Compensation and Pension Bills for Veterans and Their Dependents

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., April 7, 1954.

Mr. E. K. INMAN,

Editor, The National Tribune,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. INMAN: I have your letter of April 5 concerning the bill, H. R. 7535, to which you are opposed.

I am sure you know that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has always maintained a policy of permitting everyone who is interested in any type of legislation to testify fully thereon and to express their own views. This is true in regard to the bill in which you are interested, as well as all other legislation. I can assure you, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Compensation and Pensions that, had you requested to be heard on this measure or any other measure, the subcommittee would have been most happy to have received your views.

If it is agreeable to you, I will insert a copy of your letter into the hearings, to indicate your opposition to the measure.

I am advised that the clerk of the committee previously informally told you that it seemed unlikely that the bill, H. R. 7535, would receive any further action or attention at this session of the Congress. I also learned today that the Honorable Russell V. Mack, chairman of the Subcommittee on Spanish War, has invited your national commander to appear at a subcommittee meeting later this week so that he may present his views on pending legislation.

If you have any other comments on other legislation pending before the Subcommittee on Compensation and Pensions, I would appreciate hearing from you with all convenient speed.

Sincerely yours,

EDMUND P. RADWAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Compensation and Pensions.

Hon. EDMUND P. RADWAN,

NATIONAL TRIBUNE, Washington, D. C., April 5, 1954.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: On last Friday I listened to testimony before your Subcommittee on Pensions and Compensation dealing with H. R. 7535, by Mrs. Rogers, entitled 'Pension Act of 1954."

Representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Legislative Director Omar B. Ketchum objected to rates provided in the bill; suggested that higher income ceilings be applied to proposed beneficiaries and, in effect, suggested that the bill should not include Spanish War beneficiaries. Mr. Ketchum called attention to the fact that rates now provided to Spanish War veterans are higher than those proposed in the bill or in other pending legislation relating to veterans of later wars, and suggested that a desired uniformity in pension payments should begin with World War I veterans and those of succeeding wars. Answering a question by staff member, Patterson, Ketchum indicated that there would probably be no serious objection to an amendment to the bill which would permit inclusion of Spanish War veterans at a point beginning 5 years from now.

I have no right to speak officially for organized Spanish War veterans who are members of their organization, the United Spanish War Veterans, although I have reason to feel that you will receive official expressions from that group in opposition to the bill with a possible request that they be given an opportunity to be heard on it. I am in a position to speak for more than 68,000 of the surviving veterans of that war who are on the pension rolls at the present time and who expect this newspaper to voice their wishes when their rights are threatened.

I simply desire here to point out to you the effects of some provisions of this bill and to call attention to the position of the Congress with reference to legislation relating to Spanish War veterans.

H. R. 7535, as presently written, would repeal pension laws now on the statute books and substitute the provisions of the new act, With few exceptions, Spanish War veterans at their present average age of 79 years are receiving pensions of $96.75 monthly; the proposed bill would provide new beneficiaries with a pension of $75 a month. If there are any surviving 70-day veterans not now on the rolls, and this is doubtful, they would be precluded from receiving pensions as now provided by law. All would be subject to income provisions which do not now apply to any pensioned veterans of wars prior to World War I. Those now:

on the pension rolls would be protected in their present payments, but those hereafter applying would be placed in the position of receiving lesser rates regardless of the fact that their entitlement is equal to those on the rolls. A number of Spanish War veterans have been able to get along without pensions and have sought to not apply until, or unless, necessary in order to save the Government this expense; they would be sorely discriminated against. Although there were 571 losses to the rolls in February, and although costs of Spanish War legislation are declining appreciably each month, 18 veterans were added to the rolls during February, evidence that there will still be applications for a period of time.

Patterson, in his question, apparently sought to meet a condition which would not disfavor nonapplying Spanish War veterans, but he did not, and does not, apparently recognize a national congressional policy which has existed ever since 1920.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Congress have for many years recognized formally the fact that Spanish War veterans enlisted under the terms of the general law as it applied to veterans of the Civil War. The Congress has recognized that the character of service and the hazards of service rendered by veterans of 1898-1902, everyone of whom was a volunteer, were such that their treatment must be entirely different from that later allowed to veterans of later wars. Not only is it recognized that physical and medical records were not kept and are nonexistent, but the actual type of service rendered could not in any way be compared with that in the wars that followed. The records of the committee are replete with evidence bearing out these statements.

I recognize that there is a possibility that H. R. 7535 may be amended without further hearing, if indeed the committee seriously considers its report. I must protest, however, that no action should be taken to include Spanish-American War veterans within its provisions without giving those who are interested a reasonable privilege of being heard. On behalf of those veterans for whom I am permitted to speak, I protest vigorously all portions of the measure which have any relation whatever to those veterans. If the bill is seriously considered, it is requested that the writer be given an opportunity to appear and that those who speak officially for the United Spanish War Veterans be notified and be likewise given the right to express their views to your subcommittee.

This letter is an effort only to advise the chairman of some legislative background which may not be known to him or to other members of the subcommittee and to enlarge upon the brief word the writer had with him in the committee. room on Friday. After more than 55 years the long-standing policy of the country with reference to treatment of these elderly veterans must not now be altered.. With kindest personal wishes,

Sincerely yours,

E. K. INMAN, Editor.

Mr. SAYLOR. The committee will now stand adjourned and these hearings are completed.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee adjourned.)