affirmative. While that is true, there were many reservations, particularly by those who thought they were in the best position to qualify their remarks, because they said, "I am a veteran of World War I," or "I am a veteran of World War II," and they were themselves qualified, and they answered "Yes" with certain restrictions and for a need for economy. With that in mind I am going to ask you this question:

Suppose we had an improvement in our fiscal policy to the end that the dollar could buy more in 1954, would you not say we would actually increase the veteran benefits to the extent that we would raise the amount by the increase in purchasing power?

Mr. STEVENS. Well, that would be true; veterans would benefit as well as everyone else in the country; but what we are driving at in these bills, which the American Legion is sponsoring and supporting, is to get recognition for all disabilities in proportion, in the serviceconnected cases, for the veterans with disability rated less than 50 percent, and base such disability compensation payment upon the average impairment in earning capacity; it is our feeling that compensation awards should be in proportion to the degree that partial disability relates to total.

Our table, which has now been inserted in the record, shows that of the World War II group over 82 percent of the service-connected disabilities are rated less than 50 percent; of the World War I group, 71 percent are rated less than 50 percent. This shows, it seems to me, that the best way to economize at the expense of the disabled is to fail to provide, as was done, that they, the lesser disabled, get the same proportion of benefits as those who are 50 percent or more disabled.

Mr. RADWAN. I do not think any reasonable individual would quarrel with the American Legion recommendation, except I thought I ought to call attention to the statement because we are all going to be confronted with the statement that we have heard read in the record that the estimated cost of such a bill for the first year will be such-and-such amount in millions of dollars. We are going to be confronted with this.

Mr. STEVENS. Wars cost money, and this is just a part of that cost. Mr. RADWAN. I am glad you brought that out, because in order to set out my position as a member of this particular committee, and as chairman of this particular subcommittee, I inserted a statement in the Congressional Record

Mr. STEVENS. I read it; enjoyed reading it.

Mr. RADWAN. Where I show that these costs are directly connected with the war. And in discussing these matters back home, I pointed out that there was a great deal of reluctance in, perhaps, spending $10 million now, whereas, if $10 billion were added on in 1942 it would have gone through very easily.

. I realize the position that the various veterans' groups take, and I am sure that you all realize my position and that of the entire committee. But we are going to be confronted with quite an obstacle this year on any bill, and any help the veterans can give us will be appreciated.

Mr. STEVENS. We will very definitely try. We have always had very fine cooperation and understanding from this committee, we have felt that the committee looks with real understanding at the bills. that we have favored, and we hope you will give thorough considera-tion to these bills.

32094-53- -7

Mrs. ROGERS. May I ask a question?

Mr. RADWAN. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. What do you think of the proposal to pay compensation quarterly? Do you not consider that would result in loss of compensation at the time the veteran may need it most?

Mr. STEVENS. Mrs. Rogers, we have no mandate on that, so I cannot speak to that other than personally. I believe there are thousands of veterans in lower-income brackets who receive compensation, of $17.25 or $31.50 who wait for their checks because they need the payments monthly. There are many who use part of that to pay their insurance premiums through monthly deductions from their compensation and to pay small monthly bills.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; but a great many of them also use it to pay their grocery bill as well.

Mr. STEVENS. And it helps.

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes; it helps.

Mr. RADWAN. Before you leave, Mr. Stevens, do you have any statement with reference to H. R. 631, Mr. Teague's bill, which would authorize payments in the 10- to 20-percent cases on a quarterly basis?

Mr. STEVENS. My remarks were directed to that bill, Mr. Chairman, in response to the question of Mrs. Rogers, but I cannot speak for the American Legion. I was giving my personal observation. Mr. RADWAN. Thank you very much for your statement. Mr. STEVENS. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ADIN M. DOWNER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

Mr. RADWAN. We will be glad to hear now Mr. Downer, assistant legislative representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Mr. DowNER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for the record my name is Adin M. Downer. I am accompanied by Mr. Elmer Richter, our chief of claims, who is in the room, and who will be glad to answer any technical questions the committee may have.

In compliance to the request you made, Mr. Chairman, I shall endeavor to make my remarks very brief. I shall limit my time and apportion my comments among the bills we consider most important.

The first subject is dependents' allowances. I should like merely to state that the bill, H. R. 53, was introduced at our request, by Mrs. Rogers, your gracious chairman. It is in compliance with the mandate of the 1953 National Encampment of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and continues the policy that our organization took on this question the preceding year.

I do not wish to be understood as definitely opposing the other two bills, which would extend dependency allowances to the 10-percent disabled, if the committee feels that it is proper that they should be so extended. Our organization, however, has seen fit to recommend only that it be extended to disabled of 40 percent.

Our organization decided in favor of including the 40-percent disabled. Some seriously disabled cases are not presently covered by dependency allowances, such as some amputees and some eye cases, under the present laws which do not permit dependency allowances below the 50 percent.

Extending it to 40 percent would bring in some of the more seriously disabled individuals.

We have rather had the feeling that to extend the dependency allowance to the 10-percent disability has some aspects of absurdity. The disabled veteran with the 10-percent disability who might be having a desperate time in making ends meet in supporting his family, with perhaps an invalid child, under that provision would receive additional compensation for the child of $1.40 a month, and we rather felt that one in those circumstances and under those conditions if he is entitled to dependency allowance for a dependent, he is entitled to $14, the same as the totally disabled, if he is entitled to anything. That is what the thinking of the organization has been. I do not know that the committee wishes to spend more time on that particular subject. I shall not take more of your time, other than to repeat that is the recommendation of our organization that the committee report H. R. 53.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel that the rate of compensation for a man who lost a leg or an arm or lost the sight of an eye, or those poorly compensated for the losses, should be increased? As you know, I was for an increase in the compensation.

Mr. DOWNER. Yes; we do think that, Mrs. Rogers.
Mrs. ROGERS. It provided a very small amount.

Mr. DOWNER. On the subject of compensation I should just like to say one thing further: We are strongly in favor of the bill H. R. 2575, which is the only bill before the committee at this time, which would increase the payment of disability compensation to the permanently and totally disabled. But on that particular question I should like to present to the committee a few figures that we have obtained, but before doing that I would like to make a few general comments on the subject of compensation.

I think the public generally recognizes and accepts and approves of the theory of compensation. That must be true, else all 48 States of the Union would not have enacted workmen's compensation laws to provide for payment to workers in industry.

Also, the Congress would not have enacted a Federal Employees Compensation Act to provide for payment to injured civilian employees of the Federal Government.

There seems to be from some quarters rather insistent and increasing wails and objections and opposition to the rate or amount of the payments of compensation to veterans.

I would like to suggest to the committee that perhaps one reason for that is that the payment of compensation to veterans comes out of the Federal Treasury. It is right there in one sum where everybody can see it. The taxpayer can see and realize here is a program that is costing him money. Taking money out of his pocket and especially when his taxes are high that is an important thing to him and he is quite impressed by it. Consequently, he concludes that the cost of this program is excessive. But I think we should not overlook the fact, and it applies to every person in this room, the clothes that we are wearing, the food that we eat, houses in which we live, the automobiles which we drive, the cost of them is increased by the workmen's compensation payments that are made to the civilian workers in industry that produce those goods. We pay that just as effectively, and the taxpayer pays it just as effectively, as the taxpayer pays the

compensation to an injured and disabled veteran because the cost of the goods and services we buy is increased by the cost of that compensation that is paid to civilians. But it is hidden. People aren't aware of it. They don't see it. Consequently, we hear no protest at all about the amount of compensation that is paid to civilian workers.

Under our Federal Employees Compensation Act, I think in 1949, the Congress saw fit to increase the rates under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, that is the maximum amount payable under the act to an injured civilian employee of the Federal Government from $116.66 a month to $525 a month. I don't recall that there was any protest from anybody, even though that is a much larger increase than has ever been made at any time, percentagewise, in veterans compensation.

I think we should not lose sight of that sort of thing. I don't mean to say to the committee that there is no difference in workmen's compensation and in veterans' compensation. I recognize there is; that the rules of liability are not as liberal as the rules of liability in veterans' compensation and I don't think they should be. I have never heard anybody propose that they should.

However, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that as distinguished from the civilian worker whose entitlement to compensation is dependent upon his injury having arisen in the course and scope of his employment, we must recognize that the civilian worker goes to work for his employer at a definite hour of the day and is relieved from work at a definite hour of the day. The time after his employment hours is his own time. While the man in the service is subject to orders, subject to call to duty 24 hours a day.

In addition, we think we should not lose sight of the fact that the civilian worker who is protected by workmen's compensation laws is pursuing the field of activity that he has voluntarily chosen to pursue to earn his livelihood. He is under no restraints and under no compulsion. And the activities that he is pursuing are for his own benefit. While the man in the service is certainly not pursuing the activities that he has chosen as his life's work and the benefits from his services go to the Nation as a whole.

So I think, generally speaking, we should not lose sight of that fact. Are the rates too high? Or, are they not? On that question I should like to suggest to you that in 1940 the Consumers' Price Index was at approximately 100. At that time the compensation payable to a veteran for a permanent, total disability was $100.

Now, to use the same Consumers' Price Index, which is the old-style table, on February 15, 1953, that index stood at 188.6. Now, our bill, H. R. 2575, seeks to increase the compensation rate for permanent, total disability to $187.50 per month, which would put it in almost exact equality with the Consumers' Price Index as compared to the relation that existed between them in the year 1940. Mr. RADWAN. You figured that out pretty fine, didn't you? Mr. DOWNER. Yes, sir.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I think we should also consider the fact that in the Consumers' Price Index, food on February 15, 1953, had an index of 228.6. Apparel had an index of 201.2. While in 1940 those items under the price index were food, 95.6; apparel, 102.

Those are two items of living costs that constitute a very high portion of the budget of people who live on their compensation.

Consequently, it seems to me that the increase in living costs conclusively justifies an upward revision in the compensation rates. In addition to the living costs, I should like to point out to the committee what has happened in one other field of our economic structure.

In 1940 the average hourly earnings of workers in the manufacturing industry was 66 cents an hour. In January 1953 the average hourly earnings of workers in the manufacturing industry was $1.74, an increase of 163 percent.

During that same period of time, our compensation for permanent total disability has increased from $100 a month to $172.50, an increase of 72%1⁄2 percent, against an increase of 163 percent for workers in the manufacturing industry.

I merely want to submit these figures to the committee to show to you our sincere and absolute belief that payments to service-connected disabled should be increased.

In accordance with the question you raised with Mr. Stephens, Mr. Radwan, I should like to say I think the feeling of our members is this: That living costs have not been going down; they have been going up. Consequently, for years the veterans receiving compensation have been suffering a penalty.

Well, now, they are inclined to think that if after all these years of an increase in living costs and a penalty to the veterans because of it, as soon as we are going to have a decline, if they are going to say, now, as soon as we have a change that will be some benefit to you, we are going to reduce your compensation correspondingly. I think that would be their view of it.

I think they have not forgotten the fact that back during the depression of 1929 and the early 1930's, when living costs were reduced to where it was some benefit to a veteran living on his compensation, the Congress passed the Economy Act. They felt that the only time when a change in living costs might have been of any benefit to them, the Congress came along and reduced the compensation.

As to the death compensation to widows and children, I should like to briefly comment on that. I hope I am not taking too much time.

Mr. RADWAN. I am watching the clock for the benefit of the others who testify.

Mr. DOWNER. I appreciate it. I certainly don't want to encroach on the time of the other organizations.

As to death compensation for widows and children, I would like to briefly recall to your mind something that perhaps we may have forgotten. I think there was great public surprise and protest expressed a couple of years ago, upon the death of Admiral Sherman, when people found that his widow was entitled to only $75 a month. I quickly approximated, this is almost exactly correct, I think, the amount that Admiral Sherman's widow would have received, had Admiral Sherman been a civilian employee of the Government at the same rate of pay that he was drawing as an admiral in the Navy, she would have received $484 a month.

It seems to me that certainly we aren't providing sufficient incentive to people to spend a lifetime in the Armed Forces of the United States.