What happens is simple; When Congress approves a social security increase, that increase boosts the income levels of many veterans or their widows to a point where other pension benefits are cut back because total income has exceeded allowable levels. The net result is a loss-or, at least, an almost negligible income increase which benefits them little and nowhere matches the cost of living increases they have experienced. Meanwhile, the purpose of the social security increase was to make life for our senior citizens a little easier; to help them meet those skyrocketing costs of living. And, we must remember that the veterans benefits they receive are barely just rewards for the service they have given this Nation in time of war. Many of the men who are suffering as a result of this situation are the ones who served in World Wars I and II; they are men who risked their lives for their strong belief in a cause called freedom. It is neither fair nor just to allow these people to expect and then receive benefits rightfully due them as a result of their service to their country, only to have them curtailed-often severely-and even eliminated because a cost-of-living increase has been granted in social security. Because of this situation-and because of my strong personal feelings on this subject-I support legislation under which any increase in social security benefits would not result in decreases in veterans' pensions. I respectfully urge this committee to work toward drafting legislation which would accomplish this. And I pledge my personal support for such legislation. STATEMENT BY HON. ELLA T. GRASSO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN Mrs. GRASSO. Mr. Chairman, this committee and the Congress must correct an oversight which has placed a great burden on many veterans and their dependents. During the 92d Congress, the House passed with my support a social security bill which raised benefits by 20 percent. In these times of spiraling inflation and soaring living costs, this increase was necessary for the maintenance of a decent living standard by many of those people collecting social security benefits. Some older veterans, however, viewed this action with mixed emotions. These veterans discovered that with the 20 percent increase in social security benefits their total income exceeded the maximum limitation for payment of non-service-connected pensions. Consequently, last February their pensions were reduced. These veterans could only conclude that they were the sad victims of a slight of hand trick. As E. Dale Davis, legislative officer for the Veterans of World War I stated, "They give us old veterans a raise with one hand and take it away with the other." Mr. Chairman, in our present economic situation, those people who live on fixed incomes need every penny they can muster. It is unfortunate that during the closing hectic days of the 92d Congress, legislation to protect non-service-connected pensions was not adopted by the Congress. Early in the 93d Congress, I introduced H.R. 3415 in order to rectify this oversight. My bill would eliminate from the income eligibility standards the 20-percent social security increase of 1972, and subsequent cost-of-living increases that are now scheduled to begin in 1974. Support for this type of legislation is evident from the fact that almost 100 identical and similar bills have aready been introduced in the 93d Congress. A measure of the hardship caused by the loss of veterans' pensions and of the indignation felt by the victims of this unfortunate situation can be seen in the constituent mail on the issue received by the Members of the House. As the only Representative from Connecticut on this committee, I have received comments from throughout the State. Mr. Milton Herman, a Service Officer for the Waterford Post of the American Legion, said that "Congress giveth-last October-and Congress taketh-this February and it hurts-believe me-it hurts." Carleton C. Byers from West Haven, a Past Connecticut Department Commander of the Veterans of World War I, noted that "Many who lost their pensions, lost Aid and Attendance as well which are vital in sustaining even a minimal way of life. They should not become welfare patients, after honorably serving their country in time. of emergency." Hr. Herbert Funk of East Hartford commented: "It seems strange when the government wishes to economize, the veteran is the first to be stepped on." And speaking of the plight of the older veteran in particular, Mrs. John Mazochow, legislative chairman for the American Legion Auxiliary in West Hartford, noted: "It is tragic to watch the elderly trying so hard to maintain their dignity and facing a losing battle with the constant rise of living costs, and defeat at every turn. It was a hard blow to many when their small pensions were taken away from them because they received the meager raise in their social security payments. Let us help these veterans who have given so much of themselves during their lifetimes to at least live out their last days with dignity." Finally, Cathy Foster of Avon, a high school freshman, questioned: "What's the point of more social security when that amount is just subtracted from the veteran's pensions?" Mr. Chairman, the qualified veteran or his widow, who must survive on social security and a meager VA pension, should not have been denied the full benefit of the 20-percent social security increase of last year. The responsibility for improving this situation is ours. These veterans did not shrink from their responsibility to our Nation when their services were needed. We must not shrink from our responsibility to them. As a member of this distinguished committee, I pledge my support for legislation which would correct this unfortunate circumstance. STATEMENT BY HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of a bill I have introduced, H.R. 3581, which would make certain that recipients of veterans' pensions will not have the amount of their pension or compensation reduced because of increases in monthly social security benefits. Current law provides monthly veterans' pensions based on income and age or disability for certain veterans of World War I and later conflicts. Among other sources of income, 90 percent of all social security payments is counted in determining total annual income. Therefore, a social security increase may cause a reduction in veterans' pensions depending on the exact amount of the increase and the amount of other income received by the veteran or dependent. This inclusion of social security income affects over three-fourths of those receiving veterans' pensions. Approximately 823,000 (77 percent) of all veterans receiving pensions and 960,000 (75.7 percent) of veterans' survivors receiving pensions also receive social security benefits. The Veterans Administration released figures last year showing that 1.2 million pensioners would have a reduction in their VA pension because of the 20-percent increase in social security benefits which became payable in October 1972. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 92-198 in December 1971, a veteran often suffered a loss in total income following an increase in his monthly social security benefits. Public Law 92-198 was a major step forward in correcting the inequities in the system. The law provided that, as long as the pensioner's income is within the maximum income limitation, the decrease in his VA pension will always be less than the increase in other income. This assures that the pensioner will always enjoy a net gain in his aggregate income. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that Public Law 92-198 went far enough in this regard. We should make permanent the provision of another section of that law. That section was adopted to provide a complete disregard for determining veterans' pensions of the 10percent increase in social security benefits enacted earlier in 1971. I have received numerous letters of protest from constituents whose veterans' pensions were reduced because of the 20-percent social security increase provided by Public Law 92-336. I agree with them that those receiving pensions should receive the full benefit of all increases approved by Congress. Mr. Chairman, I urge speedy and favorable consideration of H.R. 3581 so that future social security increases do not result in a decrease in veterans' monthly pensions. I believe that this is an important step toward providing veterans with the better life they deserve. STATEMENT OF HON. FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to express to the committee my convictions in opposition to the reduction of veterans' benefits as a result of increases in social security payments. First, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearing, I commend your leadership and the wisdom and concern of this committee which has been so diligent in the past, in looking out for the interests of our vet erans. I know that the committee is determined to reach an equitable solution and is embarked upon a full and comprehensive study of what action can and should be taken. I earnestly commend the committee for its efforts. As you know the increase in social security benefits that went into effect last October began to have an effect on veterans in January. From that time on I have received countless letters and calls from veterans and relatives of veterans asking what the Congress is going to do to restore veterans' pensions to pre-January levels. Many have expressed to me that the Government has taken away from them with one hand what it had given with the other hand. I have been advised that 24.000 veterans will lose their veterans' pensions altogether. I am told that the pensions of veterans and widows of veterans will be reduced by an average of $8.71 a month; that is $104.52 a year-not a whole lot to a corporation executive, but a very significant amount to anyone who is just squeezing by on a barebones pension, with todays' skyhigh food, fuel, and other living costs. Moreover, many veterans who called my Providence office are losing considerably more than $8.71 a month. I fully agree with their plea that the law should be changed. The last three times there were increases in social security benefits, Congress adjusted the law so that veteran's pensions were not decreased. It should be done again. For that purpose I have introduced H.R. 3505 to amend title 38 of the United States Code by directing the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration to disregard last years' increase in social security benefits in determining the annual income of those receiving veterans' benefits. This would have the effect of restoring the amounts lost since January back to our veterans' pension checks. Furthermore, I would urge the committee to look ahead to June 1974 when there will be another social security increase of 5.9 percent, and to make certain that veterans will not lose any of the effect of that increase. I feel that we should change the law ahead of time to anticipate the increase so there will be no delays, as veterans are experiencing now, by rectifying the situation after the fact. Mr. Chairman, I know that there are many voices in the country calling for a reduction or at least a lid on Government expenditures. I know that the administration has tried to cut back moneys for veterans in many program areas. I know that there are intense pressures on the Congress and on this committee to stay within budget limitations. Nevertheless, it is my contention that adequate pensions for veterans should be among our highest priorities. Surely there are other Federal programs of a less critical nature that can yield their place to a corrective pension expenditure for veterans. In conclusion, I hope that the committee in reaching a decision on the legislation will keep in clear focus that the cost of living has moved forward at the outrageous rate of 8 percent for the first 6 months of this year-in other words during the very period that the Government has cut a slice from the veterans' pension check. I feel it is time to make up for that. STATEMENT BY HON. EDWARD R. ROYBAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. ROYBAL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I very much appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today, to testify on behalf of the bill I introduced, H.R. 1134. H.R. 1134 amends title 38 of the United States Code, to make certain that recipients of veterans' pensions and compensation will not have the amount of pension or compensation reduced because of increases in their monthly social security benefits. The veterans' pension is designed to assist those men who so valiantly served their country in time of war, as well as their dependents and survivors. To be eligible for this pension, a wartime veteran must have attained the age of 65 or have become permanently disabled from non-service-connected causes. If a veteran served before World War I, he is not subject to any income limitation, but for those serving after World War I, stringent income limitations are imposed. A single elderly or disabled veteran cannot receive his pension if his income exceeds $2,600 annually and a married veteran or one with dependents cannot receive a pension if his income is in excess of $3,800, regardless of the number of dependents he may have. These income limitations are in the neighborhood of present poverty levels, I am sorry to say, and because of rampant inflation, these limitations grow more constricting every day. Not only our veterans, but all our citizens are feeling the acute pinch in their pocketbooks lately, but for those who are disabled or too old to work, the results of mounting prices on a fixed income can be tragic. It is ironic that it was Congressional efforts to provide some relief to social security beneficiaries that caused this current crisis for our veterans. Last year when Public Law 92-336 was passed, providing a 20-percent across-the-board increase, it was taken as a godsend by most. But this increase, which was really overdue in providing financial relief for so many, also managed to adversely affect over 1.2 million pensioners collecting both social security and veterans pensions. Because social security is treated as countable income, the increase in social security benefits caused veterans pensions to be reduced. Moreover, as of January 1, 20,000 pensioners were dropped from the rolls completely, while 15.000 veterans suffered a loss in their total income ranging from $38 annually to $168 annually. That these reductions in income should be fall our veterans at a time when people need every penny they can get is not only unfair, it is tragic. This could not have been what Congress was trying to do, and it should be corrected as quickly as possible, because every month we wait, it is just another month that our veterans will lose their needed income. Our veterans served proudly and unreservedly when duty called. When there were wars to fight-they went and fought. Now many of these veterans may not be able to earn a livelihood; they may be too old or have become disabled. II.R 1134 could provide the needed relief for these deserving veterans. This relief is something that the Congress, the country, can do to serve these men who gave so much when they were called upon to give. We are not even talking about added recompense for these indi |