dependent parents who lost their son, say in combat, who was their source of support, were limited to $2,400, the joint income limitation being placed at $2,400 for these two parents. Under a number of the bills which we have under consideration now, a veteran would be allowed up to $3,600 and still be permitted to receive a non-serviceconnected pension. What suggestions do you have to make to the committee in resolving that problem?

Mr. STOVER. Well, of course, I am limited by the mandates and resolutions adopted at our national conventions. We do not have one at the moment that was adopted at our most recent national convention concerning dependent parets. However, in the past we have taken note of that situation, and delegates to our conventions have expressed their disappointment over the low payments being made to dependent parents whose son may have been shot down, say, on the battlefield during World War II or the Korean conflict. We have urged that Congress to take steps to ameliorate that situation.

Another thing is the Veterans of Foreign Wars has always said and has always adopted and followed the policy that the service disabled deserve the highest consideration. We expressed this philosophy very vigorously during the last Congress when we supported the compensation increase bill, which got intermingled and bogged down with the insurance bill. That has always been our philosophy, and I think we will always support legislation to keep this ratio, whatever that ratio may be, in balance between the service-disabled programs and the non-service-connected programs.

So, with respect to your question on the dependent parents, I think that any increase in the non-service-connected programs should be kept in corresponding ratio so that the service-connected program does not get way out of joint, so to speak, with non-service-connected programs to the detriment of the service disabled.

Mr. KORNEGAY. It has appeared to me that during the course of these hearings we were developing two lines of thinking. There have been those who contend that non-service-connected pensions should be based on need. There has been another theory expressed that a non-serviceconnected pension should not be based on need, but justification for payment should be past services rendered-delayed payment, so to speak.

I think the committee is having some problem, particularly with that last philosophy, in this area: If the philosophy that we are going to follow is one of deferred payment for services rendered, then it would seem that the amount of the payment should be related to the amount of the service. Of course, if we base pension on need, then we have the minimum qualifications as now in the law, the 90 days' service, discharge other than disonorable, and other requirements of that sort.

Do you have any comment to make about those two philosophies at all, on the petition that your organization takes with reference to them?

Mr. STOVER. The Veterans of Foreign Wars has never adopted a resolution favoring a service pension. We have never recommended legislation calling for what is called a service pension. That is a pension based just on service, which is strictly a reward type of theory, that you are rewarded for having served in the Armed Forces.

Our resolutions have always incorporated income, disability, and need limitations. Our H.R. 33, for example, has these qualifications written into it. However, in my statement, of course, I did bring in that there should be more recognition for the type of service rendered, for example, the 90-day requirement. That 90-day requirement, so far as I can determine, was inherited from the Civil War. In the Civil War, maybe in 90 days the person was on the frontlineswas in combat. But today, or at least in World War II and again in the Korean conflict, it took more than 90 days for the average citizen to be trained, before he even got ready to leave the country.

It seems in our mind that there are so many veterans, 22 million veterans, that if the Congress wants to get into this field, one place you could start is by recognizing that oversea service, which includes all combat service, might be a place where you could look to attack this problem, if it is a problem, of pension payments.

The average veteran of World War II is 45. In 20 years their average age, of course, will be 65. We feel that oversea service should be given greater recognition. We are not calling it a reward or deferred payment for services rendered, but we do feel that this contribution, this service, is the basic reason for the pension program, and that the Congress might look into this matter.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I am inclined to agree with you on that. I want to particularly commend you for bringing that out so ably in your statement. But do you feel the Congress could write into law conditions, or go further than just taking into consideration oversea service, such as the length of service and the types of service the man had? You could run into all sorts of situations.

In your opinion, do you think it would be possible to satisfactorily write into law the conditions that would take into account the type of service the man rendered and the length of time he spent in service?

Mr. STOVER. Yes, I do, because legislatively and administratively speaking, the service that every veteran has rendered can be identified as overseas or not overseas by just looking at his discharge papers, his discharge certificate.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I know. I agree with you on that. It happens to be a relatively simple matter. But I am thinking about this: First, you have the length of time that a man spent in the service, regardless of where his service might have been. That could be a factor.

Secondly, you have the type of service he might have rendered. Ordinarily, you would say a man who was in 3 years ought to certainly get more credit than the man who was in 90 days. On the other hand, it might be that a man who spent 6 months in combat made a far greater contribution, endangered himself to a far greater extent, than someone who remained in the United States for 2 years.

Those are the difficulties that the committee has in trying to give credit for this type of thing.

Mr. STOVER. I understand your problem in making a determination on the type of service that you have described. I do think that if you want to draw a line, a broad line, you can always distinguish overseas and not overseas. I am not saying that all service on this side wasn't equivalent in some instances or even greater than some service on the other side.

Mr KORNEGAY. I understand that.

Mr. STOVER. But we do know that all service overseas, on a general basis

Mr. KORNEGAY (continuing). Was more hazardous.

Mr. STOVER. Right. That is what I am trying to say.
Mr. KORNEGAY. And more strenuous.

Mr. STOVER. And I think a line could be drawn at least to that extent, if the Congress wants to do so.

to start with.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Stover, do you

of H.R. 33?

That will give you something

have any figures on the cost

Mr. STOVER. I don't have any figures, except those of the VA. Mr. KORNEGAY. I believe they said in the first year it would be $1,099,528,000.

Mr. STOVER. That is correct. Of course, we have to generally rely on the Veterans' Administration because they are the agency which has the statistics and the personnel to make the projections.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Do you have any quarrels with their estimation of the cost?

Mr. STOVER. We have had many of our members who have expressed their disbelief in some of these figures, but they haven't really submitted any actuarial or statistical information which I feel would be sufficient to attack the validity of these estimates.

Mr. KORNEGAY. To sum up, to see if I understand the position which you take, you favor H.R. 33, which would be related exclusively to the World War I veteran.

Mr. STOVER. Right.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And for the other veterans, the widows and dependents of all veterans, they would fall under your H.R. 9665?

Mr. STOVER. VFW would urge that the bill be amended to include pensions for widows.

Mr. KORNEGAY. That is aimed at modifying and liberalizing Public Law 86-211.

Mr. STOVER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I want to thank you most sincerely, Mr. Stover, for coming and giving us this fine statement and the benefit of your thoughts on this very important matter.

It is always a pleasure to have you appear before the committee with your fine staff. Thank you very much.

Mr. STOVER. Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I would like to call Congressman Don Clausen. We are delighted to have you, Mr. Clausen, our able colleague from California.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON H. CLAUSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the opportunity of testifying again before your committee. Let me say at the outset, I don't envy your job in having to consider all the complex problems relating to a very important subject.

As you know, I have a bill, H.R. 6695, before you for consideration, and also, Mr. Chairman, your committee has before it today the last chapter in a unique story in American history. This is the story of a responsible nation that plunged into World War I against

totalitarianism because, as President Wilson put it, the world must be safe for democracy.

The United States prosecuted that war successfully and paid for it in lives and money. Further, we loaned our Allies $10 billion which never has been repaid. We haven't done so well since then. We haven't paid our bills so well; witness the present national debt of nearly $309 billion, and the talk of increasing it this year to something like $325 billion. We haven't been fair to the American Indians or to the descendants of Civil War slaves.

Now the question arises: Have we been fair to the World War I veterans, or is this the last debt we owe on World War I? We have here a group of some 2.3 million veterans and their widows, the men who came back after the greatest war in history up to that time. They plunged back into disrupted lives with little help, no GI bill of rights to help them advance, and they spent the most productive years of their lives in the great depression of the 1930's.

I do not believe that this is a welfare situation, Mr. Chairman; this is a pension situation. An adequate recognition, irrespective of the small additional income, is little enough acknowledgment of this group of civilian soldiers that have not been adequately recognized. Further, the question of the cost is no more pertinent here than it was when the GI bill of rights and GI home financing bills were considered. These proposals were meritorious, that is true, but no more than proposals offered to equalize the disparity in recognition of all of our veterans' groups.

Mr. Chairman, I have some 6,000 World War I veterans in my district. To be sure, this is a distinct minority when considering the sum total of all veterans in my district, and other districts. But the fine citizens, averaging 71 years of age, should not be treated as we have treated some minorities. They should be treated as part of our entire civilian soldier force, the backbone of this country's defense.

Regardless of whether we put all of our hopes on intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, the civilians who answered the calls in the past and who are ready in the future, regardless of our electronic genius, must be recognized.

I think John Moses, the director of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, explained it well when he said:

Service by the professional military forces is deemed essential to the Nation as a whole, because it assures us of security and leaves the majority free to pursue their own interests and ambitions.

We routinely recognize the maintenance of the Armed Forces as a proper charge upon the Public Treasury. We educate and train the regular members of the Armed Forces. We give them job security and reasonable compensation. We provide them and their families with fringe benefits such as medical and hospital services during their active duty and after retirement. We authorize retirement at an early age, and we pay retirement to the professional military services as essential to the Nation's security.

This Nation's history in time of war is the history of the civilian soldier. The conclusion cannot be avoided that the citizen soldier is the most significant element of our Nation's defense as a permanent and indispensable part of this Nation's military establishment. It is with that understanding that we come to realize that programs of

veterans' benefits and pensions are not based solely upon the necessity of caring for the disabled. They are based and justified as well upon the necessity of compensating the citizen soldier for his sacrifices in health and time spent, in earning power diminished, by virtue of that service.

Every American must stand ready to serve in the Armed Forces. Also, our stand and our Nation must keep faith with those who have served.

These, then, are the premises of veterans' benefits and pensions upon which both the need and justification of these programs are based. They are not a gratuity, a handout, or a dole. They are part of a realistic, honorable, compensation plan or payment for services rendered that is as necessary to our Nation and as much a part of the cost of its defense as the cost of guns, ammunition, ships, tanks, and planes. These are the equalities we seek, Mr. Chairman. I was there. Many of you were there. And a high percentage of our friends and neighbors were there.

While I am on this subject, I would say that most of the Members of Congress who were there are probably among those not asking for any assistance. Those who were incapacitated and those who missed some of their best chances and some of their best years deserve recognition commensurate with the honor and glory properly heaped upon those who did not return.

I also know widows, proud and fine ladies, who would take offense if I mentioned their names as being among those who fit into the category upon which the President has declared an antipoverty war. They should not have to ask, Mr. Chairman. Their recognition and solace should come from the heart of this Nation, and that is the Congress of the United States.

As members of this committee, you have a very difficult task before you, evaluating completely all factors and all legislation and, in particular, my own piece of legislation. Those of us who have sponsored legislation for the benefit of World War I veterans do so primarily because of our strong conviction that the World War I veteran has not received consideration on a parallel with the World War II and Korean war veterans.

As we consider comparability in other benefit and salary categories, let's not forget the plight of the World War I veteran or his widow. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think that each and every one of us have evaluated the overall problems. From an actuarial point of view, there are many difficulties, of course. But I have more or less concluded that the World War I veteran, whose years of productivity are behind him, has a special problem. In addition to this particular program that is being recommended here, I would certainly urge that we take into account all sorts of pension programs throughout the country for the people that are coming on so that we don't find the balance of our people throughout the country in a similar situation to the World War I veterans.

I think that what we need to do is to integrate with existing private programs and see that possibly in the Congress we would offer maybe some tax incentives or expand on tax incentives to carry out this particular concept. I am sure that each and every one of us would agree that there is a tendency for everyone to spend their funds as they go

33-917-6423