raised. But the same public does not always accept the fact that veterans benefits are "truly a part of the cost of war," of the building of the national image through national security and defense of our freedoms.

As related to the gross national product, the cost of veterans benefits in the Federal budget is, today slightly lower than it was at the turn of the century when the Spanish-American War was being waged. This is, the percentage of the gross national product used today for veterans benefit programs is slightly lower than it was in the period 1890-1900. It is a record not matched in any other Federal program that has existed through the same period.

I urge the committee to give serious consideration to a more liberalized pension program for aged and disabled veterans; I think we should pay our debt to those men who so valiantly offered thier lives to protect our American way of life.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to bring my views to your attention in this regard.

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

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

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, in coming before this committee to urge favorable action on H.R. 2332 or any similar leigslation, I am fulfilling a promise that I have made to do everything within my power to secure recognition and added benefits for the veterans of World War I.

Over the years I have been a consistent supporter of legislation of this type because I feel the time is long past when these men should receive recognition from our Government. In several Congresses I have introduced bills to grant a pension of $100 per month to all honorably discharged veterans of World War I who are over 62 years of age, and right now I have H.R. 452 pending before this committee. The average age of these veterans is now past 70. The great percentage of them are unemployable and afflicted with physical disabilities. Unfortunately, only a small percentage qualify for social security benefits, which are considerably below the average. And many, many thousands of them today are living solely on their veterans' pension and they find it a continuous uphill struggle to barely exist because of ever-increasing living costs.

The large percentage of World War I veterans and widows drawing pensions from the Government are under what is known as part III of the old Pension Act. Most of these veterans receive pension benefits amounting to $78.75 monthly, and there has been no increase in this amount since 1954, despite the fact that living costs have increased yearly.

It is my sincere conviction that the provisions of this bill are just, fair, and equitable. I do not believe that the income limitations are too high as some critics have stated, nor do I believe that the increases asked for are in any way out of line.

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 unemployability need and practically no financial resources in order to qualify.

There has been considerable comment in the press concerning the requests that have been made by veterans of World War I for higher pension benefits. Some criticism is voiced to the effect that such expenditure will serve to bankrupt the Nation, yet not much comment is heard about payments to Cuban refugees or the amount we expend in various remote areas throughout the world. We are, indeed, more generous to foreigners than we are to those men and women who have so honorably served their country in time of war.

It is my sincere hope that this committee will give serious and favorable consideration to this legislation and send it to the floor of the House for early action.

Thank you.

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

We have received a letter from Congressman John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent that his letter be inserted at this point in the record.

(Mr. Dent's letter follows:)

Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., May 12, 1964.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Cannon House Office Builidng.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the invitation to submit a statement on veterans' pension legislation, including my bill, H.R. 3066.

I want to go on record as supporting any action which the committee prefers that is in whole or in part similar to H.R. 3066 as long as the intent is to provide for the payments of pensions to widows and dependents.

With every kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours,

JOHN H. DENT, Member of Congress.

Mr. KORNEGAY. We are pleased to have Congressman Duncan. Congressman, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT B. DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON, REGARDING H.R. 9545

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, since I understand the subcommittee has over 150 bills before it that it hopes to hear some testimony upon, I will make my statements concerning H.R. 9545 necessarily brief.

This bill grew out of a vast amount of study undertaken my first year in Congress, stimulated by many conferences and conversations with veterans of World War I. All of its provisions are not limited exclusively, however, to those veterans. But as a practical matter would be of the most advantage to them.

H.R. 9545 liberalizes certain portions of chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code. In effect, it provides monthly pensions for all veterans over age 65, regardless of disability. As you know, according to the

statutes, only disabled veterans now receive pensions though in practice, some type of pension is provided for almost all of them.

It raises the income limitations for veterans of World War I and II and Korea who have non-service-connected disabilities (including all veterans over 65 years of age) but the pension rates remain the same. The following tables show how these income limitations are affected (for single veterans or married veterans not living with their family or contributing to the support of their family.)

H.R. 9545 also raises from $70 to $90 the montly pension to such veterans if in need of regular attendance.

My bill excludes in the case of World War I veterans, all earnedincome of the veteran's spouse from the veteran's earned-income for purposes of computing his annual income under the pension plan. For all other veterans, it excludes the first $1,200 of the spouse's earned income for such computations. A special provision in the bill allows the Veterans' Administration Administrator to waive any of the income of the spouse in these computations if, in the Administrator's judgment, a hardship will be worked on the veteran by including said spouse's earned income.

The bill provides that for widows of veterans of World War I, World War II, and Korea the annual income limitations will be raised the same as shown in the previous table, though again, the pension rates will remain the same as existing law.

Mr. Chairman, these then are the major provisions of H.R. 9545. I do not claim that this bill answers all of the problems or all of the needs. I think it does however, take a reasonable first step in providing a bill that can be passed and that will aid those who need it most before it is too late for them to enjoy these benefits.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on my bill and I hope it will be of help to the subcommittee in putting together a pension measure that will accomplish what must be done and one which can be passed. I have no pride of authorship in this measure. What I am interested in is seeing that help is given now to those who helped their country when it needed them. The sick, needy, and disabled veteran now needs our help and it is now our duty to see that he is helped.

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

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

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE L. EVINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to comment about the non-service-connected pension issue. I have a bill pending before the committee and I understand that there are no less than 150 bills for consideration.

Let me say in passing that I had the privilege of serving on this committee for several years and I know that when these hearings are complete this committee will do its best to provide generous treatment for all concerned in this legislation. I realize the problem is difficult for the committee. I have had many groups approach me with different ideas as to how this problem should be settled. I realize that the various veteran organizations have a different view of the various bills before you. It does seem to me that progress can be made in improving the pension program if certain basic principles are kept in mind.

In our program now we provide an extra allowance for the aid and attendance case. I understand there are more than 50,000 of these cases, and since the average age of World War I veterans is past 70, this type of case is increasing rapidly. I believe that first priority should go to this group and that in the legislation reported we should do all that we can for the aid and attendance group. I feel that we should also give special attention to the problem of the widow, particularly the World War I widow. There is a sizable number of these widows who have no income whatsoever other than their pension and many more who have only minimum social security.

Even for those in the lowest income group the maximum payment is $60 per month. This is not enough and we should do the best we can for this group. There are quite a number of other problems which I should like to mention in passing.

I believe that we should give special consideration to the working wife in determining reportable income. In previous legislation we have provided special consideration for the widow who incurs expenses of last illness and burial. It seems to me this principle should be extended to veterans who incur expenses of last illness and burial of a spouse or child.

At retirement age many couples are required to make adjustments in their living situation and sell their home. I do not believe that the profit from the sale of the home should deprive a veteran of his pension during the year of sale. He needs his money to reestablish living quarters under some other arrangement.

I know the committee will give consideration to these issues-all are important to our veterans and their families.

I particularly want to stress the need for early passage of a meaningful pension bill for veterans of World War I. These veterans are getting along in years-the number is decreasing-and the time for action is short. I feel that we can well afford the cost of this proposal. The need is great. These men deserve this consideration and I trust this committee will give favorable consideration to my bill—H.R. 4991-along with other pending bills on this issue.

Favorable action is urged. I vote "yes" for a pension now for our World War I veterans, and I urge others to join me in this actionwhich, I repeat, is just and meritorious.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me express an opinion which I feel certain is the opinion of every member of this committee. We are grateful to the 4 million World War I veterans who fought in World War I, and it is incumbent upon us to see that our veteran programs are sensitive to their special needs.

Thank you, gentlemen.

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

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

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG HOSMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING H.R. 776

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I urge your committee's favorable consideration of my bill, H.R. 776, which proposes to exclude capital gains from the sale of residences in determining income for purposes of payment of non-service-connected disability and death pensions to veterans and their widows and children and of death compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation to parents of deceased

veterans.

An

Entitlement to such pensions is limited to those whose other income does not exceed the specified small amounts allowed under present law. Even a small profit on the sale of a home, when added to a beneficiary's other annual income, can result in the total loss of his pension. income from outside sources, in the small amount allowed under law, is hardly enough in these days of high living costs to meet the expenses of a bare existence. The inclusion of capital gains from the sale of one's home as part of annual income imposes an unjust hardship on countless numbers of persons and the provision for this should be eliminated from law.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much.

We are pleased to have as a witness Congressman King. Congressman King, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLETON J. KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to submit a brief statement in support of H.R. 9423, a bill I have introduced to amend section 503 of title 38, United States Code, to provide that payments for jury duty shall be disregarded in the computation of income for purposes of payment of pensions.

The purpose of the bill is to eliminate the financial sacrifice on the part of many individuals living on pensions and who are called to serve as jurors. The bill will particularly help many veterans who receive small pensions and who are only permitted a limited amount of outside income. As a result of the per diem received for serving on jury duty, the amount of outside income received by a veteran is increased above the limitation allowed and frequently results in the total loss of the veteran's pension.

The courts in my State many times are importuned to excuse good jurors from duty as trial and grand jurors because to serve the veteran would go over the allowable limit.