STATEMENT OF J. HARDIN PETERSON, OF FLORIDA, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. H. R. 476 is a bill which is the result of considerable study made by this committee during the last session of Congress. It was originally a bill introduced by the then chairman of the committee, the Honorable Otis Bland. Mr. Bland and I had several informal conferences on it with the Maritime Commission, and a number of the seamen were present. Then we whipped it into shape and I introduced H. R. 2346, which was the original H. R. 2346.

Now, H. R. 2346, as finally reported favorably by the committee, was the result of a long series of hearings in the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the subcommittee, which read the bill line by line. Many of the objections which were at that time advanced to the original H. R. 2346 were to the effect that it was attempting to give to merchant seamen the same rights and benefits as are given to veterans.

We sought to get away from that particular objection and in the revised 2346, which is now H. R. 476, we bodily eliminated many of the original features, as a result of the extensive hearings and objections.

There is now before the committee-and you did not have it at the time you had your first hearing-the report of the Maritime Commission. It analyzes in detail, section by section, the bill itself.

I feel it will be helpful to the committee. They hit the high spots and give substantially some of the things which I intended to bring to the attention of the committee. On page 4 of the mimeographed report they say it is a misconception to consider this bill as one which would grant veterans' benefits to merchant seamen basically serving as civilian personnel. These seamen were subject to war hazards and to enemy action and to military discipline to an extent distinctive from other civilian personnel, so that the service which merchant seamen rendered during the war might be described as quasi-military service.

Such rights and benefits as they now have are those primarily estab lished for peacetime merchant marine. They are inadequate in several respects to meet the problems, especially of education and training, disability, and dependency, arising out of war service.

The purpose of the bill is to provide for civilian seamen employed in the wartime service of our country, and to certain members of the United States Maritime Service, limited civilian rights to which they should be entitled by virtue of their war service. benefits proposed are limited in scope and upon analysis will be found to be merely extensions of rights enjoyed by merchant seamen under the law.

This bill is identical in substance to the bill reported favorably in the House in the Seventy-ninth Congress, which I have already pointed out. Some of the original points of H. R. 2346 which were excluded from this bill were the civil-service preference and loans for the purchase or construction of farms, homes, or business properties, and hospitalization, and medical treatment for dependents.

Those were eliminated and in the report from the War Department, which is adverse, they apparently did not attempt to analyze the changes which had been made in the two bills. Those original points were placed there largely because the first was modeled somewhat after the GI bill of rights. I was a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on World War veterans' legislation which handled the GI bill of rights and I was a member of the conference committee, and I was one of those who were present at the signing of the bill.

The President, at the time he signed the bill, turned to us and told us-it was then President Roosevelt-and told us he wished we had included the merchant seamen. Our first draft was more or less based on that, but as we went along, we eliminated it.

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Peterson, is that statement of President Roose, velt in writing?

Mr. PETERSON. My recollection of that is, when he sent the GI bill back, there was a statement also at that time. It either was in that statement or in the press notices. We went down to the signing of the bill. He used 10 pens to sign it with and handed 1 to each of the members of the committee and he turned back and made that statement. That is really where I got the germ of the first idea. Later on I became more a creature of the committee and chairman of the subcommittee and sat in long drawn-out hearings.

However, my recollection is-and I will check on it-is that it was either in the message itself which he sent back in approving the GI bill of rights, or in a press notice at the same time that he did make such a statement.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. However, Mr. Peterson, you would make no attempt to say that there was any promise, or anything like that made?

Mr. PETERSON. That is right.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It has been so frequently stated that Mr. Roosevelt promised this legislation. I have been able to find nothing to verify the statement.

Mr. PETERSON. There was a statement to the press, but as far as saying it was a promise, I would not say that. That was one reason the original legislation was so broad. Then we whittled it down. We whittled it down considerably. There remains in the bill at the present time the three civilian rights benefits which are of substantial importance to war-service seamen. They are hospitalization and medical treatment, disability and death benefits, education and training.

With reference to these matters, only one, that is education and training, may be considered generally as a new benefit, although a general Government school for seamen had existed for a number of years, and those are analyzed pretty much in detail in the report of the Maritime Commission.

I am not going to try to make an extended statement because I feel that the hearings held in the previous Congress will be of great benefit to the committee here.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. May I say to you, Mr. Peterson, to disabuse your mind of that entirely, that this is a new committee. Mr PETERSON. That is right.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I have no thought whatever that this committee will read over the previous hearings. They do not have the time.

Mr. PETERSON. That is true too, but it might be easier to have access to a few of those than just to burden the record here. So I am going to try to hit the high spots now and if I overlook anything I wish you would call my attention to it.

I would like to call attention again to the distinction beween H. R. 2346, the original bill, and the present bill, because I do think in my heart that some of the objections to the present bill are psychological because they have not really gotten the thought that we have eliminated these other features.

H. R. 2346 contained a feature similar to the loan provision in the GI bill of rights. This feature has been excluded entirely from 476. H. R. 2346 made provision for civil-service preference for war-service seamen in certain governmental agencies related to the Maritime Agency. This provision has been eliminated in H. R. 476.

H. R. 2346 provided marine hospital care for war-service seamen for war-connected disabilities and for non-service-connected disabilities where the seamen were not able to defray the expense.

In addition, H. R. 2346 provided low-cost medical care for disabled and dependent war-service seamen. H. R. 476 contains none of these provisions with the exception of medical care for service-connected disabilities. Marine hospital care for merchant seamen was established by an act of Congress in 1898. Certainly the extension of this care to a small group of seamen solely for service-connected disability is not an extension of veteran benefits to a seamen group.

H. R. 2346 provided death and disability benefits on a system similar to the schedule provided for that of veterans. It has been eliminated from H. R. 476 and the concept of loss of earning power, contained in the United States Employment Service Act, has been substituted. In other words, the first schedule was that of veterans benefits. The schedule in this is that under the United States Employees' Compensation. In other words, if an employee in a shipyard of the Government or an employee who is a clerk in a department were involved, what they would get would be the same as is now contained in this bill.

Mr. BROPHY. Do you refer only to citizens in this, or noncitizens alike?

Mr. PETERSON. We had quite a bit of discussion on that. It is limited to citizens and I believe we used the word "nationals" and serving in certain groups. We had quite a bit of discussion on that and it was limited to citizens, and I believe we used the word "nationals."

Mr. BROPHY. Will you give us your interpretation of the meaning of the word "nationals?"

Mr. PETERSON. It was at that time done primarily for the Philippines. There were a number of Filipinos in the merchant marine. Mr. BROPHY. How about people from Panama and Trinidad, and places like that?

Mr. PETERSON. If they were not citizens, they would not be eligible. No, sir. It is on page 5 of the bill. "Such individual (A) is a citizen or was prior to July 4, 1946, a national of the United States or (B)

is a bona-fide resident of the United States, is eligible for citizenship, and had taken out his first naturalization papers prior to March 2, 1946."

In other words, we did not want him to take out first papers after this came through.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. As I understand it, the merchant seamen did not have physical examinations before starting their work on merchant ships, did they?

Mr. PETERSON. I am not so sure of that. I do not think they did. I do not believe that they did.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. How then is there any possibility of getting any reasonable solution to this question where you put in on page 22, lines 22 to 24;

If a wartime service seaman suffers a disability from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by maritime wartime service

How is there any way to determine whether that disease was incurred in or aggravated during service, except in some isolated cases? Mr. PETERSON. That would have, of course, to be factual.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Where would any facts exist there? Mr. PETERSON. It would be known when he got sick what was wrong with him, although they tell me in the Maritime Commission that they did have physicals.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. They did have physical examinations? Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Mr BRADLEY of California. You will be heard, gentlemen, when your time comes. I am not going to allow any of you to interrupt the witnesses.

Mr. PETERSON. Aside from that, we have the same problem sometimes with other civilian employees in the Government itself, such as a person who might be disabled in an office. They do not have a complete physical, but they still come under compensation.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I appreciate that, but with the average merchant seaman, I am wondering.

Mr. PETERSON. It would be difficult to prove the case, of course.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. This just occurred to me. I am trying to get the facts as you bring the points up.

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Peterson, the Maritime Union is asking now to have 14,000 noncitizens made citizens, who would be covered by that language on page 5, lines 8 to 14.

Mr. PETERSON. They would not come before that time, would they? Mr. BROPHY. Yes; they would all come previous to March 2, 1946. It was to give them the right of taking out first papers.

Mr. PETERSON He would have to take his first papers out first.

Mr. BROPHY. This particular measure has reference to those who served during the war. So this program would govern 14,000 people, should the Congress of the United States decide to allow them the equivalent of their first papers.

Mr. PETERSON. No. First he has to be a citizen and then he has to be a national prior to July 4, 1946. I think that is the Philippine Independence Day. I think that is the date there. Then he must be a bona-fide resident of the United States and eligible for citizenship. He must be a resident and such a resident as is eligible for citizenship, and he must have taken out his papers prior to March 2, 1946.

Mr BROPHY. But the problem is, they are asking us to give them the right of having made their application at any time during the

war.

Mr. PETERSON. Even though you gave him the right to do it, he actually would not have done it, even though you extended the right retroactively. He must have actually had his application at that time to come under this.

Mr. BROPHY. That is all right, but I would not quite agree with you. Mr. PETERSON. And he had to have taken out his first papers, you see. That is in the past. You may give him the right to take them out retroactively

Mr. BROPHY (interposing). Then he will be governed by this if that right is granted.

Mr. PETERSON. Of course, that would be something you would have to watch in the new legislation, but this was put in to make sure he was a citizen and then we added those who had taken out first papers. In fact, we were trying in the First World War and in this World War to get as many merchant seamen as we could. We had a lot of Danes and Norwegians and lots of these people who made very fine sailors. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you understand that "(B)" to be all-inclusive? All those three provisions are to apply together, and not separately.

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, sir. You go back to "if" and then you come down to "(2)." It reads then

if * * * (2) such individual (B) is a bona fide resident of the United States, is eligible for citizenship, and had taken out his first naturalization papers prior to March 2, 1946.

We went back to take care of a large number of Filipinos prior to Independence Day.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. May I interrupt here just to say to the gentlemen present that the Navy Department has requested that its report as of May 2, 1947, be not considered at the present time, as they may wish to make some changes. So do not put this in your pocket and think you have the Navy Department's report. It may be changed.

Mr. PETERSON. I think that is probably due to the fact that they have not analyzed the differences between the two bills.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I would not want to say why, but they have requested that. May I also say to anyone who hears this questioning that the questioning is bound to be very severe during these hearings because if this ever gets to the floor of the House, the questioning is going to be very severe there and we must know the answers to everything.

Mr. PETERSON. That is right. That is why we want to enlighten the committee. Did I answer your question, Mr. Brophy?

Mr. BROPHY. As best as you could; yes.

Mr. PETERSON. It may be if they try to make those retroactive, you may want to watch this, but this provision says that he had to have it at that time.

The next difference where we meet slight distinctions is that they do not get quite as much under this educational feature. The subsistence is less than under the other and they figure the service a little differently, but my theory on the education feature is that the education