CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 20

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, FOREIGN QUARANTINE DIVISION, H. R. 6253

H. R. 6253. I am withholding my approval of H. R. 6253, a bill to amend

Public Law 410, 78th Congress, with regard to compensation for overtime, Sunday, and holiday work of employees of

the United States Public Health Service,

Foreign Quarantine Division.

This bill would amend the Public

Health Service Act in two major respects. First, it would establish special

rates of overtime, Sunday, and holiday

pay for certain quarantine inspection

personnel of the Public Health Service

comparable to those received by customs

inspectors of the Treasury Department

and immigrant inspectors of the Department of Justice under special premium

pay statutes enacted many years ago.

Second, with certain important exceptions, it would require that when nightovertime, Sunday, or holiday inspections

are performed at the request of the

owner, agent, master, or other shipping

company representatives, the requesting

party shall reimburse the United States

for the extra cost represented by overtime compensation.

It is important to note that no charges

would be payable by the carrier for serv- ices performed in connection with the

inspection of persons arriving by (1) international highways, ferries, bridges, or

tunnels, (2) regularly scheduled aircraft

or trains, or (3) regularly scheduled

Great Lakes vessels or vessels operated

between Canadian ports and Puget

Sound, or for services in connection

with the Inspection of the conveyances

or vessels in which such persons arrive.

Under existing law, the inspection

services are rendered without charge,

regardless of the hour at which they are

rendered. However, the Surgeon General, under his statutory authority to fix

the hours during which quarantine service shall be performed at each quarantine station has-at most places other

than airports-fixed the regular hours of

quarantine service from 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.,

7 days a week (Sundays and holidays included). When a vessel arrives

within that time, quarantine service is

rendered, and rendered free, even if it

extends beyond that time. If the vessel

arrives after 6 p. m., service will be rendered only if the vessel is in distress, or

there is illness aboard, or there are other

emergency conditions; otherwise the

vessel is required to anchor at quarantine until the following morning and

must await its turn for inspection. The

delay incident to this waiting period is

expensive to the owner of the vessel-it

may run as much as $5,000 per day-and

thus the owners are willing, indeed

anxious, to pay whatever premium rates

for out-of-hours inspection are authorized by law.

Although the bill would require certain reimbursements as indicated above,

it would also require all employees performing these inspectional or quarantine

services to be paid at the rate of one-half a day's pay for each two hours of overtime (or fraction thereof of at least one

hour) between 5 p. m. and 8 a. m., with a limit of two-and-one-half days' pay

for the full period from 5.p. m. to 8 a. m.

For any Sunday or holiday duty, however brief or fleeting, the employee would

be entitled to two "additional" days' pay.

If the day falls within the employee's

regular tour of duty, this would, apparently, entitle him to three days' pay.

This means that the Government must

pay the premium rates in all cases regardless of whether reimbursement is

later made. The Federal Employees' Pay

Act of 1945, as amended, under which

these employees are now paid, provides

for twice the regular rate of pay only

for holiday work (and correspondingly

less for less than a day's work), no extra

pay for Sunday work (unless performed

in excess of 40 hours a week), and overtime pay at the rate of time and onehalf for employees whose annual salaries

are less than $2,980. Employees at

higher salaries are entitled to overtime

pay on the basis of a rate schedule which

decreases as the basic salary increases

until their overtime rates of pay are less

than the rates payable for straight time.

The special rates of pay proposed for

these employees have been justified on

the ground that these rates, and to a

large extent the other provisions of the

bill, are patterned after similar legislation which has long been in effect for

customs and immigration inspectors (19

U. S. C. 267, 1451; 5 U. S. C. 342c), and

that, like such inspectors, the irregular,

sporadic, and unpredictable nature of

their overtime, Sunday, and holiday services is different in character from that

to which most other Federal employees

are subject and is more burdensome.

These contentions require close exam- ination. The claims of the shipowners

for out-of-hours service have merit. The

claims of the inspectional employees for

equal treatment with other inspectional

groups have much merit, but equality of

treatment for all inspectional employees

is not brought about by this bill. Furthermore, the special pay features of the

bill depart from principles of overtime

and premium pay set forth in the socalled fringe benefits bill recently enacted

by the Congress. This factor and the

reimbursement requirement combine to

make it impossible for me to give my

approval to this bill.

I recognize that the existence of the

highly preferential rates of customs and

immigration premium pay statutes creates severe administrative problems for

the Public Health Service, since quarantine inspectors work in close proximity

with these other inspectional services.

However, the premium rates for the cus- toms and immigrant inspectors are so far out of line with prevailing industrial

and governmental practice that I do not

believe extending their use to other

groups of Federal employees would be

good management. Legislation relating

to groups of inspectional employees

should seek to improve the overall pattern of premium compensation rather

than to attempt to patch the existing

uncoordinated pay structure.

In the recently enacted liberalizations

of existing law governing overtime and

holiday pay there are several special features; for example, provisions for callback time, standby pay in lieu of overtime, and the like, which will make considerably more equitable the premium

pay available to these inspectional employees. Overtime compensation at the

full rate of time and one-half will be

based on regular pay up to an amount

equal to the entrance salary of grade

GS-9 instead of the present $2,980 limit

of the Federal Employees' Pay Act. The

large majority of these employees are

classified in that grade.

In circumstances such as these, I cannot give my approval to H. R. 6253 even

though the problems which the bill seeks

to solve are real and pressing. I intend

to have these problems further explored

as they relate to both domestic and international carriers. I shall also direct further study of effective means to rationalize and coordinate overtime and premium

pay for all inspectional service in relation

to that for other Federal employees.

Upon completion of these studies, I hope

to be able to make recommendations to

the Congress for necessary legislation.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 27, 1954.

ANNA K. M'QUILKIN, H. R. 3516

H. R. 3516. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 3516, for the relief of

Anna K. McQuilkin.

The bill provides for a direct payment

award of $6,125 to Mrs. McQuilkin, who

claims that her brother, a World War I

veteran who died in the service in 1918,

applied for and was issued yearly renewable term insurance in the sum of $10,000

and that she is entitled to the proceeds

thereof as the sole beneficiary.

The Veterans' Administration and

predecessor agencies have disputed her

claim over a number of years, contending

that their records and those of the Military Department fail to disclose that the

brother made application for insurance.

In 1922 the Veterans' Bureau, after careful consideration of the evidence presented in support of the claim, rejected

it. Upon this denial, an award of automatic insurance of $25 a month was

made to the deceased veteran's father,

based on the determination that there

had been no application for insurance.

A total sum of $3,875 had been paid to

the father at the time of his death in

1930. The $6,125 proposed for payment

by H. R. 3516 represents the difference

between the amount paid to the father

and the sum of the insurance for which

application was allegedly made.

During the period 1920 to 1932 Mrs.

McQuilkin engaged the services of a

number of attorneys to prosecute her

claim. New counsel in July 1932 instituted suit against the Government in the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois and secured

a judgment in the amount of $12,592.50.

The lower court decision, however, was reversed on appeal to the circuit court of

appeals on the ground that the statutory

period of limitations for filing such a suit

had expired.

The Judiciary Committees appear to

have accepted the lower court decision

against the Government as now conclusive of the merits of Mrs. McQuilkin's

claim. This would not seem, however,

to be the case in view of the procedural

turn of the circuit court of appeals ruling

which precluded review of the substantive question of whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings

of the district court.

I also agree with the Veterans' Administration that the case does not pre

15566
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

sent any equitable consideration which

warrants the direct gratuity award pro-"

posed. Unfortunately the procedural

reversal by the circuit court of appeals

has left the parties in the unsatisfactory

position which existed prior to the district court suit. The evidence in this

case is complex and controversial. I believe, therefore, that in fairness to Mrs.

McQuilkin she is entitled to a day in

court for decision of her claim, on its

merits, and I would be willing to approve

a jurisdictional enactment waiving the

bar of any statute of limitations.

DWIGHT D' EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 31, 1954.

S. H. PRATHER ET AL., H. R. 9357

H. R. 9357. I have withheld my approval from the bill (H. R. 9357) for the

relief of S. H. Prather, Mrs. Florence

Prather Penman, S. H. Prather, Jr.

The bill proposed to pay the sums of

$5,000 to S. H. Prather, $2,000 to Mrs.

Florence Prather Penman, and $1,000 to

S. H. Prather, Jr., for personal injuries

and property damages sustained at Quitman, Ga., as the result of a collision of

their family automobile with a car driven

by one Howard Hart, an alleged bootlegger. The committee report on this

bill (H. Rept. No. 2208) indicates that

the collision occurred on August 6, 1935,

when Hart was being pursued by an investigator of the Alcohol Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Treasury Department, and by a State officer. The

report of the Treasury Department embodied in the House report states that

the officers, while traveling at approximatetly 70 miles per hour, had pursued

the car for a distance of about 2 miles,

but had slowed down when Hart turned

into a dirt side street of the town of

Quitman, picked up speed to 75 miles

an hour, and collided with the Prather

car, which was proceeding at a lawful

rate of 20 to 25 miles per hour. Hart's

car contained approximately 43 gallons

of illicit whisky at the time.

The officers in this instance were actIng in the performance of their official

duties in attempting to apprehend persons who were violating the law in their

presence. The report of the special investigator of the Alcohol Tax Unit states

that Mr. Prather conceded when interviewed that the officers were doing their

duty and were without blame, "but that

he felt someone should compensate him

for the damages suffered," since the violators who had caused the wreck had no

financial responsibility.

The misfortune suffered by this family

as a result of the automobile accident,

for which they were in no manner responsible, is most lamentable. While it

is true the accident might not have happened if the law-enforcement officers

had not been pursuing the bootleggers,

there is nothing in the file to indicate

the law-enforcement officers were acting

negligently or were doing anything other

than their duty. Unfortunately, the

culprits legally and morally responsible

for the injuries cannot be made to respond in damages. Enactment of the

bill would constitute a gratuity and

would create a dangerous precedent

which might set in motion a chain of

endless requests for the payment of damages by the Government arising out

of accidents in which law-enforcement

officers may have been remotely involved. Accordingly, I am constrained to withhold my approval from the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 31, 1954.

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AREA TRANSPORTATION, H. R. 2236

H. R. 2236. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 2236, entitled "An act

to provide for a Commission to regulate

the public transportation of passengers

by motor vehicle and street railroad

within the metropolitan area of Washington, D. C., and for the establishment

of a Metropolitan Washington Commission."

Title I of this enactment would establish a Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Commission to regulate public

transportation by bus, streetcar, and

taxicab in the District of Columbia and

the counties of Montgomery and Prince

Georges in the State of Maryland. The

bill would grant to the proposed new

Commission, in strengthened form, most

of the powers now separately exercised

in this regard by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Public Utilities Commissions of the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Title II of the bill would create a temporary Metropolitan Washington Commission to study, investigate, and make

recommendations with regard to certain

aspects of the Washington metropolitan

area transportation problem.

The regulation of public transportation

in the greater Washington area must

contend with the growth of an integral

economic community spreading far beyond the boundaries of the District of

Columbia to include Montgomery and

Prince Georges Counties in Maryland

and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and

the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church

in Virginia. Within this community,

the daily travel of persons back and

forth across State lines has reached dimensions with which present facilities

cannot cope. Under these circumstances,

it is understandable that the present

division of responsibility for regulation

among four different agencies no longer

meets the needs of the area. This division of responsibility has contributed, as

it could not help but do, to the development of an inadequate system of public

transportation. The situation plainly

requires unification of regulatory authorities over public transportation

throughout the metropolitan area.

The present enactment, however, falls

substantially short of this objective. Its

failure to include the Virginia segment

of the metropolitan area within the jurisdiction of the proposed Commission

is a fundamental deficiency. Through

this omission of an integral and important part of the greater economic community, a system of fragmented and divided regulatory authority is continued.

What is worse, the Federal Government

is placed in the position of treating the

carriers and persons within one segment

of the area on a different and discriminatory basis from those in the remainder of the area. In the absence of any

substantial grounds for this differentiation, the measure is unacceptable even

as a temporary expedient.

This bill is also unsatisfactory because

It extends, without sufficient safeguards,

the authority of the Federal Government

to matters that have, hitherto, been considered as primarily the concern of the

District of Columbia and of the States.

The problem is difficult because the

urgency of need and the extent of Federal interest in the Nation's Capital both

argue for unification of regulatory authorities under Federal auspices, at least

for the time being. However, in any such

arrangement means must be found to

give adequate recognition to the rights

and responsibilities of the District and

of the States involved. Specifically, provision should be made to enable the

States of Maryland and Virginia and the

District of Columbia eventually to make

arrangements for the exercise of this

function under joint responsibility. In

this regard, it would appear desirable to

explore the feasibility of utilizing an interstate compact or other cooperative

arrangements in which the Federal Government would participate and the Federal interest would be fully protected.

In addition, every effort should be made

to minimize the impact of any new Commission upon the internal affairs of the

District of Columbia.

With respect to title II of the enactment, I agree that further study of metropolitan transportation problems is desirable. The primary mission assigned

to the Commission is related directly to

highway, bridge, and traffic problems.

In emphasizing this role rather than

consideration of mass transit problems,

the bill unnecessarily complicates relationships with the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council. I believe

that further consideration by the Congress will result in a more orderly allocation of responsibilities between the

Commission and these existing planning

agencies. Title II also establishes undesirable limitations governing the appointment and qualification of members

of the Commission.

I hope that the 84th Congress will

promptly enact a measure to unify regulatory authorities over public transportation and provide for a further transit

study with adequate coverage and recognition of State and District responsibilities. Since title I of this bill would not

have become fully effective until July 1,

1955, there need be no significant loss

of time in obtaining its objectives. Similarly, time did not permit the Congress

to provide funds for title II before adjournment. Therefore, since an appropriation cannot be made until after the

Congress convenes in January, little

time, if any, need be lost in the studies

which a revised title II would encompass.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 3, 1954.

MRS. ROSALINE SPAGNOLA, H. R. 2881

H. R. 2881. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 2881, a bill for the

relief of Mrs. Rosaline Spagnola.

This enrolled enactment would pay to

Mrs. Rosaline Spagnola the sum of

$675.50 as additional compensation on

account of the accidental death of her

1954 15567