department. Therefore, it revolves itself around the fact that somebody sitting in the Veterans' Administration that does not know the veteran, had never seen him, will make a decision.

The expression "in line of duty" has been used in pension legislation since the beginning of the Government. But two decisions by the Federal courts have been rendered, and they are more or less conflicting.

This bill, H.R. 5089, is to take the arbitrary power away from the Veterans' Administration where no certificate of misconduct is issued by the Armed Services, in the case of an honorably discharged member of the military service, injured or diseased in line of duty.

This bill, H.R. 5089, would correct the injustice done those veterans and dependents of servicemen who served their country honorably for, in most cases many years, who suffer disease or injury or have lost their lives while on active duty in other than usual or ordinary circumstances, such as accident, suicide, etc. These cases are officially investigated by the service department concerned to determine line of duty status, as a responsible part of military and naval jurisdiction over the person of the serviceman. No Department of the Armed Forces would recognize, accept, or tolerate interference from any outside source, including other Government agencies, in the execution of military and naval affairs of the United States. Therefore, in this matter of such vital importance to our servicemen, our veterans, and their dependents, the Veterans' Administration should be stripped of the arbitrary power they now have to overrule a decision made by proper authority by the Military Department of our Armed Forces. The power now available to the adjudicative members of the Veterans' Administration permits opinion, a latitude certainly not intended by the makers of our laws, in granting the entire field of benefits to our servicemen and veterans. As you know opinion is molded by personal prejudices. In the far-reaching effect of the denial of benefits, no part of such a decision should be left to the possible application of opinion by a member of the Veterans' Administration and certainly not in this particular area, where, before reaching the Veterans' Administration, a decision in each case has been made by competent authority by the department of our Armed Forces, only after the most thorough investigation.

Mr. DORN. Our next witness this morning will be the gentleman from Ohio, the Honorable William H. Harsha, Jr.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JR., A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. DORN. We are delighted to have you with us. Please go ahead and state anything you like and submit anything you like for the

record.

Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. I am William H. Harsha, Jr., representing the 6th Congressional District of Ohio. I appreciate having the opportunity to present you my views on legislation concerning

our veterans.

I appear here in support of H.R. 5669 and H.R. 5670 which I introduced into the House of Representatives requesting a modest increase of existing rates of compensation payments for serviceconnected disability.

I am deeply concerned with the adverse results of war and its aftermath upon those who served our country and I have viewed with much alarm the upward spiral of living costs and its effect upon disabled veterans and their fixed incomes. As the cost of living rises the purchasing power of compensation payments declines and this brings about a constant decline in the living standards of America's disabled veterans.

These bills, H.R. 5669 and H.R. 5670 would provide much-needed disability compensation increases for service-connected disability and enable the veterans involved to cope more adequately with the ever

mounting costs of essential housing, food, and other critical items necessary to maintain body and soul together.

The last general compensation increase was in 1957 and as I understand it, it did not include the statutory awards. Since that time there has been a substantial advance in the cost of living and with all the duties and responsibilities assumed by the United States as leader of the free world all of which entails continuing outlays of Government funds; can anyone seriously doubt that the upward swing in living costs will continue for an indefinite period of time long into the future?

The President has asked for large sums of money to help feed, clothe, educate, and raise the standard of living for underprivileged countries. Is it not our primary responsibility to first take care of these veterans who so ably served our country in order that it might remain free and able to help others? Of course, you are aware, Mr. Chairman, today we will in all probability consider the foreign aid to Latin America. Included in this bill is $100 million to rehabilitate Chile as a result of the earthquake they had down there. Now the Chileans have my deepest sympathy but sometimes these people aren't quite so receptive to our help and in the event we were engaged in a war, I am not so sure of where they would stand but I am sure of where these veterans stand and what they have done and will do for us. Congress is presently considering an increase in the minimum wage law from 15 percent to 25 percent, presumably for workers who are not disabled and on the basis that everyone is entitled to a decent living wage surely our disabled veterans are entitled to no less. Certainly we should strive to bring about an increase in the living standards of America's disabled.

The time has come when something must be done to relieve their plight and it should be done now. It is my firm belief that H.R. 5669 and H.R. 5670 with their modest increases of the compensation rates constitute part of the answer to this problem.

H.R. 5669 would increase the existing rates for statutory awards and statutory ratings by 10 percent and H.R. 5670 would increase the regular rates assigned under the VA rating schedule; that is, ratings of 10 percent to and including 100 percent, by 15 percent as shown in the attached table, and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit that attached table for the record and have it incorporated therein. Mr. DORN. It is so ordered.

(The table referred to follows:)

H.R. 5669 AND H.R. 5670 INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JR.

Table showing the effect of H.R. 5669, 87th Congress, on the rates of disability compensation statutory awards and statutory ratings under section 314 (k) through (s) of title 38, United States Code:

Table showing the effect of H.R. 5670, 87th Congress, on the rates of disability compensation (ratings of 10 percent through 100 percent) under section 314 (a) through (j) of title 38, United States Code:

Mr. HARSHA. I earnestly urge and recommend to this distinguished subcommittee that the foregoing proposals receive an early and favorable report and I further pledge my active support in enacting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and again I want to express my appreciation for this subcommittee's indulgence.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Congressman Harsha, for a very fine statement. We do appreciate your coming over,

Mr. HARSHA. Thank you.

Mr. DORN. We will next hear from Congressman Richard L. Roudebush, of Indiana.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, A. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. DORN. Congressman, we are glad to have you with us this morning. Please be free to submit anything you wish for the record or add anything you want to add to the record.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Chairman, one of the first bills which I had the privilege of introducing as a Member of this Congress was H.R. 3087 which is designed to further improve the status of war veterans of this Nation-particularly those who served in combat zones or were injured in line of duty under enemy fire. This bill was introduced at the request of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States which organization, as you know, I headed as Commander in Chief several years ago.

Mr. DORN. You did a fine job, I might say,
Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Thank you, sir.

too.

Presently disability compensation is provided in the same amount whether a veteran suffers his disability during service within the continental limits of the United States, or whether he was disabled by actual enemy fire or gun shot. In my opinion the compensation structure or program should from the beginning have included recognition of the type of service rendered. My bill is designed to remedy this oversight.

According to Veterans' Administration figures more than 25 percent of the veterans receiving compensation received their disability in combat. There has been no breakdown with respect to the number whose disabilities were incurred while overseas.

Some members may wonder why there should be any distinction between a disability incurred in an overseas combat theater or at home. After all a disability is the same I will certainly agree to the person involved regardless of where it was incurred.

To make it more specific, for example, a veteran who suffers a disability in an automobile accident in the United States while on authorized pass at a recreation center may have the same disability as a veteran who was injured as a result of enemy gunfire. It is my firm conviction, however, and I hope this subcommittee and the full committee will agree that the veteran who has been subjected to enemy fire whose disability was incurred under combat conditions is entitled to additional consideration. My bill would provide a 20 percent increase over the regular compensation rates for disability incurred in combat-a constant reminder to these veterans that this Nation has not forgotten the extraordinary contribution these men made.

While it seems obvious to me that some recognition should be given for disability incurred on the battlefield, maybe I should spell out what I feel are other compelling arguments for my bill.

First, when a serviceman left the United States for oversea duty his base pay was increased 20 percent.

Furthermore, for veterans who were flying in the Armed Forces against the enemy or served in the combat infantry, or served on submarines, their pay scales were increased above and beyond the basic increase of 20 percent for being overseas. All of these increases were

pursuant to congressional action and approval. In other words, when the fighting was going on and it was self-evident to the Congress and the Nation that there were different types of service being performed, recognition was given by these small increases in the base pay of servicemen who were rendering the more hazardous and dangerous service.

Mr. Chairman, my bill would simply extend this distinction and recognition by providing an additional amount of disability compensation for these veterans who were wounded in combat-many who almost gave their full measure of devotion to this Nation. I strongly urge that my bill be given favorable and speedy approval by this subcommittee and the full committee.

Mr. DORN. Thank you. I would add that whatever you would like to submit for the record I will be glad to have you do so.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. I think this bill is very fine legislation or I would not have introduced it, Mr. Chairman. I feel, as I pointed out in my written presentation, that for many years this country has recognized distinctive types of service by flying pay, submarine pay, oversea pay, these various pay differentials.

Mr. DORN. And paratroopers.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Yes, paratroopers and others.

I think it goes along with that same thinking to provide a differential between disability, for example, incurred on authorized passes here in the United States as for the man who actually was wounded by enemy combat.

Mr. DORN. Thank you for a very fine contribution here this morning.

Next we will hear from Congressman Arnold Olsen of Montana. STATEMENT OF HON. ARNOLD OLSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. DORN. Congressman, we are glad to have you with us this morning.

We are getting a pretty good congressional representation here this morning, which I think is good. We will be glad to hear whatever you have to say and you may submit anything you have for the record.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dorn. I will ask permission to file my prepared statement and that it be considered as though read into the record.

Mr. DORN. It is so ordered.
(Statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNOLD OLSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 4918

We thank you on this occasion for the opportunity of meeting with the Veterans' Affairs Committee on behalf of the disabled veterans of the wars of the United States. We all occupy a responsible position of trust to these disabled veterans, for we are acting as their agents to bring before you their financial problems. Due to the rapidly rising cost of living and the advancing age of the veterans of World War I, various elements are contributing to the need for financial assistance. We are truly custodians of a trust that is vital to the welfare of every sick and disabled veteran. We say this in all candor because we believe our task has been rendered much more sound, our approach much more tenable, by reason of the attitude of constructive cooperation on the part of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Veterans' Administration. The medical profession in the VA hospitals have made tremendous gains in the care of disabled war veterans, by their studies and discovery of new drugs.

Due to this medical achievement they have increased the span of life and we are now confronted with the aging veteran of World War I. Retired and on a reduced income, unemployed, his daily expenses remain the same. Lack of finances is placing our disabled war veterans in a second-rate class, they are appealing to us for assistance.

We are constrained to voice another viewpoint that is perhaps a little less obvious. In all the hue and cry about this 10-percent expenditure of over $4 billion a year for the veterans, sight has been lost by some folks, of one important detail: There is no reservation regarding the expenditure of billions of dollars in peacetime for defense. The 10-percent increase for war-disabled veterans is a mere extension of the defense program. The United States of America will remain strong only so long as they recognize veterans' benefits, as a continuance of their defense program or their defense outlet. There can be no separation of the two in conscious thinking.

We will have gone far by the mark if we considered this unusual and in some circles, unjustified expenditure for an honorable group of disabled war veterans. Many veterans who served during World War I have reached the age where it is difficult to secure substantial gainful employment. During their employment period they were not covered by social security or other retirement benefits. Our Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A., Inc., recommend that this bill, H.R. 4918, be considered as favorable legislation to provide a 10-percent increase in benefits to those men and women who entered the Armed Forces, and incurred service-connected disabilities while defending this Nation during a period of war.

Mr. OLSEN. I adopt support for H.R. 4918, which I introduced, all of the statements made by the two preceding witnesses. I was very happy to hear what they said and I must commend them for the position they have taken.

There isn't any pride of authorship in H.R. 4918 that would not apply equally to the legislation sponsored by the other gentlemen. My bill would simply increase the disability compensation rates prescribed in section 314 of title 38 by 10 percent, that is, the general service-connected disability compensation rates.

I have this additional to say that was not filed in the statement: That we let escape us, I think in considering veterans, because we are so often considering cost-of-living increases in these compensation rates, we forget to consider the original rate, and I am strongly of the