dren; protection of adequate hospital and medical care programsboth for service and non-service-connected cases; protection of adequate employment opportunities for veterans and veterans' preference in public employment, and finally, the perfection of a sound lasting structure of benefits.

We pledge ourselves to continually work in these directions and indeed to work for improvements where found to be necessary. But we cannot-we will not-assist in the destruction of the foundation of veterans' programs—a foundation of first things first; a foundation that recognizes military service as a right and privilege as well as an obligation; a foundation that must of necessity take into account the condition of our Nation's economy; a foundation that has had built upon it the greatest tribute any nation ever paid to its war veterans; that is, the present veterans' benefit program. And a foundation that places in true relationship a nation's obligation to its defenders and the obligation to the nation of those defenders.

Others, we know, feel very strongly as to the soundness of their pension proposals. That is their right. We too strongly believe in the merits of our position and we have said so. Never in our history have we been so convinced of the wisdom of a position on a public issue. We sincerely trust that the members of this committee will concur with our views and vote accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Dr. Long?

Mr. LONG. I would just like to thank the gentleman for a well thought out statement. Really, as far as I personally am concerned, this has been one of the finest statements that we have heard on this subject at these hearings, and I am happy to have heard it. I think it will be worth a great deal to the committee.

Mr. PESATA. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Weaver?

Mr. WEAVER. I would like to congratulate the commander on the forthrightness of his statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Avery?

Mr. AVERY. I would like to associate myself with Mr. Weaver.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Diggs?

Mr. DIGGS. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Dr. Long, Mr. Weaver, and Mr. Avery.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sisk?

Mr. SISK. I would like to commend the commander on what I feel to be a most courageous stand, in view of certain feelings I am sure the gentleman knows exists in this country. It was a most courageous and forthright statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Commander, on page 5 you state: "AMVETS has historically supported pensions for needy permanently and totally disabled non-service-connected veterans." What is the opinion of AMVETS as to the adequacy of the pension program at this time?

Mr. PESATA. Mr. Chairman, except for a few simple modifications the program in our judgment, is functioning very well. I think that is borne out by the fact that today over 500,000 veterans of World War I are receiving pensions.

The CHAIRMAN. You also suggest redefining the term "widow." Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. PESATA. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman I would like to have Mr. Holden answer that.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, we have noted the many different definitions of the term "widow" for all wars. There appears to be a different statute controlling in each case, and it has become necessary over the years, as you approach that terminal date, to amend the statute to extend it a little further.

For example, in the case of World War II veterans, the delimiting date for a widow to be entitled to her husband's pension benefits is January 1, 1957. In other words, if I were a single veteran today and were married January 2, 1957, I would be 38 years of age. But when I died, my widow would then not be entitled to non-service-connection pension benefits. We feel that a uniform definition should be enacted, and we suggest the definition that is contained in H. R. 7089, section 102 (8) for that purpose. As you know, that bill has passed the House and is now pending in the Senate. It states that the term "widow" means a woman who was married to a person (a) before the expiration of 15 years after the termination of the period of active duty during which he served, or (b) for 5 or more years, or (c) for any period of time if a child was born of that marriage. We feel that that definition would equitably provide for widows of all wars.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Commander I believe you mentioned something about revising part III pensions as applying to tuberculosis patients. Can you tell us anything about how the regulations are working now and what correction you suggest?

Mr. PESATA. Yes. Mr. Chairman, actually, as it exists today, a veteran may enter a hospital with a diagnosis of active TB but it takes 6 months to determine that he is eligible for part III pension. Then, instead of going back to the date of entry into the hospital, his pension would be effective 6 months from that date. We are asking that it be made retroactive to the date when the determination of total disability was originally made.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Congressman Ayres wanted to ask you a question or two, but he is on the telephone at the moment. Do any staff members have any questions?

STAFF DIRECTOR. Mr. Commander, you have stated generally your views on these pension proposals, and you have reiterated that we do have three general groups of proposals before us. One of those is the general service pension idea. There are about 19 bills of that type. Then there is another group of bills which would increase. rates for both veterans and widows now receiving pensions. Then there is the other typical group of bills which would simply increase rates for those veterans and widows now on either the part III pension or widows receiving death pension.

In the way of priority, what are the views of AMVETS on those three general groups?

Mr. PESATA. Mr. Meadows, AMVETS, are definitely opposed to general service pensions and sweeping liberalizations of the existing law. AMVETS' position, and I am speaking solely as one man now, as the commander, is that we would not object to a modest increase in pension rates. However, we would strongly suggest, in order to merit our support, it would be necessary to first increase the disability compensation rates for service-connected disability.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Commander, would you care to comment on the fact that at least two of our larger veteran groups, the Legion and the VFW, are very far apart from the AMVETS on their recommendations.

Mr. PESATA. Mr. Chairman, that is quite a problem. Frankly, we feel very strongly that the position we have taken here today is the only sound position. We have tried, in our serious studies, to go beyond just the field of veterans, to look at the situation as it exists in the country, the benefits to the country as a whole.

As the President brought out in his statement, over two-fifths of the population are veterans today. Anything that affects the country affects the veteran. If these other organizations feel that they should go in that direction, that is their privilege. However, I sincerely feel that the committee, after studying all proposals, will find that the position taken by AMVETS today will not only help the veterans, but if followed by this committee will help preserve the structure of veterans' benefits as it exists today.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you think that the public in general seems to accept the philosophy that we should expand social security, that we should increase old-age assistance; and yet they seem to be opposed to the two bills which the Legion and the VFW in particular support? Mr. PESATA. Frankly, of course, we feel that the benefits that exist today for the general public are also available for the veteran.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I said "public." I meant "administration." As you know, the administration has recommended against all of these bills. But I understand their position is in support of expanded social security.

Mr. PESATA. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I just couldn't answer that question, from the administration standpoint. I would be speaking solely as an individual, and I feel that there, again, apparently the attitude is that since so many veterans are covered by these other benefits, an expansion of the social security benefits in themselves will aid every veteran.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I think there is general recognition of the fact that the overall veterans' benefits structure, as it ages, as we approach the time when the World War II veterans will qualify for the non-service-connected benefits, around 1965, when most of our age group are at age 65, is indicative of the need of some recognition for the overpowering cost of this program.

I think not only the administration but the public in general recognizes an obligation, first and primarily, to the service-connected

veteran.

After we have corrected inequities and have properly taken care of this group, we can consider assistance to the able-bodied veterans within the limitations imposed by the public pocketbook.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been stated to the committee that before the so-called bonus was paid to World War I veterans, it was prophesied that it would wreck the Treasury, and yet today it is never mentioned, and nothing has been said about it since. Does the same thing apply today as to these bills?

Mr. PESATA. Well, it is rather difficult for me to comment on that World War I bonus.

The CHAIRMAN. The total cost amounted to several billions. It was said that it would wreck the Treasury. Yet today it does not appear to have had any significant effect on the solvency of the Nation.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, certainly that ran into the billions, in excess of $3 billion, I believe. But it was a onetime proposition. Now, these proposals that we are considering today are continuing in cost over the years. It is going to take more than any $3 billion or $4 billion to pay for these increases in pensions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other question from the members of the committee?

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I have just gathered from the commander's statement, which was a very, very good statement, and also your thinking herein response to the questions, that all of these arguments, that the increasing of compensation and pensions is purely to keep up with the cost of living, is a rather fallacious philosophy. I rather think that you have in mind, and I agree with you, that you can give everybody in this country a raise-and that goes for labor and everything else, and the veteran-if we balance this budget and stabilize the American dollar. I rather get this impression, that you have spent a lot of overall study on the economy of the country as a whole and have projected it into the future. And I rather think that you have come to that conclusion. Is that correct?

Mr. PESATA. The economy of the country, Mr. Dorn, definitely was taken into serious consideration in this question. Definitely so. Because as I stated before, we strongly feel that what serves the country serves the veteran himself.

Mr. DORN. And you feel also that if we stabilize the dollar and balance the budget, that will be to all practical purposes a substantial raise for everybody in the purchasing power of the American dollar. Mr. PESATA. The balancing of the budget would certainly have that effect; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Have AMVETS taken a position on foreign aid? Mr. PESATA. We have supported foreign aid in our mandates at conventions; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Practically every letter I received and I am receiving a number of them-make the statement that surely if we can afford to spend billions overseas we should be able to do more for veterans than we have done, and are doing. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. PESATA. Well, in the position, we have always taken, as far as our foreign-aid policy is concerned we have not always agreed with the amounts expended. However, we feel that if the Congress of the United States and the President and his advisers, feel that this is so necessary to living in a peaceful world, we in the AMVETS organization most certainly go along with that philosophy.

Mr. LONG. I would like to ask for a comment. This might just be a personal matter. Do you feel that the extension of the veterans' benefits as asked here, in form of a pension, might be so inflationary as to injure the economy of the country?

Mr. PESATA. At the present time; no. I don't think so. In the final analysis, I would say yes. We have taken into consideration the projection of costs.

73987-56- -24

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holden, do you have anything to add to what the commander said?

Mr. HOLDEN. Yes; getting back to the question of foreign aid as opposed to liberalization of pensions: Certainly I am not qualified to determine the needs of the foreign aid program. We believe that the Congress in its wisdom certainly can make that determination. However, we feel that if there is any money available that could be subtracted either from the foreign-aid program or any other program that is administered by this Government, it certainly should go to more worthy causes than to the liberalization of benefits for those who were not disabled in service.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. May I ask a question at that point?

Just which causes would you consider more worthy? Be specific. Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Christopher, in our statement we have indicated that the war orphans scholarship bill should take priority; a modest increase in the rates of compensation for service-connected disability; the equalization of benefits for widows of World War II on the same basis as World War I; extending the presumption for service-connected psychosis to 2 years, to entitle that man to compensation, whereas under the present statute he is only entitled to hospitalization. And there are many more, sir, in the service-connected field. And with the chairman's permission, I can file a supplement showing the shortcomings in the service-connected program that in our judgment certainly merit priority attention.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be very pleased to have that. Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Those things should be done. But that is no reason why we should leave the other undone. And I would like to say further that liberalization of veterans pensions, when that money goes out to the servicemen who have to be in need because of the income-limiting provisions of these bills that money will be spent right here in our own economy, for food and clothing and shelter, and education for the veteran and his family. And it will help retail business, wholesale business, the manufacturer, labor, agriculture; everybody in the United States will benefit from the increased purchasing power of these veterans. And as to the money that we spend overseas by the billions, God only knows what becomes of that money. I have been unable to find out what it was used for in great part, in great measure.

I am going to be very reluctant to vote for money to give away to Europe and Asia, when as little care is evidenced for our needy at home as is evidenced at certain places and at certain times.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dorn?

Mr. DORN. Mr. Holden, I disagree with one thing you said, that is, that you are not qualified to speak on foreign aid. I think that any veteran who served his country in time of war overseas is more qualified than a lot of Members of Congress and a lot of people in the State Department and the Defense Department.

Mr. HOLDEN. I agree with you, Mr. Dorn. However, I was speaking personally. I believe our organization is qualified, because we have a very active international affairs division. But I personally do not feel too qualified to speak on the merits of the dollar amount that goes abroad.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pesata. We appreciate your coming up before the committee.