STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. HEALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to present my views concerning H.R. 10970 which proposes certain changes and improvements in the nonservice-connected pension program for veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict.

My approach to this bill is a result of a comprehensive review and study on my part of the pension program which has commanded a great deal of my attention and consideration during this Congress. The liberalizing proposals and changes in my bill will help hundreds of thousands of veterans who are in the greatest need.

What are these changes and improvements? How best can the veterans in the greatest need be helped? First, the income limitations for the minimum and intermediate steps, both for single and married veterans, is much too restrictive. An increase in these limitations as provided in my bill will result in a large number of veterans receiving a higher pension payment.

Secondly, in addition to increasing the income limitations, I am also proposing that all pension rates from the lowest to the highest be increased on the average of $10 to $15 a month. Presently the pension rates range from a low of $40 to a high of $100 a month depending upon the veterans income and dependency status. My bill will increase the rates in the minimum income steps from a low of $50 a month for a veteran with no dependents to a high of $110 a month for veterans with three or more dependents.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, by increasing both the income limitations of those in the greatest need and by increasing the pension payments for all qualifying veterans, the Congress will substantially help the majority of veterans who need the most help.

My bill, however, is not limited to these two liberalizing provisions. I have taken note of the large number of World War I veterans and the increasing number of World War II veterans who have reached 65. Under the terms of my bill the disability requirement for a veteran 65 or over will be eliminated. The veteran who reaches 65 will be presumed to be totally disabled and have met the disability requirement for entitlement to pension.

Another provision takes into account the large number of veterans who served overseas and in combat. During wartime veterans who served overseas and in certain combat areas were recognized for this greater effort by additional pay. You will recall that the basic pay of all servicemen in World War II was increased by 20 percent, for example, while serving overseas. My bill will continue this principle by providing an honorarium for overseas and combat service by increasing all pension rates for qualifying veterans by 10 percent.

Another group of veterans who in my opinion should also receive special recognition are those who are not only totally and permanently disabled but are so helpless that they are unable to take care of themselves or are housebound for the rest of their lives. These veterans who need the aid and attendance of another person or if their disabilities are not quite so severe, nevertheless, are cut off from society to be housebound for the rest of their lives would receive under the terms

of my bill and additional pension payment. The aid and attendance allowance would be increased by $15 a month from the present $70 to $85 a month. The housebound veterans, of whom there are a small number, would receive an additional $35.

Mr. Chairman, these are the major provisions in my bill which relate to an increase in the pension payments liberalizing the disability and income limitations to provide more money for veterans in the greatest need of larger pension payments. In addition, my bill also includes several provisions which are presently disregarded in determining the income limitations. For example, it seems a great injustice that a veteran who loses his wife or child through death cannot deduct the cost of burial when determining the annual income limitation. A similar inequity is the medical expenses of the veteran and his family which presently are not considered or deducted from the income limitation of the veteran. Likewise, it is a gross inequity to have the earned income of the wife counted as the income of the veteran.

Accordingly, my bill in determining income would exclude the following items:

1. Earned income of the veteran's spouse. This provides relief in the case of the wife who is forced to work, and maintains integrity of the family unit.

2. The amounts equal to the amounts paid by the veteran for the expenses of burial for his wife or child. This recognizes there are unavoidable and unanticipated expenses beyond normal needs of veterans which should be excluded.

3. Any profit realized from the sale or disposition of any real estate other than in the course of a trade or business. Sale of home by veteran is not income but a change in the form of assets.

4. Amounts equal to the amount paid by the veteran or by his wife for medical, dental, or hospital expenses of the veteran, his wife, or children. This expense recognizes the increasing high cost of drugs and medical care for a veteran.

5. Any payments received for discharge of any obligated civic duties such as jury duty.

These Mr. Chairman are the major and principle provisions of my bill which if enacted will bring about many desirable changes in the Veterans Pension Act of 1959 which is generally called Public Law 86-211, and has been the governing statute respecting veterans pensions since it went into effect on July 1, 1960. World War I veterans now represent about 90 percent of all veterans receiving pension payments. It naturally follows that under the provisions of my bill the veterans of World War I will be helped more than any other group of veterans. At the same time these provisions would eliminate many of the complaints and inequities which have become manifest since Public Law 86-211 has been in operation.

As I stated in the beginning H.R. 10970 is the end result of a lengthy review on my part of the veteran pension program. It is my earnest hope that the provisions of my bill represent an acceptable solution to the problems of hundreds of thousands of war veterans, especially the older, aging war veteran, which includes a large number of World War I veterans. I respectfully urge this subcommittee, the full committee, and the House to give favorable consideration to these views which I am sure all will agree will substantially improve the pension

program for these war veterans who did so much to preserve our way of life and keep freedom alive.

Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much.

Mr. HEALEY. The subcommittee will next hear Congressman Whalley, of Pennsylvania. You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. IRVING WHALLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. WHALLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the commitee, I should like to add my voice to those of many others who have appeared and will appear before you to urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 2332, the pending World War I Pension Act.

This is a measure which I believe is long overdue. It would grant a modest $100 a month pension to veterans who served in the Armed Forces during World War I for at least 90 days or who were released from service in a shorter time for a service-connected disability. Helpless and blind veterans would be granted an additional $70 a month. A widow's benefit of $75 is also provided.

These pension benefits would go only to those veterans and their widows whose income does not exceed $2,400 a year or, for those with dependents, $3,600. There is also a $1,200 retirement income exemption.

Mr. Chairman, we are now well into the fifth decade since the end of World War I. The world has seen immense changes during the passage of those decades. Our manner of living has changed, as has the manner of fighting wars. The hardship and privation suffered by the footsoldier are to a great extent a thing of the past. But to the World War I veteran they were commonplace and real.

Mr. Chairman, the veterans of all of our wars prior to the First World War were granted service pensions much like the pension provided in H.R. 2332. The veterans of our later wars-World War II and Korea-were granted other benefits upon discharge, including readjustment allowances, housing and business loans, and educational and training assistance.

The World War I veteran has been shortchanged by comparison. It is time we balanced the ledger and granted him the only type of special assistance that will do him any good today. I urge you to give favorable consideration to the World War I Pension Act. Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Whalley.

We will next hear Congressman Matsunaga, of Hawaii. You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Pensions, I appreciate this opportunity to appear in favor of H.R. 9547, a bill which I introduced.

H.R. 9547 provides:

1. Public or private retirement payments-including social security benefits shall not be counted as income.

2. That the income of the veteran's spouse shall be disregarded in the determination of annual income of a veteran.

3. That "net worth" be eliminated as a test of eligibility for a veteran to receive a pension.

4. That the requirement of reduction of pension during hospitalization for veterans with dependents be repealed.

I have introduced this bill because I believe that the present restrictions on the granting of pensions are not completely just and therefore should be relaxed.

It

Under the present law, social security payments as well as certain private retirement payments are counted against the income limitations in determining both eligibility for pension and the total monthly amount of pension which a veteran may be entitled to receive. seems to me that retirement pay earned in civilian life should stand on the same footing as retirement pay earned through military career service. Both should be treated as earned benefits and should not be used to reduce pension payments. However, at the present time, military retirement pay is not a limiting factor on pensions, while social security and certain private retirement payments are treated as factors limiting veterans' pensions.

Neither should the income of a spouse be treated as a factor reducing the amount of the pension. The spouse of a veteran usually works in order to take care of pressing family obligations. Her efforts should not be discouraged nor her net return to the family cut severely by treating her earnings as a limitation on her husband's pension.

"Net worth" should not be used as a test of eligibility for a pension. A veteran's net worth often consists of a little home and relatively small savings to help provide for himself and his family in old age. A veteran should not be forced to become a pauper in order to be eligible for a pension. On the contrary, he should be encouraged to save something for his old age.

The injustice of the requirement for reduction of the pension of a veteran with dependents during hospitalization is, I believe, clear. It reduces his ability to meet his family obligations in his period of greatest need.

In addition to the provisions of H.R. 9547, I believe that H.R. 251, which would correct the inequitable situation under which a serviceconnected disabled veteran cannot receive any part of a normal pension plan without waiving his disability compensation, should be given favorable consideration.

I take not of the fact that it is now possible for a veteran with no service-connected disability to receive more than a service-connected disabled veteran, up to 40 percent disability.

I ask that this legislation be reported favorably by this subcom

mittee.

Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. We thank you, Mr. Matsunaga.

The subcommittee will now hear Congressman Al Ullman, of the State of Oregon. You may proceed, Mr. Ullman.

STATEMENT OF HON. AL ULLMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for scheduling hearings on veterans' pension legislation and for permitting me to support improvements to our existing pension laws.

First, I wish to express my support for a change in Public Law 86-211. Since 1960 when this law was enacted, we have had an overall 5.2 percent increase in the cost of living. In the cost of medical services, which constitutes a major item in the living expense of our older citizens, we have had an 8.7 increase. For this reason, I hope the committee will increase both the income limitations and the monthly pension payments under this law.

Second, I would particularly like to make a plea for the veterans of World War I in the hope that this committee will make a full study of the needs of this group and give sympathetic consideration to their request for a separate pension program. As spokesmen for the Veterans of World War I, Inc., have pointed out, these men did not receive either the financial or educational benefits awarded to veterans of World War II or the Korean war. I know that the members of this committee are concerned that the establishment of a pension program for World War I veterans will set a precedent for the same consideration to be given to World War II and Korean war veterans. However, I believe the higher incomes being earned by veterans of these later wars, plus the benefits already received, the virtual universal coverage under social security, and expansion of pension programs will guarantee that these men and their dependents, as a group, will never be in need.

I urge the members of this committee to establish a pension program for World War I veterans with income limitations sufficiently high to permit them to maintain a decent standard of living. I make this plea for three reasons. First, the existing program, with its graduated income scale, is difficult and expensive to administer. Second, an increase to our older veterans and their widows would provide a substantial boost to our economy. Third, and most important, we owe to these men a substantial unpaid debt for their suffering and sacrifices during the first World War.

Again, my thanks for your courtesy in permitting me to testify. Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Ullman.

Our next witness will be Congressman Moorhead, of Pennsylvanna. Proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in support of H.R. 9100, a bill to amend title 38 of the United States Code with regard to eligibility of pension of certain widows of Civil War vet

erans.