I urge this committee to approve H.R. 4667 or any one of the similar bills now under consideration.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Congressman Perkins. We are pleased to have as our next witness, Congressman Beckworth. Congressman, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDLEY BECKWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate the fact that hearings have begun on H.R. 2332. I recognize that many of our World War I veterans are passing on annually. As one who has been interested in the problems of our World War I veterans many years as well as all other veterans, I do trust every effort will be made to study with the greatest care the problems of our World War I

veterans.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Congressman Beckworth. I am pleased to welcome Congressman Bow, who will be our next witness. You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK T. BOW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, I have been extremely sympathetic to the many reports of hardship I have received in recent months from veterans and the widows of veterans, and I have given considerable study to the various pension bills pending in the House, their cost, their benefits and, above all, whether they are fair and equitable to the beneficiaries.

This study convinced me that the American Legion proposal was the most reasonable, and I have introduced H.R. 11096, a companion bill to H.R. 1927, to demonstrate my support of the proposal.

I recognize that this committee has devoted years of study to the problems of veterans and that the membership has expert knowledge of these problems. I would not presume to advise you on the details of pension legislation, but I do sincerely urge that some measure be reported to the House that will improve the pension program for veterans, widows, and dependents. I will welcome the opportunity to support such a measure in the House at this session of Congress. Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Bow.

Our next witness will be Congressman Richard H. Ichord. You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. ICHORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee on the non-service-connected pension issue. I realize that the committee has a very complex task and that there are more than 150 bills pending before the committee on this subject. I realize further that your task is complicated by the fact that each of the major veterans organizations is supporting a somewhat different proposal and you are charged with the responsibility of making the final decision.

I believe there is an area of agreement for all of us interested in the non-service-connected pension program, and particularly the problems of the World War I group. There are 2.4 million World War I veterans living today and several thousand World War I widows. The average age of the World War I veteran is past 70 years, and the average age of the widows is about 65. There are more than 15,000 children of World War I veterans on the pension rolls today. In view of the advanced age of these beneficiaries of the pension program certain problems stand out, and I would like to comment on some of them.

One of the most acute problems is that of chronic illness which accompanies advanced age, and I would like to recommend that the committee give special attention to this problem when it acts on the bills under consideration today. I had the pleasure of supporting H.R. 8009, the nursing care bill which was passed in the House of Representatives recently and is now pending in the Senate. I think this is one of the finest pieces of veterans' legislation we have had before us for some time. It would provide nursing care for thousands of seriously disabled World War I veterans who are unable to care for themselves.

In addition to this nursing care bill, we should give special attention to the aid and attendance pension allowance. There are more than 25,000 aid and attendance cases among the World War I veterans, and I strongly recommend that we raise the aid and attendance allowance as much as possible. You know that rate today is $70 per month. I recommend that we raise it to $100 per month if it is at all possible. Several years ago in the service connected compensation program we created a new category and a new rate for housebound veterans. I believe we should extend this concept to the non-service-connected pension program and pay a housebound allowance to pensioners in this category. I recommend that this rate be about $40 per month, in addition to the regular pension. I believe also that there is justification to providing extra allowance for the blind and paralyzed veterans. Therefore, I hope you will give extra consideration for allowance to these groups. I am sure there is no disagreement that we should do all we can for those World War I veterans and other veterans who have reached an advanced age and are encountering serious health problems such as chronic heart conditions, paralysis, and senility. We must think not only of the veterans afflicted by these chronic diseases. but also of his wife who is directly affected by attempting to care for him.

The next group which I direct attention to is the very low income category, both among veterans and widows. There are 40,000 veterans and 55,000 widows who have less than $600 annual income. We should direct our greatest increase to these cases in an effort to lift their total income to a decent level. There are more than 90,000 veterans with 1 dependent and 6,000 widows with 1 child who have less than $1,000 annual income. This is another group which deserves special attention and consideration.

I believe there is general agreement that those veterans and widows in the lowest income categories should get the most help in order that their total income can at least approximate the average income for other elderly Americans.

There are several other things which I believe should be done to improve the pension program now operating under Public Law 86-211. Several categories of income not now exempt should be. I refer specifically to (1) the income of the working wife; (2) profit gained from the sale of the home; (3) expenses of last illness and burial of the spouse or children; and (4) unusual medical expenses incurred by the veteran for himself, his wife, or his children.

Mr. Chairman, the World War I veterans and their widows are entering the twilight years of their lives. These men responded when the Nation was in peril and fought a brutal war for which they were ill-prepared. Their training was inadequate, and their equipment and supplies were not the best. We did not have good records then of the services performed by the individuals or records of medical treatment. Would it not be beneath the dignity of this great Nation to allow its defenders to sink into ill-fortune? We must have these pension programs to elevate our old soldiers from "dire necessity" living conditions.

Programs of this nature are in the best traditions of our Nation, and I feel sure your committee can report a bill which will meet the general approval of the various groups involved. I hope the committee can report a bill which will improve the living standards of the sick and needy veterans. This much we owe a group of citizens who made great sacrifices to defend the honor of their country. Some of the benefits I have proposed are long overdue, and I therefore extol you gentlemen of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee to give the non-serviceconnected pension program special attention and consideration. Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Congressman Ichord.

We will now hear from Congresswoman Leonor K. Sullivan. You may proceed, Mrs. Sullivan.

STATEMENT BY HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Chairman Kornegay and members of the subcommittee, my statement will be very brief, because I am sure my position on the matter of pensions for World War I veterans is well known to this committee. Over the years, I have consistently supported legislation to extend pensions to this dwindling group of older veterans and have gone to the unusual lengths of signing discharge petitions to bring such legislation before the House when no other route was successful. I am happy, therefore, that the committee is now reconsidering this issue and I hope you will recommend legislation to the House similar to that called for in the discharge petition filed by Representative Denton.

I would like to make a further suggestion-one which I have discussed at some length with Chairman Olin Teague of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This has to do with the arbitrary cutoff of pensions or the sharp reduction in pensions when a veteran's other income exceeds by a tiny amount the fixed ceilings imposed under present law. I have had instances of great personal hardship called to my attention by veterans in my district who, for instance, found themselves owing the Government very substantial amounts they could not repay merely because of an unexpected little windfall which put

them over the ceiling. In one case it was an amount of $61 a year over the maximum. It cost him hundreds of dollars in pension. In another, a veteran on civil service retirement received a 5 percent increase in his annuity, amounting to $150 a year, and it cost him $540 a year in reduced veteran's pension. Could the law not be made more flexible so that, along the lines of social security, for each dollar in income over a specified ceiling, the veteran lose only $1 of pension, rather than very substantial amounts? I strongly urge more flexibility in this regard.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you so much, Mrs. Sullivan.

Our next witness is a fine member of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Congressman George E. Brown of California. You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I hold very strong feelings that this committee should report out, favorably and quickly, a pension_bill that would deal generously with the veterans of World War I. Personally, I do not consider that the amount of $100 a month, as proposed in H.R. 2332, is unreasonable or beyond our ability to pay. A reasonable income limitation should be applied, of course, but I would support a much higher pension for those needy and deserving veterans in the lowest income brackets.

It is not asking too much that every veteran of World War I-in fact, every citizen of the United States-should have an income at a level necessary to keep him from existing in a state of poverty in this Nation of overflowing abundance.

I believe that this committee should investigate all aspects of a broad pension program and did not sign the discharge petition for H.R. 2332 for this reason.

Certain facts should be kept in mind in considering the special circumstances of veterans of World War I. The total number of veterans of this war is decreasing at a more rapid rate each year. Therefore, if we are going to consider a pension plan primarily on the basis of wartime service, we should do it now. There is no defense for procrastination that might be construed as waiting until the number of eligible pensioners is low enough to make the cost easier to bear. We are then providing benefits to some of our veterans of World War I simply because they have been able to outlive the rest. The average age of these veterans is well over 67, I believe, and for those without an adequate outside income, we should certainly assure that they will not be in want.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Our next witness will be Congressman Weltner of Georgia. You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES LONGSTREET WELTNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. WELTNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of presenting to the committee a brief statement on behalf of veterans and their dependents who are now receiving non-service-connected benefits.

Since coming to Congress, I have been impressed by the conscientious efforts of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.

I understand the magnitude of the task before this committee. Quite naturally, several outstanding national veterans' organizations have presented differing proposals for the liberalization of pension laws. I recognize that it is extremely difficult to settle upon the best changes in present law, in light of the more than 150 different bills before the committee.

However, I am anxious to express approval to reasonable proposals to liberalize the program for non-service-connected pensions.

I note that under the present program, a widow with one child is ineligible if her income is over $3,000 a year, and a widow without dependents does not receive benefits if her income is over $1,800. A veteran without dependents may not earn over $1,800 a year and remain eligible, and regardless of how many dependents he has, he may not earn more than $3,000 annually if he is to receive benefits under the law.

I believe that we can well afford reasonable liberalization of these standards for the payment of benefits, in line with the increase in cost of living over the past few years.

The American Legion, the VFW, DAV, Amvets, and other veterans' organizations are experts in this field, and have made long and thorough studies of the pension programs. Representatives of the groups have outlined specific recommendations for presentation to the committee during these hearings. Then, too, this committee has spent, and will spend, long hours seeking fair and equitable solutions. I do not purport to be an expert on all legislation in this area, and will therefore confine my remarks to general approval and support of liberalization of the pension program. I hope this might be accomplished by this Congress.

If we succeed in liberalization of the non-service-connected benefits program, I hope this committee will give careful consideration to appropriate adjustment in the income limitations which now apply to dependent parents under the dependency and indemnity compensation program. If this is not done, obvious inequities will result.

May I again emphasize that I strongly support of the basic and traditional philosophy, long established by Congress, of providing benefits on the basis of need, with the larger benefits, of course, accruing where need is greatest. As cost of living increases, so does that need.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Weltner. I now call Congressman George Miller of California. Mr. Miller, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to go on record in support of H.R. 2332, my companion bill, H.R. 5467, and other similar bills introduced to provide for the payment of pensions to veterans of World War I and their families and dependents.

It should not be necessary for me to enumerate the basic fact that veterans of World War I and their families are facing ever-increasing hardships in meeting the high cost of living as well as other economic burdens facing this important group in our society.