RESOLUTION OF FULLERTON BARRACKS No. 512, VETERANS OF WORLD WAR I, FULLERTON, CALIF.

Whereas the veterans of World War I have for a number of years asked the Congress for a pension of $100 per month.

However, their pension bill has always been blocked in the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

The veterans of World War I feel they deserve equal treatment to all other veterans of all other wars and that their present bill H.R. 2332 should be brought on the floor of Congress for consideration: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the veterans of World War I have not been treated equal to other war veterans for their loyalty and sacrifice to our country: Therefore be it further

Resolved, That bill H.R. 2332 be immediately taken out of committee and referred to the floor of Congress for immediate consideration.

Dated May 26, 1964.

EDWARD F. CANNON, Commander.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I now call on Congressman John Anderson, of Illinois. You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. ANDERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Pension Compensation, I am pleased to present this statement in support of H.R. 8361. My bill would amend the Veterans' Pension Act of 1959 so as to provide the right to benefit recipients to elect payment of pension under either the provisions of title 38 as it was in effect on June 30, 1960, or as amended by the Veterans' Pension Act of 1959 which became effective July 1, 1960.

My bill would proved equal treatment for all World War I veterans. In other words, those applying for and receiving benefits after the effective date of the 1959 act would have the same privilege afforded those who applied for and were receiving benefits earlier. Those applying for and receiving benefits after that date did not enjoy the same right of election that was once afforded those who had applied for and were receiving benefits under the earlier pension act.

Those who were receiving veterans benefits prior to Public Law 86-211 were allowed a right of election which has never been afforded to those veterans who became entitled to benefits after the effective date of that act.

A sense of justice and fairplay dictates that such a choice be offered to those individuals and thus provide equal treatment for all.

I see no reason why the committee or the Veterans' Administration should be opposed to such an option at this time, particularly since it appears that both the committee and the Veterans Administration are fully convinced of the merits of Public Law 86-211 and the principle on which that act is based.

In fact, I find it awfully difficult to disagree with the principle embodied in Public Law 86-211; namely, distribution of benefits based on need and which eliminated the "all or nothing" feature of the old law. However, two salient points present themselves in favor of amending present law along the lines of my bill, to at least allow a one-time option.

The first point I have already discussed above concerning the need for treating all veterans equally.

The second one which is very important also, concerns serious inequities caused as a result of hardships worked by the present act. Indeed, serious inequities are capable of being inflicted on those that Public Law 86-211 was intended to assist most; namely, the low income and practically destitute individual. While I am firmly convinced of the need for a means test and am willing to accept the principle "based on need" I must point out to the committee that present law has the effect of working in a counterdirection and adversely affecting those who need assistance most.

For example, it has been called to my attention, and I am sure that many of you have heard of similar unfortunate situations, of a widow who was subsisting on benefit payments with no outside earnings or other income of any kind except a small payment under the Social Security Act and payment in the lowest echelon on the basis of widow's pension from the Veterans' Administration.

This widow was receiving a pension of $60 from the Veterans' Administration. She was recognized as being in the neediest group, according to the interpretation of the 1959 act under which we now operate quite rigidly. She had been receiving also widow's social security benefit payment amounting to $45.75.

Congress recognized the need for increasing these low level Social Security Act payments and in her case, she was afforded $4.65 more per month. Mind you, even under the Social Security Act, she was recognized as being in that economic segment where it was felt imperative that she receive more to meet the increased cost of living. Well, as a result of this small increment, she ran afoul of the principle embodied in Public Law 86-211 which is based on need.

As a result, the Veterans' Administration, acting under the inflexible provisions of this act, reduced her widow's pension down from $60 a month to $45.

In other words, because she received $4.65 more per month under social security, she suffered a $15 loss per month in her income under a law which is supposed to take into consideration the degree of need. Under both the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Pension Act she was recognized as having the greatest need but yet the net effect of the Veterans' Pension Act was to place her in greater need but barred her from receiving it.

Those are some of the reasons which impelled me to introduce my bill and which I commend to you for your thoughtful consideration. Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Congressman Anderson.

I now call Congressman Pepper, of Florida. Mr. Pepper, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF H.R. 2332

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, exactly 46 years ago this month the French and British, under assault and retreating in the German spring offensive of 1918, were grimly set to hold on until the American troops could be moved in to help them turn the tide of battle. Only a little over a year earlier, on April 6, 1917, America had declared war and there was speculation as to whether, in so short a period, an Army

could have been mobilized and trained for effective combat. It was on the 28th of May 1918, when the 1st American Division received its baptism of fire in charging the enemy's trenches and taking the town of Cantigny, that the answer came. The London Evening News expressed a common feeling among our Allies when it said, "Bravo, the young Americans! Nothing in today's battle narrated from the front is more exhilarating than the account of their fight at Cantigny. It was clean cut from the beginning to the end."

The American Army in France went on to write heroic history: The Marines in Belleau Woods, and the divisions of American doughboys at the Second Battle of the Marne. On September 12 the Americans retook St. Mihiel, south of Verdun, exactly 4 years to a day since it had succumbed to German attack early in the war. The 15-day battle of the Meuse-Argonne in late September and early October led finally to the breaking of the Hindenburg line, on October 5, 1918, and the armistice on November 11.

I review this proud story briefly, Mr. Chairman, because I am not sure how many members of this committee can recall, as vividly as some of the rest of us that these place names were as deeply engraved into the American conscience in 1918 as El Alamein, Ardennes, Normandy. and Remagen Bridge Guadalcanal, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were to be in the 1940's during World War II. Almost 5 million young Americans (4,734,991) were engaged in that earlier war "To make the world safe for democracy" and 116,516 died for their country within a period of about a year.

It is on behalf of the Americans who, as young men, were engaged in the First World War whose battles were fought largely on the soils of France, that I appear before you today in support of H.R. 2332, the World War I pensions bill.

I remind you, too, that the young men who returned from that war did not return to a country which provided them with the educational benefits, home and business loans and loan guarantees, and readjustment allowances which we were able gratefully to provide for the heroes of World War II. They came home, instead to a country in the midst of a recession and, in some cases, the job they had left had been filled. It was, indeed, our consciousness of an unfulfilled obligation on their behalf which, during the post-World War II years, prompted the Nation to make better provision for the veterans of that later war.

I remind you, too, that the men who fought World War I are the veterans of another national catastrophe, the great depression of the 1930's which hit just as they had been able to establish themselves and when they were most deeply involved in raising their young families. Many of them were, because of this depression, denied the opportunity to build up savings and equity during their prime working years.

I signed the discharge petition for the World War I pension bill, and I am here today to urge its adoption, because I am convinced that this country has now an obligation to those veterans of the 1917-18 war who now find themselves in financial straits. The bill calls for a flat rate of $100 a month for a veteran, $75 a month for widows, with a ceiling on income so that no veteran who earns a reasonable amount would be eligible. I believe the ceiling of $2,400 or $3,600 for a veteran with a family provided in the bill to be reasonable and designed to in

sure that the payments provided will go to those who not only deserve them but need them. And I can think of no better auxiliary to the proposed war on poverty than the enactment of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, existing law provides that to establish a right to compensation a veteran has to prove service-connected disabilities. But the fact is that records in World War I were not well kept-many times they were not kept at all-and that a large number were lost. A World War I veteran, therefore, had difficulty establishing his right to compensation.

This country is proud to honor the veterans of a great world war of the 1940's whose dead lie buried in the deep, in Africa and in the Pacific Islands as well as in Europe. Let us be equally concerned with the veterans of another, older war whose comrades lie in Flanders' Fields, by enacting this legislation.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Pepper. I now call Congressman Gilbert, of New York. You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB H. GILBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased that your committee is giving attention to the important matter of veterans' pensions.

My bill, H.R. 88, is before you for consideration, as well as numerous other bills to provide assistance to veterans. I am highly in favor of giving our veterans all possible help at this time; they deserve our best consideration.

I introduced H.R. 88, and similar bills in previous Congresses, because of the great need for this legislation which was shown by communications received from my constituents. They explained that they were living under poverty conditions; that it was unfair to them and a hardship to have their workmen's compensation payments considered in the computation of income for purposes of payment of their veterans' pensions. High living costs, ever-increasing cost of medical care, are placing all our citizens in a poverty class when they have only a meager veterans' pension as income. If a person is awarded workmen's compensation, he deserves it and needs it. If he is awarded a veteran's pension, he has earned this also. In my opinion, he is entitled to receive both pensions--he needs both in order to exist; even with both pensions he will have no luxuries after he meets ordinary living costs.

The relief provided by my bill is reasonable and of great necessity to those receiving pensions. Our veterans who sacrificed so much for our Nation deserve our gratitude and our help to the fullest extent possible.

I urge your committee to take favorable action on my bill H.R. 88, as well as on such other bills providing additional relief which may be feasible and practicable.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, sir.

Our next witness will be Congressman Bray, of Indiana. You may proceed, Mr. Bray.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM G. BRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, ON H.R. 2332, H.R. 4513, AND H.R. 5170

Mr. BRAY. Our country has been fortunate through the years that it has found men in sufficient number who, despite all hardships and privations, will render military service to their country in time of need.

World War I soldiers, under General of the Armies John J. Pershing, served their country well; 131,000 gave their lives during service.

Those who survived are of an average age of about 70 years. They are dying at the rate of about 120,000 annually.

Recent books have immortalized their exploits. One chose for its title the name by which the world first came to know them: "The Doughboys," and another title singled them out as "The Fierce Lambs."

Many opinions have been expressed about the right of these veterans of the First World War to an adequate pension for their few remaining years that will allow them to live in decency and dignity as respected citizens of their country. It perhaps would be easy to draw some emotional, melodramatic pirture of an aged veteran, huddling in misery and poverty, and seek to arouse an overwhelming pity in his behalf.

I for one will not do it. These are proud men, who served this Nation. They deserve our honor, our gratitude, our consideration. They do not deserve our pity, and neither do they seek it.

These men are proud of the fine role they played in that first global conflict. Some of the promise of that war-some of the ideals for which it was fought-turned to ashes.

But not their pride-not their glory.

It is true that a generation later an even bigger, more massive and more terrible war engulfed us. Yet, that should not obscure or diminish the debt we owe the gallant doughboys of World War I.

I have said that they deserve our respect.

I believe it is only fitting that we show concern about their wellbeing in these, their final years. This Nation is not so poor in resources nor in spirit that it cannot afford to give these men a minimum consideration for the sacrifices they made.

Many have borne the scars and infirmities for four and one-half decades. In some cases, it has greatly limited their earning power. All of them lost years of income while in service. Because of their age, many did not have an opportunity to earn more than minimum social security benefits.

So it is with consideration of their sacrifices, of their own deprivation through these long years, of their current need and of our overdue debt that I urge the committee to give favorable consideration to legislation providing a pension to all of these men. This matter has been deferred long enough. We should at least bring the matter to the full House for action there.

The bugle sounds. The call is clear. Only our response remains to

be seen.

H.R. 4513 provides that if a veteran sells his home and uses the proceeds to buy another, and the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration determines that the veteran's physical condition was