"SEC. 1. That there is hereby established in the War Department and Navy Department, respectively, a roll designated as 'the Army and Navy medal-ofhonor roll. Upon written application made to the Secretary of the proper department, and subject to the conditions and requirements hereinafter contained, the name of each surviving person who has served in the military or naval service of the United States in any war, [who has attained or shall attain the age of sixty-five years,] and who has been awarded a medal of honor for having in action involving actual conflict with an enemy distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry or intrepidity, at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty, and who was honorably discharged from service by muster out, resignation, or otherwise, shall be, by the Secretary of the proper department, entered and recorded on said roll. Applications for entry on said roll shall be made in such form and under such regulations as shall be prescribed by the War Department and Navy Department, respectively, and proper blanks and instructions shall be, by the proper Secretary, furnished without charge upon request made by any person claiming the benefits of this Act.

"SEC. 2. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War and of the Secretary of the Navy to carry this Act into effect and to decide whether each applicant, under this Act, in his Department is entitled to the benefit of this Act. If the official award of the medal of honor to the applicant, or the official notice to him thereof, shall appear to show that the medal of honor was awarded to the applicant for such an act as is required by the provisions of this Act, it shall be deemed sufficient to entitle the applicant to such special pension without further investigation. Otherwise all official correspondence, orders, reports, recommendations, requests, and other evidence now on file in any public office or department shall be considered. A certificate of service and of the act of heroism, gallantry, bravery, or intrepidity for which the medal of honor was awarded, and of enrollment under this Act, and of the right of the special pensioner to be entitled to and to receive the special pension herein granted, shall be furnished each person whose name shall be so entered on said roll. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy shall deliver to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs a certified copy of each of such of said certificates as he may issue, as aforesaid, and the same shall be full and sufficient authority to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs for the payment by him to the beneficiary named in each such certificate the special pension herein provided for.

"SEC. 3. That each such surviving person whose name shall have been entered on said roll in accordance with this Act shall be entitled to and shall receive and be paid by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, from the moneys appropriated for the payment of invalid and other pensions, a special pension of [$10] $30 per month for life, payable monthly, and when such person attains the age of sixty-five years, $40 per month for life, payable monthly. The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, shall make all necessary rules and regulations for making payment of such special pensions to the beneficiaries thereof.

"Such special pension shall begin on the day that such person shall file his application for enrollment on said roll in the office of the Secretary of War or of the Secretary of the Navy after the passage and approval of this Act, and shall continue during the life of the beneficiary.

"Such special pension shall not deprive any such special pensioner of any other pension or of any benefit, right, or privilege to which he is or may hereafter be entitled under any existing or subsequent law, but shall be in addition thereto. "The special pension allowed under this Act shall not be subject to any attachment, execution, levy, tax, lien, or detention under any process whatever.

"When any such special pensioner dies leaving a widow or a minor child or children surviving him, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, under such rules and regulations consistent with the pension laws as he may prescribe, shall pay such surviving person or persons a special pension at the rate of $40 per month, which, in case there is more than one such surviving person, shall be apportioned as the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall prescribe.

"SEC. 4. That in case any person has been awarded two or more Medals of Honor, he shall not be entitled to and shall not receive more than one such special pension.

"Rank in the service shall not be considered in applications filed hereunder." As will be noted from the foregoing, the principal effects of the proposed amendment would be to increase the present pension of $10 a month, which is payable only upon the attainment of 65 years of age, to $30 a month regardless of age, with a rate of $40 a month for pensioners 65 years of age or over; and to provide a pension of $40 a month to the widow, child, or children of such deceased pensioners. 240650-40-2

The only difference between H. R. 8051 and H. R. 7214, Seventy-fifth Congress, and H. R. 3385, Seventy-sixth Congress, is that the latter bills provide a pension of $30 a month for the widow or children, while the present bill provides a rate of $40 a month.

Section 2 of the bill provides that the proposed act shall take effect on the first day of the month following the month during which it is enacted.

The pension now payable to veterans whose names are carried on the Army and Navy Medal of Honor Roll is in addition to any other pension or compensation which might be payable.

In considering the merits of the proposed legislation it will be well to refer to the history of the act of April 27, 1916, establishing an Army and Navy Medal of Honor Roll, in order to ascertain the legislative purpose and intent. The primary purpose of the act was to give special recognition to honorably discharged war veterans who, in action involving actual conflict with an enemy, distinguished themselves conspicuously by gallantry or intrepidity, at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. The provision for an award of $10 monthly to such person after attaining the age of 65 years, was, according to Senate Report No. 240 on H. R. 4701, Sixty-fourth Congress (which later became the act of April 27, 1916), to serve as a "recognition of superior claims on the gratitude of the country.' It was pointed out in the report that the sum of $10 monthly was at that time somewhat analogous to the amount granted by other countries, and in the debates on the floor of the House on that bill an amendment to increase the rate to $18 monthly was rejected after the committee chairman stated that any increased amount would constitute a commercialization which would diminish the honor attached to the award of this medal under the circumstances set forth in the bill. (See vol. 53, pt. 3, Congressional Record, p. 2349.)

By limiting this pension to persons who have attained the age of 65 years there is provided a small amount for personal comforts in the advanced years of life, at a time when needs are generally not so acute, especially where the veteran is in receipt of other pension benefits.

In view of the definitely expressed purpose to restrict this pension to a sum not in excess of $10 a month, the question arises as to whether the proposal could be justified to increase the rate to amounts greatly in excess thereof and to eliminate the age restriction.

The proposal to award pension of $40 a month to the widow, minor child or children of any deceased pensioner who was entitled to the benefits of the act of April 27, 1916, in addition to any other pension to which they might be entitled is at variance with the underlying principle upon which pensions to dependents of deceased veterans are based and, if enacted into law, would constitute a serious conflict with the pension system which has been constructed upon that long-established policy.

Briefly, the Government provides two types of benefits on account of the death of war veterans, viz, pension or compensation on account of service-connected death and pension or compensation based upon non-service-connected death. In the former class, pension or compensation is payable regardless of the manner in which the fatal injury or disease was incurred, i. e., whether or not the veteran was in home service or overseas, in actual combat with the enemy or serving behind the lines, or whether remotely removed from the zone of hostilities. The test is service connection, as required by the particular law under which the benefit is authorized, and if that requirement is met no distinction is made in rates on account of the type of service performed. The primary purpose is to afford assistance to the widow in securing a livelihood because of the loss suffered through the death of her husband from injury or disease received while in the active military or naval service.

Pension or compensation on account of non service-connected death is payable, generally in lesser amounts than service connected death benefits, in recognition of the veteran's service to his country and the need of his widow and children for assistance in gaining a livelihood.

As the committee knows, rates of pension or compensation payable to dependents of deceased war veterans vary according to the war in which the veteran served, age of the widow and children, whether the death was service-connected or not, and several other factors. This is necessarily so because of the several laws under which these benefits are authorized. However, the basic principle has been preserved throughout the entire history of pension legislation.

To inject into the present system (which already represents a complicated administrative problem) an entirely new principle of entitlement, creating a preferred class of widows and children, would, in effect, make many of them eligible for double pensions, thus discriminating against equally worthy dependents of

other deceased veterans. Such a proposal is a complete departure from the original purpose of the act of April 27, 1916, which the bill seeks to amend.

The proposal is objectionable from another viewpoint in that it seeks to commit the Government to a new policy of providing relief at greatly increased cost to a group, many of whom are already on the pension or compensation rolls, at a time when much thought is being given to the problem of keeping national expenditures in line with national income.

With regard to the matter of cost, it is the understanding of the Veterans' Administration that the War and Navy Departments furnished estimates to your committee in connection with H. R. 7214.

For the reasons heretofore set forth, the Veterans' Administration is unable to recommend H. R. 8051 to the favorable consideration of your committee.

Advice has been received from the Assistant Director, Bureau of the Budget, that there would be no objection by that office to the submission of this report to your committee.

Very truly yours,

FRANK T. HINES,
Administrator.

The CHAIRMAN. The purpose of this meeting is to consider H. R. 3385 and H. R. 8051, these bills proposing to liberalize the provisions of the Medal of Honor roll of April 27, 1916.

The first witness this morning is Mr. Charles E. Lofgren, lieutenant (junior grade), United States Navy, retired, national secretary of the Fleet Reserve Association, Investment Building, Washington, D. C. STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. LOFGREN, FLEET NAVAL RESERVE

Mr. LOFGREN. The Fleet Reserve Association is interested in the bills now pending before the committee concerning the liberalization of the provisions of the Medal of Honor roll of April 27, 1916. That interest is manifested primarily in behalf of a small group of enlisted men who have performed deeds of valor both in action with and in times of peace. enemy

the

I may say at the outset that the Fleet Reserve Association is not in any way responsible for the introduction of the bills now being considered by the committee. Frankly, I do not know the history of these bills, but, nevertheless, I feel that I am in possession of certain facts that should be brought to the attention of gentlemen of the committee.

Liberalization of the provisions of the act of April 27, 1916, seemed to be desirable not only for those who have been awarded Medals of Honor as a result of participating in action with an enemy; but, also, I hope the committee will strike out the words that are against those who receive Medals of Honor on account of peacetime service and make provision for the men who have been awarded Medals of Honor for service in times of peace.

Briefly, the provisions of the act of April 27, 1916, give a $10 special pension to holders of Medals of Honor after they shall have reached the age of 65, provided, however, that the Medals of Honor must bave been awarded on account of action involving actual conflict with the enemy. One must have distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life over and beyond the call of duty and without detriment to the mission of his command or the command to which attached.

There are many instances during times of peace-I will not say many-but there are a few, where men have equally distinguished themselves when, perhaps, the opportunity which war necessarily brings is not present.

I have in mind, also, that the existing law makes no provision for the widows of these Medal of Honor men; but the bills that have been introduced and are now before the committee do make provisions for payment of a special pension to the surviving widows of Medal of Honor men, but only in those cases where the Medal of Honor was awarded for heroism displayed in the presence of an enemy.

There are two men in my organization who hold Medals of Honor awarded for heroism during conflict with an enemy. One of those men is an honorary member and not eligible fo full membership in the organization.

Mr. BOLLES. Why not?

Mr. LOFGREN. He left the service before he met the requirements for retirement.

The other man to whom I referred finished 30 years in the service, was retired, and he is now receiving retired pay from the United States Navy.

The man who is an honorary member, when he reaches 65 years of age, according to present law, will receive $10 a month as a special pension.

The man who is a retired enlisted man recently applied to the Secretary of the Navy to have his name placed upon the Medal of Honor roll in accordance with the act of 1916, but his request was denied.

I have before me a copy of the letter from the Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, dated January 10, 1939, addressed to Hudson Van Etten, chief water tender, United States Navy, retired, concerning a Medal of Honor.

It reads as follows:

Receipt is acknowledged of reference (a), wherein you request to be enrolled on the Medal of Honor roll in accordance with the act of Congress approved 27 April 1916. You are informed that the Attorney General of the United States has rendered an opinion to the effect that retired personnel of the military and naval service holding Medals of Honor are not eligible under the provisions of the act of April 27, 1916, to receive the special pension of $10 per month provided for therein.

In view of the foregoing, and the fact that you are a retired member of the naval service, your application for enrollment on the Medal of Honor roll may not be given consideration.

That disposes of two identical cases of the Spanish-American War, one under the act of 1916 to receive $10 a month when he reaches the age of 65; while the other man, who is a retired enlisted man of the Navy, is not eligible to go on the Medal of Honor roll.

When the first man goes on the roll, then dies, his widow will become entitled to a Spanish War pension of $30 a month.

When the man who is on the retired list of the Navy dies, the widow likewise will become entitled to a Spanish War pension of $30 a month. Similarly, under the proposed legislation, the widow of the first man, who was separated from the Navy and did not serve long enough to be retired, will receive a special pension, while the widow of the retired enlisted man will receive no pension because his name was not recorded on the Medal of Honor roll maintained by the War and Navy Departments.

Both of the men I am discussing were awarded Medals of Honor for gallantry in action before the enemy.

Mr. BOLLES. The enlisted man and the other man?

Their

Mr. LOFGREN. Yes; the enlisted man and the other man. citations are identical. They were involved in the same incident. The first man to whom I refer is Hudson Van Etten. Medal of Honor awarded by General Order 521, dated July 7, 1899, reads as follows:

Hudson Van Etten, seaman, serving on board the U. S. S. Nashville, for extraordinary bravery and coolness while cutting cables leading from Cienfuegos, Cuba, May 11, 1898, under a heavy fire of the enemy.

The other man is Anton Olsen, ordinary seaman, on board the U. S. S. Marblehead:

For extraordinary bravery and coolness while cutting cables leading from Cienfuegos, Cuba, May 11, 1898, under a heavy fire of the enemy.

Mr. BOLLES. The same men were engaged in the same duty?
Mr. LOFGREN. Yes; that is right.

Mr. BOLLES. Before you go further, please cite me one of those socalled peacetime cases.

Mr. LOFGREN. I have in my organization four members who served in the Navy for periods ranging up to 30 years and who are now on the retired list or on the Fleet Naval Reserve list after 16 or 20 years' service. They are Medal of Honor men; yet their names may not be inscribed on the Medal of Honor rolls for the reason that the Attorney General of the United States has rendered an opinion holding that a retired officer or retired enlisted man is not eligible to have his name on the Medal of Honor roll and also entitled to the $10 pension a month under the act of 1916.

Mr. SCHAFER. But the pending bills go further than clearing up that discrimination. I do not believe that discrimination should exist.

Mr. LOFGREN. That is why I am pointing this out.

Next is the case of Peter Johnson, chief boatswain's mate, U. S. Navy, retired. His citation reads as follows:

Peter Johnson, fireman, first-class, serving on board the U. S. S. Vixen, for coolness and heroism in entering the fireroom on the night of May 28, 1898, when the lower front manhole gasket of Boiler A blew out.

That citation was given on August 27, 1904. Obviously, that service was not rendered in conflict with the enemy.

The next case is that of Alexander Peters, boatswain's mate, firstclass. His citation reads as follows:

Alexander Peters, boatswain's mate, first-class, serving on board the U. S. S. Missouri, for heroism in attempting to rescue from drowning Cecil C. Young, ordinary seaman, September 15, 1904.

That service, again, did not involve actual conflict with the enemy. The next case is that of Telesforo Trinidad, whose citation reads as follows:

Telesforo Trinidad, fireman, second class, U. S. S. San Diego, for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession at the time of the boiler explosion on board that vessel, January 21, 1915. He was driven out of fireroom No. 2 by the explosion, but at once returned and picked up R. E. Daly, fireman, second class, whom he saw to be injured, and proceeded to bring him out; that while coming into No. 4 fireroom Trinidad was just in time to catch the explosion in No. 3 fireroom, but without consideration for his own safety passed Daly on and then assisted in rescuing another injured man from No. 3 fireroom.

Trinidad was himself burned about the face by the blast from the explosion in No. 3 fireroom. That is General Order 142, April 1, 1915.