data on veteran interstate migration from 1955 to 1960; (2) Bureau of the Census data on 1960-64 (preliminary for 1963-64) civilian population migration which were used in preparing estimates of the population of States for July 1, 1964 (Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series 25, No. 289, Bureau of the Census, Aug. 31, 1964); and (3) published and unpublished Bureau of the Census estimates of annual U.S. population mobility, by sex and age, 1960-65. These State veteran population estimates are consistent with similar estimates for June 30, 1960, and June 30 and Dec. 31, 1964. They are independent of, and therefore not strictly comparable with, estimates for other dates since June 30, 1960. (The 1960 veteran population benchmark estimates have been published in Research Monograph 7, County Veteran Population, June 30, 1960, Research Statistics Service, Office of Controller, Veterans' Administration.)

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of H.R. 168. This measure will provide a well-deserved increase in the basic rates of monthly compensation for service-connected disabilities. It will inIt will increase the dependency allowances paid to seriously disabled veterans on behalf of wives and minor children. It will liberalize the income limitations that control the payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to dependent parents of veterans or servicemen whose deaths were service connected.

The philosophy has repeatedly been voiced, Mr. Speaker, that the Nation's service-connected disabled and their survivors are deserving of our highest priority consideration. In fact, this In fact, this philosophy is the policy of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The bill before the House today represents the continuing implementation of that policy. It is a bill that recognizes that the Nation's disabled veteran is also affected by the rising cost of living.

In testimony presented to our committee, spokesmen for the administration recommended a measure that failed to

CXI-1450

disabled, the 70-percent disabled, or the 10-percent disabled veterans. I am happy to report that the committee rejected py to report that the committee rejected this recommendation.

The bill before you today will provide increases in compensation for all percentage ratings from 10 percent through 100 percent. In addition, the more seriously disabled suffering from multiple amputations or loss of use of more than one extremity or blindness will receive an increase in their so-called statutory award. Almost 2 million disabled veterans will share in monthly increases ranging from $1 for the 10-percent disability to $50 for the 100-percent disabilability to $50 for the 100-percent disability.

Section 2 of the bill will provide an approximate 10-percent increase in the allowances for dependents payable to veterans who are at least 50 percent disabled. This allowance was last increased in 1957. The dependency allowance is normally paid on behalf of a child until the child reaches the age of 18 years. In the case of a child attending school, the allowance is continued to age 21. H.R. 168 will extend tinued to age 21. H.R. 168 will extend the age limit to 23 years for a child at

tending school and at the same time increase the monthly payment on behalf of a child in school to $40 in the case of a totally disabled veteran. Those with disabilities rated at 50 through 90 percent would receive proportionate increases.

This provision, Mr. Speaker, should provide some additional stimulus for children of seriously disabled veterans to remain in school. Another section of the bill will increase the income limits which determine eligibility of dependent parents for dependency and indemnity compensation payments. When a young unmarried serviceman is killed in Vietnam today, his parents must have a combined income of less than $2,400 annually to qualify for monthly payments from the Veterans' Administration. The bill before you today will increase this limitation to $3,000, thus permitting parents to more easily qualify for monthly benefits based upon the death of a son in service.

The bill also contains a number of miscellaneous provisions which represent either clarification of existing law or relatively minor revisions of existing law. The bill contains two provisions

relating to the Veterans' Administration nursing care program. Despite the fact that the Congress authorized 4,000 nursing care beds in additions to the existing hospital beds, the Veterans' Administration and the Bureau of the Bureau of the Budget interpreted our action to mean that the 4,000 nursing care beds were included within the 125,000-bed ceiling.

Should this provision become law, the Veterans' Administration, of course, would have great difficulty in constructing nursing care beds at the expense of beds already devoted to active medical

care.

The other provision should encourage States to participate in the veterans' nursing care program. You will recall that the nursing care legislation from the 88th Congress authorizing the appropriation of $5 million annually to be disbursed to States on an equal matching fund basis for the construction of nurs

ing care beds for veterans. Under the terms of the legislation, not more than 10 percent of the total $5 million appropriation could be utilized in any one State. A very stringent limitation on the maximum number of beds that could be constructed in any one State was based on the veteran population within the State. As a result, many of the smaller States were limited to 28 or 30 nursing care beds under this program. Apparently, because of these limitations, the Veterans' Administration has received no formal applications for con

struction funds. Because there were no

takers, the appropriation of $5 million has been trimmed to $21⁄2 million for the current fiscal year.

In an effort to provide additional incentive to States to participate in this program, H.R. 168 removes the dollar limitation per State and revises the ceiling on the number of beds that could be allocated to any one State.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill represents an equitable adjustment in the rates of compensation for service-connected disability. It also provides other needed changes in existing law. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GROSS. gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, will the

Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman

from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman for yielding. Perhaps I am not conversant with this bill, but a raise of $1 per month, from $20 to $21, for a 10-percent disabled veteran would scarcely be a cost-of-living increase as related to 1933.

crease. In order to accomplish this purpose it became necessary to vary the percentage increase at each disability level. Consequently, the 10-percent disabled veteran will receive a 5-percent increase while the 100-percent disabled veteran will receive a 20-percent increase. So although those at the lower level are getting in most cases something less than the average 10 percent, those with serious disabilities will receive more than that figure. None, however, will receive less than the percentage increase in the cost of living since 1962, the year that the rates of compensation were last increased.

Mr. GROSS. I thought that was probably the case. We have gone into that compression in connection with pay increases for Federal employees. I thought that was probably the case, but I think it is something of a misnomer to say this is a cost-of-living bill when the increase is $1 from $20 to $21 and $2 per month, from $38 to $40, with a 20 percent disability.

Mr. ADAIR. Perhaps we should emphasize the remarks made earlier, that it is a modest increase and one which, therefore, we think every person in this body will want to support. The gentleman is well aware that if we do give larger increases, the dollar cost mounts very rapidly. I may say to the gentleman that we were under some pressure from the Veterans' Administration and the Bureau of the Budget to keep the dollar cost of this to a reasonable figure, and we have done so, while providing, at the same time, a reasonable increase in who are seriously disabled. compensation rates, particularly to those

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, as long as we are going to try to police the world. I assume that these bills for veterans will those who believes we ought to be withonly get larger. I happen to be one of drawing our troops from at least some of the areas of the world and letting those people take on their own policing obligations. In that way we should be able to reduce the necessity for some of this spending.

Mr. ADAIR.

have to respond to the gentleman by sayMr. Speaker, I would ing that certainly as long as hostilities do continue throughout the world we are bound to have greater expenditures for an obligation to do the best we can to

veterans' benefits. I feel that we have

take care of them.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I will say to the gentleman that I am thinking

in terms of Europe. I believe the non

Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the situation where the recent increase in social security benefits has resulted in one amount which is much smaller than the amount of veterans' benefits that are lost by the social security recipients' increases in social security. Could the gentleman explain whether or not something is being done about that?

Mr. ADAIR. I would say to the gentleman that this is a matter which is very much before the committee and is receiving study. This bill, being a compensation bill, does not go to that point. We are aware of the inequity of which the gentleman speaks, and the committee is studying it and working on it.

Mr. HOSMER. I thank the gentleman, because it does concern a large number of veterans, and something should be done about it.

Mr. ADAIR. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, in this session of the 89th Congress, we have passed a great number of bills designed to enhance the quality of life in America and to make the boundless opportunities of America more fully available to all her citizens. We have endeavored to provide more security for our senior citizens, better housing for those living in substandard dwellings, and a greater promise of higher education for our young. But none of this would be possible if it were not for the past sacrifices of today's veterans-sacrifices which kept America free and secure.

It is therefore, most appropriate that

in our strivings to advance our society, we remember the efforts of those who The bill before us today, which I was saved our society by their dedication, endurance, and countless acts of courage. count the special sacrifices of a class of privileged to cosponsor, takes into acthese veterans-those who were disabled

in the service of their country.

This bill increases the rate of compensation to disabled veterans, to bring this creased cost of living. Rates of compencompensation up to date with the insation for service-disabled veterans were last increased in 1962, since which time, the cost of living has increased some 2/2

dependency allowances, which were last was 10.3 percent lower than it is today. adjusted in 1957, when the cost of living Thus, the main object of this bill is to

percent. In addition, the bill increases

crease in dependency allowances was in 1957. The cost of living has increased 2.5 percent and 10.3 percent since those

dates. Since 1933 there has been a 141 percent increase in the cost of living and a 126-percent increase in compensation rates. The proposed overall average increase would more closely establish comparability between these two figures. It was the committee's feeling that the more seriously disabled veteran should receive a substantial in

ability financially and otherwise to take

to get our troops back from Europe.

Mr. ADAIR. Certainly I would find myself in agreement with the gentleman that we ought to look to other nations of the world to carry a greater share of the load of taking care of themselves and, indeed, taking a greater share of the load of assisting underdeveloped nations.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

This is indeed a modest measure. It is not designed to reward those who suf

fered injury or sustained disease in their service to this Nation, for those men are above seeking rewards for having done what they viewed as their duty, as Members of Congress, to compensate these veterans for lost earning power attributable to their service-connected disabilities.

Other provisions of the bill would adjust indemnity payments to the par