new rights on reserve officers of the Public Health Service. In the matter of retirement for age, reserve officers have no military rights. In time of peace that is clearly true, and we think that Public Law 184 did not change it in time of war because the Army grants reserve officers no old-age retirement benefits.

In February of 1942 it was determined that reserve officers on active duty were covered by the civil-service retirement system.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Reserve officers of the Public Health Service? Mr. WILLCOX. Yes, sir. Reserve officers on active duty were covered by the civil-service retirement system, and since that time they have been making the 5 percent contribution. While this conclusion represents a departure from Army practice, we should be glad to see coverage under the retirement system continued, and accordingly we recommend that explicit provision to that effect be included in the bill. Mr. BULWINKLE. Have you got the amendments, as you go along on this?

Mr. WILLCOX. I am sorry, but I did not quite understand you, sir.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Have you provided the amendments? You recommend several changes in the bill. Have you drafted the amendments? Mr. WILLCOX. No; we have not drafted those as yet, sir. Mr. BULWINKLE. If you could do that, it would help us.

Mr. WILLCOX. We have some preliminary drafts on a good many of these points, Major Bulwinkle. There are basic questions, as I said at the outset, about how far you want to try to write the full text of the provisions into this bill, and how far it could be done by incorporation by reference. We do not want to expand this bill unduly in length, and I am inclined to think a good deal of it can be done by merely a reference to the other acts involved.

Mr. BULWINKLE. All right.

Mr. WILLCOX. The next item is the 6 months' pay on death of a commissioned officer, either of the regular corps or of the reserve, who dies while on active duty. This right was established by Public Law 184 for all commissioned officers in time of war, and in time of peace for officers in the regular corps detailed to the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard.

If an officer dies and his survivors are entitled to this payment and also to benefits under the Employees Compensation Act, his survivors must make an election. That is in accordance with the present law. Public Law 184 did not require an election, however, in the case of those officers who had died since Pearl Harbor but before the enactment of Public Law 184. Whether that difference was intentional, I am not entirely clear, but at any rate, we suggest that the requirement of an election be carried forward in the bill.

We recommend that section 213 be revised to conform with existing law.

Mr. PRIEST. May I ask one question there, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Priest.

Mr. PRIEST. With reference to the provision for such survivors electing or choosing which settlement they will accept, is there a time limit when their choice is to be made in this law?

Mr. WILLCOX. There is not explicitly in the bill and that is one point on which I think section 605 of the bill is somewhat ambiguous and needs clarification. It is not entirely clear that an election may not be made one time and then reversed later. I think those points should be cleared in the draft.

I may point out that in time of peace, the regular corps, except officers who may die while detailed to the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard, would not receive this 6 months' benefit to which regular officers of the other services are entitled. To some extent this fact may offset the more favorable treatment which Public Health Service officers receive by being included under the United States Employees' Compensation Act.

That brings me to the group of benefits which rest entirely or chiefly on section 8 of Public Law 184.

That section, you will recall, provides so-called full military benefits on the basis of service in the Public Health Service on detail to the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard; service in the Public Health Service outside the United States in time of war; and any service in the Public Health Service in time of war while under an Executive order the Service is a part of the military forces. The same groups of Public

96248-44- -8

Health Service officers are made eligible under the National Service Life Insurance Act.

The effect of this provision, as I understand it, is to treat service of Public Health Service officers under these conditions as constituting military service for the purpose of the laws and regulations administered by the Veterans' Administration. These relate to compensation, pensions, hospitalization, domiciliary care, out-patient treatment, vocational rehabilitation, burial allowance, and a flag for the grave, The rights attaching to this group also include veterans preferences for civil-service purposes, and the benefits of the Veterans Employment Service, and the right to burial in a national cemetery even though death did not occur in line of duty.

The other benefits provided by section 8 of Public Law 184 are applicable to all commissioned officers on active duty in time of war, and to those detailed to the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard in time of peace. Those are the benefits described as "limited military benefits" in Public, 184. Those include the exemption of pay up to $1,500 from income tax and other exemptions under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U. S. C. 22 (b) (13), 421, 621; 50 U. S. C. App. 1013); the privilege of free mail (50 U. S. C. App. 639); reemployment rights (id., 357) for those called to active duty since November 11, 1943, the date of the enactment of Public Law 184; payment of accrued annual leave to any officers who have entered the service from civil-service positions since that date; replacement of property lost by military action or certain other hazards (31 U. S. C. 218); continuation of the pay and allowances of officers who as missing in action and authority to make a finding of death of officers who have been missing for more than 12 months (50 U. S. C. App., 1001 et seq.); authority to use a simplified form of affidavit in connection with increased allowances on account of dependents (Puble Law 758, 77th Cong.); and exemption from the necessity of making the affidavit required of civil officers upon appointment, which is a prerequisite to receiving pay, and which is difficult for Public Health Service officers serving overseas to execute in case they receive a temporary promotion.

The Mustering-Out Pay Act is later than Public Law 184, and probably Public Health Service officers are not entitled to musteringout pay. At any rate, the Bureau of the Budget has taken this position and we are not recommending that mustering-out pay be included. The right of Public Health Service officers to wear military service ribbons and to receive military decorations is at the present time in a good deal of doubt. Probably those officers who have been detailed to the Army and have served in a particular theater of war are entitled to wear the ribbon representing service in that theater. Under other conditions, such as service overseas without detail to the armed forces, the right is less clear. We suggest that there be included in the bill an authorization to the President to make existing or special military ribbons and decorations available to Public Health Service officers.

The matter of burial expenses and allowances for officers who die in line of duty is a little complicated. Even before Public Law 184 there was provision in 42 U. S. C. 68 that the Public Health Service should bear the expense of preparing the bodies for shipment and transporting them to the former homes of the officers. This provision appears in section 506 of the bill, the only change being that instead of officers a term which has been construed to include the higher

ranking civilian personnel as well as the commissioned officers-the bill refers to commissioned officers and personnel specified in regulations. We suggest that the authority should extend to shipment to the place of burial, if that differs from the former home of the officer. This change is prompted chiefly by the fact that certain officers have the right to be buried in a national cemetery, and the authority to pay the expense of shipment to the former home does not meet the situation. We also suggest that the cost of preparation "for burial" would be a better phrase than the preparation "for shipment" of the body.

Section 68 of title 42 of the United States Code did not include the cost of burial itself. By virtue of Public Law 184, I believe that this cost is also payable in the case of any officer who dies in service either in time of war or while detailed to the armed forces (10 U. S. C. 916 (b)). For the same officers, I believe that Public Law 184 also gave the right of burial in a national cemetery (24 U. S. C. 281) and the right to have a headstone provided at the expense of the Government (id., 279).

Public Law 184 specifically included allowances for uniforms as an item with respect to which Public Health Service officers in time of war were put on a parity with the officers of the Army and the Navy. At the time that bill was being drafted we believed that the effect of this provision would be prospective only, in the sense that it would grant such allowances only to officers called to active duty after the enactment of that law. Whether that view was called to this committee's attention, I do not know; but before the bill was approved by the President we did advise the Bureau of the Budget that that was our understanding.

We were rather embarrassed to discover later that apparently our understanding had been wrong. The Army, we find, provided a uniform allowance to all officers of certain grades who were on active duty on April 3, 1939, deducting any allowance which a particular officer had previously been paid (10 U. S. C. 904 (b)-(d)) Cf. 34 U. S. C. 760, providing uniform allowances for officers of the Naval Reserve. I am inclined to think that the legal effect of Public 184 was to entitle all officers of the corresponding grades in the Public Health Service who were on active duty on the date of enactment of Public 184, that is, last November, to the uniform allowance. In fact, there is some ground for arguing that they were already entitled to that before the enactment of Public Law 184, by reason of the general provision of preexisting law (42 U. S. C. 37) that they should receive the same pay and allowances as officers of the armed services.

We have discussed this situation with the Bureau of the Budget and expressed our willingness, which I should repeat here, to have this right limited in the fashion that we thought it was being limited when Public 184 was drafted. We have no intention of going back on any recommendations we made at that time. We do find ourselves in the position now, however, that apparently the rights which were granted are in excess of that, and apply to all those now on active duty. The Bureau of the Budget in its letter and in the informal discussions we have had with representatives of the Bureau did not take any explicit position in regard to this uniform allowance.

Under these circumstances, I do not feel that we should affirmatively recommend that this allowance be paid to officers who were called to duty before November 11, 1943. If your committee feels that it should