From Plainfield, N.J.: A 76-year-old veteran writes:

I have a little trouble. I am 76 years old, a veteran of the first world war, and I was wounded. I received a pension as of January 1, 1972 of $63.10. I am living on Social Security. With both, I was doing alright. I have just received notice that my pension was reduced to $36.42. My rent at my apartment is up to $30.00, that puts me into bad shape. Please see if you can help.

From the Rahway, N.J. Chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons:

With the 20% increase in social security, there are some of us who may lose our veterans pensions because it may bring us a few dollars over the ceiling and we may lose a lot more than we gain by the increase in Social Security. Will you please work on our behalf to vote against taking the pension away from the thousands who served faithfully?

Mr. Chairman, these are but a few excerpts from hundreds of letters I have received from veterans and their widows. I know that all of my colleagues receive such letters. The fact that they are so familiar to us is evidence in itself that our present system is sadly lacking, and we must take action to correct the injustices suffered by our veterans in their later years.

Nowhere does our great American system falter so needlessly as in the manner in which we provide for our elderly. These courageous individuals live in poverty and near-poverty in order to live in dignity. Our veterans are being called upon to duplicate the courage of their youth in waging a daily war against the threats of rising rents, rising medical costs, and the rising cost of a simple meal.

I submit that those "thousands who served faithfully" must not have reason now to lose faith. I heartily support H.R. 2687, and urge its prompt passage by this committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. C. W. BILL YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong personal support for three bills which you have before you today. I introduced H.R. 1305 and H.R. 1306, and I cosponsored H.R. 2686. Each of these measures has a common goal which I feel is of utmost importance to all veterans-protection against reductions in veterans pensions brought about by last year's 20-percent increase in social security benefits.

Nearly 74,000 veterans live in the Sixth Congressional District of Florida, which I have the honor of representing. Many of these men, and many widows and dependents of veterans, are living under conditions of great economic hardship; any further reduction in their very limited incomes literally means food from their mouths and the loss of vitality needed medicines. I do not feel that men who have served their country without hesitation in time of national emergency should be subjected to reductions in already small incomes because of our failure to remedy legislation inequities in overlapping benefits programs.

I can do no better than to let my constituents speak with their own voices on how the social security increase has affected their lives. I quote from but two of the hundreds of letters I have received since

the VA reduced pension and disability benefits on January 1 of this

year.

I am almost 75 years of age and a diabetic. My wife is in poor health and has been for over seven years. Our only income is social security plus the Vets pension. I received notice yesterday my pension has been cut from $97.98 to $85.26 per month. True, this is only $12.72 per month cut, but let me tell you it hurts us an awful lot. as our health problems require so much extra cash. Living costs have not gone down. . . . The 20% S.S. raise was to help us meet the inflationary price on essentials, but when there is no law protecting our Veterans pension, what good is the raise when a slice is taken from the pension?

I am a veteran 80 years of age, of WWI. Last year my VA pension was $67.76 per month. I received notice today that beginning January 1, 1973, my pension would be reduced to $42.86 per month due to a 20% increase in my Social Security, which amounted to $35.00 per month. The 20% increase was for everybody but the Veteran. This cut in pension reduces my SS increase to $10 per month instead of $35.00.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that when the Congress passed the social security increase, it intended to deprive these elderly men and their dependents of the pensions they earned by service in the Armed Forces of this country. The Senate did attempt to remedy this miscarriage of justice toward the end of the last Cengress, but the bill unfortunately died in the pre-election rush to adjournment. We must, therefore, take up this problem immediately, and it should be a top priority of this committee and the core around which any amendments to the veterans pension system are built.

I have a particular concern for veterans of World War I and their dependents, since these people are all of advanced age and, therefore, very limited in their financial resources. If they attempt to live on their pensions, they are kept well below the poverty level. If they have other sources of income, such as social security or railroad retirement benefits, their income rises above the statutory limitation and their pension is reduced or eliminated altogether. Either way they lose-and they are restricted to incomes which are well below the poverty level anywhere in the country.

Age brings special hardships to World War I veterans and their families. The labor market is, for all intents and purposes, closed to them. Other pension systems, such as social security and railroad retirement, have their own built-in limitation. And the health problems associated with advanced age are such that much of the monthly income may go for health care costs that are not covered by medicare or other insurance programs. Again, quoting from one of my constituents, I cite one instance of hundreds:

I have been disabled since 1965 with emphysema and find it hard to make ends meet as my wife is not yet eligible for Social Security or Medicare. Our medical expenses last year were $698.00 which we managed to pay out of our own pocket. Social Security and the Veterans pension are our only source of income.

H.R. 1305, the World War I Pension Act of 1973, would remedy some of the hardships confronting World War I veterans and their families. This bill provides increased pensions for these veterans and their dependents, and exempts from determination of their annual income the benefits received from other sources, such as social security and railroad retirement. My bill also establishes a separate pension system for non-service-connected disabilities and a priority system of hospital and medical care. Thus, the World War I Pension Act, which

I first introduced in the 92d Congress, would go a long way toward easing the plight of these elderly veterans and their dependents.

H.R. 1306 hits directly at the impact of the social security increase on veterans' pensions by amending title 38 of the United States Code to provide that one-half of any social security benefit increases provided for by Public Law 92-336 be disregarded in determining eligibility for pension or compensation under such title. Passage of this legislation would eliminate such instances as the man who received a $37 increase in social security-and, because of it, lost a $42 nonservice-connected VA disability pension. Or the veteran whose social security was increased by 20 percent and whose veterans' pension was subsequently decreased by 25 percent.

An alternative means of dealing with this same problem is contained in H.R. 2686, which I cosponsored along with 49 other Members of the House. H.R. 2686 would raise by $600 the limit on income which a veteran can earn without losing his pension. It would also increase the benefit formula for computing veterans pensions. The pension base for a veteran with no dependents would be increased from $130 to $148 monthly; for a veteran with one or more dependents from $140 to $158 monthly; for a widow with no child from $87 to $93 monthly; and for a widow with one or more dependents from $104 to $110 monthly.

Under the Social Security Amendments of 1972, the special minimum benefit established for individuals with 20 years of social security coverage would be $85. Thus, a veteran with no dependents and 20 years coverage under social security would receive a combined income of $233 per month, or $2,796 annually, if H.R. 2686 were approved. I suggest to this committee that $2,796 is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an excessive annual income.

The House has already taken action to bring railroad retirement benefits into coordination with social security benefits. I sincerely hope that this committee and the House as a whole will take similar action with regard to veterans' pension benefits, taking into special account the individuals affected. If the Federal Government can spend billions of dollars on programs to aid every disadvantaged group in this country, it can certainly afford to spend the few hundred million dollars we owe in conscience and in fact to men who have answered their country's call in time of war.

STATEMENT OF 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 two bills I have introduced relating to veterans' pensions.

The first, H.R. 1471, the "World War I Pension Act of 1973," would provide a $150-a-month pension for either the World War I veteran or his widow.

No group of patriots has been so often overlooked and so long neglected as those Americans who served, and served valiantly, during World War I.

A number of factors have led to his unfortunate and unjust situation:

The education of a veteran of World War I averaged that of about a sixth grader, yet no Government educational assistance was waiting for him when he laid down his arms.

The Government did not help him find employment, as is the case of more recent veterans. Nor were the veterans' hospitals available as they are today.

Pension systems, such as social security, were not created until long after World War I ended, and by then most veterans of the First World War were too far along in life to build up maximum social security benefits.

As a result, today we find that approximately 700,000 World War I veterans, well over half of their total numbers, are scraping out a meager existence on less than $2,500 per year.

The pension system that is in effect is a type of welfare that is beneath the dignity of those who have contributed greatly to our country-not only by their war service-but also through the years as private citizens.

For example, a married veteran of World War I, whose annual income is $500 or less, is entitled to $140 a month pension. No pension is payable to such a veteran whose annual income exceeds $3,800, even though the Government defines "poverty" as an income of less than $4,200 a year.

The veteran without dependents is eligible for pension only if his annual income is less than $2,300.

To correct the injustice that has led to the financial plight of the World War I veteran, I have introduced H.R. 1471, which would provide a $150-a-month pension for either the veteran or his widow. This pension would be paid to the veteran, not on a welfare basis, but because he earned it defending our country.

Mr. Chairman, of the 5 million who served our country in uniform during World War I, only 1.2 million are still alive and their average age is almost 78. They deserve a pension--not only as a matter of need, but as a matter of right.

The second bill, H.R. 3581, 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.

Approximately 823,000 (77 percent) of all veterans receiving pensiones 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 pensions would have a reduction in their VA pension because of the 20-percent increase in social security benefits which became payable in October

1972.

I have received numerous letters of protest from constituents whose veterans' pensions were reduced because of that social security increase. I agree wtih 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. 1471 and H.R. 3581. I believe that they are important steps toward providing veterans with the better life they deserve.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON FUQUA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to express my views on the recent increase in social security benefits and its effect on veterans' pensions.

Current law provides for non-service-connected pension benefits for certain veterans of World War I and later conflicts. These monthly pensions are based on income and age or disability. To be eligible for such payments, a veteran must have at least 90 days of service, including at least 1 day of wartime service, and have attained age 65 or older or be totally and permanently disabled from non-serviceconnected causes. A veteran is also eligible if he has some equivalent combination of age and disability. Pensions are also provided for surviving widows and children of such veterans. At the present time, there are approximately 2.3 million persons receiving non-service-connected pension benefits.

The law contains a number of schedules relating the monthly benefit payable to the annual amount of other income available to the beneficiary. Pension for those with service in World War I or after are subject to income limitations, with no pension payable when income exceeds a certain level. These limits are $2,600 a year for a person without dependents and $3,800 a year for a person with dependents. In applying the income limitation, all of the income received by a veteran or his survivor is counted unless it falls within a category specificially excluded by law. The more significant resource exclusions are private or public relief or welfare payments, veterans' pensions or compensation, all of a wife's earned income, and only 10 percent of all payments under public or private retirement programs.

Thus, under current law, 90 percent of all social security payments is counted in determining total annual income for eligible veterans. Therefore, a social security increase may cause a reduction in a veteran's pension depending on the exact amount of the increase and the amount of other income received by the veteran or his dependent.

Public Law 92-336 provided for a 20-percent cost-of-living increase in social security benefits payable October 1, 1972. Over 27 million Americans received this increase in their benefits. 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 and are affected by the 20-percent increase. This increase in benefits will create an increase in the veterans' countable income.

The Veterans' Administration has released figures showing that 1.2 million pensioners will have a reduction in their VA pension because of the social security benefit increase. When the President signed the social security increase into law, no provision was made for those elderly citizens who received benefits from other sources. Surely it was not the intent of Congress to have senior citizens who depend on food stamps, public housing programs, medicaid, and veterans benefits to suffer reductions or ineligibility as a result of this social security increase.