advanced age are such that much of the monthly income may go to health care costs that are not covered by medicare or other insurance costs. It would be especially to their advantage that Congress restore the pensions in full, as citizens of such great need, especially those who have served in our country's military, deserve as much aid in benefits as I feel the social security increase was meant to be to all beneficiaries, across the board.

H.R. 100 hits directly at the impact of the social security increase on the veterans' pensions by amending title 38 of the United States Code to provide that social security benefits provided by Public Law 92-336 shall be disregarded in determining eligibility for pension or compensation under such title. Passage of H.R. 100 would eliminate such examples as the veteran from Woburn, Mass., who lost both his veteran's pension and his aid and assistance payments. This means that he lost the cost for daily medicine, which came to about $15 a week. Since his pension was slight to begin with, he is living marginally, at best. Wiping out his medical funding only further created a crisis situation for him.

Such is the perplexing problem posed by the social security increase to the veteran pensioners. Other citizens receiving social security obtained a 10-percent increase last year on top of their income level of that time. It is not fair that the veterans should receive a smaller increase when the purpose of the bill was to enable all social security beneficiaries to keep up with advancing prices. As the House has been attempting to coordinate the railroad retirement benefits with that of social security, I feel it is only just that this committee and the House as a whole take similar action with regards to the veterans' pension benefits. Taking into account the merit of the individuals affected, Congress and the Federal Government should be willing to put forth the financial assistance that we owe in conscience and in fact to the men who have answered their country's call in time of war.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2687, I welcome this opportunity to present my views on the need to assure that eligible veterans receive the full benefits of increases in social security payment levels.

While I appreciate that the subcommittee has dozens of bills under consideration and many conflicting approaches to reconcile, I strongly urge an approach embodying the principles of H.R. 2687.

Action is long overdue to pass through these social security benefit increases to those receiving veteran pensions. Many Members, myself included, cosponsored a similar measure the closing days of the last Congress when the problem was first recognized.

My main concern is for the estimated 20,000 benefit recipients who stand to lose all pension benefits and another 1.3 million veterans and survivors who face substantial reductions.

These veterans are entitled to the full 20-percent increase in social security as are other beneficiaries. As a strong supporter of the social security benefit increase, I can assure you that it was never my intent that what Government provided with one hand be taken away with. the other.

I share the concern of the administration with the burden on the taxpayer. Indeed, I have noted with some dismay the overlapping of program benefits in the case of welfare recipients. Testimony before a public works subcommittee on which I serve, for example, exposed the fact that many public assistance recipients displaced by public programs were receiving duplicate benefits under relocation assistance. But social security and veterans' benefits are another matter, with benefits based, respectively, on earnings and contributions history, and on service to the Nation. Yet need also remains a factor in that many benefit recipients are elderly and largely dependent on these sources. I have seen estimates that more than three-quarters of veterans with disability pensions receive social security, and a comparablepercentage for surviving dependents.

Those thus dependent on these sources bear a disproportionately heavy burden resulting from price increases. With means often limited to barest necessities, they pay a disproportionate amount of their income for food, the cost of which has far outstripped the general rate of price increases.

It was because of increases in the cost of living that the Congress: enacted increases in social security benefits. The same reasons argue against penalizing the veteran, dependent, and survivor, and for their sharing equally in the benefits of our social security.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER FLOWERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you and add my voice to those of our colleagues in support of H.R. 1492.

All of us are aware of the previously expressed intent of Congress to increase social security benefits. In light of this intent, an obvious inequity exists due to our failure to insure that these increased benefits cannot be offset by reductions in veterans' pensions.

By amending the United States Code, title 38, this bill will make certain that individuals receiving compensation as veterans will share in the benefits bestowed upon others through increased social security payments. Veterans are given assistance because of service to our country; there can be no justification for penalizing these people by denying them he benefits of the social security increase.

I ask the members of this committee to give a favorable report on this bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. SILVIO O. CONTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to appear before you and the distinguished members of this subcommittee.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of the legislation you are considering. Last year, the Congress increased benefits under social security by 20 percent. However, this increase had the unfortunate and unintended result of reducing many veterans' pensions. The reason for this is that social security benefits are considered to be income for purposes of determining eligibility for veterans' pensions. With the social security increase, many veterans found that their in

come, for purposes of their veterans pension, had risen to a point where all or part of the social security increase was lost through reductions in their veterans' pension.

The bill I sponsored, H.R. 1492, is designed to correct this problem. The bill, very simply, provides that the 20-percent increase, and any subsequent cost-of-living increases under section 215 (i) of the Social Security Act, shall not be considered as income for purposes of determining a veteran's eligibility for his pension.

I believe that this is a fair solution to this unfortunate problem. The bill does not affect the income ceiling for determining eligibility. Rather, it provides that these social security increases, provided by the Congress, shall not affect eligibility. The Congress should not give with one hand and take away with the other.

Throughout our history, our fighting men have served our country well and have brought us great honor. We owe these men a great deal. and I believe the unintended results of the social security increase do them a great disservice.

I urge the committee to favorably report this very important legislation to the floor of the House as soon as possible. This unjust and inequitable situation has already continued for too long. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on what I consider to be vital legislation. H.R. 1492, which I am proud to cosponsor with a number of my colleagues, will correct a gross inequity. The House last year voted a 20-percent cost-of-living increase to citizens receiving social security. This increase was designed to assist those living on fixed incomes to meet the rising cost of living. As this committee is well aware, many of these people are dependent on social security and similar funds for their very existence.

While this legislation provided a much needed increase, in many instances a large group of our citizens-the American veterans-have been dealt a disservice.

Because social security benefits are considered income in the computation of VA benefits, many veterans and many of their widows have suffered an actual decrease in their total incomes. For the veterans who have served their country so well and who, because of age and disability, are forced to live on a fixed and limited income, this is an impossible situation.

Many veterans, particularly those of the World War I era, are not now able to obtain employment. In some cases where age is not a major factor, their education is limited; and there are other cases of veterans who, as a result of their service, are materially handicapped.

Perhaps the problem can best be expressed by the veterans themselves, many of whom have written me.

One 79-year-old man asked, "What man can exist comfortably without mental anguish and maintain pride in meeting life's basic needs with a few dollars in his billfold on the award granted*** by the Veterans' Administration. This reduction is going to cause a great hardship and even embarrassment due to problems which must be met."

Another veteran voiced much the same opinion: "Some of the veterans of World War I are just living above the pauper's stage. We can never gain anything by an increase in social security or railroad. retirement or any form of retirement and then taking it out of our veteran's pension. That just doesn't make sense." One veteran wrote that a $13 per month social security increase caused his veteran's pension to be reduced by $28 per month. When one considers the present cost of living and adds the increasing medical expenses that age brings, this sum, small to many of us, can make a great difference to an aging veteran.

Mr. Chairman, it seems a matter of high priority that we act immediately on this problem. These veterans have answered their country's call, and it is not incumbent on us to answer their call of need. These people who have served us so faithfully do not deserve to be treated less than fairly by their Government.

As you know, a number of bills have been introduced to deal with this problem. Some of these bills expand the scope of H.R. 1492 which is identical to H.R. 100, to cover not only income from social security but also income from other sources such as civil service, railroad retirement, industrial pension funds, and other nongovernmental sources. These bills also merit the committee's sympathetic consideration.

An inequity exists, and I urge this committee in its wisdom to take those steps necessary to insure that benefit increases will not continue to serve as penalties to our veterans.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA ON H.R. 304

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of my bill, H.R. 304, the "World War I Pension Act of 1973." This legislation is identical to the bill which I had pending in the 92d Congress, H.R. 14621.

Pension increases for World War I veterans are well overdue. At this time, the average of a World War I veteran is almost 77. Yet these World War I pensioners and their widows or survivors are being inexorably squeezed between rising costs and fixed incomes.

We must never forget that these World War I veterans have played a noble role in this country's history, not only in defending the country from foreign attack but also in helping to build this Nation in the years since the First World War. Today, due largely to the efforts of these veterans, this Nation enjoys a level of prosperity never before approached anywhere in the world. In far too many cases, however, the World War I veteran or his survivor is denied a share of that prosperity for which he is so largely responsible.

Over 600,000 World War I veterans receive a pension. Each of these men must have an income from all outside sources of less than $2,000 if alone, or $3,000 with dependents.

H.R. 304 would increase the maximum amount of outside income earnings World War I veterans and their dependents can receive without losing pension benefits. The income ceiling would be raised to $3.000 for the veteran and $4,200 with dependents. This pension, moreover, would not fluctuate with every increase in income from the Social

Security Administration, as is currently the case. My bill would prevent increases in social security payments or railroad retirement from being included as income for the purposes of World War I pensions. It also provides for $135 monthly for eligible World War I pensioners or $150 monthly for dependents. Additionally, my bill provides for a priority in medical care and hospital admission for those receiving these pensions.

As a constituent once wrote me, "We veterans of World War I do not have a true pension. We have a sort of relief measure so stringently held down by income limitations, it is merely a relief token toward today's constantly increasing living cost." The World War I pension bill, H.R. 304, is the type of legislation that has been needed for many years. Not only from the standpoint of economic need, but more so as a recognition of what these men have done for their country.

I hope this legislation will be promptly approved by this committee and enacted into law in the current Congress.