as a member of the staff of the General counsel's office, Federal Security Agency, in which capacity I assisted Dr. Parran, Lieutenant. Calhoun, Mr. Willcox, and the others who have prepared this bill. Because of the interest of the Coast Guard in this bill, I have been permitted to continue to work on the bill and to participate with Mr. Willcox in these hearings.

The interest of the Coast Guard in the bill arises out of the following circumstances. More than 500 commissioned medical officers of the Public Health Service are on duty on Coast Guard vessels and on other assignments with the Coast Guard, and while so serving are part of the naval forces of the United States, under an Executive order of the President. In addition, the enlisted and commissioned personnel of the Coast Guard constitute one of the principal classes of persons entitled to hospital, medical, surgical, and dental care at the hospitals and other stations of the Public Health Service. Coast Guard officers are charged by law with the duty of helping to enforce the quarantine laws administered by the Public Health Service, and the relationship of the two services dates back to the first decades of the history of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to place in the record at the conclusion of my statement a communication dated February 25, 1944, from the Commandant of the Coast Guard to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, expressing the views of the Coast Guard on this bill. While this communication was sent in response to a request of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor for written comment on S. 1683, which is a compansion measure to H. R. 3379, it was felt that in view of the fact that this code grew out of your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and of the intensive and patient work of the committee on the bill, these comments should first be presented orally to your committee. Since these comments contain one proposal for substantive change in present law-I might say that that is the same change to which Admiral Sheldon addressed his testimony-I am obliged to point out that there has not been time, either since the request of the Senate committee for written comment or the invitation of this committee for oral testimony, for the Navy to present the views of the Coast Guard to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance. Therefore, this statement is being made without Budget clearance at this time.

The first paragraph of the Coast Guard memorandum states the purposes of the bill to be the codification of the laws relating to the Public Health Service, and the revision, clarification, and rationalization of obscure, conflicting, and obsolete provisions.

The second paragraph points out the reasons for the interest of the Coast Guard in the bill, which I have already stated, and calls attention to the fact that many of the provisions of the bill affecting the Coast Guard are the result of collaborative effort by representatives of the two services.

The third paragraph indicates the particular interest of the Coast Guard, in view of the large number of Public Health Service commissioned officers serving with the Coast Guard, in their status for purposes of the so-called military benefits, and calls attention to the fact that the bill in its present form does not incorporate the benefit formula of Public Law 184. It is the position of the Coast Guard that sections 8, 9, and 10 of Public Law 184, which provide full military benefits for Public Health Service officers serving with the Coast Guard

should be incorporated in the code, and, as the committee knows, this is also the recommendation of the Public Health Service, the Bureau of the Budget, the Federal Security Agency, and is the position which has been taken by the committee.

Mr. PRIEST. Will you pardon an interruption there?
Lieutenant DREXLER. Surely.

Mr. PRIEST. What sections, by number, did you refer to there? Lieutenant DREXLER. Sections 8, 9, and 10, of Public Law 184. Those are the sections, Mr. Priest, which provide for full military benefits.

The fourth paragraph lists seven sections of the bill which are of particular concern to the Coast Guard, but without objection to any of their terms.

The fifth paragraph recommends the restoration of a provision of existing law expressly authorizing the detail of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service for duty aboard vessels of the Coast Guard. This recommendation has already been made by the Public Health Service, and a similar recommendation has been made by Commander Bond with regard to vessels of the Coast and Geodetic Survey.

The sixth paragraph embodies a recommendation for a change in existing law which requires some explanation. If you will turn to page 35 of the bill and read subsection (b) of section 326, you will notice that the dependents of Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Public Health Service personnel pay for hospitalization at the uniform per diem rate approved by the President for Government hospitals for the fiscal year in which the hospitalization is furnished. That rate is now and since October 1942 has been fixed at $4.25. Now Coast Guard personnel, who are, of course, part of the Navy, are also entitled to hospitalization for their dependents at naval hospitals, just as are other branches of the Navy. That right is given Coast Guard personnel under Public Law 51, Seventy-eighth Congress. The rate, however, is to be fixed by the President from time to time by Executive order. On December 23, 1943, the President fixed the rate at $1.75. The Coast Guard can see no reason why the dependents of its personnel should pay $4.25 for hospitalization at Public Health Service hospitals but only $1.25 at naval hospitals, and it therefore proposes that this subsection be amended to provide that hospitalization of Coast Guard dependents at Public Health Service hospitals be at the same rates fixed by the President from time to time for hospitalization of Coast Guard and other naval dependents at naval hospitals. This matter has been the subject of correspondence between the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, and the latter has stated that he would have no objection to this change in the law.

The seventh paragraph recommends the deletion of three words on page 53, section 365 (b), line 25. The words are "under their direction." This subsection requires customs and Coast Guard officers to assist in the enforcement of quarantine laws and regulations. Since Coast Guard officers are officers of the customs in their own right, we believe it would be more appropriate to eliminate the words mentioned, since Coast Guard officers will be acting independently of other customs officers.

96248-44- -12

The eighth paragraph requests a change which has already been suggested by the Public Health Service and agreed upon by the committee the change of the per diem travel rate of Public Health Service officers from $8 to $7 in section 606, page 72, line 11.

The memorandum concludes as follows:

With the changes suggested above the bill is acceptable to the Coast Guard, which urges its enactment as a measure which will result in major clarification and simplification of numerous and scattered provisions of existing law, which are now difficult to interpret and apply.

As one whose job it was for nearly 2 years to interpret and apply those provisions, I say amen, and add the expression of my gratitude to those of Dr. Parran, Mr. Willcox, and Lieutenant Calhoun to this committee for its interest and its patience in this work, which I believe will always be a landmark in this field of the law. Mr. BULWINKLE. Any questions, gentlemen?

Mr. PRIEST. No questions. I would just like personally, Mr. Chairman, to thank Lieutenant Drexler for the aid that he has given in the preparation of this bill and in consulting with the committee in clarifying and helping to clarify many provisions. I think we owe him certainly an expression of our appreciation for his valuable services, if not a debt of gratitude, sir.

Lieutenant DREXLER. Thank you.

Mr. BULWINKLE. I might say also that I want you to understand that you are not relieved from duty up here, either.

Mr. PRIEST. No; we still need you.

Mr. WILLCOX. I appreciate that deeply.

Lieutenant DREXLER. Thank you very much. I will express that to the Coast Guard and hope they will concur.

(The letter above referred to is as follows:)

To: The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

FEBRUARY 25, 1944.

Subject: S. 1683, to codify the laws relating to the Public Health Service, and for other purposes.

1. The purposes of S. 1683 are the codification of the laws relating to the Public Health Service and the revision, clarification, and rationalization of obscure, conflicting, and obsolete provisions.

2. Because medical services in the Coast Guard are performed by Public Health Service personnel, because Coast Guard personnel receive medical and hospital care at Public Health Service institutions, and because of the close historical and administrative interrelationship between the Coast Guard and the Public Health Service in the field of maritime quarantine, the Coast Guard was consulted by the Public Health Service in the drafting of S. 1683, and many of its provisions affecting the Coast Guard are the result of collaborative effort by the two services. Because more than 500 commissioned officers of the Public Health Service are now detailed for duty with the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard is interested in the provisions of the subject bill relating to the status of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service for retirement and military benefit purposes. These sections (212, 213, 215 (a), 216, 605, 606, 607, and 608) appear to have been drafted prior to the enactment of Public Law 184, Seventy-eighth Congress, and appear to require considerable revision and extension if the general formula provided in sections 8, 9, and 10 of Public Law 184 is to be carried out in terms of specifically enumerated benefits along the lines indicated in the sections of the subject bill referred to above.

4. The following sections affect the Coast Guard:

(a) Section 205 (b), which provides for the assignment of a commissioned medical officer of the regular corps of the Public Health Service to be the chief medical officer of the Coast Guard with the title of Assistant Surgeon General while so serving.

(b) Section 206 (a) which provides that assistant surgeons general while assigned as such, shall have the grade corresponding with brigadier general of the Army, with the same pay and allowances.

(c) Section 214 (a) which provides for the detail of Public Health Service personnel to executive departments.

(d) Section 215 (a) which provides, among other things, for Presidential regulations regarding the discipline of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service.

(e) Section 216 which provides for the wartime utilization and militarization of the Public Health Service.

(f) Section 326 which provides for medical, surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization of personnel of the Coast Guard and their dependents, the furnishing by the Public Health Service of all services to the Coast Guard in connection with treatment and hospitalization of Coast Guard personnel, and for the extension of medical aid by Public Health Service personnel assigned to duty on Coast Guard vessels to the crews of American vessels engaged in deep-sea fishing.

(g) Sections 361-369 which provide for the control of communicable diseases, including maritime quarantine.

5. In section 326 (a) it is recommended that language be inserted which would provide that in carrying out the purposes of that subsection, the Surgeon General would be authorized to detail commissioned officers aboard vessels of the Coast Guard. This procedure is expressly sanctioned by existing law (14 U. S. C. 59) and should be expressly provided for in the proposed codification.

6. Section 326 (b) provides for the hospitalization of dependents of Coast Guard personnel at Public Health Service hospitals at a per diem cost "equivalent to the uniform per diem reimbursement rate approved by the President for Government hospitals for the fiscal year in which such hospitalization is furnished." Under Public Law 51, Seventy-eighth Congress, dependents of Coast Guard personnel may be hospitalized at any naval hospital at "such per diem or other rate as may be prescribed from time to time by the President." The rates prescribed by the President under Public Law 51 differ substantially from the reimbursement rate approved by him for Government hospitals. The result is that Coast Guard dependents are charged different rates at Public Health Service hospitals and at naval hospitals. It is suggested that section 326 (b) be amended insofar as it affects the Coast Guard, to provide that the hospitalization of Coast Guard dependents be at the rates prescribed by the President from time to time for hospitalization of dependents of naval personnel under Public Law 51.

7. In section 365 (b), page 53, line 25, it is recommended that the words "under their direction" be eliminated. Coast Guard officers serve as customs enforcement officers without immediate responsibility to customs officers.

8. In section 606, page 72, line 11, the figure "8" should be changed to "7" to conform with the rates authorized for the other services.

9. With the changes suggested above, the bill is acceptable to the Coast Guard, which urges its enactment as a measure which will result in major clarification and simplification of numerous and scattered provisions of existing law, which are now difficult to interpret and apply.

R. R. WAESCHE.

STATEMENT OF COMMANDER N. L. QUEEN, UNITED STATES MARITIME SERVICE, TRAINING ORGANIZATION, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION

Commander QUEEN. Mr. Chairman, on page 31, line 22, the benefits are stated to: "Cadets on State school ships.

That was in the old bill.

Mr. BULWINKLE. You mean the old law?

Commander QUEEN. The old law, I should say, sir. At the present time there are five State maritime academies and they are provided with a school ship or a training vessel to cruise the cadets for their required length of time.

This reads right now, the cadets on the school ship or the training vessels would only be eligible for hospitalization while they are at

tached, but not while they are ashore at their shore base. The length of the course is 18 months and they are required to cruise aboard a training vessel for two 3-month cruises, and I say, for those academies, they are aboard ship for that length of time and the remainder of the time they are ashore and therefore, as it now stands they would not be eligible for hospitalization.

Mr. PRIEST. While they were at the shore base?

Commander QUEEN. While they are at the shore base. And, it is. suggested that if that could be rewritten, instead of saying, "State school ships," say, "Cadets at State maritime academies"-so that they would be protected not only while they are aboard ship, but ashore as well.

Mr. SCOTT. In Pennsylvania they used to have the school ship. Annapolis, now the Keystone State.

What is their arrangement as to the cost; do they have an arrangement to cover that? You just spoke of it with regard to the shore base. Do they pay the tuition while they are shore based, as well as: instruction on the school ship?

Commander QUEEN. Do they pay tuition?

Mr. SCOTT. Do they have that arrangement for the two 3-month cruises, plus the 12 months ashore?

Commander QUEEN. That is, a cadet has no shore base in Pennsylvania at the present moment.

Mr. SCOTT. I asked that, because I understood that we had a peculiar arrangement.

Mr. PRIEST. That is one of the five that does not have?

Mr. SCOTT. I thought that we were in that peculiar situation.

Commander QUEEN. They are getting a shore base, but they do not have one as yet.

California, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York all have shore bases and a ship is supplied for each one of those to cruise their cadets, but they are ashore a majority of the time.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Would it not be better to say, "Cadets at State maritime academies" instead of cadets on State school ships?

Commander QUEEN. That would be all right, sir; yes, sir; or instead of school ships-they are no longer called school ships-they areState training vessels.

Mr. BULWINKLE. State training vessels?
Commander QUEEN. Yes, sir; or training ships.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Anything else?

Commander QUEEN. That is all, sir.
Mr. BULWINKLE. Thank you, sir.
Do you have anything further?
Commander QUEEN. That is all.

STATEMENT OF ENSIGN A. HALE BOGGS, CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, TRAINING ORGANIZATION, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, we have here one of our former distinguished colleagues, who has a little matter he would like to discuss very briefly, and I am sure we will be glad to hear him.

Mr. BULWINKLE. We will be glad to hear him.

Ensign BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am here today representing the Training Organization of the War Shipping Administration and I