Through these and other devices, including independent evaluation of the quality of care rendered, we are convinced that the passage of the King bill will improve as well as increase the kinds and quality of health services rendered all our citizens, young and old.

Moreover, we believe that provision of health benefits under the OASDI system will serve as a useful yardstick to measure the performance of private plans. It will furnish a challenge to insurance companies and nonprofit plans which will result in greater efficiency and economy for all types of private insurance.

Just as we pay tribute to the great accomplishments of medicine here and throughout the world, we must state that we can document in the lives of our members, the financial barriers which cause hardship and result in inadequate medical services rendered older persons. We have with us today members of our Golden Ring Clubs whose personal experience will speak more eloquently than I can.

In conclusion, we submit that neither private health insurance with its inadequate benefits at high rates, nor the means test approach, can do the job for older persons that is required.

The OASDI system is a logical device, simple in form and yet dignified in its methods. It shows great promise in meeting the health care needs of the aged.

We respectfully urge your support of the King bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. You tell Mr. Held that we regret he was not able to be with us this morning, but we assure him, not in your words, but in mine, that you very ably represented him here.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, I have just one question.

Mr. Adams, do you have no twinge of conscience at all in this presentation in view of the fact that some 14 million people will not have paid in a penny, but will get complete help here and yet at the same time you do not want to even impose a means test for the cost of this free gift that is being transferred to the younger people?

Mr. ADAMS. I will let the chairman of the programs committee answer that.

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. I am the program director of the Golden Ring Council.

Now, in our clubs where 50,000 elderly people are members in a number of States, we tackled this question: Do we really have the right to appeal to our Congress for this medical care for the already retired elderly citizens?

Our answer, after long discussions, was yes, for two reasons:

No. 1 is that these people paid into this system when they were working, when they were in the shops and offices, they used to pay their share to the social security system.

Reason No. 2, we feel that this system is a system for generations and there has to be a start made.

One generation has to make a start. There were a number of people who started to draw social security pensions when this system was started 25 years ago. We say there is nothing wrong that the elderly people of today will have the benefits and their children will pay for them.

After all, these people of the sweatshops made a great contribution and we feel that our children with two cars in their garages, with their homes in the suburbs, that they can afford to pay for their parents who will gain the benefits now.

Mr. ALGER. I think you have told me what I need to know. We are not talking about children taking care of parents, Mr. Lichtenstein. We are talking about folks getting help here who have not paid in a cent on it.

You are giving a nice statement, but I believe you have covered it pretty well already.

By the way, of course, you are a citizen yourself in this country? Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ALGER. How long have you been in our country?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. Twenty-one years. I am a citizen of the United States. I am one of the people who was saved from abroad, from Poland 25 years ago, and I will be always grateful to the Government of the United States for giving me an emergency visa to come to the United States.

I was a councilman of the city of Warsaw in 1939, when the war broke out. I was fortunate enough to get from the United States a special emergency visa to come to the United States.

Now, with the permission of the chairman, our people in the clubs feel that really they are given now two alternatives:

One alternative is, get rich. If you get rich you have the means for all kinds of medical care. But it is too late in the game for our people. They cannot get rich any more if they had not done it up to now.

So they are given another alternative, get poor, but this they don't want, Congressman. They don't like to get poor.

Our States and cities are saying if you are poor the welfare department will take care of you.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Lichtenstein, there is much merit in what you are saying, and I do not intend to ask further questions because there are so many people following you today. I was simply asking if you are concerned that you are getting something for nothing. That is not to say it is not a good thing. We have not decided the question, but we do appreciate your views.

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you want to, you may continue in the record the remarks that you were in the process of making, as a part of the extension of your remarks, if you desire.

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. I would like to.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Mr. Adams and Mr. Lichtenstein, you know, and I think most persons know, that all through the history of social security people have been made eligible who had not paid into the program, some very little, some none.

This is an old practice. It has been practiced in the Government for many years.

I am reminded when this question is brought up of a most distinguished member of this committee who died some 6 years or 8 years ago, Mr. John Dingell, of the State of Michigan, when this very same opposition tactic was used years ago in respect to social security recipients, Mr. Dingell made a very significant remark. He

as a young man had been a member of the International Typographical Union. It is quite a distinguished union. It is the sort of occupation that elderly people can handle quite well if they are in moderately good health.

That union decided that they would have a retirement system. In their convention they determined the type of system that it should be. They all voted to oblige themselves to have taken from their salaries a sufficient amount to build a good fund.

At the same convention, at the commencement or initiation of this program, they voted unanimously that every elderly person within the union was free and able as of that day to retire at the same amount per month that those who had paid throughout many years received at the time they retired.

So this is not an unusual thing. In fact, rather than being unusual, it is a usual thing, both in and out of Government.

That time being what it is does give advantage to people in the retirement systems over and over again.

I just wanted the record to show that in this instance where men and women will be admitted to benefits without having contributed, it is not an unusual thing, it is the usual thing.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, one remark, with your permission.

I have great respect for the distinguished Congressman from Texas, and for the third time in these hearings I am listening with great interest to the remarks and questions by the Congressman of Texas.

Our system, the social security system, has, I would not call these loopholes, but it is built by Congress in a way that within the years people used to be taken into the system and not contributing enough toward the social security trust fund and getting even higher benefits than people who are within the system for all the 25 years.

And our people are complaining about this. A man was asking me, I am paying to social security since 1937, and I am getting $78 social security pension because I used to work in shops in times of unemployment, seasonal work, and so on.

But my neighbor, who retired a year ago as a self-supporting man, paid in only for 2 years to social security and he is getting the maximum pension of social security.

Those things, Mr. Chairman, you know, occur in thousands of instances.

So I will say you will never have 100 percent of perfect democracy, so to say, in this instance. There always will be people taken into the system at a later date and getting sometimes better social security benefits than people who have paid into the system for 20 or 25 years.

We say again, we appeal to the Congressman of Texas who knows exactly our system and who is an expert on this, if we are going to make a start, please people are asking me, how many times do we have to go to Washington?

I am 85, I am 90 years old, and I made an appeal this morning to Congressman Mason of Illinois, please give in a little bit to these people who do not have too much time and they would like to enjoy a little bit of social security medical care through their lifetime.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are very grateful to you and the committee for giving us this opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful to both of you for coming to this committee and giving a discussion of your views.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Adams and Mr. Lichtenstein, I would say you have the finest group of people in the room that I have ever seen since I have been on the committee.

I am interested to know, are they from all over the United States, or from what part of the country. Briefly where are these people from and how many do you have today?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. I am very glad to answer this question of the distinguished Congressman.

Now, our organization has clubs of elderly people in the State of New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, Illinois, and Ohio.

Now, we came down here, 50 people, exactly 49 people, in a chartered bus. Our organization believes in two things, do it yourself and pay as you go.

I mean by that we don't have any paid officials. I am a voluntary worker in this organiaztion.

Now, each one of us paid $12 for this trip to Washington, $611⁄2 for the chartered bus round trip, $5 for the hotel, and 50 cents for tips in the hotel, $12.

No one is supporting us. We are not appealing for donations from anyone because these people are taking pride in the fact that they are supporting their own organizations and their own doings.

So we came down to plead our case before this distinguished committee. This is our organization.

Last year on May 18 we had a meeting of 18,000 elderly people at Madison Square Garden and again they were asked the question, who is footing the bill and with pride we answered this question, “It is our head, it is our heart, and our own pocket."

This is the philosophy of our organization and we have here people from 65 to 85 in this room paying tribute to this committee, and a lady told me today "I am so happy to come down and see democracy in action," and I will go home and this is an educational trip for us to tell the people, the members of our organization that we have asked questions by the Congressman of Texas and by the Congressman of California and so on.

It is a great experience for all of us-for the senior citizens.

Mr. BAKER. How many of your members are social security recipients?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. We have, I would say, almost all our representatives here except Mr. Daisy, who was a car porter and he is getting railroad retirement, Mr. Henry Daisy.

Mr. BAKER. I would venture the assertion that all of these people are social security retirees or, as you say, one from the railroad.

In your national organization practically all of your members are social security retirees?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. Yes. I would say except some people in the churches. We have church groups.

Mr. BAKER. They were not eligible?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. I would say a number of elderly widows whose husbands died years ago before they were eligible for social security, but not too many.

We would appreciate if something could be done. I know that Senator McNamara had a proposition and we would be grateful to you to take in this half million people who are not under the social security system.

But my impression is that the Kerr-Mills bill, which again I am stating, our organization supported this bill. We didn't say that this bill is in conflict with medical care through social security, although this is part of social security, too, but I would say this, medical assistance for the aged is a system which was inaugurated last year, did a lot for those people who are not eligible for social security.

I would say in our State of New York a number of people will be covered by the Kerr-Mills bill.

Really, what Congress did last year, you helped the very poor people and the low bracket people, but what is going to happen to 14 million people who are not rich, cannot get rich, and are not poor enough, the middle class, I would say.

Mr. BAKER. I have one more question. Is it true that very few of your members would be eligible under Kerr-Mills?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. Very true because a lot of people are getting by. There is a reason for it. We have a lot of people in our organization who are getting social security and union pensions. When we add the social security and the union pension, it is too much. They won't be eligible for the Kerr-Mills provisions.

It is above $1,800 for a single person and over $2,000 for a couple. So the members of our organization feel that we need this King bill

now.

The Kerr-Mills bill and the King bill would be excellent together, but the Kerr-Mills bill without the King bill is just one-quarter of the solution.

If you distinguished Congressmen will add the King bill, together, I guess we will have a fine start in our great land of the United States of America for medical care for the elderly people.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. King?

Mr. KING. Mr. Adams, are you from the city or State of New York

Mr. ADAMS. I am very New York City, St. Albans suburb.
Mr. KING. You, too, Mr. Lichtenstein?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. Right.

Mr. ADAMS. We are practically all from New York and New Jersey. Mr. KING. In yesterday's session before this committee two representatives of the State Medical Society of the State of New York intimated to this committee that in that State they were not aware of any elderly person who is now or has in the past been deprived of necessary medical care. Would you care, Mr. Adams, to comment on that on the basis of your own knowledge?

Mr. ADAMS. First, I have no knowledge of anybody that has been deprived of it so far, that is, in my association with the different clubs. I have not heard of any cases under this bill.

Mr. KING. Would you care to comment?

Mr. LICHTENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and Congressman King, the situation from our State of New York is kind of a mixup until now. Governor Rockefeller came out publicly for the social security approach.

Furthermore, the majority leader of our senate, Mr. Mahoney, came out with a forceful statement last April for the social security approach.