This is a more restrictive definition that is contained in the existing law.

Subsection C contains limitations and provides that no pensions shall be payable to children or widows without children whose annual income is above $2,400, and no pension shall be payable to widows with children whose annual income is above $3,600.

Paragraph 3 of this subsection provides that the pensions and annuities shall be disregarded in determining annual income.

Subsection D requires that the veteran, on whose service the pension is based, must have either served for 90 days or more during World War I, or for a period of 90 consecutive days or more, with that period beginning or ending during World War I, as defined, or if his service was less, he was discharged for service-connected disability. If the veteran does not meet these service requirements, pension may still be payable if he were entitled to a disability pension at the time of his death. Subsection E provides marriage date limitations which are the same as are contained in the existing law, relative to widows' pensions.

This section 2 also adds a new section 539, which, in general, provides that subject to the $2,400 annual income limitations, pensions may be paid to the children of a World War I veteran at rates of 30 percent above the rates payable before the effective date of Public Law 86-211, if there is no widow eligible for such pension.

I submit that under these circumstances, we must not use the program as a political one.

I don't think any party lays claim to the fact that if such bills are passed they were done for any political purpose. Because now we realize under the studies that have been presented to us, through the committee year in and year out, in hearings on these bills, there is a public necessity, and that the fairest thing to do is to approve these laws which are so much needed by a group of men and women who have given everything for the life of the Republic and its freedom. I thank you for your time.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Congressman Libonati, for an excellent statement.

Congressman Randall, a member of the committee from Missouri, will be next.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. RANDALL, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I suppose there have been other statements relating to World War I pension legislation. We introduced a companion measure which I believe was similar to that being discussed by our colleague, Mr. Denton, the gentleman from Indiana, when we left. If we may be privileged to do so, we will make just a very few brief observations. Our time is near.

I want first to state that we received a large volume of mail not simply this year but in 1960 and in 1959, not only from our district, from all over the United States, relating to World War I pension legislation.

In the last Congress, the 86th, our office introduced similar legislation, and this year the bill bearing our name is H.R. 6009.

There are many plans. Ours, of course, would provide a monthly pension of $102.38 to veterans of World War I who have served at

least 90 days, and who are released or discharged therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.

Payment on the pension will be limited to veterans whose annual income, if single, with no dependents, does not exceed $2,400, and if married with dependents, does not exceed $3,600.

In the determination of these income figures, social security benefits and railroad retirement benefits, other annuities, or pensions, would be excluded.

The paramount purpose of the bill is to provide a more livable income to those of the Nation's 2,673,000 World War I veterans who, for the most part, are now retired on what might be described as a very meager sustenance, some form of small pension or some retirement benefit.

In 1960, the average age of these men was 66.2 years, an age when the vast majority of those who passed their effective working period are considered as retired.

But to retire on a sum in nearly all instances of less than the maximum of $2,400 is to in effect retire to four walls and the often undeserved lot of the elderly.

Now, I want to emphasize, as the gentleman from Illinois did, in his closing remarks, that this is not a question of political expediency, and I think it should also not be regarded as sentimentality, or at least not maudlin sentiments, because it is a substantive fact that these are the forgotten veterans, the veterans of World War I.

When the last bit of the great flag-waving and the ticker tape and all that went with it in 1919 had ended, and when World War I was over, these men, like those from World War II, tried to set about to reestablish themselves. But before they were all reestablished, they ran into one of the greatest depressions of this century, and they did all of that without the aid of any educational or housing or farm or small business assistance, such as has been the lot and the benefitand the much-deserved benefit of World War II veterans. His fair request, as it seems to me now-and I am referring to World War I veterans-is again each year, as we look over veterans' programs, shunted aside. It was in 1959 and 1960, and I hope that will

not be the case in 1961.

At the time that these remarks were prepared, I was unable to obtain a breakdown of the income of World War I veterans, however, we had some hearings here in 1959, and on page 378 of the committee's hearings at that time, it was revealed that for men over 65, 25 percent of them had incomes of from $500 to $999. 18 percent had incomes of from $1,000 to $1,499. And 11.4 percent had incomes of from $1,500 to $1,999. In all instances, under $2,000.

And for all categories, incomes below $2,299, the table indicates that some 72 percent of men over 65 have received less than that amount at the time that these figures were prepared.

The hearings were held in 1959, and I believe the figures obtained as to the year 1958 or 1957, or 1 prior year.

These figures, I believe, as contained in those hearings, reflect the plight of these men and the very positive need for remedial legislation. Mr. Chairman, the veterans of World War I have fulfilled their obligation, an obligation that attends every man who wants to be a freeman, that is, of serving his country in time of need. And it certainly was a time of need in World War I, as it has been in every

war of this country. Not simply an obligation, but a privilege to

serve.

It seems to me, as has been said many times, in this committee, that this Nation has a corresponding obligation, far beyond the waving of flags and streamers and joyful victory parades, to these men who did serve. And I submit that as to this group, World War I veterans, this obligation has not as yet been fulfilled.

It remains unfulfilled.

I hope that this committee, during this 1st session of the 87th Congress, does something to assist these forgotten men; does not forget again these forgotten men in their time of need; let's put it

that way.

I will have some further testimony in relation to 6009 at subsequent hearings, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for these few minutes.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Randall, for a very, very good

statement.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Randall follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WM. J. RANDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my office has received a large volume of mail for several years relating to World War I pension legislation; and in talking with many House Members who are not members of this committee, I find they too, are deeply interested in this legislation.

My bill, H.R. 6009, is one plan for our World War I veterans. There are others. Ours would provide a monthly pension of $102.38 to veterans of World War I who served at least 90 days, and who were released or discharged therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable. Payment of pension would be limited to veterans whose annual income, if single with no dependents, does not exceed $2,400; and if married with dependents, does not exceed $3,600. In the determination of these income figures, social security benefits, railroad retirement benefits, and annuities or other pensions would be excluded.

The paramount purpose of the bill is to provide a more livable income to those of the Nation's 2,673,000 World War I veterans who for the most part are now retired on very meager sustenance.

In 1960, the average age of these men was 66.2 years, an age when the vast majority of them have passed their effective working period and have retired. But, to retire on $2,400 a year-and in most cases much less-is to retire to four walls and to the loneliness and lethargy that are so often the undeserved lot of the elderly.

ance.

There is no maudlin sentimentality on my part in referring to the veteran of World War I as the "forgotten hero." His condition is a reflection of actual fact. When the last bit of the great mass of ticker-tape settled gently on Fifth Avenue in New York, in 1919, the World War I veteran moved from the service of his country into an effort to reestablish himself and raise a family-but in his case, without the aid of educational, or housing, or farm, or small business assistAnd, in the midst of his striving, he was whipped by the worst depression this country has ever seen. He struggled through, but when the Congress was generously distributing, and let me emphasize, well-merited benefits to veterans of World War II and the Korean conflict, the World War I veteran was being ignored, or could we put it, again forgotten. His fair requests are being shunted aside even today when he has reached the point where the Nation can demonstrate its appreciation to him through provision of a modest monthly pension to those of his number who face bleak prospects in their declining years.

At the time these remarks were prepared, I was unable to obtain a breakdown of the incomes of World War I veterans. However, the table on page 378 of the committee's hearings in 1959 in the "Operation of the Pension Program" reveals that for men over 65, 25 percent in 1957 had incomes from $500 to $999; 18.3 percent had incomes from $1,000 to $1,499; and 11.4 percent had incomes from $1,500 to $1,999. For all categories of income below $2,499, the table indicates that some 72.7 percent of men over 65 received less than that amount in 1957. Roughly, based on these figures, 70 percent could probably be taken as the per

centage of World War I veterans who would be covered by our bill. This would include about 1,850,000 to 1,870,000 veterans. The figure reflects both the plight of these men and the need for remedial legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the veterans of World War I fulfilled an obligation that attends every man who wants to continue to be a freeman-that of serving his country in time of need. Indeed, it should rather be called a privilege. But the Nation, too, has an obligation to these men beyond the waving of flags and streamers at joyful victory parades. I submit this obligation has as yet been unfulfilld I urge that this committee move now on this opportunity to assist these "forgotten men" in this-their greatest hour of need. To do this, would not be doing something through sentimentality or in a spirit of charity, but rather with a feeling of gratitude and appreciation and with the sense of paying a debt that is long overdue.

Mr. DORN. Are there any further witnesses, Mr. Patterson?
COUNSEL. No.

Mr. DORN. A number of statements from Members have been received, which, without objection, will be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The statements referred to follow:)

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR L. ANFUSO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views to this distinguished committee regarding my bill, H.R. 605, which seeks to amend section 106 of title 38 of the United States Code to provide benefits under the laws administered by the Veterans Administration for those who served in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps.

The Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) was established by an act of Congress on May 14, 1942, "for service with the Army of the United States." Section 12 of that act states that "the Corps shall not be a part of the Army, but it shall be the only women's organization authorized to serve with the Army, exclusive of the Army Nurse Corps." Thus, the women in the WAAC served with the Armv, but were not in it. Women serving in the WAVES, the Marines, and the SPARS of the Coast Guard, however, were recognized as serving on a military basis rather than as an auxiliary group.

The status accorded the members of the WAAC, as compared with that of women serving in other branches of the Armed Forces, was erroneous and discriminatory. In a time of war, their services and sacrifices were no less patriotic than those of the other women's units, and they deserve the same recognition. Although the statute creating the WAAC specifically stated that service in the Corps was to be "nonmilitary," a review of the services performed by its members was essentially military in nature. They enlisted for the duration of the war, they were not free to terminate their employment at will, they were exposed to military discipline and hardships similar to those of male military personnel, they were assigned to posts and stations the same as male personnel, they performed kitchen police and fatigue duties, and participated in military formations and ceremonies. It should also be noted that their pay was based on that paid to the men in the service.

Evidently, the War Department realized that this treatment and status of the WAAC was not justifiable. The Department itself urged that the auxiliary status be discontinued and the WAAC should be placed in the Army. This was done in September 1943, but through some oversight no provision was made to extend recognition or give credit to these women for their military service performed between May 1942 and September 1943. This is the mistake that my bill seeks to correct.

In the past, Congress has recognized the essentially military nature of service in the WAAC in various laws enacted for veterans. Thus, members of the WAAC were authorized mustering-out pay in accordance with Public Law 225, 78th Congress. They were granted hospitalization, domiciliary care, and burial benefits. They were also given reemployment rights under Public Law 709, 79th Congress, and similar other action was taken.

My bill, H.R. 605, would provide that service as a member of the WAAC during the period of May 1942 to September 1943, when it was officially an auxiliary corps, should be recognized as having constituted active duty and that

it be so recognized for the purposes of all laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. The bill would amend the existing section by eliminating present limitations of at least 90 days service and honorable discharge for disability incurred in the service. It would extend the same benefits to former WAAC members as all those who served in the Armed Forces.

As the members of the committee well know, the Veterans' Administration has recommended favorable consideration of my bill. This was done in its report to the committee of February 16, 1960 on my bill H.R. 9302 of the 86th Congress, which is the same as H.R. 605 of the present Congress. The VA has also recommended favorable action on my bill H.R. 1888 of a previous Congress which contained my original proposal for recognition of service in the WAAC.

In its report of April 1, 1959, on H.R. 1888, the VA stated that the practical effect of the bill, if enacted into law, would not be extensive. The report says: "The number of additional annual awards of compensation or pension benefits would therefore in all probability be relatively small. Relating the overall World War II experience to the small number affected indicates that only a negligible number would become entitled to other benefits, notably loan guarantee assistance, if the bill were enacted."

The VA further stated that no worthwhile estimate of the cost of the proposal contained in the bill can be made, but "the cost would be relatively small."

In the light of these facts, I think it is high time for Congress to extend this belated recognition to former members of the WAAC. Nearly 18 years have passed since the corps has gone out of existence. Women who have joined the military service since the end of World War II and have served in peacetime were granted all benefits, while those who have served in time of wartime, particularly in the crucial years 1942 and 1943 when the peril to our national survival was greatest, have not been granted recognition and are not entitled to full veterans' benefits. This is not only discriminatory; it is also ungrateful on the part of a great nation like the United States.

The number of these women is very small today. Some are no longer with us. Some are approaching retirement age, and these benefits as administered by the Veterans' Administration would be of great value in their advanced years.

I strongly urge the committee to approve this bill unanimously and correct a wrong which has been lingering for all these years. Our conscience should be a little clearer after this bill is enacted.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. FLOYD BREEDING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of this distinguished committee of legislation to establish a pension program for World War I veterans. Bills of this nature have been introduced for a number of years, but I believe this is the first time that the Veterans' Affairs Committee has scheduled hearings so they could be thoroughly discussed and debated.

As you know, I introduced one of the measures now being considered, H.R. 4727. Many of my friends who are World War I veterans have spoken to me about the need for pensions of World War I veterans and requested that I introduce appropriate legislation. I was happy to comply with their request.

I must be frank and state, Mr. Chairman, that I am not an expert on pension matters. I do know that we as a nation have a definite obligation to the men who served in all of the wars which this Nation has fought. I am confident that this committee, under the able leadership of your distinguished chairman, is just as concerned over the welfare of our veterans as anyone else in the country. You deal with these matters every day; you know and understand the problems the Nation faces in programs of this type.

I know you will give the pending legislative proposals serious and deliberate consideration.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me again express to you my sincere appreciation for your action in arranging these hearings so this important legislative proposal can receive the consideration it deserves.