cent being in 1971 when we passed legislation exempting that year's 10 percent increase.

But so far we have not acted to exempt the very substantial 20 percent social security increase which went into effect last year. The result has been that over a million veterans, widows and dependents have suffered a reduction in their pensions, and many of them actually suffered a net decrease of up to $168 of their combined social security and veterans pensions. I'm sure we have all heard from many of our constituents on this sore point. Yet at the moment we are adopting further social sercurity increases to help those trying to live on minimal fixed incomes in the face of skyrocketing prices, but at the same time we have done nothing about the arrangement that automatically cuts back on the pensions many of these same citizens have been receiving and have counted on continuing to receive.

So I would strongly urge this committee to take prompt action in reporting out legislation to protect the benefits to which our veterans are entitled and which they need in order to survive in the midst of a bruising inflation.

STATEMENT BY HON. JOHN T. MYERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am taking this opportunity to express my strongest possible support for H.R. 2687 and related proposals to prevent veterans from receiving a reduction in pension such as that following the recent increases in social security benefits.

There have been few issues which have prompted the number of letters from constituents in which they expressed their total disillusionment with their Government. To give them a cost-of-living increase with one hand and take it away with the other not only confused many veterans but also angered and disgusted them.

I believe you will agree with me that action to correct this inequity is long overdue and I commend this subcommittee for moving ahead with consideration of this legislation.

Equally important is the question of the special needs of World War I veterans. Those proposals increasing their monthly pensions and earnings limitations and extending to them the GI benefits provided veterans of World War II and subsequent conflicts warrant the serious attention of this committee.

Most of these people are now living on very limited incomes and are especially vulnerable to the increases in the cost of living. Many are on the fringe of poverty and privation.

I urge this committee to demonstrate our deep appreciation to all the veterans of this Nation and our concern about their continuing welfare by approving this long overdue legislation.

Thank you.

STATEMENT BY HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to express my strong support for legislation which would prevent veterans from receiving a reduction in pensions

as a result of the recent increases in social security. We must enact a measure which will insure the veteran's cost-of-living increases without jeopardizing their pensions.

It is most evident that we owe all of our veterans a large debt for the services they have so loyally performed and the self-sacrifices many have since endured. Our veterans have always bravely responded when our country has called them to duty, to action and to defend the Nation. How can we fail to respond to their needs? The legislation you are considering is certainly long overdue. This has become a case of gross neglect and we have no excuse to tarry any longer.

The veterans of America are due, as are all American citizens, the right to enjoy a decent standard of living in their retirement years. Letters I have received from constituents clearly demonstrated that many are burdened by major expenses on meager incomes and that rises in social security benefits basically defeat their own purpose by reducing or eliminating pension payments. The following excerpts are a representative sample of the unfortunate situations in which veterans find themselves:

As I am one of the Veterans that were taken off the rolls because of this increase as of January 1, 1973 I was stopped from receiving 45 dollars a month. This was indeed a hardship as I am 71 years of age, my wife 65. All the income we have is Social Security and a small allowance from a Savings Bank Account. As of January 1st I receive nothing from the Veteran's Administration. I was dependent on that to pay a Doctor's bill as my wife and I both visit the Doctor each month.

... to the notice I received to the effect that my Veteran's pension has been seriously reduced because of an increase in Social Security payments. It is like putting money in one pocket and taking it out of the other. Would you please introduce a bill immediately to correct this injustice? It so happens that I suffered a slight stroke three weeks ago and now I am expected to suffer an expensive trick such as this. . .

I am writing to tell you of a great injustice being done to World War I Veterans. . . . I am seventy-eight years of age. . . I think cutting our veteran's pension because we got a raise in Social Security which was sorely needed, is very unfair. With the cost of living constantly rising we should certainly not have been cut down . . . Please help us older veterans who are desperately in need so we do not become burdens...

... He is a veteran of World War One and is 76 years old... If all men are created equal-how come some are up in a mountain and some are in a ditch. Is this what the Government wants to keep us-in a ditch? We should think that when we get a pension it should be for the rest of his Natural Life, which is a short one...

I am writing this letter in behalf of my father . . . a paralyzed patient at the V.A. Hospital. I understand that there is a possibility that Pension and Social Security payments may be cutoff. I would like to protest this action. My father is not getting enough money to take care of his basic needs as it is . . .

With all the monies that this country spends for the welfare of people throughout the world, it is certainly outrageous that it takes a substantial amount away from the pension of those who faithfully served their countrythereby depriving them, in large measure, of the benefits of the increases in Social Security. May I urge you to correct this terrible inequity. . .

Mr. Chairman, in closing I reiterate my strong support for legislation which will alleviate the hardships these people are suffering. This is our responsibility. Our veterans are entitled to a happy, healthy life. They certainly deserve it. Above all, we must allow veterans to retire with dignity-not to be forced to feel they are burdens, but as human beings who have served their country with honor and courage.

97-848-73- -45

STATEMENT BY HON. JACK EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to testify before this committee in favor of legislation to prevent veterans from receiving a reduction in their pensions as a result of increases in social security. I commend the chairman and the members of the committee for your work and leadership in this vital area.

I have received many letters from veterans who had their expectations raised by learning of increases in social security benefits. But in many cases, there was no bridge between these expectations and reality, as the veterans benefits, taking into account the increased income from social security, were reduced accordingly. This circuitous process certainly does not mesh with the intent of Congress at the time the social security increase was enacted. Congress did not intend for the law to benefit State governments by allowing them to decrease their State payments. Congress did not intend for the law to enure to the benefit of the Veterans' Administration or any other Federal agency.

Rather, Congress intended that the increase would reach the people in full force, not be watered down through reductions in benefits from other sources.

Mr. Chairman, veterans see their pensions being shrunk by inflation and a rapidly rising cost of living. Their self-sufficiency is put to the test every day by rising rent, food costs, and health care costs.

These facts compound the unfairness of shuffling the social security increase from one agency to another, rather than making certain that a bona fide increase in income is realized.

I urge the committee to report legislation, similar to my own bill. H.R. 475, which will protect a veteran from sustaining losses in his monthly pension because of increases in social security. Certainly cost of living increases point out the need for prompt and decisive action. STATEMENT BY HON. THADDEUS J. DULSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to make a statement in support of legislation to prevent veterans' pensions from being cut as a result of recent social security increases.

Because the non-service-connected pension was established on the basis of need, rather than as an earned retirement or reward for military service, there must be an income limitation stipulation. The limitation must be realistic, however, and with the economy in the condition it is right now, the time has come to reevaluate our guidelines.

Since the latest non-service-connected pension rate increase in January 1972, Congress has granted a 20-percent social security increase. and now a 5.6-percent is to become effective next July. These raises were certainly warranted on the basis of the soaring cost of living, but among social security beneficiaries who also receive veterans' pensions, they have caused great hardships and actual overall loss of money-a situation which Congress must remedy.

We can set down cold facts and figures: argue about budgeting and projected costs and establish arbitrary income and poverty levels.

Translated into individual human terms, the facts are bleak and dollar figures have been cut for old people; the budgeting and projected costs are meager amounts to be stretched to the end of the month; the income is insufficient to keep pace with the cost of living; and poverty level in some where above the affordable.

I would like to present to you a few excerpts from the many letters I have received on this subject from my constituents.

I am a paralyzed, non-service-connected World War II veteran. I am presently in receipt of Social Security benefits because of my inability to work, plus a small non-service connected veteran's pension . . . each time I receive an increase in Social Security, my veteran's pension will be reduced, in addition to which my rent will be increased, as I live in a low income housing project where the monthly rental is based on annual income.

The Social Security raise only profits me $12.48, plus my rent is going too be raised.

Non-veteran neighbors, who receive Social Security, plus private pensions received 20% increase, whereas I received about 15%, because of the reduction of the veteran's pension.

My Social Security raise was $24.20, the veterans took away $10.29, so all the raise I got was $13.91. The cost of living goes up but not my Social Security or veteran's pension. Is that justice?

My husband received a 20% increase in his Social Security, and then got a cut of more than 20% in his veteran's pension. Being 77 years old, I think it is a terrible shame to get with the right hand; and have it taken away with the left.

I received a notice that my pension would be reduced from $42.00 to $26.00 which was due to the fact that my Social Security was increased. How can you do this to the widow of a veteran whose only means of support is her own Social Security and that veteran's pension she was receiving. You give in one hand, take away with the other.

I lost my World War I pension account of a little raise in Social Security. I lose $450.00. Can't something be done about this?

My pension for 1973 has been cut off. Owing to the Social Security increase of $20.00 which puts me over the $2,600 income for the year. I get a $20.00 a month raise and lose $100 in my veteran's pension. I am 84 years old.

Because of the increase in Social Security, my veteran's pension has dropped to $76.45 per month. I did not gain any money in the exchange of benefits. I will be 77 on January 26.

I was better off before the increase in Social Security. The difference is $14.00 that I lose. I was getting $48 a month before the increase now they take it all away. I am 76 years old.

Give some aid to the veterans of the First World War and whose plight is deplorable. After giving us a 20 percent increase in Social Security last year, they took most of it away by decreasing the veteran's pension, and with the terrific increase in the cost of living we are worse off than we were a year ago.

I am 79 years old and a veteran of World War I, who for the past 13 years has been receiving a VA pension check in the amount of $78.75 a month. I am under what the VA calls the "Old Law." This year because of the raise in Social Security benefits, I have been denied the check because I am now over the income limitation. My raise in Social Security was $34.00 a month and I lost $78.75. This seems to me as very unfair.

We live on a budget and it is difficult to make ends meet. I will receive a ten dollar increase from the company I had worked for and I know it won't be of any benefit because the Veterans' Administration will take it away.

It was very nice of the government to give a 20% raise in Social Security to help compensate for the rise in the cost of living for the old retired people. Now there are thousands of old World War I veterans who will have their income lowered by your generosity . . . because... you have not passed a law to raise the income limit to receive a veteran's pension. I was receiving a veteran's pension of $57.75 a month. I have been informed that because of a Social Security raise of $39.80 a month. I will not receive any more Veteran's pension. That will reduce my income by $17.95 a month.

These are people in need. These are people adversely affected by our honest attempt to help retirees keep pace with inflation. These are people whose incomes from non-service-connected pensions we have historically adjusted as the need arose. The need has arisen again, and we must make another adjustment.

There are, of course, a number of approaches to a solution, exemplified by the large number of bills before this committee. I would like to urge amending existing law to prevent cost-of-living mandated increases in social security and railroad retirement benefits from decreasing non-service-connected veterans' pensions, by using those increase percentages to increase automatically the allowable outside income of veterans' pensions.

The Consumer Price Index has been rising so rapidly that I do not feel we can change the $2,600 income limitation figure to $2.700 or $3,000 or any higher cutoff amount and have the new figure applicable for any predictable length of time.

By tying the income limitation ceiling to cost-of-living raises in social security and railroad retirement benefits, we would be fulfilling our traditional commitment to keeping veterans' pensions in line with the CPI at the same time as the other adjustments are made.

And the pleas in the foregoing quotations are sound; it makes no sense for Congress to declare that beneficiaries of one type of pension cannot make ends meet, and then to deny part or all of the funds to needy veterans' pensioners. I urge speedy action to correct this injustice.

STATEMENT BY HON. LESTER L. WOLFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the interest which the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Pensions and Compensation has shown in legislation to prevent veterans from either losing or receiving a reduction in their pension benefits as a result of recent increases in social security, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to express my views on this matter of mutual concern.

Shortly after Congress enacted the recent 20-percent social security increase, I began to hear from hundreds of veterans' families in my district who suddenly found themselves with a significantly reduced pension or completely without a pension as a result of the increase. These veterans justly complained that Congress had created a "give with the one hand, take away with the other" situation by enacting the 20-percent increase without making some provision for the effect which the increase would have, not only on veterans' pensions, but on all Federal benefits programs which use income as a criteria for participation.

Both last session and this Congress as well, I introduced legislation to correct this injustice perpetrated on veterans and other Federal benefits recipients who found their benefits penalized as a result of the 20-percent increase. My bill, similar to legislation now being considered by the Veterans' Affairs Committee, would prevent the 20-percent increase from being counted as income for purposes of participat