STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA ON H.R. 2992

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to testify today on H.R. 2992, a bill which I am cosponsoring along with Congressman Hillis, to amend title 38 of the United States Code to liberalize the provisions relating to the payment of disability and death pensions. This bill is identical to H.R. 2686 which Mr. Hillis spoke to you about recently during these same hearings.

I recently mailed a questionnaire to all of the postal patrons in Florida's Third Congressional District, which I represent in the Congress. One of the questions which I asked was, "What do you believe are the principal problems facing the Nation today"? All of the questionnaires have not yet been returned but as they do come in my staff totals up the responses and in turn provides me with the information regarding what is concerning the public. Time and time again my constituents return the questionnaires saying that they feel that one of the greatest problems is that when social security benefits are increased the veteran's benefits are decreased. I agree with my constituents that this is a serious problem and that is why I have joined my colleague, Mr. Hillis, in his efforts to enact legislation in this area.

As a result of last year's social security increase, 20,000 veterans in the upper income brackets lost all of their veteran's pension. In addition, there are 1.3 million veterans and widows who saw their pensions reduced in an average of $8.71 per month as a result of the social security increase. On the average, 211,827 veterans lost an average of $12.14 per month, 466,948 with dependents lost an average of $9.46 per month and 525,000 veterans' widows lost approximately 35 cents a

month.

To many Americans this loss does not seem like much, in some cases low as $75 a year. But we cannot forget that there are many Americans who are living on a shoestring budget and even a small amount of money goes a long way and is bady needed. Prices are soaring and our elderly and those on fixed incomes are finding it more difficult to get along almost every day. Legislation is needed in this area to restore to veterans and their widows the amount of pension lost as a result of last year's social security increase. The legislation I am testifying for today does not specifically tie veterans pensions and social security together but it does see to it that the loss occurring from social security increases last year will not, in fact, be effective.

I want to thank you for considering this matter and allowing me this opportunity to express my view. I hope you will take prompt, favorable action on this legislation.

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

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to testify in behalf of my Veterans pension bill, H.R. 4603, to improve the veterans' and widows' pension program.

Mr. Chairman, I believe my bill has three features which should be retained in the final legislation which you will report from this committee.

First, it would raise income limitations sufficiently to offset the 20 percent social security and railroad retirement benefit increases of 1972, so that no one would be dropped from the pension rolls.

There is no more cruel disappointment to people who had counted on, who needed, both increases, than the discovery that their social security benefit increase would virtually nullify their VA pension increase. In Minnesota alone, over 1,000 veterans, and 800 survivors, were removed from the VA pension rolls last year because of income increases. If we believe, as we do, that both increases are justified, we must affirm our belief by making sure that one does not cancel out the other.

Secondly, H.R. 4603 would permit income limitations to be adjusted annually to take into consideration the prior year's cost-of-living increase. The appalling inflation of the last few years has virtually reduced those on fixed incomes to the most abject poverty.

Income that was adequate 1 year becomes totally inadequate even for basic necessities when inflation takes a 6.5 percent swoop upward. The truly hard work that this committee pours into its pension legislation each year must not be permitted to be wiped out by the soaring cost of living, which in the absence of an automatic rise would compel you to redraft the legislation each year. I therefore urge the committee to carefully consider this cost-of-living increase provision in my

bill.

And, thirdly, H.R. 4603 contains a major innovation in that it uses the supplementary security income program as a model for its own program.

The federal assistance program for the aged, blind, and disabled would insure each recipient living alone a minimum benefit of $130 a month, each two-party household a minimum of $195 a month.

I understand that the Senate will soon vote to further increase these minimums to $140 and $210 respectively, to compensate recipients for losing their food stamp benefits. I would certainly support a measure to automatically increase the minimum veterans' pensions whenever a change is made in SSI.

My veterans' pension bill, introduced last February, proposes a minimum of $150 a month for a veteran, $200 for a couple, and $130 for a widow, or $200 with one child, assuring that neither the veteran nor his survivors would have to go to welfare for basic assistance, even if they had no other income.

Mr. Chairman, this committee well knows that many veterans, and particularly their survivors, are in dire need. These men and women served their country in its time of need; it is time for the Nation to serve them in their difficult straits.

If we are going to have a pension program, it should offer some measure of dignity. Veterans should not have to apply for welfaretheir own program should be at least as good as the new Federal supplementary security income program.

Veterans' widows, and their children, without other resources, should receive more generous consideration, as H.R. 4603 provides. The principle of the widow needing as much to live on as a single man alone was clearly recognized when the Social Security Amendments of 1972 raised widows' benefits to 100 percent of the wage earner's primary annuity, and I believe veterans' pensions should move toward that same principle.

Mr. Chairman, I know that this committee has been the veteran's principal defender in his or her time of need. You have stood by our Nation's servants, and will continue to do so.

I commend you and the members of this committee for your diligent and painstaking work in drafting just pension legislation for those who served their country, and know that the final legislation reported out will represent your finest combined efforts in behalf of our veterans.

I thank you again for your time in considering my requests, and express gratitude, on behalf of the veterans and their widows receiving pensions in Minnesota, for your consideration of them over the years.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. RANDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as a Member of Congress who has long been concerned about the needs of our Nation's veterans, I welcome this opportunity to present my views on pension legislation now pending before your distinguished subcommittee. In particular, I would like to express my support for H.R. 3851, a bill I am proud to sponsor along with over 125 of my colleagues who have introduced identical or similar legislation. H.R. 3851 is companion legislation to H.R. 100. Both bills are designed to make certain that recipients of veterans' pensions will not have their pensions reduced because of increases in social security benefits. We should all be aware of the need for this legislation. As a result of the enactment of Public Law 92-336 last year, approximately 1.2 million veterans experienced a reduction in their VA pensions. Worse still, an estimated 20,000 were dropped from the VA pension rolls altogether. This tragic situation resulted because of the method used to compute VA pensions for veterans of World War I and others. Pension benefits for these individuals vary according to the amount of countable annual income other than the VA pension, with all pensions denied and completely cut off when income exceeds a specified. level. Because social security benefits are taken into account when calculating countable income, the 20-percent increase in social security benefits provided under Public Law 92-336 effectively reduced VÅ pensions for about 77 percent of all veterans receiving pensions.

In other words, enactment of H.R. 3851 or similar legislation is not simply desirable but essential or absolutely necessary to confirm and restate Congress good faith in enacting the 20-percent increase in

social security benefits. I have no doubt that when Congress passed the social security increase, its intent was to raise the aggregate income of social security beneficiaries by 20 percent. If Congress wishes to follow through with its clear intention and fulfill its implied pledge to millions of social security beneficiaries, then we have no remaining choice but to enact this veterans legislation at the very earliest possible -date.

Already, passage of H.R. 3851 or similar legislation is long overdue. As early as September of last year, we recognized that reductions in VA pension benefits would result on January 1, 1973, because of enactment of Public Law 92-336. At that time, I enthusiastically joined with a number of colleagues in cosponsoring H.R. 16661, a bill which would have corrected the anticipated inequities outlined above. A number of similar bills were also introduced. One piece of legislation was actually approved by the other body. However, no action was taken in the House. Unfortunately, all these bills died at the adjournment of the 92d Congress.

Mr. Chairman, in my judgment there is little need for extended debate on the objectives of this legislation. It merely corrects what was an admitted oversight on the part of Congress. Enactment of H.R. 3851 or similar legislation is very simply a self-confession of carelessness or negligence on the part of the legislative branch. I am not aware of one Member of Congress who intended that his vote for the 20-percent social security increase would result in a reduction. of veterans' pensions. The way things turned out, Congress was put in the position of giving with the right hand and taking away with the left hand. In reality, the effect of our action was what we Missourians would call Indian giving. Remedial legislation should have been enacted months ago. Action is long overdue.

It is my understanding this legislation has encountered some opposition on the basis that only 15,000 of the 1.8 million veteran pensioners affected by the 20-percent social security increase will actually sustain a loss in total aggregate income. The opponents further point out that these 15.000 pensioners are those in the highest income brackets and that the average loss will be only $9 monthly. In addition, it is stated the Office of Management and Budget has set aside no funds to cover the cost of this legislation, and that its passage will lead to unnecessary increases in Government spending.

I submit that these arguments in no way undercut the necessity for enacting this legislation. Moreover, they do not even address themselves to the primary issue involved. The point in question is congressional credibility. Is the Congress of the United States going to follow through with its unambiguous intent to increase social security benefits, or is it going to back down on its pledge? When we enacted Public Law 92-336, our purpose was not to raise the aggregate income of social security beneficiaries by varying amounts. We intended to pass an across-the-board 20-percent increase.

Those who argue that the overwhelming majority of veterans pensioners have realized a gain in aggregate income as a result of the social security increase, and that, therefore, enactment of H.R. 3851 or similar legislation is open to discussion, completely miss the point. Over 1.2 million veterans pensioners have not received the 20-percent increase in aggregate income which Congress intended that they

should receive. There is one thing that is non-negotiable: the credibility of the legislative branch of our Government. If Congress wishes to preserve its credibility, passage of H.R. 1753, H.R. 3851 or similar legislation is long overdue.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CORMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for this opportunity to express my views on legislation which would disregard the social security increase of last year in determining veterans eligibility for other Federal benefits.

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee that passed on the 20-percent increase for our social security recipients, I have a direct interest and concern for its impact on the veterans. When the Ways and Means Committee approved the increase we believed that the Congress would assure a reduction in federal benefits for veterans would not occur. In the past we have acted quickly on this problem. This time, unfortunately, we have not been so prompt.

Meanwhile, many veterans have lost substantial portions of their benefits. Many are bewildered by the granting of an increase in social security and at the same time finding a decrease in their pension checks. It should never be forgotten that any veteran or his widow who is receiving a VA pension does so only after meeting a very strict means test. Income limitations have been increased substantially during recent years to meet the cost of living increases. Only those who can demonstrate that they are in great need can qualify for these modest VA pensions.

The elderly veterans are particularly hard hit. They often live on a small, fixed income. These are the same people we hoped to help with the social security increase.

A 79-year-old constituent put in succinctly when he said "Peter has been robbed to pay Paul." The inequity of this situation is glaring and the need for action to rectify it is urgent. Your efforts in this important task would be greatly appreciated by myself, and certainly, the millions of veterans who have greatly suffered from our very belated response.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to the subcommittee on the importance of prompt action to protect veterans' pensions. I am a cosponsor of Congressman Fraser's bill, H.R. 1493, to make certain that those who receive veterans' pensions and widows' dependency and indemnity compensation will not suffer a reduction in those benefits because of increases in monthly social security benefits.

Last year Congress saw the need to offset the enormous increases in the cost of living and voted to increase social security benefits by 20 percent. Unfortunately, that increase created a dilemma for many veterans. Veterans' pensions are subject to income limitations which keep many veterans near the poverty level. For example, current law