Since I do not expect to see a guaranteed annual income for elders in the near future, and since this committee frequently hears the plea for more funds, I will only make four brief suggestions for Federal action now to increase funding for elderly legal services :

(1) The Legal Services Corporation should be mandated by Federal law to serve low income persons in direct proportion to their percentage of the lowincome population, with age, race, and ethnic origin being the criterion by which this standard is applied. This would force a readjustment of the present inadequate service going to elders. Certainly such a mandate should be accompanied by increases in Legal Services Corporation funding levels.

(2) Congress has already taken very significant steps in the Older Americans Act amendments of 1975 by making legal services one of the four priority services under title III, and by continuing to increase funding for title III. If more funding is provided through title III and Congress reenforces its desire to see all four priority services funded, then additional legal service programs are certain to develop.

(3) In order to persuade the private bar to become more involved in serving the legal needs of older persons, Congress should study ways of establishing pre-paid or group legal services plans which in all probability would have to include at a minimum Federal regulation and at a maximum Federal financial support.

(4) Since elderly persons trained as paralegals have proven their value in elderly legal projects, Congress should encourage this approach by amending title IX of the Older Americans Act to strongly suggest that some of the persons employed under this program should be employed as paralegals in elderly legal projects-possibly projects funded by title III. In fact, in this hearing room today are many senior aides who are employed through title IX, and many of them have already expressed an interest in being paralegals.

There are other problems inhibiting the attempt to meet the need for legal services for the elderly which are not merely a result of lack of funds. I would like to cite a case which I recently learned about which illustrates some of the problems.

A 67-year-old blind man from the western part of Massachusetts has just recently had a criminal complaint filed against him charging that he had stolen a dog. He denies it, claiming that he does not have the dog, but wishes that he did since the dog he is accused of stealing is the one which he believes he trained himself to be his seeing-eye dog and which later either ran away or was stolen from him.

The accused gentleman is not only blind, he is hard-of-hearing, has a pacemaker for his heart, and requires crutches to walk. For financial support, he receives SSI.

When the complaint was filed against him, he asked that a public defender be appointed to represent him, but he was denied because it was claimed that he had too much money in his savings account-even though he qualified for SSI. He then went to Western Massachusetts Legal Services who also had to deny him service because the Legal Service Corporation does not allow the program to handle criminal cases.

Finally the man found a private attorney to represent him—at a cost of $200, for defense in a complaint charging theft of property worth less than $100. Seeing no other choice, the gentleman is going to pay the $200 out of his meager SSI income so that he can receive a fair trial.

A rare case? Maybe the man's physical ailments and the specific accusation are unusual, but the other circumstances are all too common. I would like to simply list some of the common problems this case highlights, and suggest some remedies.

(1) Unreasonable income limitations: While in this case, it was the public defenders who had the unreasonable income limitation, in many cases the Legal Service Corporation funded programs have equally low limits. While these limits are not totally without merit, if they are inflexibly applied, they can be very unreasonable, as in this case.

The Older Americans Act requirement that services funded through title III must be available to elders regardless of income is a much better approach.

(2) Unreasonable fees of private attorneys: The $200 fee being charged to the blind gentleman appears to have been set without any recognition of his financial situation, and in my opinion is outrageous. Unfortunately, this is just one more

example of the rigidity of the private bar's fee schedules, and their lack of willingness to take the initiative in both advertising their fees and specialties and in setting flexible fee schedules. I am not sure if there is a legislative solution to this problem, but certainly any pressure this committee can bring on the private bar in these areas would be a positive step.

(3) Lack of unreasonable restrictions on elderly legal programs: This case illustrates the wisdom in the title III programs which do not have income or any other limitations on who may be served, as long as they are elderly. If a title III legal program had been in existence in western Massachusetts, this man could have been served at no cost to him. In the future, lawyers and the private bar may attempt to restrict the provision of legal services under the title III program. I hope that this case will always stand as a reminder to Congress to resist such pressures.

Before concluding I would like to mention two other areas which, I believe, deserve more attention if the elderly are to receive high quality legal services. A major deficiency at this time in the field of legal services for the elderly is the lack of training materials and courses for lawyers and paralegals. Law schools provide virtually no background in aging or in substantive areas of law pertaining to the elderly-the most obvious area being the programs under the Social Security Act. Few colleges or universities offer specialized courses for lawyers or paralegals serving older persons. As far as I am aware in New England, only New Hampshire has used title IV-A Older Americans Act funds for paralegal training. As a result, each legal service program for the elderly must reinvent the wheel whenever it trains new lawyers or paralegals to work with the elderly. And, persons who wish to become trained paralegals or social workers who wish to develop a better knowledge of how to use the legal system for their clients are confronted with nowhere to go to receive this information.

Just as our LRSE project has received many requests from the elderly law projects to fill this training void, we have received numerous requests to serve as a regional elderly law backup center. The problem, simply stated, is that lawyers handling 300 to 350 cases a year and also administering legal projects for the elderly do not have time to keep abreast of all the new laws and cases relating to the elderly and to do detailed legal research on more than a few areas of law each year. As a result, the representation available to older persons is not always as excellent as it could be. Elderly law backup centers in each region of the country-possibly established through Older Americans Act model project funds could begin to fill this gap.

A good example of such a backup center is the SSI Advocacy Center, attached to the Massachusetts Law Reform Center which specializes in handling SSI cases in Massachusetts. The SSI center handles an average of 50 to 100 SSI cases per month and handles only SSI cases. As a result of this specialization, the elderly served are certain of quality representation, and secondly, other lawyers and paralegals throughout the State may call upon the center's staff for backup on their own SSI cases.

The SSI center has operated for over 2 years with title III administrative funds as a project of statewide significance. As successful as it has been, the Massachusetts Department of Elder Affairs will not be able to refund it this year because it has no funds available for this purpose. As a result, the SSI center will have to close its doors to the elderly on September 30 of this year. I don't know if there is anything you can do, Senator, to help the SSI center to continue, but I hope that you will try.

Even if you cannot help the SSI center, I believe that its success underscores the need for backup centers of its type.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator KENNEDY. At this time I would like to recognize Linda Noconiam, who is representing Congressman O'Neill; Fred Rose, who represents Congressman Early; and Ed Moore, representing Congressman Burke.

All of the House Members are voting today on the Supplemental Security Income Reform Act to insure cost-of-living increases in SSI. If there is such a thing as a good excuse, they have it today. [Applause.]

Now, we are going to hear, if we could, from Emily Murphy, then from William Cohen, and then from James Frost. We shall give them a minute each-if they would just like to step up here. We have the reporter here. Each is entitled to-I'm just sorry on the time. I have to get on back. We are having an antitrust bill that is before the Senate. It will give the State attorney general the power to bring an antitrust action when the individual harm is only a few dollars, but the total sum in terms of the consumer is $20 million, $30 million, $40 million.

There is a filibuster on this afternoon, and the Judiciary Committee is trying to break it. We will be voting on it tomorrow, but we will be debating it this afternoon. It, too, is an important bill for the elderly. As I have to take a 12:15 plane, I am going to have to leave here in about 5 minutes.

Emily, we will give you a minute. And any of the rest of you that would like to have a comment or statement made a part of this record, we will leave the record open for 30 days. Just write me a note and it will be included in the record. OK, Emily.

STATEMENT OF EMILY M. MURPHY, NORTH ANDOVER, MASS.

MS. MURPHY. Senator, it's a pleasure to meet you, and I want to thank you for all the efforts. Especially our senior aid program. We in North Andover have a town that very seldom needs anything, but the council on aging is very active, and we are mostly all volunteers, and a year ago we had quite a confrontation with the board of health, because we wanted to have a clinic for the elderly which we had started and it was for 2 years with volunteers, and we needed some money, and, of course, there was a definite denial. So, we went to the Legal Aid through the home care program in Lawrence, Merrimack Valley Home Care, and through their efforts and our own constant communication, the program was very well resolved and we have a wonderful clinic that handles something like 400 people in 2 or 3 months. So, that is one of our own experiences with Legal Aid.

The other little note I have here, according to lawyers, I think that publicity of some kind would result in having volunteers.

Senator KENNEDY. That is good. Very good, Emily. William Randolph Cohen.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RANDOLPH COHEN, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. COHEN. Senator Kennedy, my full name is William Randolph Cohen, and I am the Massachusetts department junior vice commander, Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. I sent you a letter by certified mail on July 24. Not knowing what happened to that letter, I visited your office in person a little over a week ago. I found out that that letter was turned over to Samuel Thompson of the Boston Housing Authority.

He sent back a response to your office. The original was supposed to come to me, but it never came to me. I was given a copy of that letter and the response to that letter was all out of line with that letter that I sent you.

Senator KENNEDY. Let's try to follow up. I will be glad to try and follow up with you, and will do so. And I want to commend you for

your role as junior vice commander, Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.

Mr. COHEN. Also I sent you a letter on the 21st asking for copies sent from your office or anybody else. I am the only truly registered commander of the Massachusetts department of veterans of the Civil War, and I am trying to do things for senior citizens, like myself, who live on a fixed income. I live in the Boston Housing Authority community.

As you have already been told by Gerald Wall, the rents are being increased enormously. The Boston Housing Authority, I understand, can go up to 25 percent of our income, and that would put a cramp in the $288 which is received from SSI, and that leaves us with very little to live on. It is hard to live for senior citizens, or anyone else, with food and clothing and telephone and other necessities of life. I have appealed to you and to Senator Brooke to take steps to change the legislation on that amendment to lower the 25 percent to say 1212 percent. Fifteen would be OK, too.

Senator KENNEDY. Let me ask you, Mr. Cohen, could you go down right after this meeting to my office-I have to go right back to Washington-but if you see Barbara Soliotis at the door there, and we'll arrange a meeting for you with Dave Wynn. Let's get busy on this. I have some good attorneys up here that will help me if I have any problems. I want to just give two people a final chance to talk, but see Barbara and we will set something up right away, if you would be kind enough to do that. I regret and apologize if we haven't been able to be as responsive as we would like, but I give you assurance that we will do our very best. I want to thank you for commenting. OK, James Frost. Jim, I will give you about 45 seconds.

Mr. FROST. We have submitted our written testimony, Senator. Senator KENNEDY. Very good. Your statement will be entered in the record at this point.

[The statement of Mr. Frost follows:]

STATEMENT OF JAMES FROST, COMMISSION ON AFFAIRS OF THE ELDERLY, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the panel: My name is James Frost, and I am here today to speak on behalf of the city of Boston Commission on Affairs of the Elderly. As you may know, Boston has approximately 120,000 persons age 60 and over. This is a large group of people and one that certainly deserves every legal consideration and benefit.

Older persons as a group seem to be subject to legal problems, particularly given their increased dependency upon Federal, State, and local programs, each of which has its own particular regulations and restrictions. A reliance upon public agencies for housing, transportation, health care, and income maintenance, too often creates a corresponding submission to rigid eligibility standards, complicated reporting forms and confusing and misleading procedures and regulations. Without being overly dramatic, an elderly person's fate can sometimes literally be determined by his or her ability to wade through a plethora of application forms, income statements, and so on. This bureaucratic maze does at times seemingly preclude an individual from obtaining the benefits that are legally his. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you are aware of the fact that many elderly persons suffer because of their inability to deal with the public and private agencies obligated to respond to their needs. The Boston Commission on Affairs of the Elderly would, therefore, be happy to support any and all efforts that can be made to alleviate legal problems for our senior citizens, particularly in the following areas of need:

(1) Housing. Recently, many of us witnessed the frustrations of Boston's elderly housing residents who were faced with proposed rent increases. This is just one example of the type of housing issue that would lend itself to legal intervention.

(2) Income maintenance.-We are all aware of the many problems beseiging social security and supplemental security income recipients. Many times elderly persons are not aware of deserved benefits or, perhaps even more important from a legal point of view, the various appeal systems open to them. Competent legal assistance in this regard could be the critical difference in determining a recipients income.

(3) Medical care.-Even the most experienced and sophisticated reader is often confused trying to interpret private insurance plans and policies, let alone the complex medicare and medicaid programs. One hopes we have not reached the stage where it takes a lawyer to determine medicare eligibility but, unfortunately, that day may not be too far off.

(4) Employment discrimination.-The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 bars employees from denying job applications or dismissing employees solely because of age. This act has not been vigorously enforced and, unfortunately, is not well known by many employees or older persons. Legal aid and assistance may be necessary to bring employers into compliance with provisions of the act.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on. There are many other areas of need unique to elderly persons. Almost all of them require trained and sophisticated legal intervention and assistance.

The American Bar Association has determined that 23 percent of all Americans have a civil legal problem at least once each year. One would hazard the guess that this percentage is even higher for our senior citizens, particulariy the elderly poor. Thus, we feel safe in saying that thousands of elderly persons in Boston need efficient and meaningful legal services, hopefully of the type that can be made available for little or no cost. This latter point is imperative in light of the high incidence of poverty amongst so many of our senior citizens.

We would hope that the members of the Special Committee on Aging and the full Congress respond to the problems I have mentioned here today. Boston deserves nothing less than the very best effort that can be brought to bear by the Congress to address the legal needs of our senior citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Senator KENNEDY. Here's a wonderful note: "If possible, I would like to testify, very briefly, honest. Norma Walsh Gramer." How can I say "No"?

STATEMENT OF NORMA WALSH GRAMER, BOSTON, MASS.

Ms. GRAMER. I understand. Thank you very much. OK. My name is Norma Walsh Gramer. I'm a member of the State advisory for the elderly, the ABCD board on the elderly subcommittee, and mayor's, you know, the whole thing. I am interested. I am concerned. I care. I just wanted to say we appreciate all of you coming down. It's good to have sincere people looking out for the elderly. And I am in strong favor of expanding legal services for the elderly. The point I can tell firsthand, when I worked with the commission on affairs of the elderly in the city of Boston. All of you know that elderly don't want to tell everybody their business. They don't want to let everybody know what is happening.

In my capacity in city hall, they quite often had legal problems, and I would refer them to the local BLAP office, but they were hesitant because they didn't feel as though the lawyers there would have the sensitivity. With specifically geared programs for the elderly there will be more help, and we thank you very much.