PUBLIC LAW 86-211 ELECTIONS, STUDY OF A 1-WEEK SAMPLING PERIOD

Protocol of study

The regional offices reported, per central office TWX, on all elections from protected to Public Law 86-211 pensions for a sample period of 1 week. Claims folders and income questionnaire cards from 1960 to the present were reviewed to determine the earliest date since July 1, 1960, when election would have been advantageous, the increase in monthly rate, and the total additional amount which could have been paid through April 30, 1964.

Major conclusions based on study

This study showed that there were 245 elections of Public Law 86-211 benefits during the 1-week sampling period. For 172 pensioners, or over 70 percent, election had been advantageous since July 1, 1960, the effective date of Public Law 86-211.

Delay had caused a total of 8,987 months of increased benefits to be lost, representing $102,483.11; for an average per pensioner of $418.30 or $11.39 per month for 36.7 months.

Over $1,000 additionally could have been paid in the following 10 cases; with July 1, 1960, being the earliest date of advantageous election.

Pensioners on projected pension rolls who apparently could benefit by electing under Public Law 86-211

Mr. KORNEGAY. Does that conclude your statement, sir?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Do you have any statements that can be offered by

any

of

your associates?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Just the two by Mr. Daley and myself.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Fino.

Mr. FINO. Mr. Brickfield, on page 8 of your testimony you refer and discuss H.R. 33 and H.R. 2332, you show great concern over the fact that these two bills "would violate this principle and return it to the all-or-nothing category."

Mr. BRICKFIELD. That is right, sir.

Mr. FINO. And then you go on to say:

But with even less relationship to need in their unrealistic income limitations and exclusions.

Now, this is the phase that fascinates me, "unrealistic income limitations and exclusions." I am just wondering whether we have double standards in this Government, one at the White House and one at the VA, because it is my impression that the White House, in its concern over the domestic poverty of this country, has indicated that a $3,000 income denotes the line of poverty. And yet the VA takes into consideration $600, $1,000, $1,800, or $3,000 limitations.

And once you go beyond that $3,000 you throw up your arms and you run scared and say, these are unrealistic limitations. I would like to know, what is so unrealistic about an income limitation of $3,000? Mr. BRICKFIELD. $3,000 is the present law. I don't think that is unrealistic, Mr. Fino. But the proposal

Mr. FINO. What is so unrealistic about the $3,600 under H.R. 2332? Mr. BRICKFIELD. Well, the point is that these bills do not stop there. Mr. FINO. What do you mean they don't stop there?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Under these bills, Mr. Fino, a man with $4,800 a year could qualify for a pension of $1,200 bringing his income to $6,000 and be determined to be in need as a matter of law.

Mr. FINO. I am glad you brought that out, because on page 9 we go into that phase of the $6,000 a year. I don't know whether you have read the bill, whether it is the Fino bill or the Denton bill or any other bills of the World War I veterans. But if you will read that bill carefully-I assume you are a lawyer-you will see that no one is entitled or is eligible to file for a pension unless he can show that his income limitation is $3,600 or less. That is the way the bill reads.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. No, sir. With all due respect to you, Mr. FinoMr. FINO. Let's read the bill, Mr. Brickfield. Let's take the Denton bill, because that is the one you have commented on. And I don't want you to raise any questions that my language is a little different than the Denton bill. So we go to page 2, line 25, and we quote the bill:

Pensions shall be paid to a veteran under this section whose income, if single, with no dependents, does not exceed $2,400; married, with dependents, $3,600. Now, that in and of itself says that no one can be eligible to file for this World War I pension unless he can come into this definition of income of $2,400 if single or $3,600 if married. Now, if I had an income of $3,601, you have a perfect right, Mr. V. A., to turn me down because I do not meet the limitation requirements. Once I have filed my application for a hundred dollar pension, and I have satisfied the VA that my income is $3,600 or less, because I have a dependent, then the next section goes into play, and that is that a veteran or his widow who meets-and that is the important language

who meets the service and income limitations requirements of section 2436 will be granted the additional $1,200 exemption.

So let's not talk about $4,800. The income limitation is $3,600. Now, it can be very true that after he has complied and has become eligible by showing that he has a $3,600 income, that he will wind up maybe with $6,000. But if he has $3,601 he will never wind up with the $6,000. And I assure you that a lot of these World War I veterans don't have the $3,600 or more-they have $3,600 or less.

Now, I think in your testimony here you wound up by expressing your great concern about this violation of principles. But you also said, it is too costly. And this seems to be the problem of the VA, the problem of this Government is that things are too costly. I wish they would take into consideration, not only the VA, let's take into consideration the farm program. That is costly, too, but we are helping out the farmers, not with my help, but we are helping them

out.

And we are helping out a lot of people in this world of ours. Mr. BRICKFIELD. Mr. Fino, you sure asked a long question. Mr. FINO. That is a question with emphasis. But let's get to the interpretation.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. I think you have got to read the whole paragraph, Mr. Fino.

Mr. FINO. I didn't; I read two paragraphs.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. No; you stopped at the end of a phrase in the second paragraph where you read that "A veteran or widow who meets the service and income limitation requirements will be granted an additional $1,200 exemption"-I thought you had stopped there, I could be wrong. But it continues to read: "For retirement income, either public or private in nature, for the purpose of computing the annual income of the veteran or his widow"-and this is the phrase on which I put emphasis "to determine the eligibility under the pension law."

Mr. FINO. To continue in the program, because we have in mindMr. BRICKFIELD. It doesn't say that. It does not say "to continue"; it says "to determine eligibility."

Mr. FINO. Mr. Brickfield, we have in mind the veteran who has just under the $3,600, and he applies and he gets this $100 a month, he is getting that.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Mr. Fino, what you have in mind may be one thing, and what the plain language says is another. And it says, "To determine eligibility."

Mr. FINO. Because once he has become eligible and is receiving his pension, then social security will come along like it will this year— and you will have a lot of trouble this year with a lot of your pensioners, and I will be getting that in my congressional district officewe will expect to increase social security benefits, and you know what will happen to a lot of these widows and veterans? They will get $60 a year in increased benefits, and lose $600 because they go above the limitation.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Mr. Fino, if you intend "to continue" eligibility, then I think the language of the bill should be made clear to point that out. But as we read it, in all honesty and good faith, it says, "to determine eligibility" for the first time under this act.

And I would like to point out the legislative history. This $1,200 retirement pay exception was not in the original bill. It excluded all retirement. This was 2 years ago. This was apparently unacceptable; it would be too much to exclude all retirement as an exemption in determining what one's income is. So, Mr. Denton, both on the House floor at least it is in the Congressional Record-and before this committee said that the reduced figure of $1,200 was adopted "in my bill as a compromise." To repeat, in the original bill, one would become eligible if his yearly income was $3,600. And in determining entitlement VA wouldn't count any retirement income, none at all. And it was argued that this provision would not be favorably received. So a compromise was reached, namely, VA won't count the first $1,200 retirement pay.

That is how the $1,200 exemption got into this bill this year. Now, you are coming along with a new interpretation, maybe not to you but to me, which would say, if one gets $3,600 a year in income he is eligible, and if at some later date he gets retirement income, he will continue to be eligible, notwithstanding that he goes over the $3,600. If that is the intent of the bill, Mr. Fino, then I think the bill should expressly state that. But my understanding was