Compare that with the $12 or $13 a month that other men were receiving as members of the armed forces, fighting under conditions worse than in the Panama Canal Zone-not only worse climatic conditions, but they were confronted with hostile forces and facing sudden death night and day.

We are not objecting to the payment of these pensions to the men who worked on the Panama Canal. We are not objecting to the payment of pensions in the Boxer Rebellion. We are not objecting to the payment of service pensions to those men that were engaged in hostilities after the Civil War came to an official close. But we do believe the same consideration should be given men covered under H. R. 128, and I would like to see this committee again report this bill out and put it through the House and send it over to the Senate. I believe it is a long overdue obligation that should be paid.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the field as far as I should go. Much of this informatino has been before the committee on many other occasions. If there are any questions, I will be glad to try to answer them.

Mr. CORBETT. The War Department has brought up the argument that if this bill is passed it opens the gate to other bills for other services. Can you think of any other group that might conceivably, because of the passage of this bill, come in and ask for a similar pension bill?

Mr. KETCHUM. Well, I cannot, offhand, but my answer to that, Mr. Congressman, would be this: What difference does it make? If there is another group that is deserving, who have had service similar to this, why should not the Congress welcome them to come in?

Mr. CORBETT. The point of my question is this: If we have an argument that this bill sets a precedent for other groups and there are no other groups, what difference does it make if there is a precedent?

Mr. KETCHUM. I cannot say whether there are other groups. is just one of those imponderables. Colonel Chandler pointed out that it is possible that men who participated in the Mexican border campaign might come in and ask for a service pension. He mentioned those who were in the occupation of Vera Cruz, and maybe those in the Nicaraguan campaign. I do not know; I cannot say for certain that there never will be any other groups. Certainly there were few that had service along the particular lines of this group that we are talking about today.

But again, my answer is, What do we mean by precedent? When they say it will open the doors for somebody else to come in, is not the Congress dealing with those problems every day, not only on veterans' legislation but on all types of legislation?

Mr. CORBETT. I was getting around to the same point, that you are not going to give wartime pensions during peacetime. War is pretty much the same thing whether it is declared or not.

Mr. KETCHUM. I think most of us realize we were practically engaged in a war long before this present war was declared. I recall sinkings of some of our destroyers, the Reuben James, for example, and another vessel. I remember our Navy was actually engaged in hostilities with enemy forces prior to the official declaration of war. That was taken care of. This very committee came out with a bill which later became Public Law 359, just to take care of those cases.

Now, precedent. I do not know what is mean by precedent anyhow. There is nothing new under the sun.

Mr. McGREGOR. If we are talking about precedent, we certainly opened a greater gate and a wider area when we passed the Panama Canal bill than we have in this one, and I am favoring that and not objecting to it. I want to concur in your statement that I do not believe in precedent. I think this, that each one of these bills that is submitted to us either passes or falls on its own merits.

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right; it stands on its own legs. Either it is service worthy of a service pension or it is not.

Mr. DOYLE. Because I am new and not familiar with the background, in speaking of precedent it seems to me that the War Department and the President take issue on previously enacted legislation of this sort, on the grounds of precedent and opening up the door. As I understand it, we have two precedents already. One was the Boxer Rebellion, in which there was no declaration of war, and one was the payment of this sort of a pension after the cessation of official hostilities in connection with the Civil War. Therefore, we have that precedent, and the Indian War. We have three precedents, so we are not establishing a precedent if this legislation passes.

Mr. KETCHUM. I cannot see that we are.

Mr. DOYLE. It has already been established. That is what our Government thrives on, after all-precedent. That is what legal decisions are, precedent. Now we have precedents for the payment of this very sort of thing, and it does not seem to me that the payment of these funds to the Panama civilian employees is comparable to payment of such funds to men who were actually under fire, whether war is declared or not. Am I wrong in that?

Mr. KETCHUM. I think you are correct. ment the War Department or the Veterans' Administration would I do not know what argusubmit in justifying the pensions payable for the Boxer Rebellion or the Indian wars or periods of service after the official close of the Civil War and not these. I do not know how they would explain that. Probably they might have some explanation that would satisfy themselves. I do not see how it would satisfy me, because it is a service pension.

Mr. DOYLE. Why, then, could we not get their explanation for their answer to those three precedents, and then let us find out how to meet them? Let us see if they have a valid explanation which would overcome our doing the same thing now in this case that was done in three other cases.

Mr. McGREGOR. I think possibly, Mr. Chairman, we could make that inquiry when General Hines comes before our committee.

Mr. KETCHUM. Speaking of precedent, I should like to call your attention again to Public Law 359, which came out of this committee early in the Seventy-eighth Congress. Public, 359, does definitely pay wartime rates for peacetime disabilities. There is no question about that. Now, on what grounds did they pay them? It says "under conditions closely approximating or simulating war." There is a precedent for you. Public, 359, pays wartime rates of pensions for peacetime service, because that peacetime service was rendered under conditions closely approximating or simulating war.

Men who were in maneuvers down in Louisiana before we were engaged in this war, and who became disabled as a result of those

maneuvers. were given wartime disability compensation because it closely approximated or simulated wartime conditions.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the permission of the committee to incorporate the words of Public Law 359 at this point in the record.

Mr. BOYKIN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

[PUBLIC LAW 359-77TH CONGRESS]

[CHAPTER 598-1ST SESSION]
[H. R. 6009]

AN ACT To provide pensions at wartime rates for officers and enlisted men of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard disabled in line of duty as a direct result of armed conflct, while engaged in extra hazardous service or while the United States is engaged in war, and for the dependents of those who die from such cause, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subparagraph (c), paragraph I, of part II, Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(c) Any veteran otherwise entitled to pension under the provisions of part II of this regulation or the general pension law shall be entitled to receive the rate of pension provided in part I of this regulation, if the disability resulted from an injury or disease received in line of duty (1) as a direct result of armed conflict, or (2) while engaged in extra hazardous service, including such service under conditions simulating war, or (3) while the United States is engaged in war.

"The dependents of any deceased veteran, whose death resulted from an injury or disease received in line of duty as described in this subparagraph, otherwise entitled to pension under the provisions of part II of this regulation or the general pension law, shall be entitled to pension at the rates provided for service-connected death compensation benefits for dependents of World War veterans by section 5 of Public Law Numbered 198, Seventy-sixth Congress, as amended (U. S. C., title 38, sec. 472b), or if barred by the insurance limitations thereof, the rates provided by paragraph IV of part I, Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), as amended."

SEC. 2. The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is hereby authorized to make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, which are necessary to carry out its purposes.

SEC. 3. The provisions of this Act shall also apply to disability or death occurring prior to the effective date of this Act, but payments authorized by this Act shall not be made for any period prior to the date of enactment, or the date of receipt in the Veterans' Administration of application for the benefits thereof, whichever is the later date.

This Act shall not be so construed as to reduce any pension under any Act, public or private.

Approved, December 19, 1941.

Mr. McGREGOR. I think it carries out your point. Public Law 359 of the Seventy-eighth Congress provides full war-time rates for disabilities incurred in service in line of duty under three conditions:

(1) As a direct result of armed conflict; or (2) while engaged in extrahazardous service, including such service under conditions simulating war; or (3) while the United States is engaged in war.

Mr. BOYKIN. Gentlemen, there is your precedent.

Mr. HALE. Mr. Ketchum, do the men in the service prior to December 7, 1941, get service pensions?

Mr. KETCHUM. Certain of them do. It depends on what group. The Spanish-American War pension is a service pension.

Mr. HALE. You do not understand me. I mean people in the service in the period, let us say, from June 1940 to December 1941. Do they get service pensions?

Mr. KETCHUм. They do not get service pensions, but if they incur a service-connected disability

Mr. HALE. Of course there is no question about that.

Mr. KETCHUM. If they incurred a service-connected disability, they receive wartime rates.

Mr. HALE. There is no question about the service-connected disability. The only row there has ever been has been about the service pension of a man who was not disabled and was not diseased and was not in any way damaged.

Mr. KETCHUM. I think we have to make a distinction there.

There

is a difference between strictly peacetime service rendered, of course, in camps and barracks in this country and in foreign bases when there was no enemy opposition whatever. We are talking about a service pension which is payable for a period of service rendered during which our troops were involved in enemy action.

Mr. HALE. What you are really talking about, philosophically, is, What constitutes a war?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right.

Mr. BOYKIN. Any further questions? (None.)

The next witness is Commander William Floyd, of the Regular Veterans Association.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. FLOYD, NATIONAL COMMANDER, REGULAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION

Mr. FLOYD. My name is William M. Floyd, national commander of the Regular Veterans Association. Our organization consists of all members of the armed forces who have served honorably, whether in time of peace or in time of war. We feel that we have the only distinction among organizations which classifies all members equally. We are interested in your son and my son the day that he leaves the induction board or that he enlists in the service.

This is my third time appearing here before this committee on this legislation, and I am sure that the veto message from the President has nothing to do with this committee, because I do not believe it will change your minds.

There were several points here in the veto message that our President sent on this H. R. 4099 which has been brought out clearly to you, and to the point.

In the Boxer Rebellion there was no war declared, but those men received service-connected pensions. The ending date of the Philippine War the President set as July 4, 1902. Gentlemen, we lost many and many a peacetime serviceman who volunteered his service. in the Philippine Islands, for the Moros could not speak English. They could not understand why we declared peace and they did not understand English, and there was many a man who had his arms cut off with a bolo.

Of course you gentlemen have had this brought up, you older members of this committee, for the past 3 years, and I do not think it is necessary for me to take up your time unless some of the new members of the committee would like to have this brought out.

Service pensions should be the principal monetary benefits accorded by the bill, and such benefits in existing law shall consist of

war service. Gentlemen, if this was not war service, what was it? These boys were dodging bolos and machine-gun bullets and any other provisions of ammunition that these Moros and Philippine insurrectionists could get hold of.

At that time we had no hospital records. A member of this expeditionary force, if they want to call it that, cannot have his disability declared a service disability because there were no reports, and these men cannot establish that record. The campaign medal which you have here is the same campaign medal as it was for the SpanishAmerican War. They received the medal, those boys did, from 1902 to 1913, and received double time, but no double-time pay. They received 20 percent foreign service pay. Their pay was $12 one month and $13 the next month. Compare that with the pay today. I served in six engagements in the last World War, and I am sure these men in the Philippine Insurrection had more hazardous service then any of us men had in World War I at any time. I can say that and be truthful. I am sure that these boys have had no hospital or clinic records and have had no hospital facilities. We had weather conditions, naturally.

In the Panama Canal Zone, as we just got through explaining here, those members were civilians. We have nothing to do with seeing that they do not get something from the Government if they are entitled to it. But our members of the armed forces who fought in the Philippines received nothing at all, we might say, except this campaign medal.

We have no objection to any war service or any peacetime service pension being paid to any member of the armed forces, but we do believe that these men should be on a higher standard than the Panama Canal employees, because they were civilians. They were mustered for this service because they had a bigger job.

There are lines drawn where these men on the Panama Canal never smelled gunpowder. The same thing in some of the war hazard conditions that our Government is now paying. Members of the armed forces are being paid now a service-connected disability because they never have seen or heard gunfire in all their days.

Our President, by his veto of H. R. 4099, showed he had been misinformed and was not familiar with the service rendered by those members of the armed forces who went through hell on Leyte, Samar, and Mindanao, including the Moro Province, between July 4, 1902, and December 31, 1913. Those veterans are the "daddies of all jungle fighters today."

The declaration of peace by no means ended the active service of our armed forces in the islands. American forces during the years following the beginning of the organized government, and until 1913, were engaged in field operations of a dangerous and exhausting character against guerrilla bands and against the pulajanes-their rations were poor and so scarce at times that they had to live as best they could off the country which these regulars were not accustomed to. Drinking water was always foul and taken from mudholes covered with slime in which water buffaloes bathed, their only covering at night was their rubber poncho, while mosquitoes, fleas, ants as large as butterflies, and leeches tormented them day and night. The only soldiers allowed in camp hospitals were those severely wounded or too ill from tropical diseases to perform field duty, and very little quinine or other medicines were obtainable.