Page images
PDF
EPUB

While I do not have available the exact figures of the number of World War I veterans over age 65, let me read to you an interesting newspaper item carried by the Associated Press under the dateline, January 9, 1956, which concerns the plight of Americans over the age of 65:

Nearly three-fourths of Americans over 65 either have no income or less than $1,000 a year according to a study released today. The report was issued by the Twentieth Century Fund, a nonprofit foundation for economic and social research and education. The study reveals that of the population over 65 years old, 36 percent have no income of their own; 38 percent have annual income under $1,000; 11 percent have between $1,000 and $2,000; and 15 percent have $2,000 or more.

Mr. Chairman, with the average age of the veteran of World War I at 62 today, in the matter of a few years all World War I veterans will be age 65 or over, and I think the result of the study of the Twentieth Century Fund, which I have quoted, clearly reveals the future economic status of elderly Americans which includes the veteran of World War I.

In revealing the economic plight of World War I veterans as they advance in years, it should be recalled that upon discharge from military service, the World War I veteran received $60 as a separation allowance which, at that time, barely covered the cost of a civilian suit of clothes or an overcoat when he reached home.

It was 18 years after the armistice of November 11, 1918, before the so-called bonus was paid to the veteran of World War I, which was designed as an adjustment of the $30 monthly paid to the American doughboy for military service in 1917-18.

In mentioning the $60 separation allowance and the so-called bonus, I want to emphasize the fact that there were no fringe benefits, such as terminal-leave pay, unemployment insurance benefits, or GI benefits in general, as received by the veteran of World War II.

Mr. Chairman, I have several bills pending before this committee; namely, H. R. 347, H. R. 8406, and H. R. 9361.

H. R. 347, which I introduced January 5, 1955, was introduced by me in previous Congresses. This bill will increase the amount of disability pension payable to veterans of World War I to $75 monthly or to $90 if the veteran has reached the age of 65 or has been in receipt of a pension for 10 years.

H. R. 8406, which was introduced at the request of the American Legion, amends part III of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a) to liberalize the basis for, and increase the monthly rates of, disability pension awards.

H. R. 9361 was introduced at the request of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and establishes a pension program for the veterans of World War I.

Mr. Chairman, any of these bills are a step in the right direction and I sincerely hope that this committee will perfect and send to the floor of the House of Representatives, at the earliest possible date, a bill that will include an adequate monthly pension for the veteran of World War I, for truly he is the forgotten veteran.

My suggestions regarding the amount of a World War I service pension are as follows:

(1) $75 monthly if the veteran has a disability or disabilities rated at 70 percent or more, regardless of age;

(2) $100 monthly if the veteran has attained the age of 65 or is permanently and totally disabled;

(3) $150 monthly, regardless of age, if he is helpless or blind or so nearly helpless and blind as to need or require the regular aid and attendance of another person.

In addition, I think the bill-which I hope you will perfect— should provide outpatient care for every veteran of World War I, who is in need of medical treatment on the same basis as provided the veteran of the Spanish-American War.

In regard to income limitations, I think we have to face the fact that public sentiment supports the view that World War I veterans gainfully employed and in receipt of a reasonable income should not object to an income limitation of $2,400 a year if single or $3,600 if married or having dependents.

I realize that the income limitation is a departure from the accepted principle of paying a service pension without any strings attached. Nevertheless, I am aware of the fact that the precedent has been established of requiring an income limitation on non-service-connected benefits and that Congress is reluctant to approve any pension measure unless it contains an income-limitation clause.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I am certain that it is understood I have been discussing a service pension for the veteran of World War I based on age and disability and I want it understood that the proposed legislation has no relationship to compensation or other benefits now being paid to veterans of World War I, World War II, or the Korean war for service-connected disabilities. I wish to make it clear that I am advocating a service pension for World War I veterans based on age and disability.

As a veteran of World War I and World War II, I hope that my fellow veterans of World War II and the Korean war will support a service pension for the veteran of World War I because, as I have told you in all sincerity, he is truly the forgotten veteran.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jimmy.

Mr. O'Hara of Illinois.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARRATT O'HARA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am here to speak for the Spanish War veterans. And the committee will excuse me, I know, if I speak with some emotion.

The number of the Spanish War veterans has been greatly reduced. The fact that I remain as the last Spanish War veteran in the House of Representatives is an index of that diminishing of our numbers.

Almost 200 veterans of the Spanish-American War have served in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. When I came here in the 81st Congress, there were four of us. Now I alone remain. And every day and every month, the number of Spanish War veterans is going down, down, down.

Our Spanish War veterans now are concerned with the plight of the widows of their comrades who have passed on. These are old women; they are very, very few in number. They are without means

other than the small pension they received from the Federal Government. And they are trying to eke out an existence on a little over $50 a month. They have no other source of income. They have no means of augmenting their income by their own efforts. Because, of course, nobody wants to give employment to an old woman.

I have a letter before me from Sam Black, the department adjutant of the United Spanish War Veterans of Illinois, in which he said: In this job, as department adjutant, I am in a position where I see and hear a great many things, and I know of the struggle a great many of our widows are having in trying to get along with the $54.18 pension and the little they can earn at their advanced age. I do not know of a single one of them that gets social security. I know of one who refused to take her Spanish War widow's pension, because she could get more under welfare.

Now, I appreciate, gentlemen, the position of this committee. You are under pressure to increase other pensions, and I think definitelyand this is a bit of a digression-I think definitely the veterans of World War I should receive a service pension. I think it is a good thing for this country that we should follow that pattern; that when one who has served our Republic in time of warfare, has reached an advanced age, an age that it is all but impossible for him to receive private employment and make money-that when he has reached that age and has served his country in time of warfare, he should receive a service pension. I think it is a great thing for this country that that pattern should be continued, and there is much merit in it. I think the merit to a degree is unanswerable in the contention of the World War I veterans that they should receive that service pension. But while you are considering that—and I appreciate the amount of money involved is considerable-I hope you will not hold back your recommendation for this legislation for our Spanish War widows. They are in a different class.

My colleagues, most of them, won't be here next year or the following year. They will all be gone in a very few years. They are all old women. And it is the immediacy that I would urge upon this committee, in putting this, if you please, in a preferred classification. Give your recommendation to this bill, and give a little help to these old women before they are dead. And then in the exercise of your good judgment, take the time that would be necessary for your further considerations on the pension matters that go into larger sums of money.

Also, I have before the Congress--and when I say that, it is merely because I have been selected to put in these bills, because of my being the last Spanish War veteran here the bills of all of our Spanish War comrades, the bill for our naval veterans. That has been something that it has been hard to explain to a younger generation. You see, no records were kept in the Spanish-American War. There was a great informality. In the Navy, our ships went out into action, such action as we had at that time, and it was thought to be a period of great danger. And they were so anxious to get to the field of danger that they sailed without going through the formality of being sworn in.

The boat that I went down to Cuba in-and I arrived in Cuba a day or two after Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders-the boat that took us down there had sailors on it that had not even been sworn in. And so these men that I know were in service, and in service then in

what we regarded as hostile waters-because the Spanish Fleet was at large-were not sworn in until afterward. So as a result of that, there are a handful of these naval veterans who are being discriminated against. They don't get the pension. Because the period from the time they were sworn in until the time they left the service is less than 90 days.

Now, those are the two bills that I am heavily interested in, and I am asking that this committee give them special consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Mr. Avery?

Mr. AVERY. Could I ask Mr. O'Hara the number of that second bill?

Mr. O'HARA. H. J. R. 151. And Admiral Heselton is here, and I think he will appear later before the committee and in detail explain it.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. O'Hara and I will insert at the end of your remarks a letter from a past commander in chief of the Spanish War Veterans and a former Member of Congress, Lloyd Thurston.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE,

Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

UNITED SPANISH WAR VETERANS,
OFFICE OF PAST COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
Osceola, Iowa, February 20, 1956.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE: The enclosure is not submitted in behalf of any group or organization, but as the Members of the Congress have been supplied with information concerning the services, hospitalization, and the many benefits made available to those who served in the last three wars, I felt warranted in calling your attention to the limited benefits for the Spanish-Philippine veterans and their dependents. Much of the matter set out has never before been presented to the Congress.

Whatever the Congress determines is due and fair to the Spanish War group cannot in any way be considered as a precedent because of the lack of equal or comparable benefits to the last mentioned.

With highest regards and best wishes, I am,

Yours truly,

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane of Massachusetts.

LLOYD THURSTON.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. LANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, let me first express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your committee and staff, for giving me this opportunity to appear before your committee here this morning.

I am well aware that there are several bills here. There are a good many to be considered, as many Congressmen wish to be heard and go to their committees. And for that reason, I am desirous of making my remarks as brief as I possibly can.

I want to say to the committee that I endorse the remarks of the two previous speakers who have spoken here on World War I veterans, namely, Congressman Denton of Indiana and Congressman Van Zandt of Pennsylvania. They have given to you a very able and very

accurate and concise statement. And knowing that this committee listens to these matters day in and day out, I am satisfied that the committee is made up of the experts of the Congress, and for that reason also I am hopeful of keeping my remarks as brief as possible, and I would just like to say a few words in reference to a bill that I have filed, which is H. R. 551, pensions for all World War I veterans at age 62.

There are several bills on your agenda this morning that I favor. However, I wish to confine myself to my own bill. Although I have no pride of authorship, I am hopeful that the committee may see fit, after study and thought and consideration, to report some bill to help and assist the World War I veterans that have been mentioned here before your committee as the "forgotten veterans."

The case for "pure" pensions for war veterans, based on age and honorable service has a strong base in precedents that were established long before people even dared to dream of social security or company pensions.

Congress adopted a "pure service" pension schedule for the Revolutionary War survivors on June 7, 1832.

Senator Ingalls, in 1884, speaking in behalf of "pure" pensions said, and I quote: "The only question that is before the Senate at this time is whether the proper period has arrived at which the precedent shall be applied. There is nothing else in it. After a certain lapse of time, we pensioned every soldier of both the great wars in which this country had been engaged prior to 1846, irrespective of disability, irrespective of his capacity to support himself, for service merely."

The Civil War Pension Act of 1912, enlarging the scope of 1890 legislation, provided pensions for all who had a minimum of 90 days service in the Civil War, and had attained the age of 62 years.

The act of June 5, 1920, entitled "An act to pension soldiers and sailors of the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, and the China Relief Expedition" provided pensions beginning at the age of 62, for all such veterans with a minimum of 90 days service and an honorable discharge.

Sixty-two years in age, 90 days of minimum service, and an honorable discharge. These were the only requisites for Mexican War, Civil War, and Spanish-American War pensions.

Consistently I have held to these qualifications in H. R. 551, to grant similar pensions to veterans of World War I.

Over 37 years have passed since the end of that conflict.

Over 544,000 veterans of World War I have already passed the age of 62.

Only a small number of them will receive the increasing benefits under the Social Security Act that will be available to the veterans of World War II and Korea.

World War I veterans number slightly more than 3 million, out of our total veteran population of 22 million.

They are the men in between-without the pensions enjoyed by veterans of previous wars, and unable to reap the full benefits of social security and the more than 17,000 private company pension plans that embrace more than 12 million workers.

Standing alone, they are entitled to special consideration because of age and economic factors.

« PreviousContinue »