Colonel Smith are operating against Pulijaus. The entire Twenty-first United States Infantry is also in Samar.

These are part of the men asking justice under H. R. 451.

The report of the Philippine Commission for 1906, part 1, page 37, deals at length with disturbances in the island of Leyte.

What the soldiers did, need not be guessed at, as the commanding general reports, together with reports of his subordinates, will show the activities, sickness, and deaths of the 12,000 United States soldiers serving in the Philippines from 1905 to 1914 and no doubt indicate what 288 officers and 6,950 constabulary, 5,000 scouts and 10,000 municipal police were doing.

The bill H. R. 451 does not extend the official ending date of the Philippine Insurrection, and the facts of record support the granting of the afore-mentioned pension benefits because service in hostilities against the Moros and other hostile tribes during the period covered by the bill was continguous to and under the same extrahazardous and trying conditions as during the period now recognized officially as the period of the Philippine Insurrection. Such service was attendant with unusual danger and tropical diseases incident to jungle warfare, with handicaps related to equipment, food, medical care, and maintenance of adequate records of disabilities. It is the opinion of the committee that recognition of this particular service, based upon the extensive testimony of those who served, including those who were responsible for troops during such service, should not be considered as a precedent for groups performing other types of service in the armed forces. It will be noted that the bill recognizes service in hostilities, and the granting of a reasonable pension to this limited group under the limitations contained in the bill, is considered to be justified on the basis of outstanding merit.

Mr. Chairman, I want the committee to know that the Regular Veterans Association deeply appreciates your good judgment in this bill, H. R. 451, and asks you to speed this up before all of these worthy members of the armed forces pass on.

I thank you.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Are there any questions?

Mr. ALLEN. Now you are sure, Mr. Floyd, you are sure you have in this present bill met all the objections the President offered when he vetoed it?

Mr. FLOYD. According to the statement of General Hines in the record. It has been drawn up by the Veterans' Administration by request.

Colonel STANDISH. Mr. Howard has another remark to offer..
Mr. O'KONSKI. I will be very glad to hear him.

Mr. HOWARD. For the benefit of the committee, I will ask Mr. Loggins to set forth the benefits which are now payable in this class of cases.

Mr. O'KONSKI. That is what the Spanish-American War Veterans are now entitled to which these individuals would get under this bill if enacted into law.

Mr. HOWARD. That is right.

Mr. LOGGINS. There has been a good deal of conversation here this morning that might lead to the conclusion that these veterans are not entitled to any benefits.

This bill, H. R. 451, proposes to place certain persons in a class of entitlement of what is known as service pensions. That is a pension merely for having served. Now as to those other persons who were injured, killed and suffered wounds, as brought to the attention on the first page of the report No. 72, those persons are, under existing law, entitled to the benefits of compensation for any wounds or disability that they may have received in the service, on a parity with other veterans serving at the same time, plus the fact that if they have sustained wounds or diseases causing the disability in combat with

an enemy of the United States, and they are entitled to compensation at war-time rate.

Mr. ALLEN. Pardon me, if I may interrupt.

Mr. LOGGINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ALLEN. In other words this H. R. 451 is not necessary so far as taking care of those who were wounded during this period of 11 or 12 years?

Mr. LOGGINS. That is correct, or contracted disease during that period which results now in disability.

Mr. ALLEN. But what you are interested in is the passage of this bill to give those benefits to those who were not wounded.

Mr. LOGGINS. This bill would give the benefit of service pension. That is money merely for having served and attained a given age or having a disability entirely unrelated to their service and would put them on a parity in that respect with Spanish-American War veterans. Mr. ALLEN. In other words, they would automatically get a pension whether they were wounded or not.

Mr. LOGGINS. That is what this bill would do, yes, but if they sustained injury from disease, or wounds, or whatnot, they are, under the present law, entitled to compensation on a peacetime basis and if they sustained that injury in extrahazardous service under conditions described here they would get compensation at the same rates as Spanish-American, World War I, and World War II men, so that they are in the law for this purpose already. This bill would merely pension them for age or service.

Mr. O'KONSKI. That further justified the passage of this bill as far as pension is concerned and the other benefits they are already getting are recognized as service-connected?

Mr. LOGGINS. They are getting compensation on a parity with others as previously explained.

Mr. O'KONSKI. I am very glad you brought that point out. It is important as far as this bill is concerned.

Any questions?

Mrs. LUSK. I think; Mr. Chairman, I have none:

Colonel STANDISH. Mr. Chairman, I believe that completes the list. of witnesses on H. R. 451. There may be some other witnesses on H. R. 886.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Mr. Allen says he is ready to act on H. R. 451.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, under the statement that the objections of the President have been met, assuming that statement to be true, and I have no doubt it is true, I move we report H. R. 451 back favorably to the full committee with the recommendation that it be reported favorably by the full committee..

Mr. O'KONSKI. Any second?

Mrs. LUSK. I second the motion.

Mr. O'KONSKI. The motion has been made and seconded. Is there any objection? (No response.) If not, it is so ordered.

All right, we will proceed with the balance of the hearing on H. R. 886.

Colonel STANDISH. Are there any further witnesses on H. R. 886? (No response.)

Apparently there are no other witnesses on that bill, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'KONSKI. All right.

STATEMENT OF R. P. BLAND, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LEGISLATION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BLAND. My name is R. P. Bland, Office of Assistant Administrator for Legislation, Veterans' Administration.

On the matter the Congressman just mentioned with respect to the President's veto message on H. R. 4099, I think it might be wise to bring that to the attention of the committee so they will have a clear impression of that message. It is very brief, and I will just read it with your permission.

Mr. O'KONSKI. Go ahead.

Mr. BLAND. This was the substance of the President's veto:

This measure would grant special benefits to a particular group and exclude other members of the Regular Military and Naval Establishments who similarly have been called upon, on numerous occasions, to engage in similar military operations in times of peace. I believe that it is sound in principle to abide by the official beginning and ending dates of wars in providing benefits, heretofore described, and feel that extension of the period of the Philippine Insurrection, beyond that established in conformity with recognized legal precedents, would constitute sufficient deviation from that principle to invite further exceptions for additional groups with service in military occupations, expeditions, or campaigns other than during a period of war.

The only essential difference with respect to veterans' benefits between this bill and H. R. 4099 is that bill for general purposes would have extended the war period up until December 31, 1913. This bill, however, is confined to veterans' benefits, and this bill, in effect, provides for the purpose of service pensions granted to SpanishAmerican War veterans that these people who served between 1902 and January 1, 1914, will be regarded as war veterans. In other words, they are eligible for what was theretofore a war pension. That is the difference. One would have extended the official war date. The other would grant to this group the war service pension benefit. Mr. O'KONSKI. That is H. R. 451?

Mr. BLAND. H. R. 451; so, as a conclusion, I would say that the objections of the President to H. R. 4099 would not be entirely met by H. R. 451.

Mr. O'KONSKI. But one of the objections would be, of course.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. There is one point I would like to add that you didn't mention and that is the fact that all members of the armed services would not be considered. They had to be actively engaged in hostilities. The Spanish-American war pension is granted even to veterans who served in the United States during that period.

Mr. BLAND. That is correct.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. This is limited to those who were actually participating in a hazardous undertaking. It is very limited. Ordinarily it would take in veterans who served between those dates.

Mr. BLAND. I think that is a substantially correct statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'KONSKI. All right. Does anybody else care to comment either on H. R. 886 or H. R. 451? (No response.)

If not the hearings are closed. Thank you all for coming up. (Whereupon, at 11:10 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)