H. R. 5055: The purpose of this bill is to extend credit to those who served as cadets and midshipmen in wars prior to World War II, for benefits under laws administered by the Veterans Administration and for the widows and survivors of such personnel. Section 10 of the act of July 13, 1943, properly recognized the full time military service of cadets and midshipmen during World War II as active military and naval service for the purpose of laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. The principal_result of this law was the granting of wartime rates of pensions and compensation to the veterans and their survivors. H. R. 2384, which passed the House of Representatives in 1951 was similar to the pending bill, H. R. 5055, which proposes that this service should be credited for those who so served in World War I and the Spanish-American War. This purpose has the full endorsement of the Retired Officers Association. There would appear to be no sound basis for withholding wartime service status from cadets and midshipmen who performed fulltime active military service in any war when such status is accorded to numerous other classes of persons performing military service little different in nature as for example in basic training camps in the United States. The total number of persons who would benefit through enactment of this legislation is relatively small and consists principally of widows. The former cadets and midshipmen who would benefit ostensibly in this legislation, in the main, have qualified as veterans through subsequent war service in an officer status. That is to say, many Spanish-American War veterans served also in World War I and a few in World War II, and a still larger ratio of those who acquired veterans status by service in World War I also acquired it through service in World War II. With the above facts in mind there can be very few remaining not qualified, since over 50 years have elapsed since the period designated as service during the Spanish-American War and over 30 years have elapsed since the period of service designated for World War I. With the number so few, the cost would be very small. The Association wishes to emphasize the fact that this bill merely extends to World War I and the Spanish-American War, precisely what was extended in the way of veterans benefits to those who served in the status of cadet and midshipman during World War II. The bill merely proposes to amend section 10 of the Act of July 13, 1943 (Public Law 144, 78th Con.; 38 USC 730) appropriately to extend its scope of application. In view of the foregoing, the Retired Officers Association recommends favorable action and enactment of the proposed measure in H. R. 5055. H. R. 5056: The Association welcomes the opportunity to testify here today on the question of medical and dental care of veterans in Veterans' Administration facilities, especially for the group of veterans covered in H. R. 5056. While these benefits are in general available to all veterans alike, there is at least one case, and there are perhaps others, where inequity clearly exists. The Association recommends that the existing laws be amended, as provided in H. R. 5056, to extend outpatient treatment in the medical facilities of the Veterans' Administration to all who are in fact veterans of the Spanish-American War, and not as now, restrict this treatment merely to those who have been discharged from the military service. Those who would be affected are a few remaining living individuals who were officers of the Regular services, who served in the Spanish-American War, and continued in the service until retirement, and therefore have never been "discharged" within the meaning of such term in laws applicable to veterans. In Administrator's Decision, Veterans' Administration, No. 872 of March 12, 1951, it was held that a retired officer who served during the Spanish-American War, including the Philippine Insurrection and the Boxer Rebellion, and who was never "discharged" from such service, is not entitled to outpatient treatment from the Veterans' Administration under Public Law 791 of the 81st Congress. The authority for this decision was found in section 6, Public Law 2, 73d Congress, as amended, and as implemented in title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, section 17.60(8), which includes among those eligible for outpatient treatment in Veterans' Administration facilities: Persons who served in the active military or naval forces during the SpanishAmerican War, Philippine Insurrection, or Boxer Rebellion (April 21, 1898 to July 4, 1902 or July 15, 1903 if the service was in Moro Province) when discharged and that is the word from such service under other than dishonorable conditions who are in need of outpatient treatment. This regulation causes an unjust discrimination between those to whom outpatient treatment is available under the regulation and a small group of retired Regular officers who are in fact veterans of the Spanish-American War, as is illustrated by the following example. Two retired colonels of the Regular Army reside in the same city where an excellent veterans' hospital is available. Colonel A entered the regular service in 1895 and served continuously on active duty until he was retired from the Army in 1937 as a colonel. This veteran is not entitled to outpatient treatment in veterans' hospitals since he was never "discharged" within the meaning of the applicable law. The CHAIRMAN. But he is eligible in service hospitals. Captain WILLENBUCHER. That is true. But frequently they live in close proximity to hospitals where they would be very glad to render the service, and they are few in number. This small correction that we recommend would rectify that situation. Colonel B entered the service during the Spanish-American War as a volunteer and was discharged, and then reentered the Army as a regular officer. He, likewise, was ultimately retired as a colonel of the Regular Army. However, because he had been "discharged" after the Spanish-American War he is fully entitled to outpatient treatment in veterans' hospitals and certain other benefits as a technical "veteran," to which his contemporary, with similar character of service, Colonel B, is not entitled under the present law. These are actual cases. We received a letter from Colonel A and I would like to quote an excerpt from it: Has any action been taken by our Association, or will any such be taken in this connection? The purpose of Public Law 791, 81st Congress, is manifestly to extend the benefit outpatient service to all Spanish-American veterans whose service was honorable. Veterans' Administration Administrator's Decision No. 872 withholds from me all benefits of Public Law 791 because I never had been discharged, yet a National Guard or volunteer officer who served but a short time and was then discharged receives full benefits. The injustice resulting to one who was a cadet at the Military Academy during the Spanish-American War and was subsequently graduated therefrom, served continuously through the entire Spanish-American War period, more than 3 years of such service being actually in the Philippine Islands, and continuously in the field, continued in the military service for 40 years, during which it was a matter of pride to keep his name off hospital records, and subsequently retired for length of service, rather than for physical disability, must be so apparent to Members of Congress that it would seem as though it should be possible to secure the removal of this discrimination, if the matter could be brought to the attention of our lawmakers. In connection with the work of our association, I went to Florida and I met this great gentleman. He is almost totally blind. He lives in St. Petersburg where he made his home after his retirement, and within a stone's throw of the very fine veterans' hospital at Bay Pines. They would like very much to give him the treatment, but, because of this technicality, they are unable to do so. I went over, on his behalf, to the office of the Veterans' Administration in Pass-a-Grille, Fla., and at first it was thought that outpatient treatment could be furnished Colonel A. However, on further consideration it was found that the benefit could not be granted him, merely because he was never discharged. I have here in a double column, furnished by Colonel A, the similarity between his service and the service of Colonel B to whom I have referred as an example of one who receives the benefit. I would like to put this in the record so that the committee can see that the service is almost parallel. (The material referred to follows:) COLONEL A, UNITED STATES ARMY, RETIRED, 1335 NINTH STREET, NORTH Colonel A, 1335 Ninth Street, North, Appointed cadet United States Military Academy June 15, 1895. Graduated February 15, 1899 (never discharged) and Commissioned second lieutenant, 23d Infantry, United States Army. Sailed for Philippine Islands in March 1899. Served continuously in the field against hostile Moros and Visayan insurgents until June 1902 (over 3 years and 3 months in Spanish War Service). Retired February 28, 1937, at own request (over 60 years of age) with more than 41 years and 8 months continuous service. No record of physical disabilities up to time of retirement. Draws Spanish War Pension from Veterans' Administration. Draws World War I insurance benefits from Veteran's Administration having been classified as "totally, permanently physically disabled" because of failing vision (cataracts on both eyes which have developed since his retirement). Colonel B, St. Petersburg, Fla. Sergeant, Illinois National Guard. Mustered into Federal services in May 1892. Honorably discharged in May 1899, having served about 6 months in Cuba. Commissioned second lieutenant, Coast Artillery, United States Army, June 11, 1902. Retired November 1940 for age (64 years). No record of physical disabilities up to time of retirement. Draws Spanish War Pension from Veterans' Administration. Carries World War I insurance payable at death. Since retirement has become physically disabled because of arthritis. Is denied outpatient service by the Veterans' Administration on the ground that as he has never been honorably discharged, is not a Spanish War veteran and so is not entitled to outpatient service or hospitalization by the Veterans Administration. Served in France in World War I from February 1918 until June 1919 as a general staff officer of four combat divisions as chief of staff, and as commander of base section No. 8 (La Rochelle-Pa Pallice). Receives outpatient service from Veterans' Administration and is eligible for hospitalization at Veterans' Administration hospitals. Served in France in World War I from summer of 1918 to January 1919 as Chief of Staff, 87th Division. NOTE. This discrimination is due solely to the word "discharged" in the original legislation, which words were inserted to deny benefits to men who were dishonorably discharged. Captain WILLENBUCHER. In answer to this question, Mr. Teague, both of these people are Regulars. Only one was technically a veteran. So they are both eligible for the service hospitals, but it was because of this proximity of the hospital to the home that would make it very helpful if they could get this out-patient treatment. The purpose of our recommendation may be accomplished by amending Public Law 62, 76th Congress, approved May 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 652), as amended by Public Law 791, 81st Congress, September 19, 1950 (64 Stat. 867; 38 U. S. C. 706a), by the addition of a provision at the end of the text substantially as follows: original legislation, which words were inserted to deny benefits to men who were retired from active service in the same manner as is now authorized for veterans who were discharged from such service. That is our language, but other language might well be found. We are grateful for this opportunity to submit our views on this matter to this subcommittee and strongly urge the enactment of an amendment such as is proposed in H. R. 5056. Other bills: With reference to the other 20 bills and House joint resolutions before the committee, the association has no specific comments or recommendations. The association, composed as it is, of career officers, who, when retired, receive retired pay, is interested in legislation concerning veterans, principally from the point of view of benefits to widows and survivors, and hospital and medical benefits to retired officer personnel. Consequently, the association would leave to the wisdom of the committee the disposition of these bills, with the sole observation at this time that widows' compensation and pension benefits both are presently generally inadequate in amount. The association, therefore, strongly supports any legislation which would tend to increase such benefits to widows of our war veterans. The association thanks the committee for enabling it to appear here today. Mr. BOYKIN. That was a wonderful statement. Thank you, Captain Willenbucher. I understand that Rear Admiral Hesselman is going to come on tomorrow because we are going to have to adjourn in a moment. Admiral HESSELMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BOYKIN. We will be glad to see you at 10 o'clock in the morning. Who else do we have tomorrow morning? The COUNSEL. Mr. Kyle. Mr. BOYKIN. Jack Kyle. The chairman and I are going to stay a little longer so we will have a chance to hear these ladies who are here and who might have to go away. At this time, Congressman Thurston, will you introduce them? We can take them today or wait until tomorrow. Mr. THURSTON. Mr. Chairman, if it meets the pleasure of the chair, the ladies would be willing to defer until tomorrow. Mr. BOYKIN. That will be fine. Thank you very much. We have enjoyed having you, and we will see you all tomorrow, and we will have a lot of time. I would like to place in the record at this point a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Teague, by Mr. Paul Cunningham, Member of Congress from the State of Iowa. (The letter referred to follows:) In re H. R. 754, 84th Congress. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., April 21, 1955. Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TEAGUE: In recent years I have received requests from former members of the United States military forces who served in the Philippine Islands during hostilities in the Moro Provinces, including service on the islands of Mindanao, Samar, and Leyte between the dates of July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, to introduce legislation to grant them the same rights, benefits, and privileges as accorded veterans of the Spanish-American War. Two of these men who were most active in urging passage of this legislation have died since the introduction of it. Both of these men served in combat against the Moro forces and one of the men had at least six different engagements recorded on his honorable discharge. The United States Armed Forces that served in the Moro Provinces in the Philippine Islands between the aforementioned dates comprised only a very few thousand men of whom only a small number are now living. I believe these veterans are justly entitled to the recognition afforded other combat veterans of our Armed Forces. The cost would not be great. I sincerely hope the committee will give consideration to H. R. 754 and favorably report it as a step toward justice for these combat veterans. Yours truly, PAUL CUNNINGHAM, Mr. BOYKIN. We do have to get over on the floor now. (Whereupon, at 12:03 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a. m., April 22, 1955.) |