zens' incomes in line with cost of living increases, but legislation did not get through the jam in the closing days of the session.

On January 23, 1973, I joined with a number of my distinguished colleagues in introducing H.R. 2687. The gradual increase and payment limitations of this bill offer a reasonable vehicle for committee consideration.

Both bills offer financial help to our veterans. Legislation in this area is a must to protect the pocketbook of those who need it most— the disabled and the retired.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. RHODES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to make a statement concerning the bill which I have cosponsored, H.R. 1753, veterans' pension bill.

The vanishing ranks of World War I veterans are deserving and loyal Americans who cannot be forgotten. This Nation must continue to show its gratitude for the honorable service that these men and women have given to their country.

Veterans from World War I have reached an approximate age of 77. Many of these veterans are unable to work and dependent upon pensions, retirement incomes, and social security for sources of income. With living costs increasing, a decrease in income for these veterans in their declining years is a situation we cannot allow to happen.

It is an inconsistency to grant veterans' pension benefits and then reduce these benefits by an increase in another Federal assistance program. Passage of H.R. 1753 will provide a solution to this dilemma, by not counting social security increases as income for pension purposes. In my opinion this would be a just and necessary compensation for the heavy price paid by these men and women, who struggled through the world's most terrible war.

Mr. Chairman, I hope favorable consideration will be given to H.R. 1753.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. PEPPER. In support of H.R. 1493 of which I am cosponsor concerning the effect of social security benefit increase upon the veterans' pensions and compensation.

Many of our Nation's fine citizens have made the painful sacrifice that has so often proved necessary in the name of liberty and justice. They lived under such codes as "in service of God and country" or "to die for my country." And so as people look about our great Nation. today, I'm sure they observe with pride; pride in the fact theat they made that precious sacrifice in order to weld together a stronger Nation.

Though there came into being the direly needed raise in social security benefits for the veteran, not all veterans found themselves benefited by this action. Suddenly many were informed of drastic reductions or complete loss of their nonservice connected disability payments. Bearing witness to this are the number of incredulous vets who

have just opened their notices from the Veterans' Administration. Each day I receive much correspondence from these people calling desperately for my help in this matter.

I believe H.R. 1493 provides this help in that it prevents any sort. of financial regression from ocurring due to this and any subsequent social security benefit increases. Therefore, the people who depend upon this will not be subject to harsh cutbacks in their subsistence allowances.

Effective January 1, 1973, over 1.2 million veterans and survivors suffered a reduction in death or disability pension payments as a result of the 20 percent social security benefit increase provided for in Public Law 92–336. Add to that the fact that 20,000 others were deleted from the pension rolls altogether. H.R. 1493 insures that war veterans and their survivors have the benefit of the social security increase without suffering cuts in, or total loss of, their pensions.

To the veterans of war the memory span of this Nation must appear to be miniscule. Does it seem to them that we have forgotten their meritorious service? Was it not the purpose of Congress in enactment of the 20-percent increase in social security benefits to counteract the loss in purchasing power of the dollar? I sincerely hope that they do not believe that we are unaware that between January 1, 1973, and April 30, 1973, the Consumer Price Index rose 7.74 percent. This piece of legislation is designed to show them that we are well aware of their situation and intend to see to it that they receive the protection necessary to shield them from the inconsistencies of the law.

This bill merely represents an understandable effort to insure an increase in financial assistance to pensioners at a time when the cost of living is on the increase. Some action toward this goal must be taken in the very near future. We must be sensitive to our veterans' needs.

The basic fallacy that comes into being under the present law is that nonservice connected disability has been pitted against social security where the two should be complementary. And the worst fact of all is that this fallacy strikes hardest at those who are least able to afford the abrupt income loss.

Social security is a separate entity from veterans benefits and it should be kept as thus. They are both provided to financially assist the war veterans, a most deserving and needy group. To let this situation continue would be something analogous to that of Andrew Carnegie's institution of the sliding pay scale. It is harmful to those who have the weakest counteraction to it unless they are granted the necessary protection. Just as Carnegie's workers suffered until the proper organizations took the neded progressive steps, these veterans will suffer greatly until we, the Congress of the United States, take the proper protective steps.

I strongly urge all Members to support this measure to protect our honored veterans.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID G. TOWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. TOWELL. I wish to draw your attention to one of the bills being considered during these subcommittee hearings, a bill which I intro

duced, H.R. 6754. The purpose of this legislation is to restore cuts made in veterans' pensions under the social security law.

Although the great majority of pension recipients are said to be better off as a result of the social security increase, there are many other veterans who are actually losing income. They don't even have the right to turn down the so-called increase in order to maintain the higher monthly income.

I have received dozens of letters from veterans and their dependents in Nevada citing examples of how pensions were cut. One man claimed that he lost about $29 a month. A widow said her $27 pension was canceled. A disabled veteran told me his check was cut from $100 to $76 a month.

It seems rather inconsistent in these inflationary times to be reducing the monthly fixed income of those who served their country so honorably.

If we're out to trim the fat off the Federal budget, there are plenty of other places to look before we start shaving the pensions of our veterans. Let's restore those cuts and show them that they haven't been forgotten.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to have this opportunity to say just a few words in behalf of legislation you are considering to insure that recipients of veterans' benefits will not have the amount of such benefits reduced because of increases in social security allocations.

Like most of my colleagues, I have received a large number of communications from persons in my district who have suffered losses in their veterans' benefits as a result of recent social security increases. Many of those who have written tell of suffering grievous hardships as a result.

Older persons in this country face a particularly rough time as inflation continues its devastating spiral. It is difficult enough for the average wage earner to feed, clothe, and otherwise provide for himself and his family, but for those living on a fixed income, inflation is more than an albatross. It is a creature which robs them of their security in their old age and the self-respect they gain from being able to adequately care for themselves.

It is for this reason, above all others, that I have cosponsored legislation which would enable this Nation's veterans to receive both their social security and their veterans' benefits without suffering financial penalty. However, I would like to make one other point which I feel bears tangentially upon this subject. Permitting an escalation in total benefits allowable under law is, in my opinion, a fair solution for the short-run. But, at the same time, we must take meaningful action which will insure that the income of all persons in this country retains, or more hopefully, reacquires, a stable purchasing power for the future. We cannot continue to fuel the fires of inflation indefinitely by playing catchup with wages and prices. This hurts us all, and hurts the person living on a fixed income more than the rest. I am in favor of the legislation which you are considering here today and feel that it is

just in its goal. I only want to make the point that I hope we in the Congress can also take the necessary action to stabilize our economy and negate the need for continuing legislation to restore the purchasing power of those who are dependent upon Federal benefits. This would, I am sure we all know, be the greatest benefit we could give to

our veterans.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know that the committee has been most concerned with the problems of easing the plight of veterans. who have lost their pensions or other compensation because of social security increases, and I understand that action on this matter was deferred until now only as a result of Presidential vetoes of other important veterans legislation. The committee has always shown itself to be most sensitive to the needs of our veterans, and I am sure that it will again be so in this instance. I thank the committee for this opportunity to submit my views on the subject at hand.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT H. STEELE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. STEELE. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Republican Task Force on Aging, I am especially pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of those VA pensioners who have suffered income cuts as a result of increases in social security benefits. H.R. 1493, which prevents a reduction of VA pensions due to social security increases, is a critically important measure to this country's 1 million older

veterans.

The Office of the Administrator for Veterans' Affairs informed me that 64.1 percent of all veterans and 63.7 percent of all VA pension recipients have suffered income cuts as a result of the social security increases. This amounts to 670,000 veterans. In my district, the Second District of Connecticut, over 1,000 of the 1,600 veterans will be affected. Because so many live on the fixed incomes of their pensions and social security alone, few can afford this cutback. Moreover, the purpose of the social security raise was to enable older persons to keep up with the rising costs of living, including housing, food, and medical care, and to keep them off welfare. The contradiction between the goal of the social security increase and the result for the pensioners is a most tragic one.

The reduction in veterans' income breaches our Nation's commitment to this very special group of citizens. Most veterans who receive both pension and social security benefits are World War I veterans, with an average age of 76. Some are older World War II veterans. Most of these veterans will not be employed in full-time jobs during the remainder of their lives. They served their country during a critical period in its history and deserve fair treatment at this critical time in their lives. Yet, during this painful period of rapid inflation, our country has cut back on their compensation.

A constituent of mine who recently wrote me regarding his pension cut put the problem this way:

We, the veterans, know (the reduction) was caused by the 20 percent increase in Social Security, and the failure of the Congress to act in the closing weeks of the 92d Congress to protect our veterans' pensions in this raise. In other words, our World War I veterans lost money by getting the social security raise.

97-848-73-43

Recently, a member of the White House Domestic Council told the Task Force on Aging that not only does the administration oppose any liberalization of the income formula to exclude social security benefits, but it also favors the inclusion of the spouse's income in that formula.

Thus, it is clear that if the veteran is to be assured of the increased income the 92d Congress intended for all social security recipients, this Congress must act, just as every Congress has acted in the past to protect veterans' pensions.

Mr. Chairman, the giving and then taking away from those who have generously served their country is unconscionable. While it is true that their aggregate incomes will probably remain the same or increase slightly, veterans will definitely realize a smaller increase than nonveterans. This, in my view constitutes indefensible treatment of those men and women who have given the most to their country and should be corrected as quickly as Congress can act.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD T. HANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HANNA. At the beginning of this year, 1.6 million Americans— about 70 percent of those receiving non-service-connected VA pensions were notified of reductions in their allotments. These cutbacks were not the result of any affirmative income-producing activity on the part of the pensioners themselves. Rather, they resulted from the 20-percent increase in social security benefits which the Congress overwhelmingly approved last year. I have cosponsored a bill now before your committee. H.R. 4751, which would fully restore these reductions. The bill provides that the 20-percent increase in social security benefits approved last year shall be disregarded in determining a pensioner's entitlement under the non-service-connected pension program. This legislation is vitally needed both to insure that the intent of Congress in passing the social security increase be fully imlpemented and to guarantee to those recipients of Federal aid on fixed incomes that their needs will be met during this period of runaway inflation. The fact that the distribution of non-service-connected pension benefits is geared to a recipient's income does not sufficiently explain to the 1.6 million non-service-connected pensioners who are social security recipients why they cannot receive the full benefit of last year's congressional action. The reduction of non-service-connected benefits in this instance in effect discriminates against a particular class of social security recipients by making the value of the increase voted them last year less than the value it has to others. While Congress last year voted the VA pensioner receiving social security benefits an average increase of $26.50 per month in his social security benefits, the net increase in the income of the non-service-connected pensioner will be only $19. This kind of discrimination against a certain group of social security recipients is simply not justified. The immediate concern should be with making adequate provision for those receiving assistance during a period of runaway inflation. That concern was expressed last year in the Congress action with regard to social security. What was done in 1972 to meet a pressing need should not be undone, even partially, in 1973, when that need still exists.