It has been estimated by a Census Bureau expert that the sum of $11,000 invested in a college education for a young man will increase his earning capacity by $177,000. That is a return or a benefit of more than 16 times the original investment. Multiply the World War II veterans' educational benefits payment of $15 billion by 16; the product is about $240 billion in final economic benefits to those veterans. The benefits of the housing-loan program are countless and beyond all calculation.

Many veterans of World War II have said to me that they appreciate greatly the efforts made by the veterans of World War I in support of the GI bill. They said that without that support they would probably never have received these benefits.

According to figures from the Veterans' Administration, the cost of the first year under the provisions of my bill, H.R. 3745, would be about $942,327,000, but without the means test, the cost would increase. But this money would be spent in this country and the Library of Congress estimates that the Government would recover in tax revenues approximately 25 to 30 cents on every pension dollar. It would increase or award initial benefits to 1,564,700 veterans of World War Isome 830,500 less veterans benefiting than if there were no means test.

It is interesting to note that in 1890, the veterans' benefits represented 1.2 percent of the national income and in 1958, it was 1.4 percent or only an increase of roughly 0.2 percent for the current benefits arising from the last six wars. In the year 1910, the Federal Government spent 15.2 percent of the total national budget on Civil War pensions. I think everyone will agree that the country did not go bankrupt then (and I might mention, incidentally, that the Treasury ran a deficit of $18 million that year). Enactment of H.R. 3745 would increase the national budget approximately 1.2 percent.

If paying Civil War pensions amounting to 15 percent of the total budget did not break up the Treasury and drive the country to disaster in 1910, is it reasonable to assume that World War I veterans' pensions of 1.2 percent of the national budget would bankrupt the country in 1961? I don't believe that it is. The national income in 1910 was $25.6 billion; the sum of $105 million paid that year amounted to approximately one-half of 1 percent of the national income. And to pay the World War I pension that I propose-$942,327,000-for the year 1961, would take from the estimated national income of roughly $417.5 billion a portion no greater than one-quarter of 1 percent.

For the veterans of World War I, the sands in the hourglass of time are running low. Today, their average life expectancy is only about 10 years. Of the remaining 4.6 million veterans who returned from World War I when the fighting was over, only some 2,574,000 are left. Every passing day some 302 more die. I believe that the figures that I have presented here should convince any reasonable person that this country can well afford to pay the men and women of World War I the pension that I propose with certainly no more-and probably even less strain than that imposed on the Nation as a result of the Civil War pensions in 1910. The Government affords a great many more things resulting from ordinary human justice today than we thought it could afford 51 years ago. To my mind we have already delayed far too long in correcting this situation. It is time that simple justice be granted to the veterans of World War I and their widows. It is time that action be taken. I hope that H.R. 3745 will receive the favorable consideration of this committee.

I should also like to urge the enactment of either H.R. 5152 or H.R. 7093 and H.R. 7094. H.R. 5152 would amend the present law to provide that social security benefits, other annuities, and up to $10,000 in payments under policies of life insurance shall not be considered as income for purposes of determining eligibility of individuals for pension. H.R. 7094 is a separate bill which deals with the life insurance benefits only, and H.R. 7093 deals with the payment of social security and other retirement annuities and similar plans, in determining eligibility.

Many veterans, because of lack of finances, permitted their Government life insurance to lapse, but later were able to purchase insurance. At that time, they were unable to purchase Government insurance so they bought private life insurance. It seems to me very unjust that the insurance from private companies should be considered income in determining eligibility while that form of Government insurance is not. They both were purchased for the same purpose and it has always seemed very unfair to me to deny a widow a Government pension for 1 year simply because her husband left her private insurance. Life insurance is more of a gift than income, and it has also seemed to me a gross injustice to treat it as income in veterans' pension cases when it is considered a gift or inheritance for taxation and other purposes.

There is a strong need to encourage people to take care of their dependents after they have passed away. Life insurance as well as public or private retirement annuities, endowments, and similar plans, should be encouraged. As long as they are considered income under a non-service-connected Government pension plan, thrift, economy, and making provision for one's dependent after death, is discouraged.

It also seems very unfair to me to penalize a man who has been thrifty and who made these provisions by denying his widow such a pension, while, on the other hand, it is given to one who has not made these necessary provisions for his dependents.

In view of the changes made in the veterans' pension law of the last session of Congress, I think that enactment of H.R. 4409 is unnecessary, and I am not asking for its enactment.

In conclusion, I would like to urge the favorable consideration of House Joint Resolution 229, which calls for the same treatment and benefits for the individuals and their survivors who served in the Moro Province after July 4, 1902, as those received by those who served in the Armed Forces during the Philippine Insurrection. What my bill would do is to extend the Spanish-American War benefits to those who participated in the conflict in the Philippine Islands from 1902 to 1914 in the Moro Province and the islands of Samar and Leyte. This would cover relatively few people since there are only a few hundred remaining veterans and a lesser number of widows. I think that it was a mistake that these veterans were not included in the Spanish-American War bill. That bill did not fix the beginning and the end of the conflict, and, by administrative action, the beginning was set in 1899 and the end was established as the year 1902. These men engaged in one of the most bloody conflicts in the history of the United States I think it has been a great mistake for 50 years that these people were not included under the terms of the Spanish-American pension plan. The House has passed this bill on several occasions. It has died in the Senate on at least two occasions. The 78th Congress passed such a measure, only to have it vetoed by the President. With fewer and fewer of these veterans left every year, I feel that we cannot afford to allow another year to roll by. I think that we should act now to see to it that they receive their just due.

Mr. DORN. Next we will hear a statement from Congressman Ray Madden. Come up, Ray. Glad to see you.

STATEMENT OF HON. RAY J. MADDEN, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. MADDEN. I just wanted to submit a statement, and I notice my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Denton, Congressman Denton, stated about the World War I veterans back in 1943. That was my first year in Congress.

And I remember one cold day in February 1943, we met, on a Saturday afternoon-the World War I veterans then in Congressin the House Chamber. And the purpose of that meeting was to start an organization of World War I veterans to see that the same thing did not happen to the World War II veterans that happened to the World War I veterans.

And out of that grew the GI bill of rights, out of that meeting. We had a number of meetings afterwards, and in 4 months the bill was passed, the GI bill of rights.

And my statement which I submit, here, would be a repetition of what my colleague from Indiana had narrated to the committee, but let me say this: Every fall I meet with the veterans of World War I in my district. Last year we had over 600 one Sunday afternoon, and out of that 600 about 90 percent were out of jobs and out of money. And if there ever was a time that the Congress should do something for the World War I veteran, it is in this session of Congress and my statement for the information of the committee as a

whole, when you meet, will set out all the data, along with what Congressman Denton stated.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Madden. And I want you to know that the veterans of World War II are grateful to you gentlemen for meeting on that cold Saturday in 1943.

And I would like to say to the ladies and gentlemen in the committee room that Mr. Madden is on the Rules Committee and one of our most able and distinguished members.

Mr. MADDEN. And I attended the convention down at Miami last fall of the World War I veterans, and they must have had 4,000 men and women there, all from World War I, launching this campaign for this legislation.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Madden.

Mr. FULTON. May I thank Mr. Madden for his good statement? He has Republican admirers, too.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Madden is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. RAY J. MADDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed thankful for this opportunity to appear before your committee in behalf of my bill, H.R. 3891, which if enacted into law will provide for payment of pensions to the veterans of World War I.

There are several similar bills before your committee in behalf of the World War I veteran which I also support and I do hope your committee will report out favorably one of these bills so that the World War I veteran can finally receive a too long delayed recognition for patriotic services rendered his country over 40 years ago.

Governments and nations since ancient times to the present day have recognized a moral obligation to provide care, comfort, and support for its military servicemen during their declining and unproductive years. The United States has extended pensions or ample benefits to the veterans of all its wars except the veterans of World War I. Our Nation was totally unprepared physically and militarily in the spring of 1917. Young boys were drafted from schools, farms, businesses, and the professions, and trained in poorly equipped camps with makeshift equipment and wooden drill guns. Many soldiers were fighting in European trenches within 6 weeks after leaving home in draft units. Many died, others were wounded and permanently incapacitated in those early days because of inadequate equipment and lack of training.

After November 11, 1918, millions returned as unprepared for civilian life as they were when called upon to fight the enemy in battle. Great numbers of veterans found their former jobs taken by others; some were financially unable to complete their education; some lost their former business which they were unable to reestablish; many veterans were physically or mentally disabled and unable to become activated in civilian life for years to come. The apple selling veterans and bonus marchers cannot be erased from the memory of any World War I veteran.

On January 3, 1943, when I was sworn in as a freshman Congressman, we were in the dark days of World War II. One hundred and seventy-two World War I veterans were Members of that 78th Congress.

A short time after this session convened, I joined with other World War I Congressmen in several caucuses and meetings. We collectively agreed on legislation which eventually formulated the GI bill of rights. This victory in Congress was not easily won. Special interest groups and lobbies, including many reactionary Congressmen and Senators fought this legislation with the familiar argument that the overall cost of reestablishing millions of veterans to civilian life would bankrupt the Federal Treasury.

Any Congressman or Federal official of that period will say that the sad economic experience of the returned World War I veteran, laid the foundation for legislation which provided ample and deserving benefits for the returning World War II veteran. Unfortunately, too many World War II veterans now in Congress have either forgotten or ignored the great service rendered to their group in the 78th Congress by World War I Members in both branches of Congress.

The World War I veteran originally numbered 1,038,000 but that number has now been reduced to 469,000. The survivors are dying at the rate of 120,000 per year. Of course, this percentage of deaths will increase each year as the body weakens with age. The cost to the Government, if proper legislation is enacted, will decrease from year to year. In 15 years, the number of World War I veterans living will be very few. The cost of this proposed pension will be reduced 6 percent the first year, 12 percent the second year, and will annually decrease as years pass. In 1975, only 6 percent of today's World War I veterans will be alive and the cost of pensions will have been reduced 94 percent. Not many years are left for Uncle Sam to recognize its obligation to veterans who sacrificed physically and economically by reason of wartime service. Many oldtime veterans today are jobless and destitute. They are still paying an unequal penalty for patriotic service and valor.

I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that this committee and also the Congress will act favorably on one of these bills in behalf of a pension for the World War I veteran. Mr. DORN. Our next witness is a neighbor of mine, the Honorable Frank W. Burke of Kentucky.

Frank, we are glad to have you; and you can go right ahead. If you want to talk off-the-cuff, that is quite all right. We will correct your remarks.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. BURKE, A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Mr. BURKE. I will make a very brief statement and then file a statement with the committee. I realize the pressures of time. Mr. DORN. This is your first appearance before our subcommittee, I believe.

Mr. BURKE. It is my first appearance, and I am honored to be here. Mr. DORN. Thank you.

Mr. BURKE. I appreciate very much the courtesy which you and your committee have extended to me in permitting me to be heard in support of H.R. 7048.

The purpose of H.R. 7048 is to restore to the law governing payment of non-service-connected disability pensions the exclusion from "annual income" of a State bonus or similar cash gratuity paid by a State based on service in the Armed Forces of the United States. I understand that under the law in effect from March of 1933 until August of 1959, when Public Law 86-211 was enacted, such bonuses and gratuities were expressly excluded from consideration as income of a veteran receiving a non-service-connected disability pension. Public Law 86-211 removed this exclusion at least insofar as it may have applied to benefits paid under the so-called new law.

H.R. 7048 would be applicable to all States but, in all frankness, I must tell you it was introduced primarily for the relief of the veterans in my State of Kentucky. You may recall that in November of 1959 the voters of Kentucky adopted an amendment to the constitution. of that Commonwealth authorizing payment of a veterans bonus to qualified veterans of the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict. Legislation implementing this constitutional amendment was adopted by our general assembly. After extended litigation and amendment of the legislation in an extraordinary session of the general assembly payment of the bonus was begun and is now well over half-completed.

Mr. Chairman, the people of Kentucky clearly expressed their wish that wartime veterans of the armed services who were legal residents of Kentucky at the time of their entry into service, regardless of their

present place of residence, should be paid this bonus. However, any such payment will scarcely have the effect of a "bonus" for those veterans receiving non-service-connected disability pensions under the new law if the bonus will be treated by the Veterans' Administration as income, thereby, in many instances, causing many such veterans to exceed the applicable income limitations and to lose all or a portion of their disability pensions for the year in which the bonus is paid.

In addition to the simple justice of what I have said heretofore, I would call to the committee's attention two other inequities with which many Kentucky veterans are faced if their bonus is treated as income. The first is a comparison of their position with that of other Kentucky veterans; the second a comparison with the favorable treatment already received by similar veterans in other States. Under the first comparison, it is only those veterans with non-service-connected disabilities who elected to receive pensions under the new law or who qualified for these pensions after July 1, 1960, who will be required to treat as income the bonus paid to them by the Commonwealth. I am advised that those veterans who elected to remain under the old law and the pension rates paid thereunder will not be subject to this income test.

Secondly, as the committee knows, a number of other States paid bonuses to wartime veterans prior to the effective date of Public Law 86-211. These bonus payments were not treated as income and did not cause the loss or reduction of pension benefits by veterans residing in those States.

I submit to you that no such distinction should be made between similarly qualified veterans because of the State in which they reside or the law under which they are paid non-service-connected disability benefits. I urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 7048. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Burke, we were glad to have you, and we appreciate the brevity and the force of your statement. It was a pleasure to have

you.

Mr. BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DORN. Congressman Daniels of New Jersey.

Congressman Daniels, we are glad to have you. It is of interest here, to see the various parts of the country represented. We are glad to hear from New Jersey.

STATEMENT OF HON. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning to testify in support of my bill, H.R. 4401, which is a bill to provide a monthly pension of $100 to the veterans of World War I.

Such wonderful arguments have been advanced here this morning by my colleagues, particularly Congressman Lane and Congressman Denton. They have advanced all of the arguments in favor of the bill. Their arguments were so well presented that in the interest of saving time, and following the admonition of Chair to be brief, I desire to file my statement.

I think this legislation is long overdue. There is considerable support for this legislation in the House, and I do trust the committee will give it favorable consideration.