[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 2 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H79]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1347
MILITARY WIDOWS MISLED AND MISTREATED
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Livingston). Under a previous order of
the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the widows of our Nation's veterans are
being misled and mistreated, misled and mistreated by our own
Government.
Although I introduced legislation 2 years ago to terminate the
confusing system that discriminates against surviving military spouses
when they reach the age of 62, no action was taken on the bill, and the
problem continues. I know you find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker,
that our Government condones a system that penalizes aging widows. I
know I was shocked when the situation was first described to me.
Let me share with the Members a sad story that is typical of the
thousands of these cases. When a resident of my congressional district
retired after many years of honorable military service, he elected to
have a portion of his monthly retirement pay set aside under the
military survivors benefits plan, so-called SBP, so that when he died
his wife would have an income she could count on. He knew the enormous
sacrifices she had made in order to maintain a home for their family
during his military career, often in parts of the world not nearly as
lovely as my town of San Diego. He understood and appreciated that his
wife had served their country as surely as he had.
He did not, however, understand that following his too early untimely
death, the SBP would provide his wife with the financial cushion she
needed, but only until her 62d birthday. On the day she became 62 her
SBP benefit, which had been 55 percent of her husband's retired pay,
was automatically, automatically reduced to 35 percent of the
retirement income. She received no warning that her check would be
slashed on her 62d birthday. She received no explanation.
When she was finally able to locate someone who could tell her why
she was facing this crisis, she was given the following explanation:
Your survivor benefits have been reduced because when you became 62,
you also became eligible to receive Social Security. Puzzled, she
pointed out that her Social Security payment, such as it was, was based
on her own work. It had nothing to do with the survivor benefit plan
her husband had paid into. Too bad, she was told. That is the law.
Well, we have to change the law. The SBP plan is very complicated.
The benefit for one group of survivors is reduced by the amount of the
military retiree's Social Security when the widow reaches age 62,
regardless of when she actually begins to draw Social Security
benefits. Under the newer SBP plan which covers the widow in my
congressional district, the benefit is automatically reduced at age 62
from 55 percent to 35 percent of the military retiree's retired pay.
Even people with substantial incomes would have a tough time with a
reduction of more than one-third of their retirement benefit.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to change this misleading and unfair law. Too
often it causes enormous financial hardship for the affected survivors.
We Americans do not treat our aging citizens, some of the most
vulnerable members of our American family, with such disdain.
Two days ago, on the first day of the 105th Congress, I introduced
H.R. 165, the Military Survivors Equity Act of 1997. This bill would
fix the problem by simply eliminating the callous and absurd reduction
in benefits that now burdens our military widows. Instead, they would
get what they and their deceased spouses thought they would get: 55
percent of the military retiree pay. To put it simply, no offset; a
simple solution to a difficult problem, an equitable solution to a
mean-spirited practice.
I hope I do not have to raise this issue with my colleagues a year
from now, and say again that our Government is still misleading and
mistreating military survivors. Let us correct this disgraceful
situation and enact H.R. 165 in 1997.
____________________