(b) It is obvious from the above tables and statements that the great majority of disabilities in the armed Services are among the lower grades and ratings inasmuch as the largest percentage of disabilities occur in the first 3 years of service, with 52.6 percent followed by 23.8 percent during the 4th, 5th, and 6th years of service, hence the need of a basic compensation for rated degree of disability which is within the jurisdiction of the Pension Committee. (c) Likewise, it is obvious with the wide range in pay set up by the many methods of grades and ratings within the various services that optional method is required to provide equity for the higher paid service personnel and which the disability retirement feature will meet. It is deemed important, at this point to set forth a brief comparison of benefits derived from the optional needs mentioned (retirement at 4 base pay): It would appear from this table that the retirement feature would work a distinct injustice to the Government, but in view of the facts that the greatest majority are disabled before they have attained any rank it will be seen that an average compensation benefit of 80 percent of wartime rates will be approximately correct, for the element of risk is greatly reduced as the years of service are mounting. 4. Mr. Chairman, it is believed that sufficient information has been stated on the foregoing at this time. This association has made a deep study of the situation, and, as the chairman knows, we are at his command at any time. Therefore, the writer wishes to touch on one other very important point, and then, briefly, on several features of the bill H. R. 8948. The present system of compensating disabled Regulars and/or their dependents is striking directly at the heart of national defense-the morale of the man behind the gun. I grant it is unpremeditated and likely not previously considered, but life, limb, and health are mighty dear to all of us and when one knows that he will be treated as a very inferior workman if he is disabled, and that his dependents will be treated very shabbily if he is killed, then, certainly, he will not take an obvious risk, or even have confidence in his employer. While on this point it is apropos to mention just a very few of other reasons why his morale is being attacked and weakened, all of which touch on the subject of compensation: (a) The hazards of service, duty for duty, man for man, and service for service, are greater today than during any of our wars. (b) His pension is based on the trade he followed prior to entering service, hence the argument that his service is in the nature of a career is not carried out. (c) His pay is so low he cannot afford insurance. (d) He is not even entitled to a flag for his casket. (e) He is not entitled to W. P. A. employment preference. (f) He is not eligible for C. C. C. enrollment. (g) He knows he will receive less than one-half the pension a war veteran will receive for like disabilities. (h) He knows if he goes to the old soldiers' home that his money is helping maintain, that as high as $30 of his pitiful pension will be taken away from him. (i) He knows his dependents will be treated as inferior citizens in the event of his death from line-of-duty causes. (j) He knows that when his TB becomes arrested he will be thrown entirely off the pension rolls, which the war veterans will stay on the rolls at $50 the rest of their lives for the same disability. (k) He knows he can serve 29 years, 11 months, and 29 days, lacking but 1 day of retirement at $133 a month, and be surveyed out of the service on a pension as low as $6 a month. (1) He knows he has been forgotten, and his morale is bound to stagger. He knows his service to his flag and country is just as valuable today as it ever was, and likewise he knows his life, limb, and health are dedicated to his flag, his country, and to you and I, sir, whether the sacrifice be on another Panay sacrilege, a Maine disaster, an explosion aboard the destroyer laying off the docks here in Washington, or in a plane crash. 5. The soldiers and sailors of today are saving scores of lives in the next war through their continuous and highly hazardous military and naval war games; dangerous experimentation; tactical and technical maneuvers; and, in addition they take the service as it comes, be it floods, a national crisis, peaceful invasion, or whatever happens that demands the best of effort, sacrifice, and training, and we hold that they are equally entitled with any veteran who also suffered and sacrificed for his flag and Nation. 6. With direct reference to the bill H. R. 8948, the following is submitted: Occupational variant.-It is stipulated also in this legislation that the occupational variant of soldier, sailor, Marine, or Coast Guard, rather than the variant applicable to the occupation of the injured man at the time of enlistment, shall be applied in such cases when the rating schedule in effect on March 19, 1933, applicable to war veterans, is used in adjudicating such claims. The term variant is used by the Veterans' Administration in the adjudication of claims to designate the veteran's occupation at the time of enlistment. This is felt essential in adjudicating the claims of war veterans because their service is temporary and cannot be construed as a profession. On the other hand, the Regular enlists for a definite period of time thus accepting the service as a career. Therefore, it is felt that when he becomes disabled in line of duty the occupational variant of soldier, sailor, marine, or Coast Guard should be followed in adjudicating his claim, for such is his profession at the time of incurring disability. 7. Statutory awards.-Absolute equality in statutory awards is demanded by equity to start with. They are just and reasonable else they would never have been enacted for war veterans. The present practice of kicking a Regular with an arrested TB disability off the rolls, usually at a ripe old age, is a national disgrace and it would be far more humane to "waste" a .45 bullet on him. 8. Rate of allowance for nurse or attendant.-The bill H. R. 8948 provides that the monthly rate of the allowance for a nurse or attendant shall be the same as is paid to World War veterans. If a Regular veteran became totally disabled in line of duty prior to April 21, 1898, he receives a pension of $30 per month and $42 per month additional if in need of regular aid and attendance. If he was totally disabled in line of duty subsequent to April 21, 1898, other than in time of war, he receives a pension of $45 per month and $30 per month additional if in need of regular aid and attendance. If a wartime veteran became totally disabled in line of duty subsequent to April 21, 1898, he receives a monthly pension of $100 per month and $50 per month additional if in need of regular aid and attendance. Thus, the result of the provision in H. R. 8948 providing that the monthly rate of allowance for a nurse or attendant shall be the same as is paid World War veterans will be to increase the allowance for such nurse or attendant serving a veteran disabled prior to April 21, 1898, from $42 to $50 per month, and to increase the allowance for such nurse or attendant serving a Regular veteran disabled subsequent to April 21, 1898, other than in wartime, from $30 to $50 per month. The Senate committee submitted to the Senate that there was found no basis or justification for these discriminations under existing law in the rates allowed for nurses and attendants. 9. Dependents of Regular veterans. Likewise, this bill provides that the dependent of a Regular veteran whose death was due to service-connected causes shall receive not less than 80 percent of the rates paid dependents of war veterans who died from service-connected causes. Under present law the dependent of a veteran whose death was due to serviceconnected causes other than in wartime receives from about 66% percent to about 22 percent less than the pension paid a dependent of a line-of-duty deceased war veteran. The mother of a war veteran receives $45 per month. The mother of a Regular killed today in line of duty would receive but $15 per month. The widow of a World War veteran receives $30 per month, while the widow of a Regular killed today in line of duty would receive but $22 per month. The widow of a veteran killed in line of duty prior to April 21, 1898, receives but $12 per month. 10. Presumptive clause.—▲ presumptive clause covering service-incurred disabilities is most essential in an equitable consideration of the plight of disabled Regulars. It is realized this would be something new but the burden of proof is on the Regular in nearly every instance where an accident is the cause of disability as he is required to produce the affidavit of eyewitnesses and many times the Veterans' Administration reverses the decision of the service departments. The proof of the need of such a clause is in the number of private bills coming before Congress each year whereby Congress finds the Regular's disability service-connected yet the service department and the Veterans' Administration hold it is non-service-connected. 11. The bill H. R. 8948 would affect nearly every disabled Regular and/or dependent on the rolls from approximately 5 percent in the instance of amputation cases restored under Public, 788, to as high as 75 percent in the instance of the 10 percent disabled, yet very few would receive in excess of 80 percent of that received by war disabled for like disabilities and those are very old men pensioned under the general law. 12. A 60-percent increase in pensions will leave discrimination existing, the very thought of which is distasteful. Our totally disabled are starving as are many of the partially disabled who cannot, on account of their disabilities, secure employment and who are denied access to relief simply because they receive a pension that is actually a national disgrace. Relief must be afforded now for I speak frankly and from the depth of my convictions when I state that several hundred disabled Regulars and/or their dependents will be condemned to death by starvation, exposure, and lack of decent treatment just as surely as there is night and day if relief is not afforded today. 13. The lives of these hundreds of people is in the hands of the Seventy-fifth Congress and the President, and if there are billions of dollars to provide an existence for the third of the population who are undernourished, underclothed, and underhoused, surely there is a mere 6 million for sorely needed disabled Regulars and/or their dependents whose ill fortune was brought on in serving their Nation and flag that the entire Nation, one-third and two-thirds, might pursue the even tenure of their privilege as citizens of the greatest Nation on earth. 14. Mr. Chairman, the Regular Veterans' Association pleads for justice— justice based on the American principle of equity. There are about 50,000 persons looking directly at this committee and the Seventy-fifth Congress for justice. The Senate has given it, unanimously, and we ask that this committee see eye to eye with the United States Senate now, for immediate relief is necessary. Respectfully submitted. J. E. NIEMAN, National Adjutant and Legislative Representative. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CARL GARDNER, EDITOR OUR ARMY MAGAZINE, REPRESENTING NAVY NEWS MAGAZINE Hon. ALLARD H. GASQUE, REGULAR VETERANS' ASSOCIATION, Chairman, House Pension Committee, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CHAIRMAN: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of a communication received under even date from Carl Gardner, editor of Our Army Magazine, and representing Navy News Magazine, which he requests that I convey to the House Pension Committee to be incorporated in the hearings held on the bill H. R. 8948. It will be greatly appreciated by the undersigned if this message from Mr. Gardner be incorporated in such hearings. Very truly yours, J. E. NIEMAN, National Adjutant and Legislative Representative. JUNE 8, 1938. J. E. NIEMAN, Regular Veterans' Association, Washington, D. C.: Through long experience with the Army and Navy I have seen the hardships worked on Regular Army and Navy enlisted men through the very inadequate pensions allowed those who become physically incapacitated in the line of duty. Under present laws the Regular has little protection against physical disability. His risks are great and at any time before 30-year retirement he can be discharged from the Army for physical disability with loss of retirement pay and without adequate pension. This hazard is a constant source of worry to all Regular service enlisted men. Today life in the Army and Navy is very stren uous. Both highly mechanized services are on almost constant maneuvers under closely simulated wartime conditions. The risk is great. The need for a better pension law is vital. The Congress has provided ships and guns. Surely it can also provide a small additional sum to guarantee the men behind the guns adequate protection against physical disabilities received in handling these weapons of warfare. I believe the Regular veteran deserves pension rights equal to the wartime veteran. I favor H. R. 8948. I speak as a war veteran and a Regular and as a commissioned officer of the Regular Service from 1918 to 1928. And I speak as editor and publisher of leading military and naval magazines from 1928 to the present time-specifically, as editor of Our Army Magazine and for Navy News, leading naval publication. Please convey my message to the House Pension Committee at whose hearings on H. R. 8948 I had hoped to be present but was prevented by last minute business demands. CARL GARDNER, Editor Our Army Magazine, Representing Navy News Magazine. Hon. ALLARD H. GASQUE, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Washington, June 8, 1938. MY DEAR MR. GASQUE: This refers to the hearing held on Wednesday, June 8, on the bill H. R. 8948, to which Commander (E) E. Reed-Hill was designated and represented the Coast Guard. It is understood that you desire a written statement in this matter to form a part of the hearing. The Coast Guard has been a party to the discussions held in the Veterans' Administration regarding proposed liberalization of existing pension laws and regulations. The Coast Guard has previously stated its position in favor of the modifications proposed by Gen. Frank T. Hines, Administrator of the Veterans' Administration, and desires in connection with this hearing to state that it continues in accord with his proposals and the remarks made by him at the hearing. Very truly yours, L. C. COVELL, Acting Commandant. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., June 7, 1938. Hon. A. H. GASQUE, Chairman, Committee on Pensions, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. GASQUE: Referring to your letter of June 4 in which you state that the committee will start hearings on Wednesday, June 8, at 10 o'clock a. m., on H. R. 8948, a bill to liberalize the laws providing pensions for veterans and dependents of veterans of the Regular Establishment for disabilities or deaths incurred or aggrevated in line of duty other than in war times, and in which you invite a representative of the War Department to be present in case the War Department desires to be heard upon this measure, premit me to advise you that while the War Department does not desire to make any statement with reference to H. R. 8948, it would appreciate having a representative present at the hearing. For this purpose Maj. Paul L. Ransom, War Department General Staff, is designated. The matter of liberalizing the laws providing pensions for veterans and dependents of veterans of the Regular Establishment for disabilities or deaths incurred or aggravated in line of duty other than in war times has been under discussion for some time with the Administrator of Veterans Affairs. In deference to that department and without knowledge of the views of the Bureau of the Budget regarding H. R. 8948, the War Department prefers to express no opinion on this legislation. Sincerely yours, HARRY H. WOODRING, STATEMENT OF CORNELIUS H. BULL OF VIRGINIA, JUDGE ADVOCATE OF AMERICAN VETERANS' ASSOCIATION This bill, H. R. 8948, deals with certain veterans of the Regular Military Establishment and appears to have as its purpose providing more adequate compensation for those suffering from service-connected disabilities. So long as this legislation is confined to service-connected disabilities manifesting themselves within a reasonable time which are not to be stretched into some of the absurdities now prevailing in laws relating to World War veterans, this association advocates the principles of the bill. One objectionable feature is to be found in section 4, line 8, on page 4 of the bill: Namely the words "will not be in order." This section apparently provides that service-connection shall be denied if there be an intercurrent injury or if the disability be due to the veterans' own misconduct. If service-connection in such cases is to be denied it should be so stated and not declared to be "not in order." The testimony of General Hines and the questions of members of the committee tended to bring out the principles of the rate structure to be applied. As it appears that more study is to be given to the rate of pensions to be received by the beneficiaries of this bill and as more data is to be supplied the committee, we prefer to have the benefit of this additional data before commenting on the rate to be paid at this time. At a hearing before this committee on H. R. 8690 on January 25 and 29, 1938, the following colloquy took place between Mr. Maas, a member of the committee, and Mr. Bull, who was then appearing against the bill on behalf of the American Veterans' Association: "Mr. MAAS. Have you been before any of the committees advocating that? "Mr. BULL. No; I have not; this is the first committee before which I have ever appeared. "Mr. MAAS. You have been organized quite a while. It seems to me that we should have heard from you before this. "Mr. BULL. This assignment was given me to come up here and speak, and we have been heard from before. "Mr. MAAS. You are always here when you are against, but you are not here when you are for. "Mr. BULL. We have had a bill introduced, Senate bill 2891, by Senator George. I will be glad to furnish you a copy if you want it. The purpose of this bill is to increase the existing rates of death compensation payable to widows, children, and dependent parents of World War veterans who died as the result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military or naval service in the World War." Mr. Bull appeared before the committee on June 8, the date of this present hearing, for the sole purpose of supporting the principles of H. R. 8948, the bill now under consideration, which legislation appears to have been introduced by Mr. Maas himself. The attention of the committee is specifically directed to the fact that this organization always advocates the passage of just legislation which will generously compensate those who were actually disabled in the service or as a direct result of that service. It will continue to take that stand just as vigorously as it will oppose the claims of those who suffered no disability but who by reason of service alone demand to be supported by their fellow citizens. CORNELIUS H. BULL, Judge Advocate, American Veterans' Association. |