older veterans. For instance, though old-age and survivors insurance has recently been extended to 10 million more Americans, this extension will not help those 544,000 World War veterans who have already passed the age of 65. It would seem only equitable that a grateful Nation should continue its policy of helping its elderly veterans. To force a great number of veterans to rely wholly on welfare agencies and public assistance is not in keeping with our previous humanitarian regard for our old soldiers.

In conclusion, I would like to read to you a letter that Sgt. Alvin York wrote to the VFW. Sergeant York, whom General Pershing called the greatest soldier in World War I but who is now disabled and unemployable, writes:

"I believe in the traditional and historical policy of the payment of pensions to aging and disabled veterans which has been followed by the United States Government since the days of the Plymouth Colony. It is more honorable to provide modest pensions for our war veterans who are in need of a helping hand rather than to put them on the public-assistance rolls. It costs little, if any, more to pay these old veterans a pension than it would to take care of them under some form of public aid. The aging group of World War I veterans should have a separate and liberalized pension program to take care of those who will not be adequately cared for by some other type of income. No doubt there are many World War I veterans, like myself, who are today suffering from conditions which actually started in the service but which are not subject to unquestionable proof. I hope the Veterans of Foreign Wars will be successful in convincing the Congress of a program for veterans of World War I that will closely approximate the same consideration which has been given to veterans of the Civil War and veterans of the Spanish-American War. "This January 26, 1956."

The Chairman. Judge Lanham, of Georgia.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENDERSON LANHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. LANHAM. I promise not to take very much of your time, Mr. Chairman. But I am interested in two bills which I introduced, H. R. 8479 and H. R. 8480.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee in support of these bills. I am going to read this brief statement, because there are dates and code sections referred to, and I think I can shorten the time by doing it.

These bills were introduced by me after the situation they are intended to correct was called to my attention by a friend of the widow, Mrs. Willie F. Mathis, 406 Chattanooga Avenue, Dalton, Ga., of a veteran, Sidney J. Mathis, who was injured in combat in World War I. When he died in 1954 the Veterans' Administration refused to put her on the pension list due to the fact that he left a small amount of insurance payable to his widow out of which she had to pay the funeral expenses. Her pension began January 1955 and was issued under the provisions of 38 U. S. C. A. 503 (c) which provides that pension shall not be issued to any widow without child whose income exceeds $1,400.

Mrs. Mathis inherited a farm from her husband from which she derives very little income. Having no income other than the pension from the Veterans' Administration of $50.40 a month she has been forced to get a job and work to earn her living.

Mrs. Mathis desires to sell her farm but took the precaution of writing the Veterans' Administration in Philadelphia for a ruling on the status of her pension in the event she decided to sell the farm. The Veterans' Administration takes the position that any money realized by her from such sale above capital expenditures should be treated as income. An examination of section 503 (c) of title 58 fails

to show that Congress intended the word "income" in that section to have another or different meaning than that ordinarily applied to that word.

The widow contends, and I am inclined to agree with her, that the meaning of the word "income" in the cited section should be the same as is applied in the laws relating to Federal income tax, 26 U. S. C. A. 102. This section provides that the value of such property at the time of the husband's death should not be included in gross income. Section 1001 of title 26 U. S. C. A. provides how gain or loss is computed, the gain being the excess of the adjusted basis. Section 1014 of title 26 provides that the fair market value at the time of the husband's death would be the adjusted base. These sections were written into the Internal Revenue Ac of 1954. Mr. Mathis died on September 11, 1954, after these sections had become a part of the law.

Of course, the Veterans' Administration relies upon one of its regulations defining "income" differently.

I am including with this statement a brief summary of the law which we believe applicable to this problem.

The difference between the two bills, H. R. 8479 and H. R. 8480 is that the former is the more comprehensive section and provides that in determining the income of beneficiaries, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall not include certain amounts which are not considered as "income" for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. In contrast to this H. R. 8480 provides that in determining the income of beneficiaries the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall not include the value of certain property acquired by bequest, devise, or inheritance.

It is immaterial in the present case which bill is reported by the committee, but I do hope that something will be done to correct this obvious misinterpretation of the law as applied to income which if exceeded prevents the widow of a veteran from drawing her pension. I will appreciate your sympathetic consideration of this legislation and your reporting one of the two bills as you deem it advisable after your usual thorough consideration of the matter.

I wonder if there are any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Thank you, Judge.

Mr. LANHAM. It seems to be a difference in the way you arrive at the long or short-term gain, whether you take the adjusted base or whether you take the value of the property at the time the husband purchased it, as the Veterans' Administration wants to do now. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Judge.

Mr. LANHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The law summary filed by Mr. Lanham follows :)

MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD "INCOME" BY THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION PERTAINING TO THE RIGHTS OF THE WIDOW OF A VETERAN

Since Congress, in using the word "income," with reference to the pension of widows, as contained in title 38 of U. S. C. A., gives no special meaning to said word, construing the statutes as to the intent of Congress, the ordinary meaning of the word should be applied.

See in this connection 59 C. J. section 577, pages 974-977, Statutes, which reads in part as follows:

"3. MEANING of Language -a. CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND PHRASES-—(1) In General. While the meaning to be given a word used in a statute will be determined from the character of its use, words in common use are to be given

their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, in the absence of any statutory or well established technical meaning, unless it is plain from the statute that a different meaning was intended, or unless such construction would defeat the manifest intention of the legislature."

Not only does the word "income," as used in the Federal income statutes, have a far different meaning from that contended by the Veterans' Administration, but it is respectfully submitted that such use as given by the Federal income statute is the common, ordinary use of the word.

In this connection see definition of the word as contained in 31 C. J., section 2, pages 397-399.

"B. AS DEPENDENT ON, OR DISTINGUISHED FROM, ITS SOURCE-1. In General. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports something entirely distinct from the principal or the source of its derivation; and it is used in common parlance and in law in contradistinction to "capital," "capital assets," "corpus," "invested capital," "investment," and "property." Viewed from the source of its derivation, the word "income" may be defined to be that gain or profit which accrues, is derived, is gained, or proceeds from business, capital, commerce, investments of capital, labor, lands, occupations, professions, property of any kind, or like."

See also Black's Law Dictionary, 3d edition, at page 499 to the same effect. The only trouble with these definitions, as far as the bureaucrats is concerned they want to make their own laws and dictate the affairs of everyone.

Since most of the bureaucrats have succeeded in getting inserted into the laws governing them a provision that deprives the citizens of the right of a trial by jury and a review by the Federal district court of the bureaucrats decision in deficance of the peoples' rights, they are not much worried. Such a provision was inserted in 1940 in the Veterans' Act, as contained in section 11 2-a of 38 U. S. C. A., making the decision as to the laws final.

It is my frank opinion, in the interest of getting substantial justice for the citizens dealing with the bureaucrats, that their administrative decisions should be subject to review by a Federal district court. This would give the citizen the right to be heard by at least one person who has practiced law generally and has some commonsense as to what justice and fair play means.

The argument of the bureaucrats against judicial review of their decisions that the review would increase Government expense and delay the administration of the affairs of the Department, and any other spurious excuse they might advance are all without merit. As lawyers, we are more interested in seeing substantial justice done under the law than anything else. Veterans did not consider the cost when they exposed their lives for our safety, comfort, and protection. The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is all of the Members of Congress in the room.

We have statements and communications filed by Congressmen Kearney, Siler, Seely-Brown, Natcher, Hyde, Curtis, Flood, O'Neill, Bentley, Lipscomb, Rooney, Dague, Whitten, Hosmer, Perkins, Short, Huddleston, Rhodes, Metcalf, Dorn of New York, and Rabaut, which we will place in the record at this point.

(The material referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY HON. JAMIE L. WHITTEN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you in behalf of H. R. 1846, which, in effect, if enacted into law would bring the widows and orphans of deceased World War II veterans within the same status of World War I widows and orphans.

I am aware of the fact that this bill within itself does not cover the Korean veterans; however, I wish to make this statement that I think it should cover those in that category. Thus we would have a uniform program for taking care of those dependents of veterans who have died. This would eliminate any discrimination between Government assistance to those who have served their country in time of war.

It appears that there are mainly two objections that are brought out by the administration whereby they do not deem it to the best interest of the Government to approve the passing of such legislation. First, it seems to be the opinion that the World War I veterans had to wait and abide their time for many years before they were awarded compensation for widows and orphans by the Government. The second aspect of their contention is that this and

other similar bills before your committee would cost the Government a tremendous amount of money and such would not be approved by the President or his Bureau of the Budget. It is my opinion that they have their estimate of cost of such legislation far above what it would actually cost. It is not the intention of this bill to change the income requirement from its present figure and I do not believe that any dependent who is employed who is making over $1,400 per annum would take advantage of this act. Most widows and orphans would check their status with the Social Security Administration and if covered by the Social Security Act, then their compensation would be more liberal than the amount they woud receive under the Veterans' Administration and, naturally, would take advantage of this method, instead of the veterans' compensation as provided under this bill.

The Government should keep in mind that it was the one that called these boys into service and that we owe to them some responsibility. There will be a number of dependents who will come within this law and will be assisted to such an extent that they will not have to rely on public charities for existence. With the billions and billions that our Government is spending, both here and abroad, I do not see the consistency in trying to save a few dollars when it comes to the widows and orphans of our veterans.

May I reiterate in closing that although the Korean veterans were not included in this bill it is my belief that they should be. I thank you for the time given me in behalf of this legislation.

TESTIMONY BY HON. CRAIG HOSMER, OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, the effect of H. R. 3596, which I introduced on February 3, 1955, is to extend to persons participating in the action against the Ute Indians, and their dependents, the benefits now available to other veterans-including those of the Indian wars.

Under the President's power to set the date for termination of war, as authorized in chapter 3, title I, section 4, 48 Statute 12, there is no provision by which the beginning or ending of the Ute campaign can be determined by existing law. Since the Indian wars-excluding the Ute campaign-are determined as existing from 1817 to 1898, present laws do not cover the service that the men participating in this campaign gave to their country.

The benefits that these veterans of the Ute campaign desire is to be given a pensionable status on the basis of attained age or a nonservice-connected disability. In addition, they want death pension benefits for their dependents. In the report from the Veterans' Administration, it was stated that "enactment of the proposed legislation would undoubtedly serve as a precedent for requests for similar legislation on behalf of veterans of the military forces of the United States whose only service was rendered in other than a war period, including those who served in recognized campaigns, expeditions or occupations." Therefore, the Veterans' Administration stated that it desired "to give careful consideration to the far-reaching effects" of this bill. Also, they were unable to estimate the cost of this bill because of "the lack of necessary data."

To answer these points, I wish to give you the statements of two outstanding men-one, Mr. Harry L. Suder, past national commander of the United Indian War Veterans, United States of America, and the other the national adjutant quartermaster general of the same organization, Mr. H. E. Willmering. They state as follows:

Mr. SUDER. "It is my opinion that not more than a dozen applications would follow as a result of the passage of H. R. 3596. Many of the soldiers who participated in this Ute campaign were at that time about 40 or more years of age and this campaign was 50 years ago. It is hardly possible that many are still alive. Others who were in the campaign were veterans of previous Indian campaigns and some were veterans of the Spanish-American War, and these men are pensionable as such veterans. The younger men in the outfits serving in the campaign-who survived the World War of 1917-19, are now retired from the Army or are pensionable for service in that war. Personally, I know of but one man in that campaign that would be eligible for pension under this bill should it become a law. I am not eligible.

"The Ute campaign was just as much of an Indian war as any of the previous campaigns. It was not customary to have a formal declaration of war to put down Indian uprisings and seldom was any such declaration ever made for that

purpose. The Ute Indian campaign was the very last to occur. We would like our Government to recognize this last campaign. We who are still alive would appreciate such recognition."

Mr. WILLMERING. "Practically all of those who served in the Ute campaign have passed on-only a few are left. Therefore, H. R. 3596 would not cause any increase in budget. War was seldom declared in Indian campaigns. For that matter, war was not declared in the Korean incident, either." I request favorable action on this bill for the reasons set forth.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS C. RABAUT

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opporutnity to make my views known on my bill, H. R. 9354, before your distinguished committee.

This bill provides that in determining income of World War I veterans and their widows for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for pensions, payments under title II of the Social Security Act shall not be taken into account. I think this type of legislation is long overdue. If the total return from VA pension and social security of the World War I veteran exceeds $1,400, the pension is discontinued under the present law.

I think this is most unfair treatment of our senior citizens who fought for their country and are now at an age when many of them have been "aged out" of the employment field.

It is my hope that the committee will give serious consideration to this matter and report favorably on H. R. 9354.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN GEORGE HUDDLESTON, JR., IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 5134

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a genuine pleasure for me to appear before this committee to discuss the bill which I have introduced to liberalize the marriage requirements for the widows of our World War I veterans in qualifying for benefits.

The legislation which I propose would amend present provisions of law to the extent that it would reduce the alternative 10-year marriage requirement to 5 years. It would not change the existing marriage delimiting date of December 14, 1944.

I am aware that the laws pertaining to the payment of death pension to widows of veterans of wars prior to World War I all contain a similar alternative marriage requirement and that the enactment of H. R. 5134 would be a departure from this uniformity. I am also aware that adoption of this bill could, in addition to extending eligibility to many widows of World War I veterans, serve as a precedent to extend similar benefits to other groups.

Nevertheless, I am strongly of the opinion that the 10-year requirement is too long. The primary purpose of the 10-year rule is to insure good faith on the part of the widow-to insure that no woman marry a veteran merely to collect his pension on his death. Surely the provision in H. R. 5134 that a widow must have been married to a veteran only 5 years in order to be eligible for the pension is reasonable. The 5-year requirement, it would seem to me, is sufficient time to insure good faith on the part of the widow and it would be much more fair and just to the many fine women who have assumed the responsibilities of married life with our World War I veterans.

There are a number of cases in my own congressional district, just as there are similar cases in each congressional district in the country, in which widows have been denied benefits because of this arbitrary and unrealistic rule. A typical one is that of a lady in my district who married a World War I veteran in September 1946. She cared for and cohabited continuously with her husband until his death in March 1954. Despite the fact she discharged all of her obligations to her husband, she is not entitled to a widow's pension because she lived with him only 71⁄2 years. This lady, now 50 years of age, has no previous business training and is in dire circumstances. Can it be said that she is any the less entitled to the widow's benefits than are accorded widows who were married to veterans for 10 years?

I respectfully submit that a woman who has continuously cohabited with a man for at least 5 years has amply evidenced that she entered into the marital relationship in good faith. Accordingly, I am firmly convinced that as a matter