admit prevent the changeover to 211?

Mr. GLEASON. I must state emphatically, Congressman, that neither H.R. 1927, or H.R. 33, or H.R. 2332 are within the administration's program. There would have to be drastic changes to them, Congressman.

Mr. LIBONATI. What are the number of World War ones that you have projected will be placed in an estimated actuary table on mortality this year?

Mr. GLEASON. We will have it for you in just one moment, Congressman.

Mr. LIBONATI. Now, last year

Mr. GLEASON. One second

Mr. LIBONATI. He will get it.

Now, last year, there were 120,000 that died, right?

Mr. GLEASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIBONATI. And 95,000 were service connected in some way or other, pension connected; is that right?

Mr. GLEASON. Well, when you say "service connected" or "pension connected," then there is the combination of the service connected with the pension connected.

Mr. LIBONATI. They may be separative, too. Is that right? Mr. GLEASON. World War I deaths as projected on our charts, Congressman, are 109,000 for 1963.

Mr. LIBONATI. 109,000.

Mr. GLEASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIBONATI. How many do you consider of that 109,000 will be service connected or pension connected, or both, about?

Mr. GLEASON. Half of them would be on the pension rolls. That would be about 54,500. And about maybe 10,000 to 12,000 receiving compensation.

Mr. LIBONATI. Now, have you ever worked out a program to determine how many World War I's will never be in need of a pension? After all, we are getting down to 1,900,000 now, aren't we?

Mr. GLEASON. Well, from the figures that I have just given you, Congressman, about 50 percent of them won't.

Mr. LIBONATI. And that would be approximately 900,000 of the present 1,800,000 that are alive.

Mr. GLEASON. No, we have about 2 million living.

Mr. LIBONATI. No, you have lost 120,000 last year, which was not that 24 million, and you are going to lose another 100,000 this year. Mr. GLEASON. No.

Mr. LIBONATI. The reason why I am going through this, Mr. Chairman, is I want to find out how these projection costs of a flat pension of $100 get into $10 billion, $11 billion, as released in the press. After all, the rapid mortality of the World War I's is such a high figure that certainly you can't go on forever projecting these tremendous figures which result in these critical editorials that are written against World War I's pension requests that accuse them of a desire to deplete the Treasury, and so forth.

Now, we are down now to 900,000 left.

Mr. GLEASON. No, we are not, Congressman. I would like to correct that. In 1963, after deaths, for World War I, there are

2,343,000.

d in 1964, after deaths, there will be 2,226,000.

. LIBONATI. So that would make 1,100,000 and half of those never need a pension, so that

r. GLEASON. We won't get down to 900,000 Congressman, until t 1975 to 1977.

T. LIBONATI. No, 900,000 subtracted, the 900,000 subtracted this number, or rather the 1,100,000 subtracted. You said will never need a pension.

r. GLEASON. Right. So we are talking about approximately a on, one hundred and seventy thousand.

r. LIBONATI. Yes, now a million, one hundred and seventy sand: of that number, how many are already on the rolls?

r. GLEASON. Well, that's the number that is on the rolls. Fifty ent of the people of World War I.

r. LOBONATI. Well, they are dying off, though.

r. GLEASON. No, not at that same rate. It is only approxi-ly—

T. LIBONATI. Well, they will die off at a greater rate. They are on an average of what, 72 years of age?

T. GLEASON. Sixty-eight.

r. LIBONATI. Oh, you have got it wrong. That was 68 when I e to Congress.

r. GLEASON. It is about 68 and 5 months, as a matter of fact. r. LIBONATI. Well, I am a pretty young veteran of World War I, I voted early, but anyway, you are way off, Jack.

r. GLEASON. You are just a vigorous man.

r. LIBONATI. You are way off on that figure. The only thing I eciate is this: Is to show you, that if this committee were fured with properly prepared information with respect to statistical and basic figures, you would never have any trouble with the gress as far as determining the costs relative to these bills that eceive, and costs based realistically upon factors and situations would be studied by us. We have to wait for you to come here then dig out what we can, and then it is proposed by us that e figures be projected.

r. GLEASON. Congressman.

r. LIBONATI. The chairman has proposed that the bill that I pduced which he gave to me the chairman-that from that bill be a working model of legislation and a compromised understandmay come from it. Am I right, Mr. Chairman?

r. TEAGUE of Texas. You are exactly right.

r. LIBONATI. And now that's almost a year ago. Well, it's about onths, anyway, 8 months, and nothing has been done, Mr. Admintor, to carry out the fulfillment of this program.

en like Mr. Haley and myself, World War I's, the only ones on committee, told the service organizations that something would vorked out, that a compromise would be realized, and we went re their conventions and spoke to them. Some men on this comee who stood out with the administration figures, like Mr. Ayres, the chairman, received blunt criticism, opposition, faced destrucin a political sense, and only survived the political onslaught. ugh their own personal popularity and past records-with the ption of the chairman, who weathered his opposition through nimous endorsement.

we have a great confidence in you personally-but I dislike to go back to Illinois and hear men criticize the VA and your great leadershipand I am close to the Legion; this is my 29th year in elective officeand we never lost an important service bill in the assembly of Illinois while I was there (22 years in this House or Senate), because the facts and arguments were thoroughly discussed and presented in accordance with the Legion program.

I have great confidence in Legion thinking, and they never are critical when corrected if they go far afield. And they themselves have at various times changed mandates, abridging certain things, amending certain resolutions that were not presented in their actual light or that were realistically acceptable-and I ask that you give us those figures so that we can make workable H.R. 1927 or one of these other bills, and present to this Congress a fair, needed program that is at the present time these benefits are below the figures that could be accepted as carrying a veteran on with the bare necessities of life in the few days he has left.

Mr. GLEASON. Mr. Chairman, may I offer for the record a statement relative to proposed changes affecting existing pension programs and the cost effects initially and at intervals through the year 2000, which will give all of the facts on how we obtained our data and how we arrived at it for Mr. Libonati?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. How long is it? Could you summarize it for us now?

Mr. GLEASON. No, sir; it is several pages.

I would be happy to read it to the committee, if they care to hear it. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Let's make it a matter of record and read it. Mr. GLEASON. All right, fine. [Reading:]

1. The cost data prepared in connection with these proposed changes were based on information currently available that could be utilized within the time limits imposed on the completion of the estimates. They should be considered to reflect guidelines and magnitude costs only, and were projected on a very broad basis.

2. The proposals discussed below were introduced in the 88th Congress and would liberalize the current pension program. They relate to all aspects of the program. All would increase current income limitations. H.R. 33 and H.R. 2332 propose increased rates and eligibility to pension irrespective of disability or need. H.R. 1927 would also increase rates as well as liberalize in varying degrees tests of need, income exclusions, consideration of spouse's income, and withholding of pension instead of reduction during hospitalization. Detailed comparison of these proposals with present law is contained in the attached analysis.

3. Projections were made by war period in terms of:

(a) Living veterans in civil life.

(b) Age distribution of veterans in civil life.

(c) Participation or nonparticipation of veterans in the labor force by age. (d) Amount of income of veterans by age.

Sources of veterans income.

(f) Unremarried widows of veterans.

(g) Age distribution of unremarried widows.

(h) Dependency status of unremarried widows (i.e., with or without child or children).

(i) Income of unremarried widows.

4. Data on veterans population, surviving widows of veterans, family composition, work status of veterans and income of widows and veterans were based on latest studies of VA and census, as adjusted to current year data. (See attachment for detailed description of source material used in developing these estimates.)

ollowing are general assumptions employed in the estimates of cost: (a) There will be no change in benefit rates, eligibility conditions or ogram characteristics under existing law, except as changed by the separate oposals.

(b) Present general level of economy will continue unchanged.

(c) Average payments reflect change in family composition based on exrienced trends which indicate decreasing rates until that rate which would applicable for a veteran or widow alone.

(d) Participation in the pension program by World War II and Korean nflict veterans and dependents will be the same as has been experienced for orld War I veterans and dependents in similar age groups.

(e) Fifty percent of World War I veterans remaining in civil life served tside continental limits of United States.

(ƒ) All veterans, or widows, otherwise eligible will apply for benefits under ese proposals.j

DOLOGY AND SOURCES OF DATA USED IN DEVELOPING PROJECTIONS OF CRANS AND VETERANS' WIDOWS AND IN ESTIMATING THEIR CURRENT ANNUAL ME

ing veterans of World War I, World War II, and Korean conflict Estimates of the veteran population, by period of Armed Force service, age, x-for each year from 1963 to 1970-at 5-year intervals from 1975 to were taken directly from "Research Monograph 6, Veteran Population tions 1962-2040," Research Statistics Service, Office of Controller, Veterans' istration (July 1962). The appendix of this monograph contains a descripthe methodology and the sources of data for these projections.

viving (unremarried) widows of World War I, World War II and Korean -nflict veterans

Estimates of veterans' widows, by age of the widows and period of Armed s service of the deceased veterans-for each year from 1963 to 1970 and at intervals from 1975 to 2000-were developed by:

(a) Applying marital status factors (1) married, (2) nonmarried, by age— om "Table 175; Characteristics of Civilian Male Veterans 14 Years Old and ver by Age, for the United States, 1960"; 1960 Census of Population, upplementary reports, veterans in the United States, PC (S1-31) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Dec. 14, 1962)-to the stimated number of veterans dying in the year, (1963-70) and in each 5ear period (1971-2000), Research Monograph 6, cited above.

(b) Applying mortality factors 1-female death rates (annual) by age from Vital Statistics of the United States, 1959, Life Tables: National Office f Vital Statistics, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for ach year from 1960 to 1970; medium female death rates (5-year) (computed s an average of the low and high mortality assumptions) from "Actuarial Study No. 46, Illustrative United States Population Projections," Division of the Actuary, Social Security Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (May 1957) for each 5-year period from 1971 to 2000-to the veterans' widows population brought forward from the starting late (June 30, 1960) and to each group of widows added to the population ach year or in each 5-year period. (The age of veterans' widows was assumed to be 5 years less than that of their deceased husbands.)

(c) And applying remarriage factors rates of remarriage, by age, from 'American Marriage and Divorce," Paul H. Jacobson (Rhinehart, New York, 1959)—to the living widows of veterans at the end of each year (1963-70) or each 5-year period (1971-2000).

stimated annual income of veterans?

Annual income distributions for veterans in each age group-regardless of d of service—were developed as follows:

(a) Using data from Table 175.-Characteristics of civilian male veterans by age, for the United States: 1960, cited above; and Table B-3.-Labor force and employment status, by marital and veterans status and age; men

r World War II and Korean conflict veterans' widows, estimates for each year from 1963 to 1970 were d by graphic methods from projections which had been made earlier (using this methodology) for 965, and 1970.

18 years and over, March 1959; Table C-1.-Work experience in 1958, by age and veteran status; Table C-2.-Work experience in 1958, full- and part-time jobs, by age and veteran status; and Table C-3a.-Work experience in 1958, full- and part-time jobs, by marital status and age; Research Monograph 5, cited above, the veteran population was classified, by age, into these groups:

(1) Married:

(a) Not in the labor force (nonworkers).

(b) In the labor force year-round, full-time workers or partyear/part-time workers.

(2) Nonmarried:

(a) Not in the labor force (nonworkers).

(b) In the labor force year-round, full-time workers or partyear/part-time workers.

(b) Basic annual income distributions (1958) were derived separately for married and for nonmarried veterans (by age, labor force status, and work experience) from data in Research Monograph 5, cited above:

(1) Table D-3.-Total monthly income in 1958, male year-round, full-time workers 18 years and over, by age and veteran status.

(2) Table D-4a.—Total money income in 1958, all male veteran partyear workers 18 years and over, by age.

(3) Table D-5.-Total money income in 1958, male part-year workers 65 years and older, by veteran status.

(4) Table D-6a.-Total money income in 1958, all male veteran nonworkers, 18 years and over, by age.

(5) Table D-9.-Total money income in 1958, families headed by male nonworkers and nonworker unrelated individuals 18 years and over, by veterans status of head or unrelated individual.

(6) Table D-11.-Total money income in 1958, unrelated individuals (male) 18 years and over, who worked year round, full time, by age and veteran status.

(c) By graphic methods, these 1958 income distributions were adjusted to reflect the increase in personal income in the United States from 1958 to 1962: It was assumed that the average annual rise in income from 1958 to 1962; it was assumed that the average annual rise in income from 1958 to 1961, as reflected in the following data, would continue in 1962:

(1) Table 15.-Work experience of head of household in (1958) (1961): Families and unrelated individuals by total money income in (1958) (1961), by weeks worked by head.

(2) Table 16.-Major reason for head working part-year or not working in (1958) (1961): Families and unrelated individuals by total money income in (1958) (1961).

(3) Table 24 (1958) and Table 25 (1961).-Age and veteran status: Persons 14 years old and over, by total money income in (1958) (1961). (Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, series P. 60, Nos. 33 (1958) and 39 (1961), U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, January 15, 1960 (1958), and February 28, 1963 (1961).) (d) These (adjusted) estimates of 1962 income distribution, by age, marital status, labor force status, and work experience, were applied to the appropriate veteran groups to yield a series of income distributions for married and nonmarried veterans, by period of service.

D. Estimated annual income of veterans' widows

1. Estimates of annual (1962) income from non-VA sources of veterans' widows were developed separately for widows with minor child(ren) and with no minor child(ren), by age of widows and period of service of deceased husbands.

(a) Dependency factors-with minor child(ren); with no minor child(ren) — for widows, by age, were obtained from a June 1960 special survey of veterans' widows made under contract for the Veterans' Administration by the Bureau of the Census.

2. The sources of data for developing the income distributions were:

(a) Unpublished tabulations of 1961 Annual Income Questionnaires of Widows Alone/Widows With Dependents on the VA pension roll (Department of Veterans Benefits, Veterans' Administration).