PENSIONS FOR WORLD WAR VETERANS' WIDOWS

AND ORPHANS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. John E. Rankin (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

General Hines, I believe you are the next witness.

General HINES. You so advised me, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here before you.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to hear you, General.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, during the special session and this session, 49 different bills have been introduced and are under consideration by the committee. Those are bills upon which reports have been called for from the Veterans' Administration.

Manifestly, we have not been able to clear all of them through the Budget and obtain an indication as to whether they did or did not meet with the approval of the administration and are in accordance with the President's financial program.

The CHAIRMAN. General, you mean that 49 reports have been made by the Veterans' Administration, 49 of these bills, at the request of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation?

General HINES. No; we have not made a report on all of them but you have called for reports on 49 bills.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, General, we will not attempt to burden the Veterans' Administration, but when members of Congress introduce bills we understand they are seriously taken by themselves and we follow the usual custom of sending them down to the Veterans' Administration and getting a report on them.

General HINES. We, of course, are glad to give you reports on all of them and I think it advisable to do that. But I want to advise the committee at the outset that all of them have been called for. Therefore, I will not be able to give the committee, probably, the advice of the Budget or the President on some of this legislation. But I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, if it meets with the approval of the committee, that rather than analyze all of these bills that have been introduced section by section that I be permitted to put into the record our reports at the proper place and to cover generally the entire situation. I have no doubt that when the committee is ready to give consideration to the legislation you desire to

214844-40-14

bring out that you will go into executive session and decide on what particular things you desire to legislate on. At that time, you will desire probably that I appear or that somebody appear to go into great detail of the effect of whatever legislation you are considering, that is, in respect to what the legislation will do. So, with your permission, I would like to speak generally to these bills this morning rather than to take up each bill separately.

The CHAIRMAN. General Hines, that will be entirely satisfactory. Representative Welch, of California, is present and he has a bill that has been passed by the Congress twice, I think, and vetoed twice by a former President. I wonder if you would mind discussing that bill first?

General HINES. I will be glad to.

The CHAIRMAN. And then you can take up the rest of the bills. The reason I say that, General, it is entirely aside from the class of legislation which we have before us.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman, we rendered a report on the bill on June 6, 1939, which I suggest be introduced into the record at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

(The report referred to is as follows:)

Hon. JOHN E. RANKIN,

Chairman, Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

JUNE 6, 1939.

MY DEAR MR. RANKIN: This is with further reference to your letter of March 25, 1939, requesting a report on H. R. 1008, a bill to confer to certain persons who served in the Quartermaster Corps or under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General during the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition the benefits of hospitalization and the privileges of the soldiers' homes, which provides as follows:

"That all persons who served in the Quartermaster Corps or under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General, during the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition on vessels owned by the United States and engaged in the transportation of troops, supplies, ammunition, or materials of war, and who were discharged for disability incurred in such governmental service in line of duty, shall

"(1) Be entitled to the benefits provided for by paragraph 10 of section 202 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended; and

“(2) For the purpose of receiving the benefits of the Soldiers' Home, the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, and the Naval Home, be held to have been honorably discharged from the military or naval forces of the United States."

The bill is apparently similar in purpose to H. R. 6997, Seventy-first Congress, which passed both Houses of Congress and was vetoed by the President February 23, 1931, House Document No. 778, and is also similar to H. R. 4724, Seventy-second Congress, which passed both Houses of Congress and was vetoed by the President May 9, 1932, House Document No. 315.

H. R. 1008, Seventy-sixth Congress, is identical with the provisions of H. R, 2528, Seventy-fifth Congress, on which a report was furnished the chairman, Committee on Pensions, House of Representatives, under date of April 23, 1938, substantially as follows:

The legislative history of the bills above referred to shows they were intended to grant hospital treatment and domiciliary care to those only who served in a civilian capacity under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General during the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition on vessels owned by the United States and engaged in the transportation of troops, supplies, ammunition, or materials of war, and who were discharged for disability incurred in such governmental service. H. R. 1008, however, is susceptible of being construed as including all who served in the Quartermaster Corps either as enlisted personnel or in a civilian capacity, whether

or not they served on vessels owned by the United States. To remove any ambiguity it is suggested that the bill be amended by striking out "the Quartermaster Corps or" in line 3, page 1, of the bill, and inserting in lieu thereof the words, "in a civilian capacity." A corresponding change should be made in the title of the bill.

The service requirements and delimiting dates under which to determine whether there was required service in the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition, are not specifically provided for in the bill. It is assumed, however, that the criteria of eligibility employed in the administration of Public No. 312, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved August 23, 1935, would be for application, which would necessitate the use of the definition of war veteran employed in Veterans' Regulation No. 10 Series promulgated under Public No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, March 20, 1933, I which reads as follows:

"The term 'veterans of any war' shall include the following persons: World War-any officer, enlisted man, member of the Army Nurse Corps (female) or Navy Nurse Corps (female) who was employed in the active military or naval service of the United States on or after April 6, 1917, and before November 12, 1918; provided, however, if the person was serving with the United States military forces in Russia the dates herein shall be extended to April 1, 1920; Spanish-American War-an officer or enlisted man who was employed in the active military or naval service of the United States on or after April 21, 1898, and before August 13, 1898, including those women who : served as Army nurses under contracts on or after April 21, 1898, and before August 13, 1898, and including any person who served in the military or naval : service of the United States between August 13, 1898, and July 4, 1902, both dates inclusive, and who left the continental United States under orders for military or naval service in Guam, Cuba, or Puerto Rico, between such dates; provided, that for the purposes of hospitalization the term 'veteran of any war' shall include persons who served overseas as contract surgeons of the Army on or after April 21, 1898, and before August 13, 1898; Philippine Insurrection-any officer or enlisted man employed in the active military or naval service of the United States, including those women who served as Army nurses under contracts, who actually participated in the Philippine Insurrection on or after August 13, 1898, and before July 5, 1902: Provided, however, if the person was serving in the United States military forces engaged in the hostilities in the Moro Province, the ending date shall be July 15, 1903; Boxer Rebellion-any officer or enlisted man, including those women who served as Army nurses under contracts, employed in actual participation in the Boxer Rebellion on or after June 20, 1900, and before May 13, 1901."

In this connection it should be stated that under Public No. 269, Seventyfourth Congress, August 13, 1935, pension rights were restored to certain veterans of the Spanish-American War, including the Philippine Insurrection and Boxer Rebellion, and a certain group of these veterans who were unable to meet the requirements of the definition of a war veteran as provided in Veterans' Regulation No. 10 series for the purposes of hospitalization or domiciliary care were made eligible for such care and burial benefits by Public, No. 62, Seventy-sixth Congress, May 3, 1939, and act to provide domiciliary care, medical and hospital treatment, and burial benefits to certain veterans of the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and the Boxer Rebellion.

In connection with the language in lines 3 to 10, inclusive, on page 2 of the bill, it should be stated that section 202 (10) of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, the benefits of which would be granted by the bill to a certain group, was repealed by section 17 of Public, No, 2, Seventy-third Congress, and hospitalization or domiciliary care is now provided under Public, No. 312, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved August 23, 1935. Furthermore, the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers was dissolved as a body corporate and consolidated with the Veterans' Bureau and the Bureau of Pensions under the provisions of the act of July 3, 1930 (Public, No. 536, 71st Cong.), into the Veterans' Administration. The particular language of the bill includes the Soldiers' Home which, it is believed, refers to the United States Soldiers' Home, Washington, D. C., and also to the Naval Home, assumedly the United States Naval Home at Philadelphia, Pa. These particular homes are under the jurisdiction of the War and Navy Departments, respectively, and as the benefits granted by the bill, insofar as those homes are concerned, would be administered

by them, it is suggested that the committee may desire to secure a report from those Departments.

With reference to the above comments, as to form, it is suggested that if further consideration is to be given to the bill that it be amended to conform with the suggestions above made.

The bill proposes to grant benefits of hospital treatment and domiciliary care to a very restricted group of civilian employees to the exclusion of many other civilian groups who served with the armed forces of the United States during the periods in question involving service performed both within the United States and outside the continental limits thereof.

Bills have been introduced in the Congress from time to time for the purpose of granting benefits to civilian employees who served in the Spanish-American War, including the Philippine Insurrection and Boxer Rebellion, as well as. during other wars in which the United States was engaged. As to the SpanishAmerican War, the Philippine Insurrection, and the Boxer Rebellion, there areincluded male nurses, Quartermaster Corps employees, assistant and contract surgeons, veterinarians, and teamsters. In this connection reference is made to recent hearings before the Committee on Pensions, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session, on H. R 6498, January 21, 1938. Pages 28 to 31 of that hearing list a great number of bills by civilian groups for the various wars which have been considered by the Congress. For the most part their various proposals pertaining to civilian employees had for their purpose the granting of service pension and in many instances would recognize the service as active service in the armed forces of the United States, which would place them on a parity with other war veterans.

The general policy followed by the Congress has been to exclude these civilian groups from recognition, very few minor exceptions having been made. As to the Spanish-American War, acting assistant contract surgeons are pensionable when disabled by any wound or injury received or disease contracted in line of duty while actually performing the duties of an assistant surgeon or acting assistant surgeon with any military force in the field or transitu, or in a hospital under the provisions of section 4693, Revised Statutes of the United States. (38 U. S. C. 152), commonly referred to as the general pension law. Such persons, if discharged for disability incurred in line of duty or in receipt of pension for service-connected disability, may receive the benefits of hospitalization or domiciliary care. Contract nurses who served under contract in the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or Boxer Rebellion between the beginning of the War with Spain and February 2, 1901, when the Nurse Corps. (female) was declared by law a component part of the Army, were not entitled to pensions for service-connected disabilities under the general pension law, but the Veterans' Regulations promulgated under Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, authorized pension benefits for service-connected disabilities for this group. The act of September 1, 1922, and subsequent liberalizing acts provided service pensions for such contract nurses. The contract nurses and contract surgeons are included within the definition of the term "veteran of any war”under Veterans' Regulation No. 10 series under Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, quoted above.

The matter of including this particular group of civilian employees referred to in the bill for hospitalization and domiciliary care is one for the Congress: primarily to determine. However, there is for consideration the general policy followed by the Congress and the thousands of civilian employees at present excluded who served with the armed forces of the United States during not only the Spanish-American War, including the Philippine Insurrection and the Boxer Rebellion, but during the other wars, many of whom performed overseas service.. The effect of favorable consideration of this proposed legislation would be a precedent for favorable consideration of the many other civilian groups.

Considering the present eligibles under existing laws and the existing facilities of the Veterans' Administration, it is suggested that the Congress should consider carefully the advisability of enlarging the group of eligibles and particularly extension of recognition to civilian groups on a parity with those who served. in the active service in the armed forces of the United States.

Contact with the service departments indicates the impracticability of furnishing an estimate of the possible cost of the proposed measure. In view of the limitations in the bill that the person must have served on a vessel under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General and must have been discharged for disability incurred in line of duty, it is probable that the new group of eligibles would not be large, but as heretofore stated, the question appears to be pri-

marily one of principle and regardless of the size of the group involved, the enactment of the proposed legislation would appear to constitute a precedent and serve as a foundation for the approval of the demands of large civilian groups involving thousands of former employees for whom bills have been introduced in the Congress from time to time.

In view of the foregoing, favorable consideration of the proposed measure by your committee is not recommended.

Advice has been received from the Director, Bureau of the Budget, that the proposed legislation would not be in accord with the program of the President. Very truly yours,

FRANK T. HINES, Administrator.

General HINES. It just so happens, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Welch, that as a young man I went to the Philippines in 1898 on some of the transports that the Congressman is interested in. Certain persons who were running the transports under H. R. 1008 would be permitted hospitalization in the Veterans' Administration facilities. There is only one reason why the privilege which the Congressman is asking for was not recommended. The number of individuals involved in this particular bill of those that were on the transports would be small, but it departs from the principle of covering in or furnishing hospitalization for those of the civilian groups and it is the precedent that it establishes that is troublesome in the problem. In other words, not only did we have civilians on transports but civilians in the Spanish-American War, the World War, and no doubt in all of our wars, who have accompanied the Army in a civilian capacity, mechanics, teamsters, and crews of transports. In the World War we do not have exactly the same problem on the transports although there were some civilians there because the transports were manned by naval crews. They had a service called the Overseas Service that enlisted these men for the crews of the transports. So really they were part of the naval force. In the Spanish-American War these men had contracts of employment as civilians. For that reason the Congress has passed this bill. But the Congress generally has not considered favorably the question of including civilians for benefits given to members of the service. I have no doubt, if this bill became law, we would be called upon to approve other legislation taking in other civilian groups.

Our hospitals would be insufficient. We could now take in this group of members of the transports with little difficulty because there are a few of them and they are all of advanced ages. They must be, some of them, older than the average age of the SpanishAmerican War veteran, and their expectancy of life, of course, is short, but the whole problem hinges on the desirability of broadening the base of the hospitalization. As I recall, the cost is insignificant although we had difficulty in determining how many were involved. The CHAIRMAN. General, do I understand you to say that members of the transports force of the World War are hospitalized?

General HINES. They are, but they are not hospitalized as civilians. They were enlisted men in the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN. They were enlisted men?

Mr. OLIVER. General, what would you say the average age of this group that were on the transport service during the Spanish-American War would be?

General HINES. I would say the average age was certainly not less than 65 years. I think the Congressman gave it the other day.