Congressman OLIN E. TEAGUE, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, DEAR COLLEAGUE: I wish to thank you for your letter of June 16 with regard to H.R. 271, H.R. 1098, and H.R. 3468, and my constituent's request for hearings on these bills. I am enclosing for your information a copy of a letter I have received recently from Mr. William Borland, which explains his concern for the passage of these bills. I thought this additional information might be helpful to your committee when these bills are considered. Sincerely, DONALD C. BRUCE, JUNE 28, 1961. Hon. DONALD C. BRUCE, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. BRUCE: Thank you very much for your letter of June 26, 1961, enclosing the copy of the note from Mr. Olin E. Teague, and for your excellent cooperation in the matter of Mexican border veterans' benefits. To help in case you testify, it should be pointed out that although the United States was not officially at war, during the Mexican border action, volunteer troops consisting of National Guard units were federalized to carry out national action. This act in itself, taken by President Wilson on behalf of our country, would seem to the writer to be of equal significance to a formal declaration of war involving any group of veterans now covered by benefits. Troops were federalized in both cases, either automatically by declaration of war, or by Presidential authorization, as in the case of the Mexican border action. It must not be forgotten that these same troops were the first men into Europe for the United States in World War I. A brother, who by accident in battle action on the Mexican border, was not able to continue in war service in Europe was not eligible for World War I veterans' benefits. This does not seem fair to those troops not able to make the European action in World War I, insofar as veterans' benefits are concerned. Please advise me if I can help in any way to bring this legislation into law. Thank you again for your valuable time taken from a busy schedule. WILLIAM H. BORLAND, Jr., Plant Engineer. Sincerely yours, STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. BURKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS H.R. 4575, bill calling for a pension for the non-service-connected pension is identical with some 35 other bills introduced for the veterans of World War I, in this session of the 87th Congress, the relief for these veterans who are now over 65 years of age, except for a few thousand who are under this age mark. The legislation that the veterans of World War I organization is asking for a nonservice pension this year is most reasonable, compared to the bill introduced during the 86th session of Congress. In comparing the figures of the cost of the bill it is estimated that the first year would approximate $942,327,000 reflecting initial or increased awards to some 1,564,700 veterans. The former Veterans' Administrator, Sumner G. Whittier, reported in 1960 that "it is estimated that the first year cost of H.R. 9336 would be $1,940,384,000, reflecting initial or increased awards to some 2,395,200 veterans." These figures show that the bill H.R. 4575 would be some $998,057,000 less and that 830,500 fewer veterans would benefit by the legislation this session of Congress. The great debt the Nation owes today is to the non-service-connected veteran of World War I, who are now in financial need, due to the high cost of living. It was reported in March 1961 the living costs were steady at 127.5 percent of the 1947 base. The World War I veteran cannot exist today with this high figure in his retired period with a low income. He must pay the same prices as the people who are still in employment, for the food and clothing and other necessities of life. Why should not the remainder of the overaged non-service-connected veterans of World War I, that vast army that did so much for man, humanity, and country, be recognized and receive a pension, if they elect to apply for it, during the few remaining days they have to live? Who in this land of the United States will object to the heroes of 1917-18 receiving a pension in their twilight years of life? The flower of that great army who are nonservice connected today on the pension rolls, and those seeking the passage of H.R. 4575 and H.R. 3745 and other identical bills, are the veterans who had no hospital record. They had nerve, endurance, and iron hearts. By night and by day, in sunshine and in storm, amid the smoke of battle where shells burst and solid shot mowed down their buddies, they stood firm beneath the crack of the enemy's rifle, the machinegun, the roar of artillery, the gas, and quailed not at the impernosity of their duty. There were no first-aid stations at the frontlines or in no man's land-no service records where they could report or record their ailments while facing the enemy. Almost every man who for any time participated in that terrible conflict of World War I, by exposure incident to the service exhausted his nerve force and physical strength, is now over 65 years of age, except for a few thousand. If we are to relieve these claimants-alleviate their sufferings and recognize the sacrifices they made we must act while they live. It will not comfort them to visit their graves with a flood of tears or with flowers on Memorial Day. It is with a little financial help today that will cheer him with the comforts and the necessities of life before he is on his way to the grave and a white cross is erected. We ask this honorable committee to carefully consider the request of assistance to the veterans of World War I under the many similar and identical bills introduced for their relief. STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERY COHELAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3745 AND H.R. 4396 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to express my warm support for H.R. 3745 and my own companion bill H.R. 4396, which would provide increased pension benefits to veterans of World War I. I do not need to go into the history of veterans' benefits in our Nation to emphasize the broad bipartisan policy which has always been observed by our Government toward those men who risk their lives that our country and the principles for which it stands may continue to exist. We have always believed that those who serve our country in time of war should be adequately compensated insofar as it is possible. I believe that H.R. 3745 and my own bill H.R. 4396 reflect this general policy and our traditional attitude of social obligation to those less fortunate among usa tradition which certainly has a long history in our Nation. Mr. Chairman, in view of our past policies on veterans' benefits, this legislation enables us to keep pace with the times. It does this in several ways: First, it provides a living income for those old and aging veterans of World War I who have difficulty making a living due to the infirmities of old age or disability. Many of these veterans are not eligible for local relief and old-age pensions, and therefore are subsisting on inadequate incomes. Second, it provides safeguards for the pension plan by setting income maximum limits to insure need for a pension. Third, and most important, this legislation is humane, for it insures that those veterans in our society who cannot care for themselves have some chance to retain respectable standards of living. Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by reminding the committee that both H.R. 3745 and H.R. 4396 help to pay back a debt which can never be fully repaid, the debt which each and everyone of us owes to the men who have protected our Nation and what it stands for-men who need our help now. I urge the committee's favorable consideration of this legislation. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I am here today in support of my bill, H.R. 4814, which is identical to H.R. 3745, to provide for the payment of pensions to veterans of World War I. 72275-61--32 I feel that the enactment of a separate and distinct pension for the veteran of World War I is needed at this time, with the vast number who have passed 65 years of age. Enactment of H.R. 3745 and the 34 identical bills would bring relief to some 631,221 additional veterans on the non-service-connected disabled pension rolls. There is a great difference between H.R. 9336, introduced during the 86th Congress, and the present bill H.R. 3745. This latter measure has an income limitation clause which will conform with the standard set by the Department of Commerce in 1959, when they stated that an income of $3,600 for single and $4,800 per year for married persons is needed for the American standard of living. The Veterans of World War I organization has based their legislation this session upon that figure. The income limitation in H.R. 3745 for a single veteran is $2,400 and the married veteran $3,600. Adding a non-service-connected disability pension of $1,200 per year would conform with the standard of living quoted by the Department of Commerce. Of single veterans now on the pension rolls, 71 percent have annual income from outside sources of less than $400; 80 percent have income less than $600; while only 9 percent have income above $900. Consideration of married veterans receiving pensions shows 58 percent have less than $900 yearly outside income. Only 15 percent are getting more than $1,800. However, military service to one's country in time of war cannot be evaluated in terms of dollars and cents. To a veteran who comes unscathed through a war the Government owes its gratitude for his patriotism, but when the time comes in his life when he reaches 65 years of age or becomes disabled so as to make it impossible to support himself, I believe the Government owes such a veteran a pension. Practically all World War I veterans are now 65 years of age or over, and due to the increasing cost of living expenses, lack of means of financing medical, hospital costs, drugs, etc., and because of the considerable number of these veterans, the shortage of VA hospital facilities in some areas such as in my own district I strongly urge that this committee favorably report H.R. 3745, H.R. 4814, and the other identical bills. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR OLIN: I understand that your Subcommittee on Compensation and Pensions is opening hearings on Tuesday, July 11, on all pension bills now pending before you committee. On Monday, July 10, I am addressing the Annual State Convention of the Veterans of World War I, U.S.A., Inc., at Hazleton, Pa., and will not be back in time to attend your opening hearing on the following morning. As you know I, and 34 other Members of Congress have introduced identical bills for the benefit of World War I veterans, my particular bill being H.R. 4417. I have discussed this legislation with you and other committee members on numerous occasions, and at this time, in my absence, I would like to have you incorporate this communication in your hearings on the pension bills so that I can be officially on record with your committee as being 100 percent in favor of H.R. 4417, and the other identical bills that have been introduced at this session. Sincerely yours, IVOR D. FENTON. STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL A. FINO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, I would like to state my reasons my believing that it is imperative that the Congress act to liberalize certain regulations regarding veterans' pensions. It is high time that we paid further attention to the very real needs of our deserving veterans. I have sponsored a number of bills which, if enacted, would go a long way toward alleviating the unnecessary and unjust financial plight of many veterans. I should like to discuss more specifically some of the proposals upon which I hope this committee and the Congress will take favorable action. In the first place, I think it necessary that we broaden the base of determination with respect to disability of veterans for pension purposes along the lines indicated by H.R. 2237. I think that veterans over the age of 65 or hospitalized with tuberculosis should be considered as being totally and permanently disabled inasmuch as they are unable to perform substantially gainful tasks or realize a livelihood on their own. Secondly, I think that it is important that the Congress take cognizance of the unhappy effects of inflation and increase the income limitations governing payment of pensions to widows of veterans to the more equitable level provided for in H.R. 3274. Many widows are presently disqualified as far as these pensions as a result of incomes which, although above the present limitation, are becoming increasingly less significant in terms of purchasing power. Thirdly, I believe that it is high time that a pension of $100 a month be awarded to all honorably discharged veterans of the First World War who are 60 years of age or over. These men did not have the post-war advantages provided for veterans of later wars. In addition, their financial position was injured by the grave effects of several depressions. I strongly feel that we should compensate these deserving men at the monthly rate of $100 as provided for by H.R. 4090. Lastly, I should like to urge favorable consideration for a proposal, embodied in H.R. 6612, to provide for payment of pensions to dependent parents of deceased veterans. We owe it to the memory of soldiers who gave their lives for us to maintain their dependent parents as they would have had they lived. In closing, I would like to reiterate my conviction that further attention to the needs of our veterans is a must on the part of the Congress. They fought for our freedom. Let us strive for their well-being. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR COLLEAGUE: There is under consideration by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs a bill, H.R. 5824, which recognizes the service of female members of the Telephone Units, Signal Corps, American Expeditionary Forces of World War I. I have introduced this bill to correct a situation that has been too long neglected. At present, those women who served in the Telephone Units of the Signal Corps receive no recognition or benefits for their World War I service. I believe the discriminatory attitude of the Government toward these women to be unfair and believe that the situation may be rectified on the basis of the evidence available to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Available data points conclusively to the fact that the women who served in the Signal Corps were in the Army, for all practical purposes, whether legislation authorized their service or not. The women who volunteered for service in the corps were answering a Government call to enlist. Those who were properly qualified of the volunteers were sworn into the Signal Corps; indoctrinated to the Articles of War; subject to the Military Code and discipline; and lived as any other female service personnel. For over 40 years the Government has ingored the fact that service was rendered and that recognition and benefits extended to all other World War I veterans should be extended to the female telephone operators of the Signal Corps. I respectfully request careful consideration of H.R. 5824 by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. A favorable report by the committee and positive action by the House of Representatives would be proper acknowledgment of the pride and respect due to those women who gave of themselves in time of war so that America might be a free nation. Sincerely yours, PETER A. GARLAND. STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB H. GILBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs I am pleased to have this opportunity to urge favorable consideration of my bill, H.R. 660, to amend section 503 of title 38, United States Code, to provide that workmen's compensation payments shall be disregarded in the computation of income for purposes of payment of pensions, and for other purposes. The vast majority of our veterans who would benefit by my bill, are entirely dependent upon the small amount of veterans' pension they receive to assure that they will have a roof over their heads and enough to eat. The small pension does not allow for anything beyond the barest necessities of life. Many of our veterans, unable to work, have no one to care for them or look after them. They find it virtually impossible to maintain a decent place to live, purchase food, clothing, and other necessary items and meet other living expenses. If it is determined that a veteran is entitled to workmen's compensation payments, such payments should have no effect whatever upon his entitlement to a veteran's pension. The relief provided by my bill is reasonable and of great necessity to those receiving pensions, and who can barely exist, in these days of high living costs, on the small amounts they receive. I believe that our veterans are entitled to all possible consideration and assistance; they should not have to suffer undue hardships, but should be given all the help we can give them. I trust your committee will report my bill favorably and that the Congress will have an opportunity to consider the legislation in the near future. STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, I am appearing today to testify in favor of proposals to increase benefit levels and ease eligibility requirements for non-service-connected disability pensions. The committee has before it a number of measures, including three of my own bills (H.R. 5668, H.R. 6053, and H.R. 6054), to achieve these ends, and I know it will give them fair and careful consideration. Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my thanks for this opportunity to appear. I am pleased to have this chance to speak in favor of improving the veterans' pension system. Two of my bills before the committee, H.R. 6053 and H.R. 6054, would raise the payments for non-service-connected disability pensions. They would also change existing law to make it easier, in many cases, for a veteran to be eligible and would make it unnecessary for a veteran to be at the edge of poverty before receiving an adequate pension. These bills would make the following specific changes in existing law: (1) They would raise the amount of monthly benefit payments for veterans, widows and dependents and change the graduated income limitations. H.R. 6053 would provide for a two-step graduated scale instead of a three-step scale. The range of payments per month for a single veteran would be increased from à $40-$85 scale to a new scale of $80-$100. Corresponding increases would be made in the scales for widows and veterans with dependents. (2) The bills would exclude spouse's income from consideration in determining a veteran's eligibility for pension. At present, any income of a wife in excess of $1,200 a year is considered part of the veterans's income. This change would make it easier for a veteran to receive a pension. (3) The bills would exclude two additional kinds of income from consideration in determining a veteran's eligibility. One would be income later used in connection with the last illness and burial of a wife or child; the other, income used to cover unusual medical expenses. This change also would make it easier for a veteran to receive a pension. (4) My proposals would restore the old hospitalization provisions. Under present law, the pension of a veteran is limited to $30 a month while he is receiving hospital treatment or domiciliary care by the Veterans' Administration, beginning 3 months after admission to the hospital. Under the old law, in effect up to June 30, 1960, the pension was reduced by 50 percent during hospitalization, but only beginning with the seventh month atter admission; moreover, the amount withheld was returned to the veteran after his release from the hospital. My bills would restore the older, more favorable provision. |