Mr. WILSON. Right. The rest of 7,000 were paid $60 a month for adults, $25 for children, and allowed up to $7,500 if they were unable to be gainfully employed.

Mr. HINSHAW. Payable over a period of time at the rate of $25 a week, I think it is; something of that sort.

Mr. WILSON. That is right.

Mr. KLEIN. Those are American citizens who happened to be in the Philippines for one reason or another?

Mr. WILSON. That is right. You had to prove that your illness was aggravated by former internment.

Mr. KLEIN. They were treated better than the employees were? Mr. WILSON. They are allowed these benefits where the employees were not.

Mr. KLEIN. I guess the reason behind it is the fact they were going to pay the employees when they came out the money they would have earned had they not been imprisoned.

Mr. HINSHAW. But they did not do that.

Mr. KLEIN. Why they gave it to civilians who were not employed, the only reason I can see, is because they were going to receive their salaries.

Mr. WILSON. Of course, a lot of firms paid their salaries for their employees, private firms. But what Mr. Hinshaw is getting at, and it is a very fine suggestion, that many of these people have received the full total over the past 5 years of $7,500 for disability.

Now, that has run out. There is no more money for these people. There is no way of taking care of them. They can't work; they are too old, or they are too sick to work.

The suggestion would be to send the benefits like the veterans get. They get a veteran's disability pension, a veteran's disability allow

ance.

Mr. KLEIN. But the civil service employees who have to retire do not continue to get it after they have used up their retirement.

Mr. WILSON. If they are unable to be employed due to causes aggravated or caused by former internment they get disability for life. Mr. KLEIN. They do not get a lump sum?

Mr. WILSON. No.

Now, here is another funny thing you might not understand. If you were killed in the camp, just a civilian, your wife would be allowed $7,500 for the husband's death, but you didn't get that in a lump sum. You got that at the rate of $13.13 a week. What good would that do a person today living? That is ridiculous, but that is in the Federal security law.

That is still in effect, but they said the woman is not able to take care of the money herself, so they give her $13.13 a week.

Mr. KLEIN. Do you not think it would be beclouding this issue if you included these people?

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, that is a question for executive session of the subcommittee, and the full committee, to decide whether or not we want to make an omnibus bill instead of including all of these miscellaneous bills that we have before us totaling 20 or 30. Some of them are duplicates, but on a number of subjects.

Mr. KLEIN. How many people would you say are in this category we are now discussing?

Mr. HINSHAW. Miss Katz says there are maybe 300 living now.

Mr. KLEIN. People who received that $7,500?

Miss KATZ. My point is that I am within the purview of the Missing Persons Act. I got about $5,000 in 1945 and for the past nine and a half years because I was under the Missing Persons Act, captured in the line of duty. I had to pay my own medical bills.

If you include this in the omnibus act it means that I am going to have to pay them a lot longer.

Now, I have been to the Bureau with my father, who was in prison camp with me. My father was a normal civilian; he was not working for the Government. So he was entitled to it. He died of cancer in 1952 that he incurred in prison camp.

I could get him medical care and the $7,500 disability and detention benefit. But for myself I couldn't.

Now, the Bureau of Employees Compensation has determined that anybody that was hired locally in the Philippines should not get any disability. The War Claims Act says anybody that was working for the Government should not get it. They didn't realize that these people would fall in a category under neither act.

Mr. KLEIN. Were you employed in the Philippines?

Miss KATZ. I was in General MacArthur's headquarters in 1941 until 1949, but because I started to work for General MacArthur in the Philippines in 1941 I have had to pay my own disability and medical expenses for the last nine and a half years.

I thought I would make a test case out of it. When I came back from the general's headquarters in Tokyo I went up to the Bureau. I had tropical ulcers, yaws, and beriberi in 1950. They had a dispensary there. They said, "We would love to give you shots, but we cannot give it to you. We could give it to any other citizen, but you are a Government employee, so we can't give it to you."

So I took it to the Appeals Board of the Bureau and the Appeals Board overruled the Bureau of Employees Compensation and found them in error in 1951 and sent it back to the Bureau of Employees Compensation for review.

The Employees Compensation told me that the only way to get medical care was to get Congress to amend the act and it was Congress'

error.

I pointed out even though there is a thing in there I could prove I was captured in the line of duty, that the Bureau's contention was that the forces retreated to Bataan on Christmas Day and from Christmas Day to January 2 I was not captured in the line of duty.

The Appeals Board overruled the Bureau because I proved that I was doing military

Mr. KLEIN. Let me ask one question: Would you be covered by the enactment of Mr. Hinshaw's bill, 3298?

Miss KATZ. Yes, sir; and I could start going to a Marine hospital, or Public Health hospital and start getting these shots right now, which I have to take.

Mr. KLEIN. It includes medical treatment if necessary, for any of these people?

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Miss KATZ. I put off taking these shots. You are supposed to take them every 90 days and 6 months. I could get them when I went back to the theater, but I have not been able to get any shots except the ones I can pay for, since 1950.

Mr. HINSHAW. Let me ask this question: Does this bill include, in accordance with your understanding, Filipino citizens?

Miss KATZ. No, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. Because I have a letter from the Department of State addressed to the chairman enclosing information to the commit tee, being a copy of a note from the Embassy of the Philippines in Washington, to the Secretary of State, and it says:

The Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Philippines presents his compliments to His Excellency the Secretary of State and has the honor to refer H. R. 3298, 83d Congress, 1st session, entitled: "A bill to amend section 5 of the War Claims Act of 1948 so that internees will not be denied detention and disability benefits thereunder because of being within the purview of the Missing Persons Act of March, 7, 1942."

The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines has instructed the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim to inform His Excellency that the Philippine Government fully endorses this proposed legislation insofar as it may affect Filipino veterans. The Chargé d'Affaires ad interim has the honor to solicit the use of the good offices of His Excellency with a view to the enactment of H. R. 3298.

Miss KATZ. He is talking about the veterans. That comes under section 6 of the War Claims Act. This is an amendment to section 5, civilians of the War Claims Act.

I think that he is probably thinking of the extension that Congress just passed, 359 I believe.

Mr. HINSHAW. No; this refers to H. R. 3298.

Miss KATZ. I know, but he talks about veterans.

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes, but on the other hand presumably at that time there were Filipino citizens who were also employees of the United States in the Philippines.

Mr. WILSON. Pardon me, sir. The War Claims Act specifically states American citizens who were American citizens before December 7, 1941. If these Filipinos are Americans, they are entitled to it. If they are not American citizens they are eliminated.

Mr. KLEIN. Weren't they included as American citizens at that time?

Mr. WILSON. No; they were nationals. There is a difference. The War Claims Act states American citizens.

Mr. HINSHAW. I think we should insert this letter of transmittal along with the note of the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim in the record at this point with the explanation that has been given and received, assurances from the War Claims Commission that it does not apply to persons who were not American citizens at the time that the Pearl Harbor event happened.

(The document referred to follows:)

Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 3, 1954.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: Reference is made to H. R. 3298, a bill to amend section 5 of the War Claims Act of 1948 so that internees will not be denied detention and disability benefits thereunder because of being within the purview of the Missing Persons Act of March 7, 1942, introduced in the 83d Congress. There is enclosed for the information of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce a copy of a note dated February 24, 1954, which the Depart

ment has received from the Philippine Embassy, regarding the proposed legislation.

Sincerely yours,

THRUSTON B. MORTON,
Assistant Secretary

(For the Acting Secretary of State).

Enclosure: Copy, in duplicate, of note from Philippine Embassy, dated February 24, 1954.

EMBASSY OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Washington.

The Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Philippines presents his compliments to His Excellency the Secretary of State and has the honor to refer to H. R. 3298, 83d Congress, 1st session, entitled: "A bill to amend section 5 of the War Claims Act of 1948 so that internees will not be denied detention and disability benefits thereunder because of being within the purview of the Missing Persons Act of March 7, 1942."

The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines has instructed the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim to inform His Excellency that the Philippine Government fully endorses this proposed legislation insofar as it may affect Filipino veterans.

The Chargé d'Affaires ad interim has the honor to solicit the use of the good offices of His Excellency with a view to the enactment of H. R. 3298. EMBASSY OF THE PHILIPPINES.

WASHINGTON, February 24, 1954.

Mr. HINSHAW. Are there any further questions?

If not, the hearings on H. R. 3298 will be concluded.

With respect to the hearings on H. R. 2546, if there are any persons who desire to be heard on Mr. Lyle's bill, they should make themselves known at the present time.

Mr. WILSON. I would like to report on that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Lyle will submit a statement for the record on his bill, and it will be included in today's hearings.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. LYLE, JR., MEMBER OF CONGRESS, BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON WAR CLAIMS AND TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, CONCERNING H. R. 2546, To AMEND THE WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1948

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted for your consideration H. R. 2546, a bill to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, to make husbands eligible for survivor benefits under sections 5 and 6, regardless of the status of dependency. My purpose in introducing this measure is to correct an inequity which resulted from the enactment of Senate bill 3000, 81st Congress (Public Law 866), which removed from section 6 of the War Claims Act of 1948 the requirement that surviving parents must establish dependency in order to be allowed compensation. As the law now stands, of those who are otherwise eligible to receive benefits under the War Claims Act, only surviving husbands are required to establish dependency.

I believe you gentlemen will agree with me that experience has shown it to be most difficult to define "dependency" and that it is also difficult to establish equitable standards in view of the many individual situations which must be taken into consideration. Since there is no provision in the law which requires that a need for these benefits must be established, it appears to me that a surviving husband would, in general, have as full an entitlement as the parents of a deceased internee. No dependency restriction is placed by the present law upon widows or children, and in many instances these are self-sustaining adults. The number of surviving husbands whose claims have been disallowed because of the dependency restriction is small, in my judgment, neither the number affected nor the cost has any bearing upon the responsibility of this Congress to

correct inequities or discriminatory restrictions in the law. I hope you will agree with me that this is our simple duty.

Mr. HINSHAW. You say you desire to be heard on that bill?

Mr. WILSON. I can testify on the condition of many of these people. Mr. KLEIN. Will you tell us first, Mr. Wilson, what is the difference between this bill and the last one?

Mr. WILSON. Yes. There were several cases of American wives of American citizens in the camp that were killed.

Now, the War Claims Act specifies that to get benefits for disability or death you must be a dependent relative. Naturally, a husband is not a dependent. But in 3 cases that I know where wives were killed or died shortly afterward these men had children, 4 or 5 in a family. That man had to hire somebody to take care of those children. So we feel that these dependent husbands should be allowed the benefits of the deceased wife.

Mr. KLEIN. You mean the husbands of wives that were employed? Mr. WILSON. No. These were just American citizens caught in the Philippines. Let us forget about the missing persons. This is a different bill.

Mr. KLEIN. How do you call them a dependent?

Mr. WILSON. The War Claims Act states that to be allowed benefits for a death claim you had to be a minor or a dependent person. In other words, if your father got killed or your mother got killed, as a minor you could claim death benefits which would be shared equally by all the children.

Now, it is not mercenary on the part of the husband to get the money. It is the children who get the money.

As the bill reads now the husband cannot claim a death benefit because his wife was killed, you see, but the husband would like to get a death benefit to take care of the children.

Mr. KLEIN. I thought you said you were trying to point out where the husband was a dependent. You mean the children are not dependent because the husband was not employed?

Mr. WILSON. The bill reads dependent husband.

Also, children who lose their mother and father and there were also children killed in the camp and died where the mother and father could not claim for the loss of the child, which should be also included in that bill.

For instance, if you lost your daughter in the camp and she was killed or she died of illness caused or aggravated by this internment, you could not claim anything because you are not dependent on that particular child.

Mr. KLEIN. Under 2546 what would they get?

Mr. WILSON. They would get the full death benefit of $7,500.

Mr. KLEIN. That benefit which is already provided in the act?

Mr. WILSON. That is right.

Mr. KLEIN. The reason they are excluded now is because they are not dependent?

Mr. WILSON. Not dependent. The word is "dependent."

Mr. HINSHAW. I think that the committee would be interested to know the benefits that have been received by the Filipino citizens to date out of the United States Treasury.

As I understand it, the Filipino citizens for loss of property and damages and so forth, have been paid out of the United States Treas