STATEMENT OF HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON H.R. 2332

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the committee is turning its attention once again to the problem of our World War I veterans. As a former Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration, I am sensitive to the particular problems of this group of 2.4 million veterans. There is no doubt that the benefits available to them are significantly different from those available to veterans of World War II.

There is no doubt that there are serious weaknesses in our present structure of benefits. I think that the whole House should have an opportunity to consider the defects and the proposed improvements in our laws. The fact that the chairman and the members of this committee have opened hearings on H.R. 2332 indicates the deep concern for the welfare of World War I veterans, who served their country valiantly in war and now wish to maintain a decent and dignified standard of living in time of peace. Our older veterans should not be forgotten in our concern with pressing current national security needs. The action of this committee in reopening the discussion of legislation for World War I veterans insures that they will be remembered and honored for their service to their country.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Morse.

Mr. Cleveland of New Hampshire?

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear at the hearing which you are holding on legislation concerning veterans' pension, generally, and including my bill, H.R. 9891.

The purpose of my bill is to liberalize existing pensions for veterans of World War I and later wars, and their widows. The bill grants higher pensions to a veteran (and his widow) and allows him both to earn more money within the two lowest levels of income now qualifying for a pension and also to deduct certain medical expenses in counting his income for the pension. Veterans would be considered totally disabled and eligible for pensions at age 65. Unlike the present law, a wife will not have to count her earned income against her husband's income limit nor do profits made from the sale of real estate have to be included as income. A veteran's burial expenses for his wife or child would be excluded from earned income as would payments received for obligatory civic duties.

Increased aid, under my bill, is designed to help those in greatest need and not to provide and across-the-board pension that would try to help those not in need. The failure of the World War I bill to limit itself to those in greatest need makes it excessively expensive. My bill is designed to help those within the three lowest income levels.

Under present law a veteran permanently and totally disabledlargely those over 65-who receives $600 or less income is entitled to a monthly pension of $85. My bill would allow him to earn twice as much-$1,200 and receive a pension of $100. Currently a veteran

who earns from $600 to $1,200 receives $70. Under my bill the veteran who earns $1,200 to $1,500 receives $80. Veterans now earning between $1,200 and $1,800 and receiving a pension of $40 would have their pensions boosted to $50 for income between $1,500 and $1,800. The Aid and Attendance allowance would go up from the present $70 to $85 per month, and for total disability requiring a veteran to be housebound, an additional $35 would be given.

Increased income levels and pensions are also given to veterans with dependents and to widows. A widow under my bill could earn up to $1,200 and receive a monthly pension of $70. Existing law limits a pension of $60 to those earning less than $600. For a widow earning $1,200 to $1,500 my bill would grant her a pension of $50, and those earning from $1,500 to $1,800 would receive a pension of $30. Currently a widow receives a pension of $45 if her income is $600 to $1,200 and $25 if her income falls between $1,200 and $1,800.

Veterans' pensions are of deep concern to me. I have received much mail and many personal calls indicating the pressing need for more pension assistance. It is regrettable that the mounting cost of living makes this necessary, but we are faced with that fact and relief is called for. My bill is being offered with the hope that a reasonable and realistic approach to this problem can be forthcoming. The legislation which I have proposed is moderate and is intended to help those in greatest need. Although it doesn't go as far as many would like, it offers a practical solution to the most pressing and immediate problems with some hope of passage.

As a veteran of World War II and the Korean conflict, and as a Congressman who is deeply concerned with the need for some relief, I thank you very much for this opportunity to be heard.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Cleveland.

Mr. Jensen of Iowa.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN F. JENSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman and members, I appreciate this opportunity to state my position on my bill, H.R. 4536, and other similar bills that provide a hundred dollars per month for our aging World War I veterans. I sincerely hope and pray that this committee will act favorably, and report our bill out of committee very soon, so it can get to the floor of the House and Senate during this session.

Mr. Chairman, if our bill can be considered by the House and Senate, I am confident it will pass both bodies by a large majority, for I know most every Member wants Uncle Sam to be fair and just to our World War I vets, their wives and widows, by extending to them equal treatment with Civil War and Spanish War vets, their wives and widows.

The average age of the World War I veteran is now over 70, and they are going down the valley fast, one by one. In 10 more years, only a relatively few of them will be with us. Let us make the maining years of their lives just a little more happy by the passage of our bill.

re

Yes, I am a conservative, Mr. Chairman, but I will never have it on my conscience, nor will I be guilty of economizing on those who

served and fought under Old Glory, that you and I might be privileged to enjoy the blessings of free men.

In conclusion, I must say that I hope my bill, which provides for no means test, will be approved by this committee. No means test was imposed on our Civil War and Spanish War veterans, and I am sure, my colleagues, that few well-to-do World War I vets will make application for this pension. To ask a veteran of any of our wars to in effect, sign a pauper's oath, to me does not square with our American tradition toward our Nation's defenders. Also from a dollar standpoint, it would require only a few people to mail out the checks if no means test is provided, while if a means test is provided, it will require thousands of additional Federal employees to check carefully each and every applicant's financial worth, and in addition will cause considerable embarrassment to many veterans, their wives and families.

I trust you will very soon report a bill out, and preferably without

a means test.

Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Jensen.

Mr. Olson of Minnesota?

STATEMENT OF HON. ALEC G. OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. OLSON. At the close of World War II the Congress passed what we have come to know as the GI bill of rights. This legislation provided the most all-encompassing program for returning veterans of armed conflict that this Nation or this world has ever known. It was designed by a grateful Nation to assist our veterans in the transition from military to civilian life. This broad program made possible college educations and vocational and on-the-job training to prepare these men and women for a future. To assist in the immediate transition was terminal leave and 52 weeks of unemployment compensation. Beyond this, it called for the insured veterans loan program for homes, farms, and businesses. There were also social security credits and assurance that the job that was left behind would be there for the returning veteran. The program, of course, included disability pensions and hospitalization.

No one begrudges those veterans this legislation. On the contrary, we point to it with pride as one of the most far-reaching and beneficial programs ever inaugurated in this country.

It gave us an educational, social, and economic stimulus such as we had not heretofore known. Without question, the GI bill was to a large degree responsible for the economic growth and prosperity we have in segments of our society today.

This program was not just a happy accident of our time. It came into being because there were in the Congress of the United States at the time of its passage men who were veterans of World War I—men who knew and understood from their own experience what the lack of a program could mean. They determined to tailor a program to meet the needs of the returning veteran and they were eminently successful.

1

The returning veterans of World War I were not met with any such program. Rather, they were forced, through circumstances beyond their control, to weather a depression which further reduced the opportunity of many of them to provide for their advanced years.

These World War I veterans are not here asking consideration because of their service to this country alone, but because at an average age of 70 they have no alternative.

I fully support an improvement in their pension program and am of the opinion that it is within our ability to assist these men and women in their remaining years.

Mr. Chairman, I respectively suggest that if we are to ever assist the veterans of World War I, we must do so now. I urge favorable consideration by the committee of legislation that will demonstrate our high regard for these valiant men who defended our cause in the First World War.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Olson. Mr. Denton of Indiana.

We are happy to have you before the committee this morning, and Mr. Denton, you may proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. WINFIELD K. DENTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. DENTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for two things. First, for holding a hearing on this bill, H.R. 2332, that I introduced; and second, for letting me appear before this committee.

This bill that I introduced provides a pension in round numbers of $100 a month to veterans who served at least 90 days in World War I. There is a means test of $2,400 for a single man and $3,600 for a married man. It also provides an additional $70 when a veteran is in need of constant care and attention as we have under the present law.

This law also provides for $75 a month for the widows of the veterans of World War I.

I have a statement here and I am going to try and summarize it. I hope I can do better than I would in reading the statement. I have heard people before committees I have served on take a good deal more time when they summarize than if they read.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Take all the time you want, Mr. Denton. I think everybody on the committee and everybody in the Congress knows your interest in the matter.

Mr. DENTON. There are two things I have in mind. The first is to bring the amount of money paid to the veterans of World War I up to the increase in the cost of living, and the second thing is to see that 'the veterans of World War I are treated the same as the veterans of any other war.

Proceeding to the first point, I might review the pension laws just a little bit.

Back in 1933, section 3 of the Economy Act provided for pensions to veterans of World War I. Of course, there was only one war at that time. For the first time in history we had a means test income limitation; they put it at $1,000 and $2,500. That was the exemptions

for income tax purposes at that time. That has subsequently been changed. Of course, it has been raised to $1,400 and $2,700.

Then, in the 86th Congress we passed 86-211, that was an innovation with something entirely new, which was graduated steps of poverty. On the graduated scale the poorer you were the more you got, the income limitations are $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000 and $600, $1,200 and $1,800 for the single man.

I want to just say there has been a great increase in the cost of living since that time.

The standard that we generally use is that from 1957 to 1959, and we call that 100. If you go back to 1933 when the pension was set up, 45 cents would buy just as much in 1933 as $1.00 would in 1957 or 1959. Today it takes $1.07 to buy the same amount of goods or services.

In every other place except the pensions of the veterans of World War I we have taken account of this increased cost of living.

The big thing, of course, is the means test. I don't know how many men have told me, "If I could just earn a little bit of money." An old man wants something to do in his old age.

Of course, this income limitation in a great many, many cases keeps a man from doing an odd job like a carpenter or something like that. Let's go into other cases of increased cost of living. The minimum wage law was enacted in 1939. That was 25 cents. It is now $1.25. That is a 400-percent increase.

The limitation in Federal cases, for Federal court jurisdiction, was then $3,000. That has been increased to $10,000. That is an increase of 233 percent.

Now, I don't want to go through all of these, but the Army has increased their pay 271 percent for enlisted men; I took a civil service employee, he has been increased 147 percent; now we say that is not enough, it should be increased more. The retired worker under the old-age and survivorship insurance has gone up 244 percent, aid to dependent children has gone up 284 percent, railroad retirement has gone up 245 percent.

Now, in every case we have made these rather large increases in accordance with the increased cost of living; we have not done that with the veterans of World War I. We have a poverty campaign on right now to eliminate poverty, and Dr. Heller, who is the President's economic adviser says that any man living with an income under $3,000 a year, a married man, is living in a poverty status.

Before the hearings of the subcommittee on appropriations for Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, this question came up no end of times, and that standard that anyone living under $3,000 was living in a poverty status is often used.

Now, the Department of Commerce has made up some figures showing that it would take $4,000 for a married man and $3,600 for a single man to maintain the average standard of living. Now, that is ordinary individuals. The average age of these veterans of World War I is now 70. They have a lot more medical and hospital expenses than younger people have, and, of course, all my bill does is say that a veteran should not have to be in a poverty status in order to receive something from the Government, and I limit it to what the increased cost of living has been.