My bill makes an adjustment in the reporting of the wife's income. The $1,200 exemption is preserved, and in addition, all earned income of the spouse would be exempted.

Mr. Chairman, the most important provision of my bill is an increase from $70 to $90 in the aid and attendance allowance. My bill, H.R. 8697, makes provision for adjustment in the income limits and rates for veterans, widows, and children. I will not outline these changes in detail except to point out that provision has been made for increasing the first and second income limit steps and for raising the pension rate for each income level.

In the existing program a veteran is required to show that there is a permanent disability of at least 10 percent at age 65. My bill would remove this requirement. I believe the administration of this program would be simplified by removing this provision.

H.R. 8697 provides for a 10-percent increase rate of pensions for oversea vetI realize that this does not involve substantial rate increases, but it does give recognition to those veterans who served overseas.

erans.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill is a reasonable one. I realize that there are other points for consideration in addition to the ones in this bill, but I would like to emphasize that we have 2,400,000 World War I veterans who have reached an average age of 70, many of whom will be immediately affected by this bill. There are also several hundred thousand widows and children who will be benefited, and I was rather surprised to find that more than 200,000 World War II veterans have already reached age 60, and more than 150 thousand veterans of World War II and Korea have qualified for a pension.

I believe the American people will support the non-service-connected pension program if it is fair and reasonable, and I believe our program, amended as proposed by H.R. 8697, will meet the test of public acceptance.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I see our lovely colleague, Mrs. Julia Butler Hansen, from the State of Washington has arrived. We would be glad to hear from you, Mrs. Hansen.

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your courtesy. I am not going to be repetitious and repeat the excellent review that Congressman Denton has presented.

I would like to join him in his presentation and compliment him on an excellent statement. He serves with me on the Appropriations Committee and this, may I say, will probably give Congressman Denton and me a little more insight into what Congress will appropriate in the way of veterans' funds.

I would like also to have consent of the committee to place in the record my statement on behalf of this legislation.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much. Your statement will be received.

I appreciate very much the opportunity and privilege of appearing before your committee today in support of my bill, H.R. 6717. This is a measure which would grant an increase in pension benefits to those men who served their country as members of the Armed Forces in 1917 and 1918.

Over the years I have been a consistent supporter of veterans' legislation. I introduced the World War I pension bill because I feel the time is long past when these men and their families should receive recognition from our Government.

The average age of the World War I veteran is now past 70. The greater percentage of them are unemployable, many are afflicted with physical disabilities, most are in need. Unfortunately, only a small percentage qualify for social security benefits, and those that do qualify receive benefits which are considerably below the average.

Many, many thousands of World War I veterans today are living solely on their veterans' pension and they find it a continuous struggle barely to exist. Increasing living costs and the infirmities of old age combine to make life insecure for these deserving veterans and their families.

The large percentage of World War I veterans and widows drawing pensions from the Government are under what is know as part III of the old Pension Act. Most of these veterans receive pension benefits amounting to $78.75 monthly, a sum not large by standards set today in this affluent society.

It is my sincere conviction that the provisions of this bill are just, fair, and equitable.

The veterans of World War I are the first veterans' group to feel the impact of what might be termed “advanced thinking” in payment of pensions. Before World War I, all non-service-connected veterans were granted a pension at a certain period in life if they were able to qualify under the law.

World War I veterans have been denied this privilege and now must show that they are unemployable, in need, and that they have practically no financial resources in order to qualify.

In my opinion, the time has long passed when something should be done for the men who defended this Nation in 1917 and 1918.

It should be remembered that when these men were released from the service in 1918 and 1919, they were paid off with a $60 bonus and then were left to their own devices. On their return from service, many were unemployed for months; and as they slowly adjusted to civilian life, a severe depression spread across the Nation and many veterans found themselves jobless and in want.

They had scarcely recovered from this 1920 recession when they were victims of a major depression in the 1930's. Thus, it has been extremely difficult for most of these men to build up any substantial financial reserve for their declining years. Only a few have been able to earn maximum social security entitlement, and in their working years industrial pension programs were practically unknown.

Let us contrast this situation with those men who returned from service in World War II. They came home to a completely rounded-out rehabilitation program. There were grants for college education, and business loans and home loans. There was the 52-20 club, and they were entitled to substantiall severance pay. All of these benefits were brought about through the efforts of these men who had served in the First World War.

Now it is my earnest conviction that our Government owes these veterans some consideration, and I feel that consideration can be met, in part, by adopting liberalized pension benefits for those men who are so badly in need. H.R. 6717 will accomplish that aim.

Thank you so much for the privilege of appearing before your group today. I do appreciate it.

Mrs. HANSEN. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, something that was not called to your attention. It may have been before I came in but not following that.

Many of the States in the case of World War II veterans did grant State bonuses, which was a tremendous benefit to the young veteran who was just starting out to build his home or purchase a home and to perhaps get started in business, and this, added to the educational programs of the U.S. Government, did something for this World War II veteran that has not been done to the veterans of the prior wars, and I do want to call that to your attention.

I also want to say that in the district where I live, poverty among these veterans is a continuing subject. Those with the higher incomes would never file nor ask for it, but those who are in the bracket of having lost jobs during the depression and many of whom did not build up a tremendously high social security credit and who cannot, after age 60, find jobs easily.

This would be of tremendous benefit to them, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to add that thought because, remember, the people in this age bracket have been in competitive employment and it has been difficult at their age to secure it.

Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Fino?

Mr. FINO. No questions.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I just want to compliment our lovely colleague on her statement and I am delighted to have her before our committee.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. She is a lot prettier than any of the other witnesses we have had.

Mrs. HANSEN. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I had the pleasure of serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for a very short time before I moved along to another committee, and it was a great privilege to be on it and serve with you.

Thank you so much.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I know my colleague, Mr. Teague, expresses the bipartisan opinion of the committee. We are glad to have you with

us.

Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Teague has been a very fine witness before our committee many times..

Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you.

The next witness is our colleague, Mr. Roudebush from Indiana. We are happy to have you with us this morning, Mr. Roudebush, and you may proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. First I want to express my appreciation and thanks for this opportunity to offer testimony in behalf of legislation I have introduced in this Congress. With the committee's permission, it is my desire to incorporate in this testimony my statements in behalf of H.R. 33, introduced by me on January 9, 1963; H.R. 1831, which I introduced January 14, 1963; H.R. 3986, which I presented February 21, 1963; and H.R. 4710, which I introduced March 11, 1963.

Because of the contents of these bills, all were referred to this committee for action.

Before I go into my testimony on behalf of this legislation, and without any attempt to impress anyone, I would like to point out that from the year 1944 until 1950 I served as Department Service Officer of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Indiana. In this capacity, I came in daily contact with veterans and their problems. Later I became Department Commander of the VFW in Indiana, and served in this capacity in 1952-53, and continued my activities in the national organization of the VFW. This period of service was highlighted by my election as national commander, serving in 1957-58.

Again, this is no attempt to impress anyone, but is to give an insight into my background and my appreciation of the problems of our veterans, which I have attempted to cover by the legislation to which I have referred. I will take them in the order mentioned.

H.R. 33, which I introduced the first day this Congress was in session, covers a convention mandate of the VFW, and provides a separate pension program for our veterans of World War I service.

Much has been said about this bill, and I know the committee is completely familiar with its contents. There are several points which are somewhat different in this legislation from many of the other bills which have been submitted by Members of Congress.

The bill provides a separate pension program of $100 a month for men who served in World War I, subject to income limitations of $2,400 for the single veteran and $3,600 for the veteran with dependents. The bill requires honorable service of not less than 90 days during the period designated by law as World War I service.

This bill differs in the fact that it makes no provision for dependents of World War I veterans, but applies solely to the living veteran. Relief to the dependents or next of kin I have covered by separate legislation. Another unique feature of this bill is that it recognizes the difference in the type of service rendered by veterans. It provides for an additional 10 percent for veterans of oversea service. I feel sure the committee is well aware of my feelings with regard to the need for this legislation. And many of the things I would say today I am sure have been said before. But I do feel I must point out the advanced age of our veterans of the First World War, which is approximately 70 years. Some are in their early eighties. I am also sure that the committee is aware of the statistics on the high death rate among these veterans.

I am aware of the reports showing the cost of these pensions. But I must call to your attention the fact that many of these men are already on the pension rolls under applicable laws already in effect. Therefore, H.R. 33 provides, in fact, a small increase in pension for these veterans. In addition, it would increase the income limitations, which is badly needed with the present high cost of living.

Let me conclude this portion by stating that H.R. 33 has the complete and unqualified support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and that such legislation was introduced at their request.

1

I pass on to H.R. 1831. This bill affects only a handful of veterans in the United States, but certainly it is noteworthy legislation. Under present laws, active military service on the Mexican border prior to World War I is not included in determining the eligibility of either the veterans of World War I or their widows and/or children to receive pension. If I may say extemporaneously. I received telegrams from the national adjutant of the Mexican border campaign and the Spanish-American war veterans, both of them were unable to come here because of ill health. I do want to mention that in presenting my statement on H.R. 1831.

Many of these men have passed away, but there is a fair-sized group of veterans now in the twilight of their life who served with distinction on the Mexican border pursuant to the call of the Presi dent of the United States, May 9, 1916, and June 18, 1916. These men suffered incredible hardships as they battled the enemies of our country, in the provinces and on the border of our now-friendly neighbor, Mexico.

Many men, after completion of their service on the Mexican border, entered World War I service. Due to disability and advanced age, some of them did not complete enough service in World War I to meet the eligibility requirements of present laws. The purpose of my bill,

H.R. 1831, is to provide that active military service on the Mexican border before World War I be counted, together with World War I service, in qualifying for eligibility for various benefits accruing to veterans of World War I service.

Although this will affect a relatively few veterans or dependents, I do think the time is long past that the Government of the United States expressed appreciation to these gallant defenders of our Nation. I recommend most sincerely that this bill be reported favorably by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The third bill I would like to discuss today is H.R. 3986, introduced February 21, 1963. This bill provides for amendatory legislation to liberalize the basis on which pension is payable to the veterans of World War I. It does not seek the repeal of present legislation, but merely liberalizes the regulations incorporated in present laws concerning the payment of nonservice benefits.

A great many veterans are unable to draw pension from the Government for their military service because they receive public or private retirement payments. The purpose of H.R. 3986 is to provide that such retirement payments shall not be counted as income in the limitations established under various laws.

Another provision of this bill is elimination of the income of a spouse in the determination of the annual income of a veteran.

Two other inequities which this bill would correct is elimination of the net worth eligibility test and repeal of the requirement for reduction of pension during the hospitalization of a veteran. The present cost of living has relegated many of our World War I veterans to the status of a practical pauper. Due to advanced age, they are not employable. And with the present provisions counting public and private retirement as income, the amount of pension received is so small that it is a real hardship on these men who served in our First World War.

I mentioned the First World War rather prominently here because of the advanced age of those veterans. However, as has been said by members of this committee, veterans of other wars also have reached the twilight of their life and some veterans of World War II are now retired. I feel that it is wrong to penalize the veteran over the nonveteran simply because he qualifies for public benefits under our social security laws.

I mentioned that under my bill the income of a wife of a veteran would be disregarded in the determination of the annual income of a veteran. To me, it seems very unfair that one citizen who served his Nation honorably could be discriminated against simply because his wife is able to work. I do not feel that the income of a wife should in any way be considered in determining either the eligibility or the amount of pension payable to a living veteran. Frankly, I have discussed this many times both with Members of Congress and with other citizens, and most agree that this discriminatory provision should be repealed.

The net worth eligibility test also penalizes the veteran who, during his lifetime, through prudence and saving, is able to amass some assets. As the law presently reads, it puts a premium on lack of thrift, and I feel this is not in keeping with the free enterprise system or our basic American beliefs.