Mr. ELLSWORTH. I understand.

Pursuing that on a little different tack, H.R. 33 is similar or perhaps identical to H.R. 3745, which we had before us last year, except that H.R. 33 provides an additional 10 percent for oversea service.

What

is your position with regard to paying extra pension for oversea service?

Mr. GLEASON. Of course, we are opposed to additional benefits for oversea service. In the first place, we think that is is inequitable because none of us actually had the opportunity of volunteering for oversea service and many individuals performed perhaps more difficult positions in time of war even though they were not overseas, and I refer specifically, for an example, to the Manhattan project during World War II.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Dorn?

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Administrator if the President or the administration is in favor of any pension bill? Mr. GLEASON. No, sir.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Administrator, at the point where you were discussing the World War I group, couldn't we put in the record there a very complete statement of benefits, beginning with the Spanish-American War and coming all the way through to our present situation?

Mr. GLEASON. We can give it to you all the way from the year 1790, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I would hope that you make it just as complete as possible and put it in the record at that point.

Mr. GLEASON. We have it right here if you would just like to take a look at it.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Let's put it in the record.

Mr. GLEASON. All right.

(The requested material follows:)

14

1

Veterans' Administration and its predecessor agencies expenditures from appropriated funds, by war and purpose through Dec. 31, 1962

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. You mentioned the number of people that are switching to Public Law 86-211 each month and are receiving an increase in pension payment. What experience have you had with people who have elected 86-211 and later find that they receive less because of having elected to go under the new law?

Mr. GLEASON. Mr. Chairman, I really don't know of any.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. We have had one case in the committee. Mr. GLEASON. I just don't know of it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. How accurate do you think your projections are on pensions with the social security and the new retirement programs from industry coming in and many factors such as that?

Mr. GLEASON. Of course, we believe them to be as accurate as we can possibily make them.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Any questions on pensions?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Administrator, you have indicated that there is some reluctance on the part of the claimants to switch from the old law to 86-211. I would like to know what, if anything, the Veterans' Administration has done to advise the claimants about the new law and what advantages, if any, there are under the new law.

Mr. GLEASON. We will give it to you in just a minute, Congressman. We sent everyone on the pension rolls a pamphlet explaining the law by direct mail. We issued 15 radio-TV spot announcements carried on 2,700 radio-TV stations. We put out six radio-TV scripts used on 600 stations. We issued 26 national news releases to 1,500 daily and 5,000 weekly newspapers. We provided a five-part question and answer service used by 250 daily newspapers and many weekly newspapers. We furnished seven releases to wire services and syndicates which were used by 780 daily newspapers. We had our field offices issue hundreds of local news releases and make countless radio-TV and public appearances explaining them.

We furnished personnel from the field stations to make trips throughout their States to meet with veterans and civic organizations, to hold mass meetings, and appear on local radio and TV programs, and we made available employees from our Washington office to meet with national, State, and regional groups of major service organization representatives.

Mr. KORNEGAY. It sounds as though you have done quite an extensive job in trying to get across the new law and the points of the new law, but notwithstanding that great amount of publicity, you still have experienced some reluctance, I gather.

Mr. GLEASON. Very definitely, yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Have you made any investigation as to what has caused this reluctance on the part of the claimants? Mr. GLEASON. No, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Do you have any opinions or ideas as to why there remains a reluctance on the part of a substantial portion of the claimants to switch over?

Mr. GLEASON. Nothing that I could state at this time.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Let me just put the question to you in another way. Do you have any evidence that any veterans' groups or other groups throughout the country have done anything to discourage the pensioners from switching over to the new law?

Mr. GLEASON. I wouldn't say that we had evidence, Congressman. There are indications that people may not have been advised properly when they sought advice from some veterans' organizations.

Mr. KORNEGAY. The primary reason that I am asking you that, Mr. Administrator, is that I have had conversations with a number of my constituents who tell me that they have been advised by certain groups not to switch over, that it would be to their disadvantage to do it. I remember one particularly. I said, "Well, now, I am not telling you what to do, but let me just give you facts." And I explained the facts to her this happened to be a widow-and she switched over. She is getting, I think, about $10 or $12 a month more now and is very well pleased with the new plan. That is the reason I brought the point up.

Mr. GLEASON. We have also been told that by people, Congressman. As to what might be classified as evidence is difficult to obtain. Mr. KORNEGAY. I understand that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Edwards?

Mr. EDWARDS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Marsh?

Mr. MARSH. No questions.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Fino.

Mr. FINO. Mr. Gleason, getting back to the chart on the last page of the projected cost of the three bills, in the first year under the three bills you have $780 million, $1 billion, and $1.3 billion. These figures are based on a veteran population of how many?

Mr. GLEASON. These are based on the projected figures of the veteran population as of the first year, the second, third, all the way through, Congressman.

Mr. FINO. We have a veteran population of what, 22 million or 23 million?

Mr. GLEASON. Yes, sir, but Congressman, in H.R. 33 and H.R. 2332, we are just concerned with World War I veterans. H.R. 1927 considers the approximately 22 million veterans.

Mr. FINO. You are projecting these costs into the year 2000, which is 37 years from now.

Mr. GLEASON. Yes, but, Congressman, what I am trying to point out is in the first column under H.R. 1927 we are considering 22 million veterans; in the other 2 columns, approximately 21⁄2 million down to maybe 2 million.

Mr. FINO. You are taking into consideration the loss in the veteran population?

Mr. GLEASON. That is correct, year by year. May I insert for the record, Mr. Chairman, the "Research Monograph No. 6 of the Veteran Population Projections, 1962 to the Year 2040"?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Without objection. (Research Monograph No. 6 follows:)