Page images
PDF
EPUB

H.R. 13257, Mar. 3, 1966, Mr. Harsha: Restores pensions which have been reduced

or eliminated because of increase in social security. H.R. 13289, Mar. 3, 1966, Mr. Don H. Clausen: Prevents loss of pension as the

result of social security increases. H.R. 13418, Mar. 9, 1966, Mr. Abernethy: Same as H.R. 13289. H.R. 13568, Mar. 14, 1966, Mr. Kee: Restores pensions which have been reduced

or eliminated because of social security increase. H.R. 13788, Mar. 17, 1966, Mr. Shriver: Protects veteran or widow against loss

of pension because of social security increase of 1965. H.R. 14766, May 2, 1966, Mr. Conable: Same as H.R. 11996. H.R. 15597, June 9, 1966, Mr. McCarthy: Excludes social security in computation

of income. H.R. 15751, June 16, 1966, Mr. Sweeney: Same as H.R. 11874.

GENERAL

H.R. 221, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Teague of Tex.: Provides that veterans maintained

in State homes shall receive VĂ pension of at least $30 per month. H.R. 222, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Teague of Tex.: Bars payment of pension to any alien

who is not a resident of the United States. H.R. 223, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Teague of Tex. (by request): Permits the Administrator

of Veterans' Affairs to bring pensioners receiving pension under. "old" law under the provisions of Public Law 86-211 when in his judgement it would be

in the best interest of the pensioner for such action to be taken. H.R. 240, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Beckworth: Directs the Administrator to disregard the

employment status of an individual where competent medical evidence is presented that he is totally and permanently disabled. H.R. 1167, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Secrest: Provides that where a Spanish-American

War veteran's widow has remarried, the widow shall be deemed to be the widow of the veteran if the second marriage was to a Spanish-American War veteran who has died, and she has no entitlement because of the death of such veteran to whom she was subsequently married. H.R. 1512, Jan. 5, 1965, Mr. Beckworth: Eliminates the 90-day service require

ment for pension eligibility: H.R. 1694, Jan. 6, 1965, Mr. Fino (by request): Provides award of pension

which has been in effect for 10 or more years shall not thereafter be revoked

on the basis that the individual did not have the required length of service. H.R. 1745, Jan. 6, 1965, Mr. Teague of Tex.: Authorizes concurrent payment of

compensation and pension. H.R. 2434, Jan. 12, 1965, Mr. Harvey of Mich.: Permits veterans who had been

in receipt of pension before June 30, 1960, but who were not in receipt on that

date, to elect to receive pension under the "old" law. H.R. 2658, Jan. 13, 1965, Mr. Secrest: Liberalizes the provision of the payment of

pension to individuals who are in a VA hospital or domiciliary. H.R. 3224, Jan. 19, 1965, Mr. Teague of Tex. (by request): Provides pensions to

veterans of certain campaigns and expeditionary services. H.R. 3396, Jan. 25, 1965, Mr. Natcher: Defines as veterans of World War I

certain veterans who served in military occuptional forces in Europe between

November 12, 1918, and July 2, 1921. H.R. 3804, Jan. 28, 1965, Mr. Halpern: Redefines term "widow" for purposes of

38 United States Code 103(a) to include a person if at any time a child was

born of the marriage. H.R. 3935, Feb. 1, 1965, Mr. Gray: Permits payment of pension if the Spanish

American War veteran has 50 days' service. H.R. 4010, Feb. 1, 1965, Mr. Pepper: Provides that a widow shall not lose her

entitlement by reason of remarriage which occurs after she attains age 62. H.R. 5509, Feb. 25, 1965, Mr. Dorn: Authorizes concurrent payment of com

pensation and pension. H.R. 5510, Feb. 25, 1965, Mr. Dorn: Authorizes election and reelection between

“old” and “new” pension programs. H.R. 5858, Mar. 5, 1965, Mr. Beckworth: Liberalizes the definition of the term

"widow." H.R. 6015, Mar. 9, 1965, Mr. Moorhead: Advances the date for the marriage of

Civil War veterans' widows to June 27, 1918, from June 27, 1905. H.R. 6066, Mar. 10, 1965, Mr. Beckworth: Liberalizes the definition of the term

widow." H.R. 6409, Mar. 17, 1965, Mr. Secrest: Redefines eligibility criteria for pension H. R. 6557, Mar. 22, 1965, Mr. Teague of Tex. (by request): Provides pension for

with regard to employment and disability.

any individual upon attaining age 65. H.R. 7325, Apr. 8, 1965, Mr. Quie: Permits the choice by_the veteran or his

widow or child to receive pension_under the “old” law or Public Law 86-211. H.R. 7903, May 5, 1965, Mr. Dole: Permits election by a World War I veteran or

his widow or child to receive pension under the "old” law or Public Law 86-211. H.R. 8500, May 26, 1965, Mr. Harvey: Permits veteran to elect to receive pension

under the "old" law. H.R. 9288, June 21, 1965, Mr. Roudebush: Authorizes pension based on service

involving armed conflict. H.R. 9961, July 20, 1965, Mr. Duncan: Permits payment of pension to dependent

wives and children where a veteran has been receiving pension and disappears. H.R. 10276, Aug. 4, 1965, Mr. Roybal: Provides that a widow shall only be disqualified for pension while

she is married to another person. H.R. 11582, Oct. 13, 1965, Mr. Roncalio: Provides for payment of pension of $100

a month to widows of men awarded Congressional Medal of Honor. H.R. 11860, Jan. 10, 1966, Mr. Adair: Liberalizes effective dates for compensa

tion and pension awards. H.R. 13005, Feb. 23, 1966, Mr. Smith of Calif. (by request): Provides for recog

nition of veterans of the Indian Wars for persons who took part in the capture

of the Ute Indians in 1906. H.R. 13593, Mar. 14, 1966, Mr. Fino: Provides pension of $100 a month to

veterans awarded the Phillippine Campaign Medal for service after 1902. H.R. 13596, Mar. 14, 1966, Mr. Schisler: Provides pensions for individuals who

served in Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar

and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914. H.R. 13642, Mar. 15, 1966, Mr. Teague of Tex. (by request): Includes as income

in pension eligibility determination under the "old" law funds received under

the Railroad Retirement Act. H.R. 13895, Mar. 22, 1966, Mr. Laird: Provides election of pension under the

"old” or the "newrates. H.R. 14005, Mar. 24, 1966, Mr. Thomson of Wis. (by request): Permits election

by a veteran of World War I or his widow or child receive pension under

the "old" law or Public Law 86-211. H.R. 14968, May 10, 1966, Mr. Moeller: Eliminates 90-day service requirement

for pension eligibility.
H.R. 15387, June 1, 1966, Mr. Fisher: Provides a $50 per month pension for all

holders of the Distinguished Service Cross or the Navy Cross.
H.R. 15506, June 7, 1966, Mr. O'Konski (by request): Same as H.R. 7903.
H.R. 15619, June 9, 1966, Mr. Whalley (by request): Same as H.R. 7903.
H.R. 16101, June 30, 1966, Mr. Trimble: Provides pension $200 per month for

widow of any person who served in Armed Forces for 30 or more years.

MEXICAN BORDER PENSIONS

H.R. 131, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Natcher: Extends non-service-connected pensions

to those individuals who served on the Mexican borders prior to the beginning

of World War I. H.R. 131 Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Beckworth: Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 411, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Thomson of Wis.: Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 165, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Thomson of Wis.: Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 693, Jan. 4, 1965, Mr. Roudebush: Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 3181, Jan. 19, 1965: Mr. Thomson of Wis.: Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 5037, Feb. 17, 1965, Mr. Giaimo: Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 5686: Mar. 2, 1965, Mr. Thomson of Wis.: Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 5962, Mar. 8, 1965, Mr. Teague of Tex. (by request): Same as H.R. 131. H.R. 9552, June 29, 1965, Mr. Pirnie: Same as H.R. 131.

Mr. DORN. The committee has received formal reports from the Veterans' Administration on a number of these pension bills. A representative of the Veterans' Administration will appear before the subcommittee on a later date, but I would ask that the formal reports which are available be included at this point in the record.

(The agency reports referred to follow :)

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C., March 9, 1965.
Hon. Olin E. TEAGUE,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This report on H.R. 222, 89th Congress, is furnished in response to your request.

The bill would prohibit the payment of pension for any month to any alien who was not a resident of a State during some part of that month. It would also authorize apportionment to such a person's wife or children of the pension he would receive but for the prohibition, except that no such person would receive a greater amount than he would receive if the pensioner were dead. Apportioned payments would also be subject to the prohibition relating to nonresidents in a State.

H.R. 222 is identical with H.R. 219, 88th Congress, which was pending before your committee at the close of that Congress.

Chapter 15, title 38, United States Code, provides pension for war veterans and their widows and children. Service pension is payable to veterans of wars prior to World War I, and their widows and children. Pension for veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict is payable under certain standards of service, disability, and need. Pension to their widows and children is on the basis of need.

Current limitations on payment of pension because of citizenship and residence are contained in 38 U.S.C. 3108, which provides for termination of an award of pension or other gratuitous benefit to any alien who is located in territory of, or under military control of, an enemy of the United States or any of its allies. Further, 31 U.S.C. 123 provides in part that no check or warrant drawn against funds of the United States shall be sent from the United States for delivery in a foreign country in any case in which the Secretary of the Treasury determines that postal, transportation, or banking facilities in general, or local conditions in the country to which such check or warrant is to be delivered, are such that there is not a reasonable assurance that the payee will actually receive such check or warrant and be able to negotiate the same for full value. Benefits terminated under title 38 or withheld under title 31 are later payable, with limitations, under 38 U.S.C. 3109 provided the person is determined not to have been guilty of mutiny, treason, sabotage, or rendering assistance to an enemy of the United States or its allies.

The restrictions proposed by H.R. 222 single out a group poorly equipped to provide for itself. Veterans of the earlier wars and the survivors are of advanced age; and as previously noted, standards of disability and need apply to veterans of the later wars while their survivors receive pension based on need. To deprive aged, disabled,

and needy persons now on the rolls, of the pension they have come to depend on or to require them to return to a "State" to remain entitled-could undoubtedly result in great hardship in many cases. Similarly, hardship could result in denying pension to future applicants who, but for the proposed restriction, would be entitled.

Veterans with which the bill is concerned have performed honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States during a period of war. Their alienage was not considered a bar to such service. With respect to alienage, it should also be noted that Filipino veterans of war service in our Armed Forces, and their dependents, became aliens without any individual decision on their part, upon establishment of the Republic of the Philippines in 1946. The bill would apply to such of these persons who are nonresidents, but would not apply to expatriated U.S. citizens residing, for example, in the Philippines.

We are aware of only one comparable prohibition enacted in the past. The Appropriation Act of March 1, 1893 (27 Stat. 524), provided that pension could not be paid a nonresident who was not a U.S. citizen. The provision was specifically repealed by the act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat. 703). In discussing the repealing provision, the 1893 prohibition was described on the Senate floor as having worked a "great amount of hardship” and having done "great injustice” (pp. 1066-1067, Congressional Record, vol. 27, pt. 2).

Administration of the bill, if enacted, would require a determination in every case, of the question of citizenship and residence in a State as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(20). There is no specification in the bill as to what is intended to constitute residence. For example, is it intended that an overnight stay in a "State” meets the residence requirement? In any event, the bill's enactment would complicate our administrative procedures and would, as a practical matter, be preferential and discriminatory in affording those aliens living in foreign areas contiguous to a "State" a greater opportunity to qualify for pension than others located in more distant areas.

The following estimate of savings which H.R. 222 would effect, if enacted, is based upon data as to citizenship of Veterans' Administration beneficiaries residing in foreign countries, published by your committee in House Committee Print 282, 84th Congress. Savings in the first year, derived from discontinuance of pension payments of aliens residing abroad, would be approximately $18,312,000, affecting 5,900 cases in the Philippine Islands, and 13,600 cases in other foreign areas. It is estimated that savings would increase slightly during each of the ensuing 4 years. Since the effect of part-time residence and apportioned payments could not be established, these factors were not considered in making the foregoing estimate.

Considering the impact of H.R. 222 on foreign nationals, your committee may desire to secure the views of the Department of State on the bill.

In view of the foregoing, I am unable to recommend favorable consideration of H.R. 222.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely,

W. J. DRIVER, Administrator.

67-235 0 - 66 - 2

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C., March 9, 1965.
Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This report on H.R. 1167, 89th Congress, is furnished in response to your request.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize payment of pension to certain remarried widows of Spanish American War veterans.

H.R. 1167 is identical with H.R. 8656, 88th Congress, which was pending before your committee at the close of that Congress.

Under existing law, pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation is not available to the remarried widow of a deceased veteran. Remarriage constitutes a permanent bar to such benefits. This has been true throughout the history of laws providing gratuitous benefits for widows of veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict.

In those cases in which a widow's remarriage precludes the payment of a benefit, the veteran's child or children may qualify irrespective of the widow's ineligibility.

Earlier laws authorized the payment of pension or compensation to the remarried widow of a veteran of the Spanish American War or a prior war, if the remarriage was terminated under specified conditions. These laws were reevaluated by the Congress in its consideration of the legislation which became the Veterans Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85–56), effective January 1, 1958. At that time the permanent remarriage bar applicable to widows of veterans of World War I and later service was made equally applicable to the widows of veterans of the Spanish American War and earlier wars. The Congress has more recently affirmed this policy in the codification of title 38, United States Code, under Public Law 85-857 (effective January 1, 1959), and in Public Law 87–674 (approved September 19, 1962) which among other things restated the remarriage bar.

H.Ř. 1167 would modify the existing permanent bar to gratuitous benefits resulting from remarriage. It would authorize a remarried widow of a Spanish American War veteran to be restored to the pension rolls if her remarriage was to a Spanish American War veteran who has died and she has no entitlement to pension or compensation by reason of death of such veteran.

Although clarification is indicated, we assume for purposes of this report that the term “compensation” in line 1, page 2 of the bill, is intended to include both death compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation. We also assume that in any case of a widow with marriages to more than two Spanish American War veterans,

« PreviousContinue »