pension under the bill would be paid only on the basis of the service of one veteran. The bill needs clarification, however, with respect to which veteran's service would be the basis of entitlement in such a case. There are no readily available data upon which to base an estimate of the cost of the bill, if enacted. Enactment of H.R. 1167 would undoubtedly result in requests for further exemptions from the remarriage bar. Furthermore, enactment would be a deviation from the theory on which death benefits have been based and on which they have not been provided for remarried widows; namely, that they are intended as a partial substitute for the economic loss suffered by a widow through the death of the veteran and that this loss of support is overcome when she remarries and becomes entitled to support from another husband. I am in agreement with the general concept of the laws which we administer that the Government has no obligation to provide financial assistance to a widow of a veteran after her remarriage; and believe that where a later husband was also a veteran, eligibility for Veterans' Administration benefits should stem solely from the marriage to him. For the reasons indicated, I recommend that H.R. 1167 be not favorably considered. 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. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This report on H.R. 1024, 89th Congress, is furnished in response to your request. The bill proposes to exclude from consideration as income for Veterans' Administration pension purposes, payments under any workmen's compensation or industrial accident law of a State or of the United States. H.R. 1024 is identical with H.R. 88, 88th Congress, which was pending before your committee at the close of that Congress. Under chapter 15, title 38, United States Code, otherwise eligible veterans of World War I and World War II may be paid non-serviceconnected disability pension, and their widows and children may be paid non-service-connected death pension. Payment is subject to graduated annual income limitations with maximums of $1,800 for a single veteran or a widow without a child, and $3,000 for a veteran or widow with eligible dependents. There is a fixed income limitation of $1,800 applicable to a child when there is no widow entitled. In determining annual income under chapter 15, all payments of any kind or from any source are included except earned income of children and certain payments specifically excluded under 38 U.S.C. 503. Further, in veterans' pension cases income of a spouse in excess of whichever is the greater, $1,200 or the total earned income of the spouse, is counted as the veteran's income except in hardship cases. The rates of pension and restrictions on income are different with respect to persons who were receiving pension on June 30, 1960, and who have not elected to receive benefits under the current chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code. H.R. 1024 would exclude payments under any workmen's compensation or industrial accident law of a State or of the United States, for purposes of payment of pension to persons under chapter 15 or to persons whose eligibility for pension is determined under the savings provision of section 9(b) of the Veterans' Pension Act of 1959, as of June 30, 1960. Under existing law, non-service-connected disability and death pension is provided to otherwise eligible veterans and their dependents on the general principle of need. The bill, if enacted, would have the effect of permitting persons ineligible for pension benefits because of excess income to become eligible therefor by not counting as income money available for their support. The authorization of such exclu sion would not be in keeping with the philosophy of the programs which provide benefits based on need. In addition, enactment of the bill might well stimulate requests for comparable exclusions by persons receiving other payments not covered by the pension laws. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined, I recommend that H.R. 1024 be not favorably considered. In view of the many unknown factors, it is not possible to furnish an estimate of the cost of the bill, if enacted. Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that enactment of H.R. 1024 would not be in accord with the President's program. The Bureau further advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report to your committee. Sincerely, W. J. DRIVER, Administrator. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This report on identical bills H.R. 131, H.R. 693, and H.R. 3181, 89th Congress, is furnished in response to your requests. The purposes of the bills are to confer World War I veterans' benefits upon certain veterans of the Mexican border service who served 90 days or more during the period beginning May 9, 1916, and ending April 6, 1917, (1) in Mexico, (2) on the borders of Mexico, (3) in the waters adjacent to Mexico, or any combination of the foregoing, and to grant to certain widows and children of such veterans benefits available to widows and children of veterans of World War I. Service of the described type is presently considered peacetime service except where the veteran's service continued into the World War I period. The bills are identical with proposals which have been introduced in prior Congresses. Recent examples are H.R. 385 and H.R. 4000, 88th Congress, which were pending before your committee at the close of that Congress. As to form, enactment of any of the bills as an independent law, rather than as an amendment to title 38, United States Code, would not be consistent with the objectives attained by the codification of veterans laws. Veterans comprehended by the proposals who meet prescribed eligibility requirements are presently entitled to all benefits prescribed by law for former members of the Regular Establishment, or as they are sometimes called, peacetime veterans. These include the following benefits we administer: Service-connected disability compensation and additional compensation for dependents if the disability is rated at not less than 50 percent; hospital treatment or domiciliary care, including medical treatment; prosthetic appliances; aids for the blind; and financial assistance in acquiring specially adapted housing. Upon death of such veterans, benefits under laws we administer may be provided where eligibility requirements are met. These include compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation; burial allowance; and a burial flag. The most significant new monetary benefits which the bills would extend to the group concerned are non-service-connected disability pension and non-service-connected death pension to their widows and children. The pension rates would be those payable to veterans of World War I and later wars and their widows and children; and the eligibility requirements would be the same as the standards applicable to those war groups. It has been the long-established general policy of the Congress to restrict pension to veterans of war service and their dependents. Another major benefit extended by the bills would be hospitalization for non-service-connected conditions under more liberal conditions than now apply to this peacetime group. Enactment of any of the bills would confer special benefits upon a particular group of peacetime veterans, and their widows and children, to the exclusion of other peacetime veterans, and their widows and children, including those who served in recognized campaigns, expeditions, and occupations. For your information, a list of such campaigns, expeditions, and occupations is set forth on pages 570 to 609 of the hearings of April 21 and 22, 1955, on H.R. 707, 84th Congress, and other bills, before your Subcommittee on Spanish War. We do not have adequate data upon which to base a worthwhile estimate of the cost of the bills if enacted into law. In view of the discriminatory features of the bills, their departure 'from what is considered generally sound policy governing the granting of benefits which the bills would extend to the group concerned, and as any of them could be a precedent for costly legislation, I recommend that none of the bills be favorably considered. This will also serve as a reply to your request for a report on H.R. 411, 89th Congress, which would accomplish the same purposes as the aforementioned bills by an amendment to title 38, United States Code; and to your requests for reports on H.R. 165, H.R. 1726, and H.R. 5037, 89th Congress, which would consider Mexican border service as World War I service for pension purposes, where there was, without continuity, a subsequent period of World War I service. 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, CYRIL F. BRICKFIELD, (For and in the absence of W. J. Driver, Administrator). |