I think there is a general belief that compensation and pension is not considered to be adequate for all purposes, without supplemental income, except in certain cases.

Mr. SPRINGER. Total disability is, is it not?

Mr. KETCHUM. No; I would not say so. The basic total disability rate today is $150 a month, which simple mathematics indicates to be $1,800 a year. There is added to that, of course, under existing law, if the veteran is disabled 50 percent or more and has a dependent wife and children, he would be eligible for certain dependency allowances that would accrue by reason of the wife and children, thereby increasing somewhat the rates of compensation which he receives. from the Government.

But in the case of the man who is 100 percent disabled, and he has no dependent wife or children, of course, that allowance does not accrue to him. So $150 is the present basic rate.

There are other types of disabilities which were brought out by testimony from the Veterans' Administration, such as the loss of eyes, hearing, and certain limbs, through special awards, where the rates increase. The maximum present rate, I believe, is $346. No; $360 monthly is the maximum rate. That, of course, is in the most extreme disability cases. But the basic rate for 100-percent disability today is $150.

We feel that the basic rate today is not realistic enough in accordance with today's general cost of living. We have felt that the basic rates all along have been low. We do not know how to get those basic rates up unless, at some period, sufficient increase is added which would put them in line.

Mr. SPRINGER. Do you know how much that would be in dollars and cents for everybody that is on the rolls? Has anyone figured that out?

Mr. KETCHUM. The Veterans' Administration presented some costs in testimony at the beginning of this hearing based upon 15 percent. I assume it would be comparatively simple for them to use the same formula in applying a 25-percent rate. I think there are probably some simple mathematics there, taking their cost estimates for 15 percent and adding an additional 10 percent.

One of the previous witnesses before this committee said, and I think with a great deal of validity and a great deal of common sense, "In the final analysis, it will be up to this committee and the Congress to determine what the amount of the increase shall be, if any."

While I have presented to you the views of our organization with respect to the amount of the increase, and how we arrived at the 25 percent, if, in the judgment of this committee, they feel they cannot go that far, that 15 percent is more reasonable, or 10 percent, naturally, in accordance with past policy, we accept the judgment of the committee and the Congress.

But I was trying to give you some background as to why we thought that the 25-percent rate would not only offset the increased cost of living, but, at the same time, bring the basic rates up to a point that was more realistic.

There have been arguments presented to this committee in the past that perhaps compensation and pension rates should be on an escalator basis, that is, tied to a cost-of-living index, so that when that index increases, the rates of compensation and pension automatically go

up with it. By the same token, if the cost-of-living index decreases, the rates would decrease at the same time. A VFW representative, several years ago, was the first to propose such a plan.

We have never ardently supported that theory because we realize that, like wage earners, so long as rates are going up, everybody is for them, but they do not like it when they start going down. It is a sort of a two-edged sword.

The testimony of the American Legion on the new bill (4078) introduced by the chairman, of course, brings in several additional factors. According to my interpretation of their testimony, I am in agreement with their position except the amount of the increase. They favor 10 percent. We advocate 25 percent. I do think the Legion has made a very excellent presentation in bringing certain other factors into the question of increasing the rates of compensation and pension. Then too, these bills pending before the committee were introduced prior to the action of the Congress bringing, some say, Korean veterans under certain benefits now applicable to World War II veterans. Actually the new law went much beyond that, it is not confined to veterans of the Korean campaign but it applies to anyone who is in service from June 27 up to a certain point either determined by the President or a concurrent resolution by the Congress. It means that anyone in the service today, regardless of where he is serving, comes in under the benefits enacted by, I think it is, Public Law 28 of this present Congress.

So there is some misunderstanding. I noticed, in reading the testimony on the floor of the Senate when the Korean bill first came up, Senator Taft raised the question as to whether the legislation confines the benefits to veterans of the Korean campaign. Senator George replied by saying that the President has the authority to designate combat areas. I do not kow what Senator George meant by that because combat areas had nothing to do with that particular legislation. The question of whether it should be extended to all servicemen or confined to Korean veterans was dropped because of Senator George's statement that the President has authority to designate combat areas. No doubt some Senators thought the bill was limited to Korean veterans after Senator George's statement.

Actually, my interpretation of Public Law 28 is that it applies to all veterans in service after June 27, 1950, and up to some future date which will be determined to be the cessation of hostilities.

At the time these bills now before the committee were introduced, of course, we did not have Public Law 28. Naturally, that introduces another element of bringing those veterans in under any increases applicable.

The Legion, I think, has properly taken that into consideration in the amendment which they proposed to the bill (4078) introduced by Mr. Rankin. It would read as follows:

That all monthly wartime rates of disability compensation which are payable under any laws or regulations administered by the Veterans' Administration are hereby increased by 10 per centum.

They pointed out that those who would benefit by this increase in rates are not only service-connected disabled veterans of World War I and II, but such veterans of other wars as are or may be in receipt of compensation for service-connected disability which, of course, would

cover the whole field of those who have service-connected disabilities, including the new group that Congress has covered under Public Law 28.

As previously stated, the factors are changing so rapidly that unless I could have had prepared a statement since 6 o'clock this morning, it might have been obsolete before coming to the committee. I assume that the Legion did do some pretty quick work on their

statement.

I noticed they mentioned the sudden death of a very good friend of mine, and, I think as they well point out, one of the finest veterans I have ever known. He is a man who has rendered great service to this country and to the veterans, Colonel Legendre, who died of a heart attack last night. I certainly share with the American Legion their sorrow and loss over the death of Colonel Legendre.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what more I could say, except to emphasize the fact that we strongly urge favorable action by this committee in increasing the rates of compensation and pension, and that we generally favor the principles outlined by the American Legion, except we think the increase should be higher than 10 percent.

If the 10 percent is all that this committee feels that the Congress will approve, and we recognize that the House has been rather economy minded on appropriations during this present session of Congress, and that the committee may want to be more generous but are just unable to get the leadership and the Members of the House to go along with their wishes, we would accept that.

But certainly, I think we can all agree that, based on the present cost-of-living index, there is an increase due in the rates of compensation and pension. How far you want to extend that, and whether you want to cover the entire field of beneficiaries, or limit it to certain beneficiaries, will have to be left to the good judgment of this committee and the Congress.

Mr. DONOHUE. Are there any further questions? Do you have any questions in mind, Mrs. Rogers?

Mrs. ROGERS. No, thank you, except that I think Mr. Ketchum knows how tremendously interested I am in the passage of legislation increasing the compensation and pensions of all the veterans.

It seems to me it is perhaps the fairest thing to do it right straight across the board. I have a bill in, and I think it is, perhaps, the one you are considering, the 15-percent increase. I thought that you would be able to pass that through the House and the Senate, that perhaps you might not be able to enact a larger amount.

Mr. KETCHUM. Yes, I mentioned that here.

I would just like to again emphasize the need some place along the line for a committee or a commission of the Congress to give serious thought and study to arriving at some uniformity in the various rates of pension and compensation payable.

We find that when we come to these over-all increases, in the interim there has been a special increase for this group here, and special increases for some other, and you still keep your rates out of balance in an over-all increase.

If there was some way that we could get a uniform system on all pensions and compensations, it would be helpful. We have, today, situations, which you well know, where one group of non-serviceconnected permanently disabled veterans, receivs $90 a month pen

sion and another group received $60 a month. Some have income limitations applied. Some do not have income limitations applied. You have cases where some widows get one sum from one period of service, and other widows from another period of service get a smaller sum. Different regulations and restrictions applying to those various widows and veterans depend somewhat on the period of service and the piecemeal legislation that has grown up like Topsy.

In appearances before this committee and other committees of Congress, I have urged a study for a uniform system in dealing with the rates of compensation and pension, irrespective of whether they are veterans of this war or that war.

Certainly there are fundamental benefits that, if they are deserving at all, are deserving to be equally applied all along the line. To say, "We will pay so much to this group from this war, and so much to that group from that war, and so much to the widows from here, and so much to the widows from there," is not equitable.

It seems to me that there could be a uniform system. Then, when there is a general application of increase of rates, you would have a uniform application throughout rather than one group getting special legislation in one Congress and then receiving the benefit of an over-all percentage increase still keeping them out of balance with other groups.

Mr. PROUTY. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Mr. KETCHUM. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. DONOHUE. Are there any other questions that any member of the committee would like to ask of Mr. Ketchum?

If not, we will excuse you with our sincere thanks for your appearance here.

Mr. KETCHUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. DONOHUE. We will next hear from the Disabled American Veterans. I understand Mr. Hogan and Mr. Foster are here to testify and to give the views of their organization on these bills.

STATEMENTS OF C. F. HOGAN, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF CLAIMS; CHARLES E. FOSTER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Charles E. Foster. I am the assistant legislative director for the Disabled American Veterans.

I just briefly want to say that the Disabled American Veterans are supporting an increase in disability compensation and pension of service-connected cases across-the-board in the amount of 15 percent.

Our principal statement will be made by Cicero F. Hogan, national director of claims for the DAV. Mr. Hogan has about 30 year's experience in claims work, representing disabled veterans before the various Government agencies, Veterans' Administration, and I think

that in his statement he will make a clear and convincing case for a 15-percent increase in the rates of disability compensation.

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Hogan, you may proceed.

Mr. HOGAN. My name is Cicero F. Hogan, and I am national director of claims of the Disabled American Veterans.

The DAV is fully appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you today in support of the bills proposing an across-the-board increase of varying amounts in the rates of disability compensation.

By national convention mandate, the DAV is supporting a 15-percent increase in all rates of compensation and special compensation payable to veterans of former wars under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration.

Actually, however, as I hope to point out later on, we are not endorsing an increase in the percentage of disability compensation, but rather a readjustment in present rates to offset two things: First, the phenomenal rise in the Consumer's Price Index, which we feel adequately reflects the increases in the cost of living; and, second, the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar.

These two factors, each of which is dependent on the other have created among disabled veterans a sad and somewhat sordid economic vise, the jaws of which are applying constant pressure to the purchasing power of the veteran relying on his disability compensation to make ends meet.

On January 19, 1934, disability compensation was restored to $100 a month for a veteran with 100 percent disability. This rate remained in effect until June 1, 1944, when the veteran was granted a 15 percent increase, except for statutory awards for arrested tuberculosis and special monthly compensation.

On September 1, 1946, disability compensation was again adjusted to a maximum of $138. The latest change in disability compensation occurred on October 10, 1949, and established the rate of compensation for total disability at $150.

In other words, since January 19, 1934, disability compensation has increased 50 percent, while the cost of living, as reflected by the Consumers' Price Index, has increased 84.5 percent as of March 15,

1951.

Our staff has prepared a graphic illustration in chart form which I would like to exhibit to the members of this committee. The dotted line on the chart indicates the purchasing power of disability compensation dollars based on the 1939 level. The broken line on the chart is the Consumers' Price Index, and the solid black line represents the rate of disability compensation.

(The chart referred to is as follows:)