Mr. LOGGINS. Report No. 72 was submitted June 18, 1947, and on page 8 gives a table of rates which at that time prior to the passage of Public Law 270 by the Eightieth Congress, was a correct statement of rates under the circumstances. Public Law 270, however, of this Congress, passed June 30, 1947, increases those rates by 20 percent. Now a table of rates has been submitted in a subsequent report in connection with another bill, which is the correct table of disability rates and would be submitted today if a new report were to be submitted on this bill.

That table is found on page 5 of report 140, which was given on House Resolution 886 of the Eightieth Congress, which gives the disability rates increased by 20 percent under Public Law 270.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Will you insert in the record a modified rate so if a question is raised as to what the rates will be under the existing law, we will be able to find out what they are.

Mr. LOGGINS. You want the items rather than insert the table as it stands?

Mr. O'KONSKI. The table as it stands.

Mr. LOGGINS. We can insert in this record the table as it stands on page 5 of report 140 on H. R. 886, Eightieth Congress, which report is dated September 22, 1947.

Mr. HOWARD. We will submit a separate schedule which gives the rates as of today.

(The requested information is as follows:)

Pension rates for veterans of the Spanish-American War group and their dependents

Rate payable where veteran is blind or helpless or so nearly blind or helpless as to requiré regular aid or attendance..

Dependents benefits:

Widow, no child or children:

Regardless of age.

Wife during service.

Widow with a child or children:

With 1 child

Wife during service with 1 child.

Each additional child

No widow, child, or children:

'1 child (to age 16).

Each additional child (to age 16):

1 child (age 16 or over)..

2 children (age 16 or over)

3 children (age 16 or over).

Each additional child (age 16 or over).

67.20

5. 76

! $90 rate for total disability and age 65 in 90 day cases provided by act of Mar. 1, 1944 (Public Law 242, 78th Cong), as amended; $120 rate for regular aid and attendance provided by the act of May 24, 1938 (Public Law 541, 75th Cong), as amended. These rates applicable if service performed between April 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902. (Small group of veterans whose pension is based upon 90 days' service in Moro Province between July 5, 1902, and July 15, 1903 currently receive: age 62, $43.20 per month; age 68, $57.60 per month; age 72, $72 per month; age 75, $90 per month; regular aid and attendance, $103.68 per month.) 2 No provision.

48.00

60.00

55.20

7.20

55. 20

7.20

25.92

38.88

51.84

Mr. O'KONSKI. That will be very fine and we will have anything we need to refer to and it will give the committee the benefit of this. Is there anything else you gentlemen can do that will help our cause?

Mr. HOWARD. I don't believe so, because we have all of the facts in this report.

Mr. O'KONSKI. All of the facts?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'KONSKI. All right.

Colonel STANDISH. The Veterans of Foreign Wars has a representative ready to testify.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Thank you very much gentlemen and I will recommend the bill.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. WILLIAMSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is John C. Williamson, assistant legislative director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

I will just take a few minutes of your time.

Mr. O'KONSKI. I will be very glad to hear you and you may furnish any other remarks you think that you want inserted in the record. Mr. WILLIAMSON. I have no prepared statement, but on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I would like to urge the Committee and Congress to give favorable consideration to this measure.

I worked on this bill about 21⁄2 years ago when it passed the House and was pending in the Senate.

The situation at that time was that there was much misinformation on the part of the members of the other body that prevented this bill from going through. They failed to appreciate the fact that the objections to the bill that was vetoed had been taken out, that this did not involve an extension of the official date of the termination of the Philippine Insurrection. I think many people failed to appreciate that the Moro uprising was part and parcel of the whole Philippine Insurrection.

After Spain had surrendered, the Philippines, under General Aguinaldo, proclaimed the Republic of the Philippines. The United States acted against those guerrillas. The Moros were acting independent of the others, but at the same time were waging constant guerrilla warfare against the armed services of the United States. The Moro uprising continued after the official termination of the Philippine Insurrection, and the Moros continued to fight for the next 10 or 12 years.

I don't know at this time why President Theodore Roosevelt officially terminated the Philippine Insurrection, but history records that the leader of the last formal organization of Moros troops sur rendered on the island of Samar in April 1902. It is quite probable that this word reached Washington in mid June and that particular surrender very likely prompted the President to formally declare a termination of the Philippine Insurrection, but the facts were differIt is a fact that in engagements in 1906 and 1907 more members

ent.

of the armed services were killed than in the bombardment of Manila in 1898.

I think that is an injustice that has been perpetrated on this handful. of veterans, and as the years go by the injustice is further aggravated. I think the cost to the Government would be very negligible. I think that what we would gain by enacting such a bill into law is certainly worth more to our whole traditional attitude toward veterans than any cost; and I strongly urge this committee to do everything within its power to steer this bill through the House of Representatives.

Mr. O'KONSKI. I appreciate your testimony very much.

I would like to ask one question. The committee has been under a handicap in trying to arrive at what the bill would cost. Has your organization a rough estimate?]

Mr. WILLIAMSON. When we realize that the number of veterans to be benefited is less than 2,000 and the number of unremarried widows and other dependents is two or three hundred, we believe the cost estimate itself is so negligible that we just didn't go into it with the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. O'KONSKI. As the years go by there will be fewer.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That is right. I seriously doubt if it would increase the annual budget of the Veterans' Administration more than an infinitesimal amount. I think there is much more to be considered than that.

Mr. ALLEN. The type of argument that we will be confronted with if this reaches the flooris the question of cost. Now, when you have a bill like this, and it is so with most other bills calling for expenditures, the Members want to know that the cost will be. I wish you would arrive at some sort of estimate. I hurriedly noted that the Veterans' Administration says that it has no way of arriving at the cost. The Veterans' Administration says that it has no way of arriving at the cost. The Veterans' Administration says there are no records in the Veterans' Administration on which to base the cost of the proposed legislation.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Allen, I believe we have representatives of the veterans who fought in this particular engagement. Is that correct? Are you a representative, General?

General SHAW. No.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I think we could get an estimate of the number. Mr. ALLEN. Now, as I understand your position is that you want to go further and include for veterans' benefits those people who continued to fight in the Philippine Islands after the insurrection was over?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Well, the insurrection wasn't over. The insurrection was prompted by General Aguinaldo proclaiming the Republic of the Philippines and the armed forces of the United States engaged in hostilities with the insurrectos; and the Moros were in rebellion at the same time, not a rebellion, but an insurrection against the authority of the United States Army. They kept on fighting. They just simply didn't appreciate the fact the United States had declared the insurrection over.

Mr. ALLEN. In other words, we are giving protection and benefit to those who were fighting against Aguinaldo? ̧

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Well, they were fighting against the Moros, but, it was a part of the same insurrection. It was part of the Philippine

Insurrection.

Mr. ALLEN. Do we have any other cases like this? Is there any, thing like this coming up again?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. World War I was taken care of. World War II was taken care of by extending wartime rates until the end of 1946 and the reason why they did that, there was a probability, which, soon became very evident, that there were a number of Japanese who didn't stop fighting. There were some Japanese fighting on the island of Palau and Guam after the formal surrender and the United States recognized that.

Mr. ALLEN. Your position is if this bill is enacted it would not establish any new precedent whatever?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No, sir; it would not. It is not an independent campaign. In our opinion it is part of the Philippine Insurrection.

Mr. ALLEN. I have been getting some correspondence on this and also on this excursion or whatever it was by our entry into Mexico in 1917. I have been getting some on that.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. We have too, Mr. Allen, but this is a part of the Philippine Insurrection. The Mexican border campaign is separate. It is something that exists by itself and will have to be justified by itself. We try to justify this because it is a part of the Philippine Insurrection.

Mr. ALLEN. You are saying in effect it is part of the military campaign of the United States in which certain groups have been recognized and certain other groups have been cut off and you consider them entitled to some benefit?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That is right because they are veterans of the same war or insurrection.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Are you acquainted with the provisions of H. R. 886?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, I am.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Will you, for the record, state the difference between H. R. 886 and H. R. 451?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. H. R. 886, as I understand it, is a bill to grant veteran privileges to individuals who were not members of the armed services of the United States.

Now, these people were civilians that served on vessels under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General just like the merchant marine served under the jurisdiction of the Army Transport Service during this war. They were not members of the armed forces and we have consistently opposed legislation granting veterans' benefits to any group other than members of the armed services of the United States. We think the approval of a bill of this nature would be an unfortunate precedent because there are countless numbers of groups knocking at the door of veterans' benefits.

I think the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries held extended hearings last session on opening up the GI bill of rights to the former members of the merchant marine and we opposed it.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Regarding H. R. 451, that bill was passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress and vetoed?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. H. R. 4099 in the Seventy-eighth Congress was the one vetoed by the President.

Mr. O'KONSKI. You say this bill has taken out the objectionable features raised in the other body and by the President?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That is right. As I understand it, H. R. 4099 extended the formal recognition date of the end of the Philippine Insurrection. There are other matters also, but H. R. 3251 took that out and instead of extending the formal closing date of the war, they just took in veterans of hostilities after that date and gave them the same benefits. H. R. 451 is identical to H. R. 3251.

Mr. ALLEN. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me for the benefit of the record it would be a good idea to incorporate in the record at this point the bill which has been referred to as having been vetoed and also the veto message, so if it comes up before the Congress we can lay the whole thing before the House.

Mr. O'KONSKI. If there is no objection that will be done, the bill will be inserted at this point, together with the President's veto message, so the Members of the House can readily see that the objectionable features have been removed and the present bill meets with approval.

(The documents referred to follow:)

[H. Doc. No. 804, 78th Cong., 2d sess.]

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RETURNING WITHOUT HIS APPROVAL, THE BILL (H. R. 4099) TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE PHILIPPINE INSURRECTION SO AS TO INCLUDE ACTIVE SERVICE WITH THE UNITED STATES MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES IN THE MORO PROVINCE, INCLUDING MINDANAO, or in thE ISLANDS OF SAMAR AND Leyte, BETWEEN JULY 5, 1902, AND DECEMBER 31, 1913

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith, without my approval, H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, an act to extend the period of the Philippine Insurrection so as to include active service with the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913.

The effect of the mesaure is to confer a wartime status on persons who served in the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao and the islands of Samar and Leyte between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913, and thus afford to such persons and their dependents monetary and other benefits on a parity with persons who served in the Spanish-American War, Boxer Rebellion, or the Philippine Insurrection prior to July 5, 1902.

The ending date of the Philippine Insurrection was established by proclamation of the President dated July 4, 1902, except in territory occupied by the Moro tribes, and the War Department regards July 15, 1903, as the termination of the Philippine Insurrection in the Moro Province which is the date on which Act No. 787 of the Philippine Commission, approved June 1, 1903, took effect, and has held that such military operations as occurred subsequent to the establishment of civil government in the Moro Province on July 15, 1903, should not be regarded as a continuation of the insurrection.

Pensions at wartime rates are now provided for veterans and the dependents of veterans who suffered disability or death as a direct result of armed conflict or under extrahazardous conditions in the areas described in the bill during the period July 16, 1903, to December 31, 1913, and medical treatment and hospital or domiciliary care is also provided for veterans who so served, discharged for disability incurred in line of duty or who are in receipt of pension for serviceconnected disability. Service pensions would be the principal monetary benefits afforded by the bill and such benefits, consistently, have been confined to war

service.

The bill would extend the Philippine Insurrection closing date about 101⁄2 years, from July 5, 1902, to December 31, 1913, thus according recognition to service performed throughout this period as war-time service upon the basis of intermittent military operations or campaigns in the Moro Province and other parts of