STATEMENT OF HON. MARVIN L. ESCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. EscH. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before this committee. today, H.R. 1493, moves to rectify an inequity in the present law so unfair and discriminatory that it leads me to wonder why it has taken this long for action.

Simply stated, this legislation would prevent veterans from having their pensions reduced as a result of an increase in social security benefits. Under present law, veterans must include social security benefits as part of their annual income in reports to the Veterans' Administration. In instances where the small increase in social security pushes a veteran's income above the $2,600 income limitation allowed by the Veterans' Administration, veterans have lost a proportionate part of their VA compensation.

This system is grossly unfair. With the one hand the Government gives an increase in benefits to help keep pace with the rising cost of living and with the other hand takes this increase away from our Nation's veterans. These veterans have made tremendous sacrifices for their country and I believe they deserve far better than this two-faced system of benefit calculation. I have long been concerned about the failure of Congress to treat veterans more equitably-the very least we can do is to insure they are not cheated out of a social security increase that has been granted to every social security recipient.

The legislation before us would exclude social security from computation of veterans' benefits. The time for this legislation is overdue and I urge the members of this committee to report this legislation as soon as possible.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS C. WYMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4752 is deserving of the committee's careful attention and favorable consideration. Basically, its aim is to protect veterans and their families from losing all or part of their veterans' pensions as a result of the recent 20 percent social security increase.

Under the present law, eligibility for VA pensions is based on income ceilings which include social security benefits. This necessarily means that when there is an increase in social security rates, the veterans whose income is pushed above a certain level, may see his pension dwindle away.

We are aware, Mr. Chairman, that this provision strikes hardest at those who can least afford it-our senior citizens. We should remember that many of those who would be benefited by this bill are veterans of the First World War whose average age is over 75 years. To these elderly veterans and to their colleagues who fought in other conflicts any income loss would be an extremely hard blow. This is especially true in these times of high inflation.

This bill will raise by $600 the ceiling on income which a veteran. can earn without losing his pension. It will also increase the formula for computing veterans' benefits. For a veteran with no dependents, the base will be increased from $130 to $148 monthly; for a veteran

with one dependent from $148 to $158 monthly; for a widow with no children from $87 to $93 monthly; and for a widow with a child from $104 to $110 monthly.

The truth of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that social security should not be counted in computing veterans' benefits. These are two different sources of retirement income for our senior citizens. They are very much like two separate pensions from two different companies. They should not be played off, one against the other.

STATEMENT OF HON. AL ULLMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement on H.R. 2686, a bill that is supported strongly by many of my constituents. Over the past 6 months, no other issue has been the subject of such a sustained heavy volume of mail from my district.

The issue involved is the level of the outside earnings limitation for eligibility for veterans' pensions. When Congress approved the 20-percent increase in social security benefits last year, I am sure that no Member intended that any of those persons then receiving veterans' pensions would suffer a net loss in income as a result. Yet that is exactly what has happened to too many veterans. That inequity simply must be corrected.

I am not necessarily wedded solely to the approach outlined in H.R. 2686. Perhaps some other method can be used to correct this problem. But the point I want to make is that when the Congress provides for a social security increase or an increase in railroad retirement benefits, a veteran should not get less a percentage increase than anyone else.

In my judgment, this situation must be addressed promptly. Legislation must be enacted to show these veterans that Government does not simply give money with one hand and take more away with the other hand.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. LEGGETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that I am not alone in having been inundated with mail from any constitutents on the subject of these hearings. These letters, however, have a tone all their own, distinctly different from the constituent mail a Congressman normally receives. They come from older Americans who have trusted completely and implicitly in their Government, and have given of themselves in its defense. They are from proud Americans who are seeking not a handout, but justice and equity from their elected Representatives. They are not rich people; if anything, they are struggling to survive on a pittance against a tide of raging inflation at an age where expensive medical services are a necessity. The decrease in VA pensions which caused these letters was small-it would hardly be missed in the budget of a family headed by a wage earner-but to retirees living on small, fixed incomes the effect becomes devastating. Beyond that, the fact that VA annuities are reduced by increasing social security benefits supposedly to compensate for the rising cost of living is needlessly cruel.

Perhaps a few facts will make clear just how little is being asked by those who have served us when we needed them. The average veteran drawing disability pension is 552 years old, and receive $106.19 permonth. As members of the committee know, this is insufficient in some areas even to pay the rent on a one-bedroom apartment. Another category of VA pensioners receives even less; the widow of a veteran with one child who is fortunate enough to have outside income of $3,800 per year receives only $42 per month. As small as these amounts are, and as great as our debt is to these men and their families, I strongly urge favorable consideration of the legislation before this subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP E. RUPPE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to testify before your committee today in behalf of my bill, H.R. 3855. Since the recent increase in social security benefits, I have received countless letters from constituents expressing confusion over the fact that, in the end, their income increased at a rate far below that intended by Congress. I am certain that other Congressmen have received similar letters and calls for explanation.

The cause of their confusion and displeasure is not that the proposed increase of 20 percent was insufficient to cover the ever-rising costs for goods and services. Rather, it lies in the complexities of the eligibility requirements for Veterans' Administration benefits.

It was the intent of Congress in passing the social security increase to raise the average recipient's benefits by approximately 20 percent. But in the case of those who also depend on benefits from the Veterans' Administration, the legislation has not had the desired effect. Veterans' Administration benefits are tied to the annual income of the prospective recipient. When the income rises, even if the rise is attributable to an increase in social security benefits, payments by the Veterans' Administration decrease. The obvious effect is that where Congress intended a real increase of 20 percent, the effective increase is something less that that often as little as 10 percent.

Such a result, in my view, was not intended when the social security increase was passed. H.R. 3855 is designed to safeguard against the inequality the two plans have jointly worked. Its passage will further what I perceive as the purpose of the social security increase. I therefore urge favorable action upon it.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIO BIAGGI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to urge your favorable consideration of two bills that I have introduced which are now before this committee.

The first bill, H.R. 2793. would provide for a separate non-serviceconnected disability pension to be paid to veterans age 72 and over without regard to income. The second bill, H.R. 2794, would exclude recent increases in social security payments from the amount of earnings used to determine eligibility for veterans' pension.

With regard to H.R. 2793, at the present time pensions are paid to all veterans based on a formula which decreases their pension as their income from other sources increases. This is similar to the formula in operation for recipients of social security benefits. What I am proposing is the elimination of this earnings limitation for veterans age 72 and over, just as we have eliminated the limitation for social security recipients.

'The Veterans' Administration informs me that there are approximately 1.3 million veterans who would receive either an increase in their pensions or who would become eligible for pensions if this legislation is passed. This would cost approximately $1.4 billion annually. While I feel that this pension should be paid to our veterans-all of whom fought in the first two world wars-I realize that this cost could have a serious impact on the Federal budget at a time when we are trying to limit Federal expenditures. Therefore, I am proposing that the committee amend my bill to provide an increase in the limitation on earnings to $10,000 for those veterans age 72 and over. This would lessen the cost considerably, yet help a great many more veterans. This is a fair and equitable compromise and one that will still bring relief from the financial woes suffered by many of our older veterans. I urge the committee to accept the bill in its present form, but if that is difficult, at least in the modified form with the $10,000 earnings limitation.

With regard to H.R. 2794, this is designed to allow for the increases in social security granted by the last Congress. Under present laws, all veterans receive a decrease in their pensions equal to the amount of the increase in social security or other benefits they receive.

In the past, whenever a social security increased was granted, this committee had the wisdom to increase the amount of social security income excludable from the earnings limitation formula for veterans pensions. This bill would accomplish just that with respect to the latest social security increases.

Without this legislation, the social security benefits approved last year to aid the many older Americans who find it very difficult to live on the limited incomes would have no effect on the incomes of our veterans. The legislation is most worth while, and I urge the committee to report it favorably.

Let us remember that the men and women who would be helped by these two bills are those who put their lives on the line in defense of this country. These are the people who fought our battles in the field and who helped keep American alive and free. We owe it to them now to let them know we still remember their valiant efforts on our behalf in wars past.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement in support of H.R. 3976 and other related bills.

One of the ironies of the omnibus social security legislation passed by the Congress and embodied in Public Law 92-336 is that, inadvertently, those persons we intended to help with cost-of-living increases

have either been penalized or have not reaped the full extent of the projected increases.

Members of this subcommittee are, I am sure, aware of the injustice this situation has brought to veterans whose pensions have been reduced because of increases in the monthly social security benefits.

You are also aware that these are not times in which we can afford to allow any group dependent on pension or social security funds-especially those who have served their country in time of need-to suffer the consequences of rampant inflation brought about, in part, by the affluence and prosperity all around them.

H.R. 3976 and other so-called pass-through bills would guarantee that, at a minimum, pension rights will not be compromised by the planned social security increases, that the full cost-of-living increase will be provided, and that eligibility for receipt of a veteran's pension will not be lost through application of the full measure of that increase. The Congress has a responsibility to address itself to pass-through legislation to benefit veterans, others receiving Government pensions, persons whose medicaid eligibility was unfairly lost through the increases-all groups we intended to benefit, but who, by narrow interpretation of the law, have lost income, eligibility for income, or both. I would urge this subcommittee, therefore, to take steps to insure that this narrow interpretation is corrected, that veterans receive the full and intended measure of their increase, and that no one loses eligibility for other benefits by virtue of social security cost-of-living adjustments. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. ZWACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, the largest cost of any war is not realized until after the fighting is over. Returning veterans and their families continue to bear the financial and physical aftereffects of battle.

We, as Americans, cannot turn our backs on the veterans' plight. They have fought for us and fought gallantly. Never can we just say "Thank you very much" and leave it at that. We owe them more than that. We owe them the training, a good job, and a good life. The veterans aren't asking for a handout. They are asking for an opportunity to "make it on their own." We owe them that much.

As members of the House Veterans Committee, the process starts here. We must improve the sections of title 38 in regard to payments of disability and death pensions. Also, we have legislation before us today to make certain that recipients of veterans' pension and compensation will not have the amount of such pension or compensation reduced because of increases in monthly social security benefits. On January 15, 1973, I joined with other Members in introducing H.R. 2009 (identical to H.R. 7464).

Present law provides that certain pensions and compensation for veterans shall be reduced when other income increases. Thus, some of these people, whom we are trying to help through increased social security benefits, actually are getting no more total income because of their pension cutbacks.

This certainly was not the intent of our social security benefit increases. Congress voted these higher payments to bring our senior citi