PENSION BILLS PROVIDING NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED PENSION BENEFITS FOR VETERANS OF ALL WARS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 346, Cannon Office Building, Hon. Horace R. Kornegay (acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. KORNEGAY. The subcommittee will come to order.

We will now resume our pension hearings with Commander Kime and his associates from the Veterans of World War I.

We are happy to have you back with us this morning, Commander Kime, and your associates. I again express my regret over the fact that we could not complete your portion of the hearing yesterday. Thank you for coming back.

I think we were in the midst of a series of questions yesterday when we suspended. Commander, at this time I would like to resume that questioning in order that we might get further information in connection with the bill that you sponsor here, H.R. 2332.

Now, in H.R. 2332 you have only one rate for widows, and that is $75 per month. There are 111,000 widows now receiving $60 a month. These women, of course, will get a $15 increase, but there are 6,182 widows with 1 child who have less than a thousand dollars a year to live on who are now getting $75 a month. In other words, they would get no increase under the bill.

An extreme example, of course, would be the 12 widows of World War I veterans who have 9 children, and less than a thousand dollars a year income, who would get no increase under this bill. Why do you exclude all these classes of widows with very low income and with dependents as well as veterans with children in this rate proposal?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. KIME, NATIONAL COMMANDER, VETERANS OF WORLD WAR I, U.S.A., INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN E. ERICKSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR; LEROY CHITTENDEN, NATIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS; AND MIKE DWYER, NATIONAL RESEARCH CONSULTANT

Mr. KIME. Mr. Kornegay, with your permission I would like to pass the question on to John Erickson, the legislative director, to

answer.

Mr. KORNEGAY. All right, Mr. Erickson.

Mr. ERICKSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, at the time that this bill was drafted we were not aware of that entire thing. We came up with a suggested figure of $75 for all widows. Most of our widows in the World War I area, I think, are under part III at $50.40 a month, and we felt that they should be raised from that figure up to $75 a month.

We have hundreds and hundreds of letters from these particular widows who are receiving $50.40 a month complaining of the conditions under which they have to live on this small amount of pension. The figure of $75 is not an arbitrary figure, it can be raised to any amount and to include those who come under that in order to give benefits to these widows that are in need.

Mr. KORNEGAY. We are not questioning the amount, the $75, Mr. Erickson, but we are questioning the fact that your bill does not take into consideration additional money for widows who have dependent children. In other words, a widow with a houseful of dependent children would get the same thing as a widow without any children. Mr. ERICKSON. That is true, under the provisions of this bill. Mr. KORNEGAY. Is that the way you intended it to be?

Mr. ERICKSON. Not necessarily.

Mr. KORNEGAY. What should we do about it?

Mr. ERICKSON. As was pointed out before, this is merely a vehicle that can be amended.

Mr. KORNEGAY. What is your suggestion with reference to how it should be amended or changed?

Mr. ERICKSON. Well, let's say that the figure is advanced by approximately $25 or perhaps $50 for those who have dependents over a certain number.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, would you suggest that we base it on a certain amount for each dependent or lump the dependents, or how would be the best way to go about it? What we are trying to do is get information.

Mr. ERICKSON. Well, in keeping with the philosophy of the entire bill, I would say that a certain amount for each dependent child would be allowed.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Do you have any figure in mind?

Mr. ERICKSON. No, not at the moment, sir.

Mr. KIME. Congressman Kornegay, could I ask a question at this time for information for the record?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KIME. Yesterday the statement was made as to the number of children of the wives or widows of World War I veterans. Could we have that number repeated at this time?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Total children, according to the information put out on this survey or compilation, 15,678.

Mr. ERICKSON. H.R. 2332 is a bill requesting consideration of separate pensions for veterans of World War I. Naturally we had to make out some sort of expression as to what we might desire in this bill. We were told in the drafting of this bill that we would have to include the widows for consideration as well as aid to dependents. At the moment these figures were not available to us, and we didn't go into them. The intent of the bill is what I think is most important, and the manner of amending or changing the bill to fit the intent, I think, is a secondary thing.

The intention is to cover all World War I veterans who come within the requirements of this bill as well as the widows.

Mr. KORNEGAY. What about the children?

Mr. ERICKSON. Well, we didn't take the children into consideration because with the age of the children there are not too many dependent children left.

Mr. KORNEGAY. There are 15,678.

Mr. ERICKSON. 15,678-which proves that World War I veterans are not entirely dead, yet.

But we did not take that into consideration. That, of course, we feel the bill can be amended to include.

Mr. KORNEGAY. That is what we are trying to get, Mr. Erickson, because if we don't do it here I don't know how it can be done. The subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of initially writing the bill or approving some bill that is here.

Mr. ERICKSON. Furthermore, we took our own experiences as an example. Of course, if we are permitted to live to the year 2000 I can see that there may be further possibilities here along this line. But I can take my own example, for instance, as far as dependents are concerned. I am one of the younger of the World War I veterans, and I am approaching 70 right now. I have a wife who is a dependent. I have five daughters. And they have given us 22 grandchildren. Personally, I have only one dependent, and not any of the family are dependent, only on themselves, and they are doing quite well. In the case of most of the people we know the circumstances are pretty much the same.

So we felt that by putting in a clause and trying to make this bill as simple as possible that we could get an approach to something which would recognize the veterans of World War I with a separate, distinct pension for them and their widows. As has already been brought up, there are 15,678 dependent children-which is not a great number of children when you compare it with the possible beneficial rise under the bill, so it would not be difficult at all to amend the bill to include a certain amount for each dependent child together with that of the widow.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And it is your recommendation that the bill be amended to include a certain amount for each dependent child?

Mr. ERICKSON. For each dependent child. I believe that would answer the committee's question and fulfill the obligations, let us say, as far as World War I is concerned.

Mr. KORNEGAY. It seems that the veterans and widows with the most money would get the largest increases in pension payments under the provisions of H.R. 2332. To be sure I understand the way these rates work, I would like to ask you some questions about several cases.

You have pointed out in your statement that there are many veterans who have no income at all other than their pension. Let us take one of these cases, the case of a single veteran who has no income at all. Today he gets $85 a month pension, or has a total of $1,020 a year to live on. If H.R. 2332 were passed, how much would this veteran get?

Mr. KIME. He would get a hundred dollars with a $2,400 income. Mr. KORNEGAY. We have already indicated that he has no income at all aside from the pension.

Mr. KIME. He would get a hundred dollars.

Mr. KORNEGAY. He would get a hundred dollars a month, and that would be an increase of $15 a month, would it not, Mr. Commander? Mr. KIME. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. What would be the total income under H.R. 2332 that this veteran would have to live on?

Mr. KIME. He would have $1,200 unless he had additional income from social security or the outside.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Assuming in the question that he had no income other than his pension, he would have $1,200 total income to live on, wouldn't he?

Mr. KIME. That is right.

Mr. KORNEGAY. How much would a married veteran with $3,500 a year income receive under this bill?

Mr. KIME. He would receive the same amount, $100.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Or $1,200 a year?

Mr. KIME. That is right.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And what would be the total income available to this veteran and his wife to live on?

Mr. KIME. He would have $3,500 plus $1,200 as I understand the question.

Mr. KORNEGAY. $4,700 a year, wouldn't he?

Mr. KIME. Yes.

Mr. KORNEGAY. In other words, a veteran with no income at all gets a $15 a month raise if he is a single man, a $10 a month raise if he is a married man, a $5 per month raise if he is a married man with one child, and he would have a total of $1,200 a year to live on as compared with the new cases added to the pension roles by H.R. 2332, who would have up to $3,600 if they were married or $2,400 if they were single and would then receive an additional pension payment of $1,200 a year, or a total to live on of $4,800 for the married veteran or $3,600 for the single man.

And, of course, it might be dependent on the way that the retirement income is figured out. If the bill were interpreted as the Veterans' Administration has indicated it would be possible for the married veteran to have $3,600, plus another $1,200 in retirement income and still another $1,200 in pension, a total of $6,000. Now, who would you say is getting the most help under this bill, the low-income needy veteran or the veteran fortunate enough to be in the upper income group for his age level?

Mr. KIME. Well, it would be pretty well equalized, due to the fact that the veteran has a wife and a home to maintain against the single

veteran.

Mr. KORNEGAY. According to the fact sheet we have here, 569,000 veterans would be added to the pension roles under the provision of H.R. 2332 who are not now on the rolls because of their high incomebecause their income is beyond that under which it is now possible to receive a hundred dollars a month.

Mr. KIME. May I pass that to Roy Chittenden, please?

Mr. KORNEGAY Yes, sir.

Mr. CHITTENDEN. I think Mr. Roberts made a very valid point yesterday with respect to Mr. Kime's statement that less than 1 percent had income in excess of $2,700. If that is true, the hypothetical