economy and help our economy along; and certainly $100 a month is not going to the savings banks of these World War I veterans. Mr. GRAY. I would not agree with the gentleman more completely and let me say this, I voted for the tax reduction bill but you and I know that many of the people receiving benefits from that program are going to buy bonds or use these funds not extraneously as a World War II veteran who is going to go in and buy clothes and shoes and food and things that will go into the normal channels of trade and revert back to the Government in the way of taxes and other benefits. I stand on my statement that this will have, per dollar, more of a stimulating effect on the economy than the tax reduction bill, although I supported it.

Mr. FINO. Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I appreciate having our colleague with us this morning and I have no questions. It was a very fine statement. Mr. GRAY. Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Gray, you have two bills, I believe, the first one is H.R. 2336, which relates to the veterans of World War I, then you have H.R. 3079, which relates to veterans of World War I and their widows and dependents.

That is the major difference in the two bills, the last one includes both veterans and widows of veterans of World War I.

Mr. GRAY. I am testifying in behalf of H.R. 3079, the bill that I introduced, and it was my understanding that 2332 was an identical measure. I may stand corrected, but Mr. Erickson, in a letter dated May 12, told me that primarily the committee was hearing H.R. 2332 and I took it to mean that they were identical.

I am here testifying in behalf of my own legislation which I am completely familiar with which is embodied in H.R. 3079.

Mr. KORNEGY. What I am trying to say is that the bill you last introduced, H.R. 3079, includes the widows as well as veterans of World War I.

Mr. GRAY. This is the legislation that provides only $100 per month for the veterans and also provides $75 to the widows and dependents. This is correct.

Mr. KORNEGAY. You just want to be sure the widows are taken care of. That is the reason I asked you the question in connection with any legislation we consider here, widows and dependents.

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Gray, for coming, and taking your time to testify.

Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, our colleague just mentioned that he thought the hearing of this committee was primarily on H.R. 2332 and I would like to point out as you did as we started the session that we have 156 separate bills and the hearing would be on all of them.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes, sir; that was the point well made. We want to hear testimony on all bills, all ideas and all approaches to this subject

matter.

I would like now to call Congressman Samuel Stratton, of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL S. STRATTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am happy to be able to appear here today in support of an expanded penfor our World War I veterans.

sion program

In the 52 years I have had the honor to serve in this Congress I have consistently supported the efforts of our World War I veterans to achieve a more satisfactory pension arrangement. I believe there is great merit in their request. As a group they are almost all in the retirement bracket, and many of them face financial difficulties which, as we all know, are all too frequently associated with retirement years. As a group these World War I veterans have not had some of the more enlightened benefits which were made available to veterans of World War II, such as the GI bill for educational opportunities, and the GI loan provisions for business opportunities and family housing.

They seek, and I believe rightly so, some help from the Government they served in time of need, so as to be able to live out their lives in dignity and self-respect.

Until last year, Mr. Chairman, I not only supported this World War I pension legislation but I had also signed the various discharge petitions filed in its behalf. Last year, however, it became clear to me, as I believe it did to others, that this specific legislation was a blind alley, and that in view of the massive opposition to it, both within the Congress and the administration, to continue to push simply and exclusively for enactment of this particular World War I bill was really to do a disservice, not a service, for our World War I veterans themselves.

As we in the Congress are all aware, Mr. Chairman, the real essence of the legislative process is compromise. If we can't get all we seek, then we recognize the wisdom of adjusting our view and our objective to meet the view and the objective of the other fellow so that together we can get something constructive accomplished.

As a friend of the World War I veteran I have become profoundly convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the time has now come to seek a reasonable and an honorable compromise on the pension legislation in which these veterans are deeply interested. I have so advised my friends in the World War I Veterans' organization; and I might add that I have many there, including the departmental commander from New York, Clarence J. Swart, my friend and neighbor in my home city of Amsterdam.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced a substitute bill of my own which represents, I believe, a fair and a reasonable compromise and, what is more, one that has a good chance of enactment into law this year, H.R. 11309.

Basically, my bill would do these things:

1. It would provide that any veteran who reaches the age of 65 would be considered permanently and totally disabled, thus making him eligible without delay for the standard non-service-connected disability pension now provided by law.

2. It would liberalize income limitations affecting pension eligibility in the first two brackets of non-service-connected, totally and permanently disabled, single veterans and of widows without children.

33-917-64--15

3. It would increase from $70 to $90 the monthly regular aid and attendance benefit to those veterans unable to take care of themselves. 4. In computing the income available to the veteran to determine his eligibility for a pension, it would exclude income earned by the World War I veteran's wife.

In short, Mr. Chairman, my bill addresses itself to the most troublesome areas of disagreement in our existing veterans benefit legislation insofar as it is applicable to veterans of World War I, and to those areas where there is, I believe, the greatest demonstrated need for improvement. For this reason I think my bill is a practical bill, one that has a good chance of passage, and one that can provide direct and immediate relief to those who need it most.

I commend this bill to the attention of the committee. It represents a significant step forward, I believe, for World War I veterans. And it also goes far toward meeting some of the more substantial objections which members of this committee and of the administration have raised to earlier World War I pension bills.

We have, I believe, Mr. Chairman, an obligation to act now to help our World War I veterans. I therefore urge the committee to give this matter its serious attention. As a reasonable and effective compromise I respect fully invite the committee's attention to H.R. 11309.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Stratton. We are pleased to have as our next witness Congressman Hutchinson. Congressman Hutchinson, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD HUTCHINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, REGARDING H.R. 2332

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, the distress of needy elderly veterans is a proper concern of the Congress in considering the administration's war on poverty program.

Many veterans of the First World War did not benefit from social security increases in 1958, nor will they benefit from any future increases.

The Government's policy of assistance to its needy war veterans is established by a century of precedent.

I urge your committee's consideration of a fair pension structure, based upon need, for the veterans of the First World War.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Congressman Hutchinson, thank you very much. We are pleased to have Congressman Fernand J. St Germain. Congressman, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 5969

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege of testifying before your committee which is considering my measure, H.R. 5969, and other similar bills, which would provide pension benefits for our veterans.

It has been many years since the armistice was declared to end hostilities in World War I. All of the survivors of that war, now

living, are in the senior years of their lives. Many of them have retired from private employment and are receiving adequate pensions. Many others are in poor health and dependent upon charity and other public welfare contributions, and can only look forward to spending the remainder of their lives in some public institution. This seems to be a cruel fate for those men who risked their lives for their country. Every man would like to be free from charity. He would like to be receiving that which he rightfully deserves.

If this legislation is approved by your committee and enacted into law by the Congress, every veteran of that war will receive a just pension which would enable him and his family to live adequately. It is incumbent on us to give consideration to those who gave consideration to us and I urge your committee's approval of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Congressman St Germain, thank you very much. We are pleased to have Congressman Hays. Congressman, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE L. HAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2332

Mr. HAYS. Chairman Teague and members of the committee, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to give you my views in support of H.R. 2332, which would grant an increase in pension benefits to the veterans of World War I.

I have been a consistent supporter of this and similar bills because I feel the time is long past when these men should receive recognition from our Government. They are now averaging 70 years of age, a great majority of them can no longer find gainful employment, and many of them are suffering with chronic illnesses.

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 the service, they found a paucity of job opportunities; many of them were unemployed for months and months, and then 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 debacle when they were again 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 reserve for their declining years. Only a few have been able to earn maximum social security entitlement. I have received many letters from these veterans in my district indicating their need for this legislation.

The case for this bill is well stated in the following excerpt from an editorial reprinted in the May 7, 1964, edition of the Stars and Stripes-the National Tribune:

The record of the Nation is not good in respect to its World War I veterans. Veterans of all other wars have been much better taken care of. But this group received no GI bill of rights, school aid only to those who received notable disabilities. Besides experiencing the vicissitudes of a harsh and life-wasting war, the veterans were clipped by a postwar recession that stag

gered them and were further frustrated by the great depression. It is true they received modest insurance policies as a national gratuity but most of them had to exhaust their value to keep off relief during the depression.

I urge the committee to favorably report this bill and give the House of Representatives an opportunity to vote on it.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Congressman Hays, thank you very much.

We are pleased to have Congressman Baring. Congressman, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER S. BARING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2332 AND H.R. 2823

Mr. BARING. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I introduced H.R. 2823, which is identical to H.R. 2332, and I did this with the sincerest intention of doing something for the World War I veterans, because in my mind there appears to be a strong trend among certain groups to downgrade the performance of our valiant men of World War I. These men are today 65 years and older, a good majority of them are unable to find gainful employment, and many are suffering with chronic illness.

These men were released from service in 1918 and 1919 and were paid a mere sum of $60 bonus and thus left to their own devices in strong contrast to the men of World War II who do not only received a rounded-out rehabilitation program but were eligible for grants for college education, business loans, and home loans, and they were furthermore entitled to substantial severance pay.

I sincerely believe that our Government owes the World War I veterans some consideration, but I am aware that there is much objection to H.R. 2332 on the part of the administration, and I am not saying that this bill is the only answer, but even though Public Law 86-211 was enacted to relieve some of the pension problems for the veterans, this legislation simply was not generous enough for the veterans of World War I.

I feel there is a strong need for a liberalized pension program for the aged and disabled veterans.

One of the major objections to H.R. 2332 is the cost involved, and it has been pointed out that this bill would create certain inequitiesthis may well be, but I believe these inequities could be ironed out and a feasible veterans pension program could be initiated which would also iron out the inequities suffered by the World War I veterans under the present program.

At this point I would like to call attention to the entire veterans program.

Recently, in the Veterans' Administration Annual Report for 1963 some most interesting statistics were gathered in order to show the cost of veterans' benefits from the Revolutionary War to the present, and projections are issued to show, in the vision of the projector, the insuperable burden of such benefits for the year 2000 and beyond, but the difficulty with such estimates is that they are seldom related to the national economy or the rise in the national population. Nowadays, and rightfully so, the Nation quibbles not the slightest bit when the costs of national security, that is the Military Establishment, are