CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

was the turning point in the battle for

independence.

For over a century a great monument

has crowned the heights of Bunker Hill.

I refer, of course, to one of the Nation's

most historic edifices, the Bunker Hill

Monument.

I urge upon the Congress that this

famous landmark of the struggle for independence be held in perpetual care for

the people of the United States as a national shrine and park.

HELMUTH WOLF GRUHL- VETO

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.

NO. 177)

The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following veto message from the

President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H. R. 1334, for the relief of

Helmuth Wolf Gruhl.

The bill would provide for the retroactive payment of a child's insurance

benefit under the Federal old-age and

survivors insurance program of the

Social Security Act to Helen Mann Gruhl

for the use and benefit of Helmuth Wolf

Gruhl on the wage record of Werner

Gruhl for the period December 1942 to

February 1947, amounting to $868.53.

The facts in the case are as follows:

It appears that in 1931 Helen Gruhl

married Werner Gruhl. In April 1932 a son, Helmuth Wolf Gruhl, was born of

this marriage, and in 1935 Mrs. Gruhl

separated from her husband and took her son from their home in Elizabeth, N. J.,

to Chicago, Ill., and ultimately to Madison, Wis. In June 1941 she obtained an

absolute divorce from Werner Gruhl.

Werner Gruhl entered into another

marriage. He died in November 1942, in

Middlebury, Vt. Helen Gruhl, the moth- er of Helmuth Wolf Gruhl, stated that

she had no knowledge of the death of her

former husband until April 1947, but

that she would have learned of the death

and would have filed a claim for the

child's insurance benefits as early as November 1942, if the widow of Werner

Gruhl had not, in her petition for administration of his estate, erroneously

made the statement that she was his

sole heir. Mrs. Helen Gruhl made application on behalf of her minor son

for child's insurance benefits under title

II of the Social Security Act in June 1947,

and such benefits were awarded retroactive to March 1947 in the amount of

$17.03 a month. Such benefits were paid

until the child reached the age of 18.

Had she been informed, in 1942, of the

death of her husband, and had timely

application been made for the benefits,

payment for the 51 months from December 1942 through February 1947 would

have accrued to the benefit of the child,

which would have amounted to $868.53.

The Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors

Insurance held that the provisions of the

Social Security Act then in effect prevented the payment of retroactive benefits for the period covered by this bill.

The action of the Bureau was upheld on

appeal by a referee and by the Appeals

Council of the Federal Security Agency.

The Social Security Act does provide

for the payment of retroactive benefits

for a limited period when the filing of

an application is delayed after the individual is first eligible for payments.

Under the law in effect before September 1950, which was applied in this case,

this period was 3 months. The 1950

Social Security Act amendments have

since increased the period to 6 monthseffective with regard to months after

August 1950.

The legislative history of the Social

Security Act indicates that, in providing

for retroactive benefits for only a limited

period, the Congress took into account

the fact that persons otherwise eligible

for benefits might "not know of their

right to benefits or, for some other reason, have delayed filing their applications"-House Report No. 728, page 40;

Senate Report No. 734, page 47, 76th

Congress. The courts have ruled that

the fact that a claimant is unaware of

his rights under the Social Security Act

does not extend rights beyond the statutory period of grace when no application

for benefits has been filed as required by

statute.

I appreciate the fact that the limitation on retroactive benefits in the Social

Security Act may seem like an unjust

penalty to those who, as the child and

the mother in this case, had no timely

knowledge of the wage earner's death.

However, provision against retroactive

benefits in the law-except for a reasonable period to allow for normal delayswas not intended as a penalty or forfeiture, but to carry out the purpose of this

insurance program. Old-age and survivors insurance benefits are primarily

intended to provide a regular, though

small, income to beneficiaries to help

meet their current living needs. That

purpose would not be served by lumpsum payments to individuals to cover

previous months for which provision had

already been made in other ways, as the

present case illustrates. The child has

passed the age of eighteen at which social insurance benefits for minors are

cut off. Moreover, the facts that the

father was not supporting the child and

that the death of the father was not

known to the mother and child for so

long indicate that there was no continuing relationship between the father

and the child and that the child was not

dependent economically upon the father.

Special legislation permitting one individual to receive social insurance benefits under conditions identical with

those in which benefits are denied to

another is undesirable and contrary to

sound principles of equity and justice.

If any modification of a provision in the

Social Security Act is needed, I believe

that the Congress should make such

changes in the basic law so they will be

available to all persons equally. The

Congress, on two separate occasions-in

1939 and 1950-has considered the question of retroactive benefits and has decided that the period should be definitely

limited.

For these reasons, I feel compelled to

return the bill without my approval.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 15, 1953.

The SPEAKER. The objections of the

President will be spread at large upon

the Journal, and, without objection, the

bill and message will be referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary and ordered

to be printed.

There was no objection.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT

Mr. BENDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House

for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

Mr. BENDER. Mr. Speaker, the best

news in today's paper is to the effect that

the State Department has fired 2,600

people. It is just too bad it is not 5,000.

I hope every other Cabinet member will

read the newspaper today and follow

suit.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the Appendix of the

RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks,

was granted to:

Mr. REED of New York in five instances

and to include extraneous matter in each.

Mr. BENDER in five instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. CRUMPACKER and to include a letter.

Mr. JENSEN and to include a letter and

other data.

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska and to include

a speech by Ezra Taft Benson on the

agricultural situation.

Mr. BENTLEY in two instances and to

include extraneous matter.

Mr. O'KONSKI in regard to the Henry

Kaiser enterprises.

Mr. LAIRD in three instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mrs. CHURCH and to include a news article.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts and to

Include a letter sent to every Member of

Congress by the American Legion on H.

R. 5690, the independent offices appropriation bill.

Mr. FINo and to include an address delivered by him yesterday.

Mr. BURDICK.

Mr. LANE in five instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida and to include

an editorial.

Mr. WALTER and to include a news release from WRC.

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana in two instances and to include a newspaper clipping and an editorial.

Mr. BOGGS and to include extraneous

matter.

Mr. FRAzIER.

Mr. HART and to include a newspaper

item.

Mr. CELLER on four distinct subjects.

Mr. BYRD and to include extraneous

material.

Mr. DODD.

Mr. LYLE and to include an article.

1953 6567