Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Although I am not able to attend the hearings on H.R. 3745, to provide for the payment of pensions to veterans of World War I, I have actively supported the proposal by introducing H.R. 5411, the identical bill. The legislation is modest in the increase that it asks from the taxpayers and Congress compared to what the veterans of World War I contributed to the wellbeing of our Nation. It only seems appropriate that when these men who risked their lives for the principles of our democracy, at a time when their force and loyalty were needed to preserve these ideals, that we should, in turn, reward them for the effort that they exerted in behalf of freedom. In the 44 years since the beginning of that great conflict, these men have been active citizens of our country. They have paid their taxes, they have engaged themselves in the active life of their community, they have played their part in the building of the culture of our Nation. Upon reaching age 65 they are entitled to a consideration commensurate with their contribution. This legislation will affect 1,725,845 men. It calls for an increase per month of $23.63. At a death rate of 100,000 annually, the total number of recipients gradually decreases. It seems reasonable to me, that for the remaining years of the life of these men, benefits should be granted to help make their retirement one of pleasure, rather than one of struggle for the necessities of life. I respectfully request that the committee favorably report H.R. 3745, and that this letter of support be included in the records of the hearings. All best wishes. Sincerely yours, JAMES ROOSEVELT. STATEMENT OF HON. D. S. SAUND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to express my support of my bill, H.R. 5278, which would provide a pension of approximately $100 per month for World War I veterans with certain income limitations. Placing the means for a decent, dignified life in the hands of World War I veterans is not only a matter of social justice, but of economic necessity. veterans were The Nation owes these brave men who were willing to fight and die for their country in World War I better treatment than they have received. Unlike the soldiers of World War II and the Korean war, the World War virtually ignored in their peacetime rehabilitation. Their average age is 66. The time to help is now. I was the author of similar legislation in the 86th Congress, along with a great many other House Members who again are cosponsoring this pension proposal. My bill is identical to the measure endorsed by John E. Erickson, national commander of the Veterans of World War I, before your committee on March 8 of this year. The bill would provide a pension of $102.36, a 30-percent increase over the present pension of $78.25 now paid to World War I veterans over 65 years of age who are 10 percent disabled. The pension would be paid only to veterans whose income is under $2,400, if single with no dependents, and $3,600 if married with dependents. In computing this sum, payments received from social security, railroad retirement, annuities or other pensions would be excluded. Eligibility would be based on 90 days' service during World War I or a lesser period of service if discharged for service-connected disability. More than 4,700,000 Americans were engaged in World War I, of which 2,300,000 served overseas and 320,518 were casualties. They answered the call to duty gallantly, but no provision was made for their return to normal civilian occupations. As a result, although many World War I veterans have forged ahead to become leaders in every segment of American life, others less fortunate, through no fault of their own, have found themselves sick and disabled, unable to earn an honorable living, as much as they would like to. Furthermore, because of relatively poor medical attention and inadequate records during the World War I period, there has been great difficulty in establishing eligibility of veterans for service-connected disability claims. It is these deserving veterans that this legislation seeks to help and I urge your compassionate and careful study of the proposal. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. SHELLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, on January 12, 1961, I introduced a bill, H.R. 2525, to provide for the extension of pension benefits to persons who served on certain vessels operated by the Army during the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, and the China relief expedition. Careful perusal of my proposed legislation, now before this committee, will reveal a desire to abolish an injustice which has existed these many years. Our Federal statutes would, upon enactment of this legislation, give to the persons who served as members of the crew of any vessel operated under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General of the Army during the Philippine Insurrection, or the China relief expedition, the pension benefits to which they are entitled for wartime service to their country. It is, of course, mandatory that those receiving benefits from this bill should have been honorably released from service. This seems to me, gentlemen, to be an extremely clear-cut and simple proposition. Pension laws have been applicable throughout the history of our Government to the personnel of the military service with the thought that officers and men who are subject to going to war-not of their own volition-are entitled to certain considerations and certain protection to their families. It seems perfectly reasonable then that these pension laws should apply to all of those who served under the hazards of conflict during the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, and the China relief expedition. It is hardly logical to have our pension benefits apply to certain of the military service but not to all. I have read with great care the report [No. 52] submitted by the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration on April 21, 1961, to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives. Gentlemen, I cannot agree with the presentation in this report. It is saying, in fact, that those who would benefit from H.R. 2525 were subjected to hazards and dangers in wartime service, but that the letter of the law demands that we not sway one iota in excluding these individuals from any existing pension benefits. I have in my files a list of 68 transport vessels that were in operation during the Spanish American War (1898 to 1902) by the Department of the Army. Of the 68 listed transports only 18 were Government owned. The other 50 were chartered vessels and, may I add, the majority were returned to their owners for cancellation of charters in the latter months of the year 1900. In addition to the Army troopships, the U.S. Navy commandeered and chartered some of the largest Atlantic liners for use as Navy transport, swearing their civilian crews into service as members of the Armed Forces. When these ships were released to their owners their crews were likewise discharged with an honorable U.S. Navy discharge and the few who are alive today enjoy the same status as the veteran crews of the battleline ships of the Navy. Mr. Chairman, I simply cannot understand why we continue to discriminate between those who served on Army transports and those who served on Navy transports during the same conflict. How is it possible to make a distinction between those on one transport and those on another when service to country during battle is involved? I am certain you will agree with me that such discrimination or such distinction should not be allowed to exist. May I further point out that the service rendered by the Navy transport crews did not exceed 120 days. The members of the Army transport crews-in many instances served for a period of 4 years and some few members have a record of 10 years. Others have discharges for disability in line of duty. I would like to bring to your attention a particular case. A Captain Olsen, deceased, entered the service at the outbreak of the war in 1898. He served continuously until captured by the Japanese at the fall of Manila. He was confined at Santo Tomas prison until released by our troops under General MacArthur. From the time of his release to his death in 1941 he suffered from the effects from confinement in that prison. On numerous occasions in the past, the War Department acknowledged and recognized the splendid work which those persons did during the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, and the Boxer Rebellion, and the China relief expedition. Such statements are a matter of record with this committee. But at the same time the War Department and the Veterans' Administration has given to both Members of the Senate and Members of the House adverse reports stating that "Congress has steadfastly adhered to the principle of not granting the same relief or pension benefits to civilians as are provided for persons who have performed service as members of the Armed Forces." I quote from the report submitted to this committee by the Veterans' Administration, dated April 21, 1961: "In the past, a number of bills have been introduced in the Congress for the purpose of granting benefits to various civilian employees who served during the Spanish-American War period, and also to those who served in other wars in which the United States has been engaged. *** "It is recognized that many of those who served as civilian employees during the Spanish-American War were subject to certain dangers and hazards. They generally received pay in excess of that allowed military or naval personnel. While they rendered very worthwhile services in behalf of the Nation, they were not subject to strict military discipline, nor have they been regarded as components of the Armed Forces proper. Rather, their services have been regarded as being accessory to the military and naval forces. ***" I feel it is highly necessary for me to set the second straight concerning the status of those who served on Army transports and, therefore, I present the following reply to the statement contained in the report quoted above. During the years this legislation has been introduced, the Congress on two separate occasions has unanimously passed the bills in both Houses only to have them vetoed by former President Hoover at the suggestion of former Veterans' Administrator General Hines. It was stated that veterans' hospital accommodations were not adequate to care for additional patients at that time. This is not the case in 1961. Mr. Chairman, in 1931 the Congress passed legislation, and which was subsequently approved and enacted into law, that granted to the civilian contract nurses, who served in the Spanish-American War, 1898-1902, the same status as those who served in the Armed Forces. Can we do less for the Army transport crews? The matter of the Army transport crews and their subjection to Army discipline has been mentioned in the report from the Veterans' Administration. Our Army transport crews were subject to military discipline. These loyal citizens were subject to the quartermaster captain in full charge of the vessel. They wore a regulation Navy uniform and manned the guns mounted fore and aft on each Army transport, as there were no Navy crews available to perform this duty to expedite the landing of troops on enemy beachheads. There are members of our fleet alive today who were discharged for disability incurred in their performance of these duties in landing troops. May I again emphasize the fact that Congress did grant veteran status to the civilian crews of the U.S. Navy transports of the Spanish-American War.The Navy authorities considered these men a component part of the fleet force. These men were sworn into service immediately upon the commandeering of the vessels including the crews who manned the vessels at the time. We should be concerned with justice and not the procedures of the day during the Spanish-American War. It is a matter of record that the 68 Army transports, under supervision of the quartermaster general from 1898-1902-small and large—averaged a crew of 70. This made a total of some 4,760 men. The survivors are few, but represent a neglected group of citizens who were subjected to the same dangers and terrors of war as those upon whom benefits have been bestowed. Our Army transports have taken a prominent part in every war in which this country has been engaged. If the pension laws, then are applicable to the Navy, to the civilian nurses, and, of course, to those in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, during the years 1898-1902, in all common fairness these pension laws should be applicable to all with comparable records of service. The number remaining are few, as I have emphasized. Our accommodations for veterans have been increased during the years. We have been most generous with those who served in wars since the turn of the century. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that there is no conceivable reason that the service of these Army transport veterans should not be rewarded in the twilight years of their lives. It is giving them so little compared with the service they gave freely and willingly to their country in time of great crisis. Mr. Chairman, one of the most difficult problems this committee has had to solve in connection with veterans' legislation has been the elimination of inequalities. We try to be consistent. We try to be fair, to be humane, and at the same time objective in the passage of measures that eliminate inequalities. We must assume our rightful responsibility for the welfare of those who have served their Nation during war years. We cannot isolate patriotic service. It is important that we give favorable consideration to H.R. 2525. For your serious and conscientious efforts I thank you. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. OLIN TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, House Office Building, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On July 11, 1961, hearings will be held concerning a bill I have introduced. It is H.R. 2525. If enacted into law it would extend pension benefits to persons who served 90 days or more during the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection or the China Relief Expedition, as a member of the crew of vessels operated under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General of the Army for the transportation of troops or military stores, and who was honorably released from such service. These individuals have been excluded from pension benefits for over a half century. In presenting this bill once again this session, I am hopeful that the injustice of their exclusion may be corrected in order to provide certain benefits for the estimated 160 veterans of this period who are living today. I am now preparing a statement for the hearings in support of this bill and would like to outline several compelling reasons in support thereof. The men who served under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General were in effect in the military service in that the Army transport crews were subjected to Army discipline. They wore a regulation Navy uniform and manned the guns mounted fore and aft on each Army transport as there were no Navy crews available to perform this duty to expedite the landing of troops on enemy beachheads. In this connection, it is significant that Congress did grant veteran status to the civilian crews of the Navy transports of the Spanish-American War. The Navy considered these men a component part of the fleet force. There was this distinction between the Army and Navy: The Navy swore their civilian crews into service as members of the Armed Forces, while the Quartermaster General did not. It is my firm conviction that the distinction is academic. The distinction, however, deprives the Army transport crew members of pension benefits, while allowing it to their Navy counterparts. In my mind, it is significant that the civilian contract nurses who served in the Spanish-American War were given the same status as those who served in the Armed Forces. This precedent coupled with the benefits accorded to those men sworn in the Armed Forces while crew members of Navy transports suggested the same equitable treatment be accorded these neglected men. With every best wish I am Sincerely yours, JOHN F. SHELLEY, STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, SUPPORTING PENSION LEGISLATION FOR VETERANS OF WORLD WAR I Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, in this Congress I have introduced two bills in behalf of World War I veterans as have a number of other Members of Congress. I appreciate the committee's interest in holding hearings on this pending pension legislation, giving many an opportunity to be heard. The World War I veterans returned from service shortly before the great depression hit which further left an impact on their lives that they have never entirely recovered from; and, although the Government has given some benefits to these veterans, it is nothing in proportion to what has been given to others. Any pension program runs into money, to be sure, but such a pension would be acceptable to the American people because it is financially feasible, morally right, and corrects an injustice. An across-the-board monthly pension in the neighborhood of $100 for World War I veterans who meet the requirements would not create a precedent because the proposed pension is not for the purpose of giving the World War I veterans what other veterans did not receive in comparable benefits, but would only tend to make up to them what the World War II and the Korean veterans received. Justification in regard to such a program is before the committee, so in this short statement it is my purpose only to give again my assurance that I am in favor of pension legislation for World War I veterans. STATEMENT OF HON. EUGENE SILER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 7024 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to make a statement before this committee in support of my bill, H.R. 7024, to amend section 503 of title 38, United States Code, to provide that, for purposes of determining the annual income of an individual eliglble for pension, payments of State bonus for military service shall be excluded. I might add that my bill was introduced as a companion measure to S. 1111 which was introduced in the Senate on February 28, 1961, by my colleague and friend from Kentucky, Senator Thruston B. Morton. My bill would simply restore to the law a provision eliminated by Public Law 86-211, enacted in August 1959, which had previously been in effect since March 20, 1933. This legislation would, of course, be applicable to veterans in all States but it was introduced primarily with the veterans of my own State in mind. At present the Commonwealth of Kentucky is paying a bonus to its eligible war veterans or to survivors of deceased veterans under provision of legislation enacted by the Kentucky General Assembly in 1960. Current interpretation of the law indicates that inequities will result, not only between Kentucky veteran pensioners and those in other States where bonuses have been paid but also among Kentucky veterans themselves. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 86-211, State bonuses were not counted as income in determining a veteran's entitlement to pension benefits. While veterans or dependents on the pension rolls at the time of enactment of Public Law 86-211 were given the option of continuing to receive benefits under the old law or elect to receive benefits under the new law, yet veterans or dependents qualifying for benefits on or after July 1, 1960, effective date of Public Law 86-211, do not have this option. This means that those veterans and/or dependents who remained under the old law will have their bonuses excluded from their income computations, while those who elected to receive benefits under the new law and those qualifying for benefits after July 1, 1960, will not be entitled to this income exclusion and they could, in effect, forfeit up to $500 in pension |