ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

deals with the income limitation requirements, for as you are undoubtedly aware, the present limitations were established in 1934, and in the light of present day costs are, of course, totally unrealistic. Thanks to a policy of careful financial management, many veterans of World War I were fortunate to find themselves, at retirement age, with a reasonable income from investments and savings. However, inflationary forces and occasional family illness have combined to deplete and even totally drain the resources of many of these prudent men. The incongruous fact is that those who made no provision for retirement years are in most cases treated better than those who were thrifty during their productive years. For example, a poverty-stricken veteran over 65 is eligible for welfare assistance, and if he receives $1,200 per year, it is not counted as income, and he is eligible for a pension under existing law. But if that same veteran performs hard labor in an effort to earn $1,200, such income precludes his entitlement to a pension under the terms of the present law.

Under the provisions of H.R. 3982 and like bills, it is intended that a pension of $100 per month will be paid to each veteran of World War I who meets the service and income limitation requirements of the World War I Pension Act. If single, with no dependents, the veteran will be permitted outside income of $2,400 per year; if married with dependents, he may earn $3,600.

In view of today's ever increasing costs of living, and considering the age of the men this bill is intended to benefit, their need for medical care at today's inflated costs, how can anyone logically or reasonably argue against increasing the income limitation to the extent proposed by this bill?

I am well aware that pension payments to war veterans are all too frequently considered as synonymous with welfare provisions. Under the terms of our welfare laws, however, the only requirement for assistance is proof of need-not proof of service. The gallant men honorably discharged from military service to their country ask not for charity; neither do they wish to be penalized for their willingness to continue to work and earn, if they have the good health and opportunity to permit them to do so.

I most earnestly solicit your favorable consideration of this measure, and urge you to act at the earliest possible time.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Roosevelt.

The subcommittee will now hear Congressman Harold Johnson of California. You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2883 AND RELATED BILLS

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to appear before this committee in support of my bill, H.R. 2883, and other similar bills which would give an increase in pension benefits to those who served their country in 1917 and 1918.

Over the years I have been a consistent supporter of legislation of this type because I feel the time is long past when these men should receive recognition from our Government.

33-917-64--17

Their average age is now past 70, and certainly we all know their ranks are diminishing at a most disturbing rate. Of more than 2.3 million veterans in California at the time of the 1960 census, just about 10 percent of 237,000 were veterans of World War I. The median personal income of these veterans is only about $2,000 per year. When you consider the substantial incomes of many of the World War I veterans who have been successful in the business world and professions, you must realize that the great majority were receiving less than $1,000 per year in income. Statistics show that of all the California veterans, 1 out of every 16 was receiving less than $1,000 per year. If the figures were available, I think you would find that the majority of World War I veterans were receiving less than $1,000 a year. Can any of us argue that in the present era of high costs of living that it is possible to eke out even a bare existence on $1,000 a year or less.

Consider the 70-year-old individual whom you know and you will appreciate that most of them are unemployed. Many are not capable of earning their own way and only a small percentage of them qualify for social security benefits and other meager retirement programs.

And many, many thousands of them today are living solely on their veterans' pension and they find it a continuous uphill struggle to barely exist because of ever-increasing living costs. Many are forced to call on their sons and daughters for financial assistance. I know the sons and daughters are usually glad to help out, but at the same time, these people are of the generation faced with putting their own children through college for a good education which is a necessity, not only for the individual young people, but for this country as well. A good education is needed in order for them to meet the great social, economic, scientific, technical, and political challenges of this era.

The large percentage of World War I veterans and widows drawing pensions from the Government are under what is known as part III of the old Pension Act. Most of these veterans receive pension benefits amounting to $78.75 monthly, and there has been no increase in this amount since 1954, despite the fact that living costs have increased yearly.

It is my sincere conviction that the provisions of this bill are just, fair, and equitable. I do not believe that the income limitations are too high as some critics have stated nor do I believe that the increases asked for in any way are out of line.

The veterans of World War I are the first veterans' group to feel the impact of what might be termed advanced thinking in payment of pensions. Before World War I, all non-service-connected veterans were granted a pension at a certain period in life if they were able to qualify under the law.

World War I veterans have been denied this privilege and now must show unemployability need and practically no financial resources in order to qualify.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

We will now hear Congressman Healey, of New York. You may proceed, sir.

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.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »