Quick and decisive passage will demonstrate once again that the Nation never has and never will forget the tremendous debt it owes its veterans.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. JOHNSON. I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my support for eliminating any reduction in disability benefits resulting from increased outside income from social security, railroad retirement, or other pension plans. I commend the chairman for scheduling these hearings and for bringing this topic up for discussion.

Across the Nation many veterans suffering from non-service-connected disabilities have experienced a reduction in their veterans benefits as a result of recent social security increases. In some cases the reduction has exceeded the social security increase. In others the reduction has left the veteran with the same income he has had for the last few years at a time when prices are rising rapidly.

Today's cost-of-living spiral requires regular increases in income to keep even. For those faced with reduction or continued payments at the same level, the future is not only bleak, but frightening. Many of these veterans are unable to work and must rely on these fixed incomes.

Food costs are a good example of the skyrocketing costs which veterans face. Each of us requires food. The only alternative to paying current prices is to grow your own. Being disabled, the veterans are forced to buy at today's inflated prices. Just last week, the Federal Government announced that food costs rose 2 percent last month. That's 24 percent a year!

Food is not the only problem. Disabled veterans also require continued medical care. I am sure you are aware of the monumental costs of medical care today. With fixed incomes and illness increasing with age, the veteran must budget more and more of his benefits for medical costs not covered by VA benefits.

Housing costs are also rising at phenominal rates. Rents are going so high that efforts are being made at local levels to enact rent control legislation.

Food, shelter, and health-three of the most important needs of man. All are costing more each day. Many of us are fortunate enough to be able to work and earn an income. The disabled veteran is not. He must rely on the Government and outside pensions for which he is eligible.

It was the intent of Congress to provide greater benefits through social security and railroad retirement, thus enabling recipients to meet the rising costs of living. It most certainly was not our purpose to give any veteran a reduced pension. This has been the result however, and legislative action is required to change it. I am therefore urging today that this committee give serious consideration to reporting a bill which would allow veterans to take full advantage of recent increases in outside pensions.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. HUDNUT III, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. HUDNUT. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to present a statement in support of H.R. 2687, which I have cosponsored with my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr Hillis. The 20-percent cost-of-living increase in social security benefits passed in the last Congress was a great help to many of our senior citizens. However, provisions in current law have prevented retired veterans from benefiting much from that social security increase, since veterans pensions are based on income limits which include social security. When social security benefits are increased, veterans pensions automatically drop. It is my understanding that more than 20,000 veterans have lost their veterans pensions because of the increase and some 1.3 million veterans and widows have seen their pensions reduced by an average of $8.71 monthly.

This loss of $6 to $30 per month may not seem too critical, but when an elderly couple is living on a shoestring budget, as many of our veterans are, this amount can make a severe difference.

The bill I have cosponsored, H.R. 2687, is designed to correct this situation by raising by $600 the limit on income which a veteran can have without losing his pension. It will also increase the benefit formula for computing veterans pensions. The pension base for a veteran with no dependents will be increased from $130 to $148 monthly; for a veteran with a dependent from $140 to $158 monthly; for a widow with no child from $87 to $93 monthly; and for a widow with a child from $104 to $110 monthly.

I hope you will agree that this legislation has merit, and that H.R. 2687 will be reported to the House and enacted into law in the very near future.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of my bills, H.R. 4693 and 4694, to increase the earnings limitation for veterans' pensions to take into account the social security raise last fall and to establish a new pension program for the veterans of World War I.

Mr. Chairman, I am certain that all of us have received letters from elderly pensioners and their widows regarding the reductions in pension they have suffered as a result of the social security increase. While very grateful for the 20 percent increase Congress enacted last year, they nonetheless sorely miss the dollars cut from their V.A. pensions, particularly in these inflationary times.

H.R. 4694 would raise the annual income limitations for eligible. veterans and their survivors and provide an average 8 percent increase in the pension rates. In addition, the bill would increase the income ceiling for "old law" pensioners and for parents receiving Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. I urge the subcommittee's favorable consideration of this legislation, retroactive to January 1, 1973.

My second bill, H.R. 4693, deals with the unique difficulties faced by World War I veterans. In at least their late 70's, these veterans of the "war to end all wars" often live in ill-health on the fringe of destitution. H.R. 4693 would provide $135 per month for unmarried veterans and $150 per month for married veterans, compared to the present $78.78 for Old Law pensioners. Widows covered by the bill would receive $100 per month, nearly double the present $50.40 payment. The income limitation for Old Law pensioners would be increased to $3,000 for single veterans and $4,200 for married veterans. In addition, the measure gives priority for hospital and medical care to veterans receiving a pension under its provisions.

This legislation would provide a long-needed reform for the World War I veteran who for pension purposes is treated like the World War II and Korean veterans, and yet has never had the many other veterans' benefits which have been made available to these other veterans groups. There was no "Readjustment Assistance Bill" for the returning warriors of 1918. For many of these men the additional money contained in H.R. 4693 will mean the difference between financial self-sufficiency and the necessity to resort to welfare. While welfare is designed to help those who have no other resources, the tragic irony of public assistance is that those it is intended to help are too proud to accept it. Enactment of H.R. 4693 would help the remaining veterans of World War I receive adequate medical care when they are most in need of medical aid. As a strong supporter of educational benefits for the Vietnam veteran, I urge the Congress to pass a G.I. Bill for the World War I veteran-by increasing pension benefits to see him through the final years in dignity and self-respect.

I hope the subcommittee and full committee will act favorably on H.R. 4693 and 4694, or similar legislation, and would like to thank the chairman and members of the committee for their consideration of this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANCHER NELSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate your affording me the opportunity to present my views in support of H.R. 1753. Early in this session, I joined others of my colleagues in cosponsoring this much needed proposal to rectify an injustice which has resulted from action taken by the last Congress.

The Veterans' Administration reports that on January 1 of this year, 1.6 million pensioners, 70 percent of those receiving a nonservice connected pension from the VA, had their pension reduced as a direct result of the 20-percent increase in social security benefits approved in Public Law 92-336. A law designed to provide assistance to citizens. living on small, fixed incomes who must contend with the constantly rising cost of living has worked to the detriment of over a million and a half Americans.

Since the beginning of this session, I have received a great deal of mail on this matter, both from pensioners and others concerned about our senior citizens' welfare. I would like to share with you some of my constituents' comments:

We have been receiving $58 a month, but now they say our income is a little over-so now we won't get any. We have a daughter still in school and a retarded son at the State school. My husband will be 70 in May.

We ended up with just $8 a month more when our Social Security benefits increased because I lost my pension.

Somehow it is discouraging with the high cost of living to receive a raise with one hand and have it snatched away with the other.

We have our pride also, but after all, we can only stretch our dollars so far. Perhaps the most graphic illustration I received about this problem is this one.

They are in their 80's and she is in a wheelchair. They are recipients of an annual income of $1,802.40 from Social Security and $1,324.80 from the Veterans Administration as they lost a son in World War II. In 1972 their expenses for housing, utilities, medical charges (exclusive of Medicare) and insurance totalled $1,614.18. Their income of $3,127.20 less the necessary expenditures of $1,614.18 leaves a balance of $1,513.02 for food, clothing and incidentals

And this elderly couple's $29 a week buys less and less as the cost of living continues to rise.

I am sure that when the 92d Congress approved Public Law 92-336, we did not intend to penalize either our veterans who have faithfully served their country or the families of these veterans. Yet this legislation, which has provided such great assistance to many recipients of social security benefits, has had exactly this effect. Mr. Chairman, I urge you and the members of your subcommittee to act quickly to report this legislation. We must act to alleviate the hardships experienced by so many veterans and prevent further reductions in veterans' pensions every time the cost of living rises.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD D. CLANCY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to make this statement in support of H.R. 3360 and urge the committee's consideration of legislation to correct an injustice being done to veterans and their widows.

This legislation has been needed for quite some time but it was never more apparent than at the first of this year when social security benefits increased 20 percent. That increase for millions of hardworking citizens resulted in only about a 5-percent increase for veterans and widows and I don't have to tell you gentlemen how much these people have contributed to America in our lifetime.

What is more shocking, the 20 percent increase in social security benefits actually caused a loss in pensions to 1,263,860 veterans and widows, I was told by the Veterans' Administration. And, for about 15,000, their total monthly income from pensions and social security was reduced below what it had been before the social security increase. It is not just and fair that these citizens should, in effect, he penalized while others who did not serve the military are receiving the full benefits of the increase.

What has happened is that the social security increase is computed in the calculations for a veteran's or widow's pension. When the social security is increased, the pension amount is lessened by a mathematical formula so that the total monthly income remains relatively stable. This is fine except that it does not take into account that the cost-of

living, which the social security benefits were increased to match, has risen as much for the veteran or his widow as it has for the civilian worker who receives the full 20 percent.

H.R. 3360 which I introduced in January would exclude social security benefit payments and annuity and pension payments under the Railrod Retirement Act from the calculations for the purpose of determining eligibility for a veteran's or widow's pension. Since the pensions would then be calculated separately, they would resume the level where they had been before the most recent social security increase. And, the full social security increase would accrue equally to veterans and widows as it does to civilians.

It is only fair and just and right that this corrective legislation be passed. Our veterans and their families should not be penalized by an action which was intended to benefit all Americans.

I thank you for your kind attention and consideration.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. DENHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. DENHOLM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I have joined several of my colleagues in proposed legislation to assure that pensions and compensation to veterans will not be reduced. because of increases in monthly social security benefits. (H.R. 1493.) Multitudes of veterans have courageously served America in war. They have separately and severally sacrificed much. They asked nothing against the odds of victory-their reward in honor is little in life and to the survivors of those that fell in defense of freedom all the honors conferred are absent of the material necessities essential to the most meager existence.

This is indeed the right place this is the right time for due diligence in the honest search for solutions to the existing economic problems and essential benefits to our veterans and to the survivors thereof.

There is no justification for regulations that penalize a veteran that is otherwise eligible for social security benefits because he has honorably served his country.

I have attached to my testimony some of the letters that I have received in support of an essential to change to existing law.

A reduction in monthly income of $10, $15, or $20 has a severe impact on the majority of veterans that have no other source of income to sustain them.

My colleagues and distinguished members of the committee, there is a conflict in the existing law that is inequitable and unfortunate because pension benefits for veterans are determined against other sources of income and the current inequity is disadvantageous to veterans or to the survivors thereof. I believe the resulting inequity of the existing law was an outright oversight beyond the intent of the Members of the Congress. It must be corrected.

The proposed legislation will direct the Administrator of the social security program to disregard any benefits that are received by veterans under the Veterans Pension Act in determining earned, eligible, and qualified monthly payments pursuant to the Social Security Act, as amended.