6. Spouse's income. 7. Net worth limitation. Existing law, Public Law 86-211, 3 increments. Single: $600; $1,200; $1,800. With dependents: $1,000; $2,000; Single: $85; $70; $40. 1 dependent: $90; $75; $45. 3 or more dependents: $100; $75; $45. Permanent and total disability (e.g., 6-months' death gratuity. VA pension, compensation, DIC, Social security lump-sum death Proceeds of fire insurance policies. All income of spouse reasonably Pension not payable if size of claim- 8. Reduction of pension during For veteran without dependents hospitalization. 9. Election.. reduce to $30 after 2 full months Single: $100; $80. 1 dependent: $100; $80. $5 each additional dependent. No change in aid and attendance Widow alone: $65; $55. No disability requirement at age 65 Amounts paid by veteran for Unusual medical expenses paid Expenses of veteran's last illness, Aggregate $10,000 Government Would not apply. Would not apply. Same as existing law. Same as existing law. No election necessary. Revocable. 10. Estimated additional cost. 1st year (fiscal year 1964), $780 million. 5th year, $857 million. Cumulative for 1st 5 years, $4 bil- Cumulative through the year 2000, Pay greater benefit between existing law and H.R. 33. 1st year (fiscal year 1964), $1 billion. 5th year, $0.9 billion. Cumulative for 1st 5 years, $5 Cumulative through the year 1st year (fiscal year 1964) $1.3 bil. lion. 5th year, $1.1 billion. Cumulative through the year NOTE.-See following table for further break down of projected costs; also, source or certain data and assumptions used in long-range projections. H.R.'s 1927, 33, and 2332, 88th Cong., if enacted, estimate of additional first-year cost [In thousands of dollars] Specific year 5-year period Cumulative Specific year 5-year period Cumulative Specific year 5-year period Cumulative Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. This material is of a technical nature, and you have to sit down and study it. Any further questions? Mr. LIBONATI. We saw the formal nature. How do you reconcile the question of benefits and the number receiving those benefits with the appropriations? The administration approved appropriations in order to determine what laws you will approve and will not approve in accordance to their minimizing the number of persons that would seek this benefit? Mr. GLEASON. Well, Congressman, you have known me personally for a long time. Mr. LIBONATI. I didn't say you personally. I am talking about the method. Mr. GLEASON. I don't look on it from a viewpoint of appropriations whatsoever, Congressman. And you made mention a little bit earlier, sir, about service to veterans, and I take no second place in my service to veterans or to the American Legion which we have both served, and I as National Commander Mr. LIBONATI. But is it true Mr. GLEASON. A situation I am quite proud of. Mr. LIBONATI. Is it true that any enabling act which would not be in conformity with the limitations on appropriations as such would not receive the administration's approval? Mr. GLEASON. No, sir; I would say, Congressman-and this is just off the top of my head-that it is made on a basis of need and principle. Mr. LIBONATI. Well, if the criticisms that come here emanating from the administration are that some of these bills give more money to those who have not that need, and that all these bills in conformity don't only give $10 to the individual with the most need, why does not the administration recommend increasing the spending dollar inuring to the benefit of the veteran, and thus give him more money determined on the question of need?" Mr. GLEASON. Well, I would like to cite some figures for the median income of families in the United States. Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 37 shows that for 1960, the median money income for all families in the United States with a family head aged 65 or older was $2,897 per year. And we always pay a pension at that point, Congressman. Because here is a family head-that means that he has to have at least a dependent, and if a veteran with a dependent, he can go all the way to $3,000. And here the median throughout the entire United States is only $2,897 per year, with a man aged 65 years of age or older, and the head of a family. Mr. LIBONATI. By median is meant the average? Mr. GLEASON. Well, sir, it means there are as many with incomes above this amount as there are below it. Mr. LIBONATI. It would not be in the middle class of recipients, though, would it? Mr. GLEASON. No; the current population report shows that the median income of the male population in that same year of 1960 was $4,081. Now, that takes in all ages, but those 65 and older-which I think is what you had reference to earlier- |