wrote a letter to Chairman Teague of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee expressing disappointment because the minimum limitations in the bill were considerably lower than those recommended by the VFW and that the related monthly pension payments were well below the $100 per month which the VFW recommended. However, because the bill would provide pension increases for the great majority of pensioners presently on the rolls and would provide pension equality for the widows and orphans of deceased World War II and Korean veterans, Commander Mahan pledged in his letter to Chairman Teague that he would not demand that H.R. 7650 be killed nor would he state that he would rather have no new pension legislation than have H.R. 7650. In this letter Commander Mahan did point out that he reserved the right for himself, his staff, and his organization to seek liberalizing amendments. It is for that purpose that I appear here today, in the absence of Commander Mahan, to state VFW position and present the amendments which we hope the Senate will accept in its consideration of H.R. 7650.

First, I am offering for the record, and I am sure the reporter has it, a mimeographed sheet entitled, "Suggested Changes in H.R. 7650 as Proposed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars." This sheet, in section I, outlines four separate tables identified as (a), (b), (c), and (d) which would establish income limitations in three categories and three related monthly pension payments for veterans with no dependents, for veterans with dependents, for widows with no children and widows with children. Under the tables identified as (a) and (b), information is provided to indicate extra allowances in the monthly pension rates where the veteran is so disabled as to require aid and attendance, and for extra allowances for each additional child up to a total of $45.

Section II of this proposed amendments sheet would establish revised rates for orphans of deceased war veterans. The difference between these proposed rates and H.R. 7650 are slight except the VFW proposes higher income limitations.

Section III deals with net-worth limitation or "corpus of the estate" test. In the criticisms of H.R. 7650 which have reached our office here in Washington, we find that the section setting up a "corpus of the estate" test to be one of the most objectionable. This section would invest the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs with unrestricted authority to assess the net worth of a veteran or a widow or orphan children and to determine first, if the estate is available for the upkeep of the applicant or applicants involved, and if in the Administrator's judgment payment of pension would not be needed unless or until the estate has been dissipated.

Again, as previously stated, this net-worth-limitation determination and authority collides squarely with the VFW concept that veterans' pensions should not be predicated on a strict needs basis and that a veteran or his widow or orphans should not be penalized because they had accumulated some property or an estate, often through sacrifice and frugality, which does not produce satisfactory income. If payment of pensions to war veterans or the widows and orphans of deceased war veterans are to be conditioned upon poverty or near poverty, it might be well to cease dignifying such payments as veterans'

pensions and transfer veteran applicants to the public assistance rolls. In some States public assistance payments to indigent families are substantially more than the present maximum pension payments. Welfare reports in the District of Columbia daily press reveal public assistance and mothers aid payments doubling existing veterans' pension payments.

The VFW wholeheartedly supports the section in H.R. 7650 which would grant pension payments to the widows and orphans of deceased World War II and Korean veterans on the same basis as pensions are now payable to widows and orphans of World War I veterans. Such a provision has been a longstanding major objective of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Commander in Chief Mahan indicated to me before he left on his foreign trip that the principal reason he had pledged not to fight H.R. 7650 is because of this provision and if, for any reason, the Senate Finance Committee or the Senate as a body should delete this item, he might switch his position and demand that H.R. 7650 be killed.

The VFW also approves and applauds the increases in the income limitations to $1,800 for veterans without dependents and $3,000 for veterans with dependents. This has been another longstanding objective of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and we strongly urge this provision be maintained by the Senate in the bill. There are other advantages in H.R. 7650, such as excluding from widows' income, payment of just debts, expense of last illness and burial cost of the deceased veteran. With the few VFW-proposed amendments involving a raise in the minimum income limitations and a small increase in the monthly rates of pension payments, together with repeal of the net-worth limitation it is the belief of the Veterans of Foreign War that H.R. 7650 would be acceptable in general to most veterans. It is further believed that the additional cost of the amendments proposed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars will not exceed by more than $100 million the present estimated cost of H.R. 7650 as approved by the House of Representatives.

Senator KERR. That is $100 million a year?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right.

In mentioning additional costs by reason of the proposed amendments, I should like to point out to the Senate Finance Committee that in relation to the U.S. national income and total numbers of veterans, the cost of the veteran benefit program proportionately is substantially less today than it has been in the past. For example, in the early 1930's veterans' benefits absorbed about 30 percent of Federal tax receipts, while today veterans' benefits require less than 8 percent of Federal tax receipts. I strongly suggest that when you measure the number of veterans today in relation to the national income and the cost of the veteran benefit program, the American people are getting a bargain and they could well afford to add a few additional hundreds of millions of dollars to the hospital, compensation, and pension programs. May I urge this distinguished committee to give the most careful consideration to the amendments proposed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and to the worthy features already incorporated in H.R.7650.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ketchum.

(The suggested changes referred to follow :)

Suggested changes in H.R. 7650 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

Above rates in tables (a) and (b) to be increased $75 per month where the veteran requires aid and attendance and $15 per month in table (b) for each additional child up to a total of $45.

1. (a) No widow and two children: $50 per month whose annual income (excluding earned income) does not exceed $3,000 a year.

(b) No widow and three children: $65 per month whose combined annual income (excluding earned income) does not exceed $3,000, additional $15 for each child.

NET WORTH LIMITATION

1. Eliminate the section providing discretionary authority for a finding of the net worth of the veteran or the widow or child which could lead to a determination the applicant is not eligible for a pension.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ketchum, I would like to comment in regard to your percentages, Federal revenue today is 20 times as much as it was in 1930; 30 percent was absorbed by Federal tax receipts in 1930.

When I came to the Senate in 1933 $4 billion was collected in taxes. Now we collect $80 billion in taxes.

I simply wanted to make the situation clear.

Mr. KETCHUM. What I am trying to indicate, Senator, is that the American people, through the national income, based on the number of veterans involved in the question of the program, could afford to pay more in relation to what they have paid in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. This was not national income, was it? It was tax receipts.

Mr. KETCHUM. Tax receipts or national income.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no objection, but I want to make it clear. Mr. KETCHUM. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. We collected $4 billion in the thirties, and now we collect $80 billion.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Ketchum.

The next witness is Mrs. Edythe M. Fletcher, Widows of World War I, Inc.

Mrs. Fletcher, will you proceed, please?

STATEMENT OF EDYTHE M. FLETCHER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, WIDOWS OF WORLD WAR I, INC.

Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Finance Committee, I am Edythe M. Fletcher, representing the Widows of World War I, as their national president. We have been organized since February 7, 1946, as an independent organization. We are not an auxiliary to any veterans group.

As the representative of the only organization composed entirely of women who are the widows of veterans of World War I, it is an honor to be allowed to appear before this distinguished group on behalf of these widows.

Gentlemen, it would be utterly impossible for me to describe some of the deplorable conditions under which many of our widows are existing. Through our work throughout the country, we find many hardships and many heartaches. I would like to point out to you some of the causes of these conditions.

Many of the widows are not employable, some because of physical disabilities and many through the lack of ability to work on jobs that require special training. They are unable to compete with the business world as it is today.

In a recent survey made of the members of this organization, it was amazing to find that so many were actually trying to live, in view of the ever increasing high cost of living on their small pension of $50.40 with no other income whatsoever.

Many are not eligible for social security, either in their own right or that of their deceased husbands. Many were widows before social security was enacted into law. Let us not lose sight of the fact that it was necessary for them to use what savings they may have had to care for the husband until he passed away, rather than suffer the humiliation of taking the "pauper's oath." Many widows who cared for the husband through his illness have been compelled to give up the home of many years and live with relatives or in an undesirable neighborhood.

May I call to your attention that many husbands actually died from service-connected disabilities which we were unable to prove, due to the fact, as you well know, they were so anxious to return to their homes and families, and since a physical checkup was not required, no record was made of any injury or illness they may have incurred in line of duty, not realizing that the hurried discharge would eventually cause much hardship on their families in years to come.

The widow who is employable and is fortunate enough to have a gainful occupation cannot have an income of more than $1,400 a year. This provides a very meager living, with only the bare necessities of life. At this point I can cite an actual case. The pension

was cut off by the Veterans' Administration for just $2 over the $1,400 limitation and the widow was required to return the pension which she had received during the year. Many widows were left with families to raise. Our sons and daughters were the veterans of World War II and Korea. We worked hard to give them an education and provide for them. In December 1944 the first bill was passed giving the widow $38 per month. Prior to the passing of this bill, there was no pension for the widow or the children, of a World War I veteran. Since that time three other bills have passed increasing the pensions, namely, 1946 to $42, 1952 to $48, and 1954 to $50.40, a total increase of $12.40 over a period of 10 years. Other bills have passed granting widows of another war an increase of $25 since 1946, a period covering 12 years and they have never been restricted to an income limitation.

Our widows help themselves whenever possible. May are outstanding businesswomen as well as widows of prominent business and professional men who served their country and paid the supreme sacrifice. These women do not and probably will never receive a pension, but they, too, are working hard for those less fortunate.

Mr. Chairman, we ask you and the members of your committee to oppose H.R. 7650 as this bill would create additional hardships on those who will become eligible for pension after June 30, 1960, as well as those now on the pension roll.

We, the widows of World War I, feel that H.R. 7650 is not the answer to the needs of the widows who must depend on their pensions for survival. I beg of you, gentlemen, that if we are to be classed with the widows of other wars in this bill, H.R. 7650, that you amend said bill to cover sufficient pension increase and a higher income limitation in order to meet the increasing cost of living.

We would like to propose that the table set up for H.R. 7650 for World War I widows read as follows:

Many of our widows need hospitalization, but due to their small income, they are unable to afford the necessary medical assistance. Again, I urge that the members of this committee give special consideration to H.R. 7650.

It has been a privilege to appear before this distinguished body, and I especially want to thank Senator Byrd for granting my request to speak on behalf of the widows of World War I.

Thank you for your kind attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Fletcher.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. F. B. Taylor, Veterans of World War I, Department of Virginia.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Taylor.