time, Mr. Chairman, and our thought was that while it may be desirable in the not distant future to recommend some change

Mr. PRIEST (interposing). Mr. Willcox, may I ask a question there? In connection with this, do I understand that the suggestion is a temporary provision of law to that effect?

Mr. WILLCOX. Yes, sir. That is merely a stopgap arrangement. The situation today is that under Executive order for the duration of the war, insane patients who are normally entitled to treatment in St. Elizabeths Hospital may be taken, and many of them have been taken into the so-called narcotics hospitals of the Public Health Service. That arrangement, I gather, was necessary because of the very crowded conditions of St. Elizabeths. That authority would, as a matter of law, expire upon the termination of the war, because it is under the authority of the President to use the Public Health Service in time of war. The only change of substantive law we are suggesting here, apart from the question of the reimbursement, is the stopgap arrangement, so that those hospitals would not be required to turn out patients who might happen to be there at the time when the war ends.

As I say, it is quite possible that the Agency may have rather more far-reaching recommendations to make, perhaps, before the war is over; but we are not making any such recommendations at this time. Mr. PRIEST. My main thought in asking the question, since this is a recodification and we are attempting to do a rather permanent job here, was to inquire if such a provision could be well drafted to fit into such an act as this or if there was some other possible way that it might be handled without writing a purely temporary provision into a permanent law.

Mr. WILLCOX. Mr. Priest, there is a title in this bill at the end called "Temporary and emergency provisions," which will not be a part of the code, so-called.

Mr. PRIEST. Well, that would clear up my question entirely.

Mr. WILLCOX. Section 505 would reenact, insofar as applicable to the Public Health Service, an act passed in 1936 and made applicable to both the Coast Guard and the Public Health Service (14 U. S. C. 71). Section 506 I have already discussed in a connection with the benefit provisions.

Section 507 is the same as existing law (42 U. S. C. 69) except that the figure $1,000 has been substituted for $500.

Section 508 would require the Surgeon General to make an annual report to Congress. The present law requires that he submit a report to the Federal Security Administrator for transmission to Congress. I do not know why this change was made and I believe that the present law is satisfactory, is it not, Dr. Parran?

Dr. PARRAN. The present law is satisfactory.

Mr. WILLCOX. I suggest that might be revised to accord with the present law then.

Mr. PRIEST. You recommend that?

Mr. WILLCOX. Yes, sir.

In this connection, I should call attention to the omission from the bill of the separate requirement of a report under what is now title VI

of the Social Security Act. As this subject would, of course, be covered in the general report for the Public Health Service we have omitted the separate requirement.

Title VI of the bill includes temporary and emergency provisions and repeals, and would not constitute a part of the Public Health Service Code.

Section 601 is designed to assure that enactment of the code should not affect the term or tenure of office of existing personnel, and should not abolish existing positions or units of the Service except as reorganization may be effected under its terms.

Section 602 would preserve existing regulations until repealed or until superseded by regulations made under the new act. In view of the volume of the Public Health Service regulations now in force, it will be a time-consuming matter to revise them to accord with the new statute.

Section 603 is designed to assure the continued availability of existing appropriations and other funds and to authorize, with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, such transfers of funds between appropriations as may be necessary for the continuance of transferred functions. As the authority to reorganize the Service, conferred by section 202, is a continuing authority, I suggest that the provision for transfer of funds should likewise be a continuing authority.

Section 604 would reenact an authorization to appropriate $1,500,000 for emergency construction and for extension of Public Health Service facilities. A similar authorization was enacted in 1919 (40 Stat. 1303, sec. 6) but was never availed of. When the present bill was being drafted we concluded that the authorization was still in force, and for that reason included it in the bill but limited it to the duration of the present war and 6 months thereafter. The Bureau of the Budget recommends that it be deleted, and we have no objection to doing so. Section 605 would amend the United States Employees Compensation Act. I have already discussed this section in connection with the benefit provisions. As I then indicated, I believe that some revision of language may be desirable.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Priest.

Mr. PRIEST. I have a note here, I believe it is your suggestion, Mr. Willcox, that possibly section 605 might be transposed to title II of the bill. Was that your suggestion?

Mr. WILLCOX. Mr. Priest, since that discussion, I have been thinking further about the matter and I believe the thought was that those sections of the bill which amend the text of other statutes are perhaps better carried outside of the code. I think my suggestion was perhaps ill advised.

Mr. PRIEST. And it is your opinion that it is properly placed in the bill?

Mr. WILLCOX. I think probably it is better to leave it in title VI. Section 606 was also discussed in connection with benefits. I believe that this subject properly belongs in title II rather than in title VI of the bill. That does not amend another statute.

Section 607 was designed to make retroactive to December 7, 1941, certain of the benefit provisions. This has already been accomplished

by section 10 of Public Law 184, and I believe this section should be revised to constitute a mere saving clause in conjunction with the proposed repeal of Public Law 184.

Section 608, which would amend the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act, has also been discussed in connection with the benefit provisions.

Before speaking of the repealing section I should like to revert to a subject which I mentioned yesterday. In connection with section 370 I suggested that I should like to discuss the general question of authorizations to appropriate where there are no specific provisions in the bill.

It is my understanding of the House rule that when a function is vested by basic law in a given agency, that fact in itself constitutes an authorization to appropriate funds for the current conduct of that function. There is no need, that is to say, to use the words "There is hereby authorized to be appropriated." Certainly that is the situation today with respect to many functions of the Public Health Service. In the case of the construction of buildings, on the other hand, I believe it is customary to enact specific authorizations. There is in the Public Buildings Act of May 25, 1926, what appears to be a general authorization of appropriations for the construction, among other buildings, of marine hospitals and quarantine stations. As this provision appears in a general statute now administered by the Federal' Works Agency, I am not sure that it should be carried into this bill, as would be done by section 370.

There is another group of provisions of existing law which are related to appropriations which probably should be picked up in this bill. It is provided, for example, in the National Institute of Health Act (42 U. S. C. 23d) that the Federal Security Administrator may make expenditures for books of reference, periodicals, and exhibits, and for printing and binding. Other provisions of the same general sort appear in other statutes. Such provisions avoid the necessity of repeating such authority every year in the appropriation acts, and I suggest for the committee's consideration another section which would pick up these provisions of existing law.

Section 609 provides for the repeal of the existing statutes from which the many provisions of the code have been drawn, as well as of statutes which have become obsolete or have been superseded without express repeal. This section has been carefully studied, but it will require much further work before we can assure your committee that it is satisfactory.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Time is limited here, you know.

Mr. WILLCOX. I appreciate that, sir.

Mr. PRIEST. In going over the large number of statutes affected, I am rather convinced that the committee will have to accept your judgment on whether it is complete or incomplete; your judgment and that of others who have worked on it.

Mr. WILLCOX. We have done a good deal of work on that, sir. It is a matter to be sure on. Mr. Perley has done some work on it too. I hope we will be able to get some more advice from him.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Do you have anything further?

Mr. WILLCOX. I do not have anything further to present, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Will you stand by then?

Mr. WILLCOX. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Doctor, is there anyone else you wish to go on now?

Dr. PARRAN. No, Mr. Chairman. I think we have no new matter to present.

As I recall it, there were a few instances in which decision was reserved for later consideration in connection with some of the provisions which previously were under discussion. One particular provision to which I think you made reference was the present lack of authority under the terms of the bill for officers over the age of 64 to be continued on active duty or to be recalled to active duty in time of war. We would have no objection to the insertion of such a provision, provided it was made clear that such officers being recalled would be in excess of the annually authorized strength. We would be stopped from recalling such officers if the limitation as to number of officers on active duty continued.

STATEMENT OF LT. STANLEY L. DREXLER, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD RESERVE

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Drexler, you represent the Coast Guard here. Lieutenant DREXLER. Let me explain now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, that my appearance at these hearings up to this point has been primarily to assist Mr. Willcox and to represent the Public Health Service. Since the time when I first worked on this bill I have become an officer in the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard does have some comments to make on the bill, which they have asked me to make as soon as they have cleared those comments with the Navy Department.

I have also been asked by Commander Corwin, assistant to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, to request, Mr. Chairman, that if it is at all possible, you permit a representative of the Navy Department and perhaps of the War Department to appear before this subcommittee to present certain comments which the Navy and War Departments want to make on the bill.

The Navy and War Departments have not as yet had time to clear their proposed comments with the Bureau of the Budget. For that reason they would like as much time, before their representatives appear, as the committee can give them. I assume that the committee desires to finish the testimony and then go into executive session, without going back to hear any more testimony; but depending upon what the latest time is next week the committee can hear them, I should like to request that the committee hear the Navy and perhaps the War Department at that time.

STATEMENT OF LT. COMDR. JOHN A. BOND, UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY

Mr. BULWINKLE, Commander Bond of the Coast and Geodetic Survey is here, and we will be glad to hear you, Commander.

Commander BOND. Mr. Chairman, as the Public Health Service. efficiently takes care of all of our medical problems, we are interested in any reference to the Coast and Geodetic Survey in the present bill.

On page 35 of the bill, line 10, it reads "and of officers and enlisted personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast and Geodetic Survey." Technically, we do not have enlisted personnel. Our men are not enlisted in the same sense as are Coast Guard personnel. We take on a certain number of our crew under a period of shipment of 1 year; other personnel in the crew are under the civil service.

To make the wording conform with previous wording in other statutes we suggest that the term "members of the crew" be used, rather than "enlisted personnel."

Mr. PRIEST. "Officers and members of the crew of the Coast Guard and the Coast and Geodetic Survey"?

Commander BOND. I would suggest this: In line 10, after the word "Service" insert a comma and delete the word "and"; in line 11, after the words "Coast Guard" insert a comma, and after the word "and", following the word "Coast Guard", insert the words "officers and members of the crews of vessels of."

Mr. BULWINKLE. In other words, have two phrases; one applying to the Coast Guard and one applying to the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Commander BOND. That will take care of our situation. That is the same wording, you will note, as is used at the bottom of page 34. Mr. PRIEST. It is correct down there?

Commander BOND. Yes, sir.

As you know, we have legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury-or now the Administrator of the Federal Security Agency-to detail medical officers of the Public Health Service to the vessels of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. I understand that is covered now in a blanket provision of the bill. Is that correct?

Mr. BULWINKLE. That is correct, Mr. Willcox.

Mr. WILLCOX. Yes. We suggested the insertion of a sentence especially authorizing the detail of officers on board vessels of the Coast Guard and the Coast and Geodetic Survey, in order to remove any possible doubt.

Commander BOND. That will be fine.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Do you have anything else?

Commander BOND. No, sir. I think that is all I have.

Mr. PRIEST. We thank you, Commander.

Commander BOND. Thank you.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Dr. Parran, do you have anything further?

Dr. PARRAN. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me there are a few rather complicated problems with which the lawyers will be dealing, following the general attitude expressed by the members of the committee. Whether the committee would wish in a full open hearing like this for us to suggest more specifically the provisions for the changes which you have in mind, or whether in an off-the-record discussion such language would be arrived at-in one way or another it seems to me it would be helpful to the lawyers if the committee's views on a few problems could be further clarified.

I have in mind the section relating to title VI of the Social Security Act, the interstate quarantine provisions, and the provisions regarding narcotic patients and aiding and abetting their escape; smuggling narcotics to them. I recall those as three sections about which we have had considerable discussion, and if I were a lawyer I would not know how the committee would wish those sections to be revised.