BURIAL FLAGS FOR INSERVICE DEATHS SEC. 5. Section 901 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding a new subsection “(d)" at the end thereof to read as follows: "(d) In the case of any person who died while in the active military, naval, or air service after May 27, 1941, and prior to the end of the Korean conflict, or who died, or dies, during the Vietnam conflict, the Administrator shall furnish a flag to the next of kin, or to such other person as the Administrator deems most appropriate, if such next of kin or other person is not otherwise entitled to receive a flag under this section, or under section 1482 (a) of title 10, United States Code." AUTOMOBILES FOR DISABLED VETERANS SEC. 6. (a) Section 1901 (a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out "World War II or the Korean conflict" and inserting in lieu thereof "World War II, the Korean conflict, or the Vietnam conflict." (b) Section 1905 of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "1905. Applications "The benefits of this chapter shall be made available to any veteran who meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter and who makes application for such benefits in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Administrator." EFFECTIVE DATES SEC 7. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the amendments made by sections 2(a) and 3 of this Act shall become effective on July 1, 1967. The amendments made by sections 2(b), 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this Act shall become effective upon enactment. (b) (1) The amendments made by this Act relating to the payment of burial benefits in the case of veterans of the Vietnam conflict shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act. (2) In any case where the burial allowance authorized by section 902 of title 38, United States Code, is payable solely by virtue of the enactment of this Act, the two-year period for filing applications, referred to in section 904 of such title 38, shall not end, with respect to an individual whose death occurred prior to the enactment of this Act, before the expiration of the two-year period which begins on the date of enactment of this Act, or, in any case involving the correction of a discharge after the date of enactment of this Act, before the expiration of two years from the date of such correction, Mr. DORN. The veterans' organizations have been advised of these hearings and invited to appear, and later we will have the opportunity to hear from the Veterans' Administration. Our first witness this morning is a very dear friend, the secretary of the Democratic steering committee, with whom I have been very pleasantly associated over the years. We are delighted and pleased to have Mr. Matsunaga, our dis tinguished and able colleague. Very pleased to have you. STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Certainly it is a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee, which has done so much in providing for the welfare of the veterans and their dependents. Mr. Chiarman, with your kind permission, I would like to submit only a statement in support of H.R. 2068, a bill which was introduced by the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee. Mr. DORN. Naturally, there would be no objection. Mr. MATSUNAGA. And a companion measure, H.R. 4887, which I introduced. Mr. DORN. Good. Mr. MATSUNAGA. And if I may be permitted to do so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak praticularly, this morning, in support of H.R. 3784, which I introduced on January 25, 1967. You have the statement before you, and I would like, with your kind permission, to expedite the matter and read it, if I may. The bill would increase the amount of pension paid to widows of Spanish-American War veterans. It would not affect the pension paid to the veterans themselves, their children, or remaining survivors, other than widows. Only section 536 of the veterans' benefits legislation would be altered. I propose by H.R. 3784 to increase the monthly pension paid a widow who was married to the Spanish-American War veteran at the time of the war, from $75 to $95. If marriage was contracted after the war, the pension would be increased from $65 to $85. For eligibility, as the law provides now, the widow must have been married to the veteran for at least 5 years, or a child must have been born of the marriage. Also, the veteran must have served during the war for at least 90 days. For clarification, I should add that pensions now paid to SpanishAmerican War Veterans' widows are distinguished from pensions paid widows of veterans of all the more recent wars by the fact that no income limitation is imposed. That is, the widows of veterans of the Spanish-American War, like those of veterans of the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Indian wars, received the pensions regardless of whatever may be the amount of their income from other sources. In his message to us of January 31, President Johnson asked for an increase in the pensions of 1.4 million veterans, widows, and dependents. The purpose is for meeting the increasing cost of living. The President also stated that a study of the entire veterans' pension system will be conducted, and that further recommendations will be based thereon. Already proposals have been introduced which would increase various categories or veterans' pensions. Amid this general prospect of pension increases, I think that we should take the utmost care to see that Spanish-American War veterans' widows are not forgotten, and that their pensions are included among those that are increased to meet the demands of the rising cost of living. Because of their age, surely they are the most dependent on pension income, have fewer additional sources of income than younger classes of pensioners, and therefore stand to suffer most than rising living costs. We must remember, too, that this measure would affect a class of pensioners who have reached their twilight years. The statistics sadden us, but they cannot be denied. In 1951, there were over 79,000 such widows receiving pensions. In 1961, there were 73,469. The number during those 10 years had thus decreased by almost 7,000. Today there are only 55,443 of these pen 75-968-67- -12 sioners left, showing a highly accelerated rate of decrease of 18,000 in the last 5 years. Clearly, therefore, the increase of payments to this particular class of pensioners will entail only a nominal increase in our annual expenditures. The Bureau of the Budget has estimated an additional $12.5 million in the first year, and a gradual decline to $9.4 million in the fifth year after enactment of this bill. The recent extension of GI educational benefits was a great thing, and I supported its passage. I believe that the benefit to our Nation derived from the resulting increased skill of its manpower resources will be equally as great as that derived from the original GI bill. However, regardless of the astounding success of various legislation concerning veterans' benefits, it cannot be denied that the most fundamental of all veterans' legislation is just that type which H.R. 3784 sets forth. The original and historic concern of veterans' legislation has been to keep veterans and their kin from want and degradation. As stated in the report to the President by the Commission on Veterans' Pensions of 1956: Pensions for Revolutionary War veterans were to keep them from being reduced to indigence and even to real distress in their old age. Throughout the years this has been the lasting motivation. We have been unwilling, as a Nation, ever to see the citizen-soldier [or his widow] who had rendered honorable service in wartime reduced to the dishonorable status of a pauper. Let us, then, in performance of our duty to review veterans' legislation, focus our first attention, now as always, on those who depend most on their pension for a living. Thank you very much. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Matsunaga. I might say to the subcommittee that the Chairman personally appreciates the fine attendance this morning, and this is in spite of a very strenuous schedule. There were nine major meetings, the day before yesterday, by one of the committees. I don't see how the members hold up. Mr. MATSUNAGA. I would like to think, Mr. Chairman, that I am the drawing card, but I believe I will have to credit it to the Chairman. Mr. DORN. Thank you. Mr. KORNEGAY? Mr. KORNEGAY. Let me say that I think both of you gentlemen are, Mr. Chairman. Certainly you know you get the full cooperation of this subcommittee. I have another meeting going on right now, but from my viewpoint, it is not as important as the one we have under consideration here this morning, which has to do with veterans and their widows and dependents. I want to congratulate our colleague for a very fine statement, one of the best I have heard presented here, for your emphasis on the need of the widows. Among the cases that come to us as individual Congressmen, among those that pull at your heart strings the most are those who reach their twilight years, and are unable to meet their obligations with the dignity and peace that they should have. I want to congratulate our colleague on a very fine statement. Mr. ROBERTS. I want to commend our colleague. It was my good fortune to be on the so-called junket out to the Far East, last year, and as a result of that trip, the gentlemen and Congresswoman from Hawaii have already passed one bill through the House, and we were happy to have it reported from this committee. I expect we will have more before too long. Mr. DORN. Mr. Fino? Mr. FINO. I, too, would like to join my colleagues in complimenting my friend from Hawaii on making this wonderful presentation here this morning. He could not have expressed my feelings and sentiments better than he did here this morning. I want to congratulate the gentleman. Mr. DORN. Mr. Duncan? Mr. DUNCAN. I would also join with my colleagues in complimenting you. I well remember the fine speech you made 2 weeks ago on the floor of the House in honor of the Spanish-American War veterans. It was one of the best I have ever heard. I have had great concern about these widows, myself. I know many of them are trying to live on $65 or $75 a month. We held out little olive branch to them last year, and we did not get it approved until the last 2 or 3 days of the Congress, but that is under the bridge, now. I think it is one of the finest bills that we could introduce, and pass, in the House. They, and also the older veterans, may not have much political weight, but it is from the humanitarian standpoint that these SpanishAmerican War veterans are trying to live on $65 or a little more each month, and it is very difficult. So I want to commend you, and I assure you that I will wholeheartedly support this bill. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I might point out that there are only seven Spanish-American War veterans in Hawaii, and 44 widows and surviving dependents, but then I felt that nationwide there are still 55,443, and these are the ones who are really in need, and ought to be provided for. Mr. DORN. Mr. Hanley, I want to say this to you. This is the reason I saved you, as a sort of climax, here: You are the only one who seems to be able to get bills through the House and signed by the President. Mr. HANLEY. Only because I have such a wonderful Chairman. I, too, want to commend my very close friend, the gentleman from Hawaii, for his very fine statement, and for his interest in this most noble cause, and the plight of the widows and dependents of the veteran. This is an example of the very effective role Spark plays in the Congress. As he has pointed out, this particular piece of legislation does not necessarily affect a great number of his constituents. I think he has mentioned only about seven veterans. But he has the national interest at heart, again, which simply typifies the type of individual he is. So I commend you, Spark, and I concur with your philosophy, and you can be assured of my support. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Hanley. Mr. DORN. I will add my thanks, too, Mr. Matsunaga, and will say that I think it is particularly significant that you would come before us representing the great State of Hawaii to typify and add some significance to that era of American history, when this country was projected into the international field, after the Spanish-American War. If you have any further observations, we would be delighted. Mr. MATSUNAGA. I simply would like to add that I wish this entire program could appear on TV, for home consumption. Thank you. Mr. DORN. We will go along with you on that. If there is no objection, your statement on your bill, H.R. 4887, will be printed as though read. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2068, a bill' introduced by the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, and a companion bill H.R. 4887, which I introduced. It is always a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee which does such a fine job in providing for the welfare of our veterans and their families. As you all are aware, the provision of pensions for veterans in recognition of the service which they have rendered their country, and the hardships they have suffered thereby, is a firmly rooted tradition in American history. The first national pension law was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776, nearly 200 years ago. In the ensuing two centuries, benefit programs have been broadened and expanded to keep pace with the ever-growing needs of veterans in readjusting to a way of life which has passed them by in the interim. Today veterans' benefits cover a wide range of services; health and medical benefits, pensions and compensation, housing and educational loans, insurance, and vocational rehabilitation for those in need of it are but several facets of the complex system which a grateful Nation has created to benefit those who served her. But complexity does not necessarily denote strength. Despite the broad range of benefits which are available to the veteran today, the program has several grave weaknesses. It is weak because it does not fully meet the needs of those it purports to serve. Can we truly claim we are serving the veteran to whom we offer a pension including the minimum social security benefit of $35 monthly, of less than $1,500 per year? Even government's most miserly statisticians regard that as poverty level income. Can we truly claim we are serving the veteran who is eligible for only peacetime compensation rates, although he must endure the horrors and atrocities of war? Is it just to deny a defender of our freedoms the pension which would ease the financial burdens thrust upon him by his sacrifices? The answers are obviously |