as I can see, why the committee may not provide these limitations on a graduated scale.

Mr. BOLLES. How about privates and corporals? Some of them serve five and six enlistments. They are covered all over with service stripes.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there is a provision for service-connected disability. If they incur disability in the service, they are taken care of. It is a question of caring for the widows.

Mr. BOLLES. I am thinking about widows also.

Major CLARK. I think the Congressman has in mind the retired enlisted men who have not suffered any disability. Their widows do not get a pension.

Mr. SCHAFER. Under the proposed bill they would, as I understand it.

Major CLARK. Under the proposed bill if they are entitled to service pension they would.

Some of the widows of retired officers do not draw pensions. Their only opportunity for a pension is to show that their husbands acquired a disability in line of duty sometime while they served in peace or war or as to the Spanish-American War they may be entitled to service pension.

Mr. BOLLES. They must show that a service-connected disability contributed to death.

Major CLARK. Except as to war-service pensions, that is right. The CHAIRMAN. In all the private bills we have reported out for the widows of high-ranking officers, each bill provided more than $30 a month.

Mr. SCHAFER. I sympathize with our colleague's attempt to obtain general legislation to cover this matter. Although I voted for those bills, I held my breath when I did so.

If we are going to afford relief to widows and dependents of officers, we should have a bill that does not discriminate. We should not have a policy which takes care of one by special act and does not take care of 100 who are in the same class because of lack of influence. Many people do not have influence enough to get a private bill enacted by the Congress. That is the bad feature of handling these bills under special acts.

The CHAIRMAN. Up to the present time, so far as I know, there are 119 widows of high-ranking officers on the pension rolls, 1 receiving $5,000 a year. That is an inequality, I will admit. It is too much. That amount was granted by a private bill.

Mr. BOLLES. That is a doctrine of selection; whereas I feel that we should generalize in connection with this matter. I do not believe we should be selective in our action.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be proper for this committee to set a limitation of $100 a month. It is an injustice for one widow to get $450 a month and another widow to get only $100 a month.

Mr. SCHAFER. I think it would be well for this committee, through its chairman, in view of the fact that this matter has been brought to our attention, to take the matter up with the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs and the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, pointing out that the subject has been brought to our attention and suggesting that they might initiate legislation

providing some general plan to take care of the dependents of these retired officers. I believe this matter could be more efficiently and properly handled by these communities. These committees could do more for the country if they would take care of their dependents instead of supporting excessive and unwarranted appropriations in the name of national defense.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee has the right to report out bills covering veterans, except those having to do with the World War and the Spanish-American War, therefore I do not see why we should want to pass this subject to the Committee on Naval Affairs and the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. SCHAFER. I am willing, after we get these pending bills out of the way, to ask that the committee go into the matter of reporting out a pension bill to take care of the widows and dependents of those on the retired lists.

Mr. BOLLES. Mr. Chairman, I move that bill 7191 be laid over for future consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Please let that motion be held in abeyance. We will attend to that matter in executive session, and continue our hear ing today. We will discuss all these bills at a later date in executive

session.

H. R. 7652

The CHAIRMAN. Let us now take up H. R. 7652, which reads as follows:

[H. R. 7652, 76th Cong., 3d sess.]

A BILL To grant pensions and increase of pensions to widows and dependents of certain deceased members or former members of the military or naval service

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph III of part II of Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), as amended, is amended to read as follows:

"III. (a) The surviving widow, child or children, and/or dependent mother or father of any deceased person who died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military or naval service as provided for in paragraph I of this part, as amended, shall be entitled to receive pension at the following monthly rates:

"Widow under fifty years of age, $38;

"Widow, age fifty years or over, $45;

"Widow with one child, $10 additional for such child up to ten years of age; increased to $15 from age ten (with $8 for each additional child up to ten years of age, increased to $13 from age ten);

"No widow but one child, $20;

"No widow but two children, $33, equally divided;

"No widow but three children, $46, equally divided (with $8 for each additional child, total amount to be equally divided);

"Dependent mother or father, $45;

"Dependent mother and father, each $25.

"The total pension payable to the widow, child, and/or children under this paragraph shall not exceed $83 per month. Where there is no widow and where such benefits would otherwise exceed $83, the amount of $83 shall be apportioned as the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs may prescribe.

"(b) The surviving widow, child or children, and/or dependent mother or father of any deceased person who at the time of his death was in receipt of or entitled to receive (1) retired pay because of age, length of service, or disabilityy, or (2) pension for disability incurred in or aggravated by active military or naval service other than in a period of war service shall, unless otherwise entitled to pension, be entitled to receive pension at the rates prescribed in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph."

SEC. 2. The Act entitled "An Act to liberalize the laws providing pensions for the dependents of veterans whose death resulted from service prior to April 21,

1898," approved June 28, 1938, is amended to read as follows: "That on and after July 1, 1938, persons entitled to pension under the provisions of the general pension law, for death resulting from service prior to April 21, 1898, shall be entitled to pension at the rates provided by paragraph III of part II of Veterans' Regulation Numbered 1 (a), as amended as of July 1, 1938, or as thereafter amended: Provided, That this Act shall not be so construed as to reduce any pension under any Act, public or private."

SEC. 3. The increased rates of pension provided for by paragraph III of part II of Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), as amended by this Act, shall be effective beginning with the first day of the month following the enactment of this Act, as to those then in receipt of pension under the provisions of such paragraph III prior to its enactment by this Act and as to those with claims then pending who are shown to be entitled to pension under such paragraph, as amended by this Act. In other cases where entitlement under such paragraph III, as amended by this Act, is shown, the pension shall commence from the first day of the month following the enactment of this Act, or from the date of filing application therefor in the Veterans' Administration in such form as may be prescribed by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, whichever is the later date.

STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM NELSON PELOUZE, OF CHICAGO, ILL.

The CHAIRMAN. The next bill, H. R. 7652, was introduced by our colleague, the Honorable James McAndrews, of the Ninth District of Illinois. This bill appears to give the same monetary benefits to dependents of the Regular Establishment (whether the service was performed prior or subsequent to April 21, 1898), as are now being paid to dependents of World War veterans.

As in the case of the prior bill, I have not as yet received a report from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs relative to its provisions. I have been in correspondence with the author of the bill, Col. William Nelson Pelouze, and he has indicated that he does desire to personally appear before the committee and be given an opportunity to testify in behalf of it.

If there are no questions by members of the committee of the representatives of the Veterans' Administration, Major Clark and Mr. Odom, we will be pleased to hear from Mr. Pelouze.

Mr. PELOUZE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the purpose of this bill is to equalize the present pension allowances for the dependents of the Regular Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps so that they will correspond with the present bill affecting the dependents of World War veterans and

The CHAIRMAN. If I may interrupt, do you include members of the Coast Guard?

Mr. PELOUZE. Yes.

The bill seems to be meritorious for the reason that it corrects the inequalities in the rates of pensions and makes them both the same. We do not believe there should be any distinction in the rates of pensions between the World War veterans' bill and the service bill, for obvious reasons. Certainly a preference of one over the other would not seem to be fair.

Furthermore, the widow of one member of an organization is just as worthy as the widow of a member of another organization. It costs both just about the same to live.

In the pending bill we have corrected a great injustice that prevails in the present law. It was referred to, I think, by the gentleman who sat here [indicating]. In other words, the present bill permits the

dependents of the officers and enlisted men who have been retired under the compulsory law-the officers at the age of 64 and the men after having served 30 years-in some cases no pensions. In the present bill the dependents receive no pensions, with a few exceptions. The only exceptions are the dependents of those officers who served during the Spanish-American War. Any who entered the service subsequent to the Spanish War and have died, their dependents do not receive any pensions. To make that very clear, if an officer in the Regular service should die, his dependents would get the regular pension. If he should retire and then die immediately afterward his dependents are entirely cut off. That is why this bill provides that the dependents shall receive the regular pensions.

Mr. SCHAFER. You say that after the retirement of an officer, after he dies, his widow does not receive any pension?

Mr. PELOUZE. That is right.

Mr. SCHAFER. But if the officer dies from a service-related disability or disease, his dependents do receive a pension?

Mr. PELOUZE. Yes: that is before he retires.

Mr. SCHAFER. But if death is caused by service-related disability or disease, it makes no difference whether he dies in or out of the service, as I understand, his dependents receive a pension, provided that service disabilities or diseases cause or contribute to his death. Major CLARK. That is right.

Mr. PELOUZE. The new bill grants pensions to the dependents of deceased officers and enlisted men who have retired because of disabilities or who have been discharged because of disabilities. In the present bill, if they die subsequently, their dependents do not receive any pensions. Under this bill, line-of-duty death is made presumptive. For instance, if an officer or enlisted man has been discharged or has retired for deafness or tuberculosis, and he meets death in an automobile or a railroad accident, the cause of his death is not traceable to the disability for which he was retired or discharged. His dependents would not receive any pension. Therefore in this new bill line-of-duty death is presumed. Of course, that is a great injustice and hardship, simply because he has not died from some cause traceable to the disability for which he was retired, and his family is cut off.

Those two injustices are, gentlemen, I feel, very vital. This takes in the dependents of officers and enlisted men where the officers have served until they reached 64 years of age or the enlisted men have served 30 years. When they die, their dependents would get the

regular pensions.

I would like to call your attention to one or two situations that clearly show the very meager and inadequate pensions that the dependents of the Regular Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard receive. The members of the committee are probably informed of the matters I am going to relate, but I shall relate them with your permission. For instance, an admiral of the Navy, who commands a battleship and is responsible for the lives of thousands of men, and responsible for property that has cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars, if he should be killed in battle or die a natural death, his widow will receive only $22 a month if she is not over 50 years of age, and if she is over that she gets $26 a month.

The same applies to a major general in our Army who in time of war may command an Army corps with all the responsibilities that devolve upon that office. If he should be killed in battle or die a natural death, his widow would receive $22 a month if 50 years of age or younger, or $26 a month if more than 50 years of age.

In contrast, the widow of a World War veteran would receive $38 a month if she were 50 years of age or younger, or $45 a month if more than 50 years of age. The dependent mother and father of one in the Regular service would get only $15 a month. Under the World War law, they would get $45 a month.

It is but natural to ask why this great discrepancy.

The World War veterans' organizations have a vast membership. They have a background of creditable achievement. They are in all States of the Union. In many States they have their own organizations. Their occupations are very much diversified, consisting of professional men, tradesmen, commercial men, bankers, farmers, and laborers. That organization wields a powerful influence. Their rates of pensions have been increased recently. That was done under the act approved July 19, 1939. Our bill simply asks that the pension rates be placed on the same basis and without any distinction or discrimination. The personnel of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard have no large organization to champion their cause and they must depend and rely upon the justice and fairness of Congress for any rewards or benefits they may receive. Officers of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard realize that they are in service to conduct the business of protecting this country and not for the purpose of watching out for their own personal interests. They are schooled to believe that honor and reward are the result of service. I have for years known of the distress and suffering following the death of Army and Navy officers because of the low pension their dependents receive.

Perhaps you gentlemen know that there are in the Army and the Navy also relief societies. Those societies are supported by contributions by Army and Navy officers. These societies render a limited emergency relief. They collect clothing which is distributed among the needy dependents of Army and Navy officers who have died.

While I am a civilian, yet I have been a member of the Army relief society for many years on account of my early Army connections. My wife, moreover, has been very much interested for many years in collecting clothes and garments that have been sent to a central distributing point in New York City and there turned over to the wives and daughters of Army and Navy officers who have died, especially those dependents who are in greatest need.

The four groups, the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, represent a very small number in comparison with World War veterans. The number is so small that the additional pension costs to the Government would be of little concern.

Officers and men do not lose their lives very often in peace-time service. Owing to the very small pay of those in the low grades, who make up the permanent personnel very largely, their families are usually in distress, except for what they get by way of pensions. The CHAIRMAN. If you do not mind, I will interrupt you at this

224500-40