will not limit or take a case where there is a single disability and put it on total unless that single disability may be evaluated at 70 percent. When we are dealing with a number of disabilities we say that minimum disability there must be one disabilty of at least 60 percent which, combined with the others, will reach a rating of 80 percent. Whether those limitations are right or wrong is something that may be debated. Remember again that General Hines has under consideration now a number of proposals. The percentage limitations undoubtedly can be changed, and I am quite certain that if General Hines decides they should be changed they will be.

General HINES. Congress has given a rather broad authority under that section to the Administrator. However, the authority is given based upon experience. We, of course, have had part 3 of veterans regulation 1 (a), as amended, for a sufficient time now, and we have changed the practice somewhat as we have gone along. But I think that we have reached the point where analyzing the cases that have been going over my desk for approval as meritorious cases, we can liberalize that definition. Whether it will go so far as some of this legislation I am not prepared to say. But I am prepared to tell the committee before you get through with it how far I think we can go under existing law.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10:30 o'clock.

(Whereupon the committee adjourned to Friday, February 16, 1940.)

PENSIONS FOR WORLD WAR VETERANS' WIDOWS

AND ORPHANS

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. John E. Rankin (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. General Hines, will you proceed?

General HINES. I would like Mr. Brown to continue with the different items, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, when the committee adjourned yesterday H. R. 7874 was under discussion. We finished our discussion of section 1. We are now coming to section number 2. Section number 2 provides that the rate for the part 3 benefits, in other words, the nonservice-connected benefits be raised from $30 a month to $50 a month. Under the disability allowance law, which was approved July 3, 1930, the rate for this group was $40. At the present time under the existing regulations the rate is $30. Mr. VOORHIS. You are speaking of the permanent and total? Mr. BROWN. The nonservice-connected group.

General HINES. The permanent and total.

Mr. VOORHIS. Before going any further into something else, Mr. Brown, I want to ask a question on that point. There is a very severe problem that arises in connection with these men, as you no doubt are familiar with. But here is a man supposed to be permanently and totally disabled. He gets $30. Now, that means usually that he cannot get help from other places. In other words, it means that if he really is permanently and totally disabled that he is up against trying to get along and any dependents that he has got, on that amount of money and it appears to me that that is not enough. Mr. BROWN. Congressman, that of course is a controversial question. Just how much Congress decides to pay to these cases is a question that they have to decide themselves. I do not think that anyone will contend that family could live on $30 a month.

Mr. BRYSON. If he received one Government check, he can not participate in any other Government funds?

Mr. VOORHIS. That is right. Of course, in this case he is permanently and totally disabled anyway so that he would not be able to get on anything of that kind. So that it appears to me that many times you have a man here who is a veteran, permanently and totally disabled, nonservice connected, it is true, but he will find himself for that very reason worse off than somebody who is not a per

253

214844-40-17

manently and totall disabled veteran, but who is able to qualitfy under some other relief program of some kind. It does not seem to me that that is the way that it ought to be.

Mr. BROWN. To be perfectly frank with you, I do not know the solution.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman, may I interject one remark there? There is one factor that I know the Congressman will consider, and what he has said is exactly correct. Unless a man is 65 years of age, under the general old-age compensation he is barred. Some of these men are over 65 but some States, of course, put the limit of income at $30 or $40. Some of them are higher. But a permanently and totally disabled man is certainly against a very definite handicap on employment or further earnings. There is just one factor, and I know the Congress, and I know this committee will want to consider in connection with it, and that is not to get the nonservice payment so close to the average service connection, or man who has a serviceconnected disability. Now, the average of those payments not for total disability, but all of them, runs over $40, just between $40 and $41. Well, of course, permanent and total disability is $100. That is the factor that I think the committee has considered before. But we have many times considered whether it is not fair considering what we have done for other veterans to increase that rate and I feel that we should give some consideration to it. But how far to go will depend a good deal on our ability to meet the bill, having in mind some of the other demands made upon the committee for cases you may desire to put ahead of the permanent and total disabled nonservice-connected cases.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. General, I take it from your statement you would not suggest that the committee increase the D. A. allowances from $30 to $50 or $60 very far, paying more to the permanent and total nonservice-connected cases.

General HINES. I think if we feel we can afford to increase the benefits to veterans groups, either veterans or their dependents, personally I think we ought to start considering the service-connected first. Having taken care of that situation, then I think we should approach this. I am fully aware we have a precedent of a group, the Spanish-American War group, where an increase was made for non-service-connected disabilities up to $60 at age 65. The age is a factor manifestly. It is a factor in the permanent and total disability of any group.

But I am thinking somewhat of the past history as we have approached it. We have always endeavored to move along somewhat with the age of the veteran or the age of the dependent. All I am emphasizing, Congressmen, in that regard, is that you have before this committee certain legislation having to do with service-connected cases, and certain legislation having to do with the dependents of service-connected cases. Then you have a proposal taking care of dependents of those not service-connected. It seems to me that we must give some consideration as to how far we can go, having in mind the other demands upon the revenue of the government.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, General, right at that point. You will talk about age as a factor of increasing this disability allowance. As a matter of fact, one reason those allowances were increased is that old

age is a disability. Now, what is the difference in being totally and permanently disabled from tuberculosis or from cancer and being totally and permanently disabled from old age?

General HINES. There is very little difference from an economic standpoint.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. But there is this difference, that the man who is permanently and totally disabled invariably has a family on his hands, his wife and children, and he has not had an opportunity to even pay insurance and provide for old age. He has no grown children to look after him. Therefore, his responsibilities are greater and the ultimate effect of his poverty on the lives of his children are of infinite importance to the community and to the Nation. Whereas the man who is disabled from old age, if he has any children, those children are growing and are taking care of themselves and are probably in a position to take care of him. So, if we are going to compensate men who served in other wars because of their disability from old age, I can see no reason why we should not compensate veterans who had the same service in the World War and who are permanently and totally disabled from any other cause.

General HINES. Of course, the Congress has established that precedent, Mr. Chairman. I know that and no one can argue against it. However, in recent years we have undertaken to broaden the social security, not only for veterans but for others. I know the feeling in this committee and I know my own feelings, that the veterans, those men who have served their country, represent a group that are entitled to consideration. Not all of the citizens of our country may agree that we should single out veterans who have no disability due to their service for special benefits. However, that is beside anything I have to say about this matter. Congress can consider it very well and settle it.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you get away from that social-security proposition, let us cover the ground as we go along.

The present social-security law violently discriminates against large numbers of people in this country. It not only denies them any security under it but penalizes them to pay for it. I am speaking now particularly with reference to the small-business man, the smallhome owner, and the independent farmer or the farmer who has to work for his own living, that includes the land holder and the tenant farmer who is not under social security. But there is added to every product that is manufactured an additional price that he has to pay to contribute to social security. Then they come back and say, "Well, we take care of them in an old-age pension." In those States that have borne the burden of discriminations throughout the last half century or more and that are unable often to put up their half of this $15 even, their own people are denied proper protection under the so-called social security. And now, within that range of large groups and I would say probably a majority or overwhelming majority of World War veterans, if they depended on the present socialsecurity law they would simply find themselves out in the cold. General HINES. Yes; I realize that.

The CHAIRMAN. And at the same time every article they buy from swaddling cloths of the infant to the lining of the coffin in which the

aged are laid away, they must help pay and contribute to raise funds for the Social Security for the other fellow. As long as that condition prevails I see no other way to take care of veterans than in the manner which we are undertaking here.

General HINES. Of course, Mr. Chairman, it is my policy here solely when called upon to express an opinion to give you the facts relating to legislation and what it will do. I want to do that fairly. Now, in answer to the question of Congressman Van Zandt, I did not intend to convey that the Social Security Act could do this. I realize that social security is new. It will take years to work it out. It is a worthy undertaking, but like all new legislation that involves the Federal Government and the States it cannot be solved in 1 or 2 years. It will take time.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, another thing, while I am on it, I may just as well express it now. I will take advantage of my position as chairman, while we are talking of the expense of it we are in such haste to spend money by the billions on the Army and the Navy, preparing for a real or an imaginary war in the future that we are meeting this morning at 11 o'clock in order to provide those appropriations. Our dangers are not from without, they are from within, as we witnessed here the first of the week. Any man who has his eyes open and does not realize that our dangers are from within and not from without certainly has a different philosophy from mine. Now, if we can spend these billions of dollars getting ready for another war that we hope will never happen, it seems to me that we can go part of the way not only to take care of the victims of the last war, many of whom really have disabilities that are traceable to service but have never been able to make the proof or do not have the opportunity to make the proof, it seems to me we certainly can provide for them when by doing so we are not only protecting our own people but strengthening our own social, political, economical, and governmental structure at home. And at the same time giving the world to understand that if we are going to have war the men who served in them must have proper consideration. When the war is over and they are broken down and are unable to look out for themselves, they must be properly taken care of. So I think from the standpoint, from my viewpoint, and I do not ask anybody else to subscribe to this, but in my opinion we can do that and it will tend more toward national defense to take care of these men who served in the last war and who are now totally permanently and totally disabled and the widows and orphans of the ones who passed away and who have little children on their hands.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the thought behind 150 years of our pension legislation has been the one that you have just expressed, that is, that these men and women who served their country occupy a status in the minds of the Congress and of the people that entitles them to consideration such as you have spoken of. The CHAIRMAN. At what age did the Spanish-American War veterans get $60?

General HINES. Age 65. They also get $60 for permanent and total disability regardless of age.