responding to what survey data show to be their actual degree of impairment."

The Fleet Reserve Association views this proposal as but another attempt by the Administration to accomplish what they could not accomplish by executive fiat last year. I am speaking of the Administrator of Veterans Affairs previous attempt to revise the Veterans Administration schedule for rating disabilities. As you know, President Nixon directed him to recall the draft revision on February 14, 1973. In other words, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

We are aware that under the existing law (section 355, title 38, United States Code), the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs has unlimited authority to revise the disability rating schedule. However, it is our adamant contention that any changes to the schedule of rating disabilities should be made only after the Congress has considered, evaluated, and approved the proposed changes.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND MILITARY RETIRED PAY

Mr. Chairman, the provision of the law, section 3104 (a), title 38, United States Code, which requires military retired personnel to waive an equal amount of their military retired pay to receive disability compensation is an inequity of gross proportions. No other Federal or retired Federal employee must waive a portion of his earned compensation to receive disability compensation. Why is the military retiree the only veteran so affected?

Disability compensation is paid on the basis of disability, not need. If a veteran is fortunate enough to be rich, he still receives his disability compensation, and, rightfully so. But the military retiree cannot receive his retirement and disability compensation concurrently. Military retired pay is an earned entitlement that is earned by years of faithful service. Disability compensation is paid to compensate the veteran for the reduction in his earning capacity due to a serviceconnected injury or disease. If a military retiree has a ratable disability, is the disability any the less severe because he is a military retiree? Does the disability affect his wage-earning ability to a lesser degree? Certainly not. Please remember, that even though it is by personal choice, the military careerist is usually a veteran twice over. The vast majority of my shipmates in the Fleet Reserve Association have served in at least two of the past four of our country's wars.

For those senior military retirees who are now fully retired and living on a fixed income it is cruelly unfair to make them forfeit a portion of their military retired pay to receive what every other qualified veteran receives without question. Therefore, we sincerely urge you to initiate an amendment to section 3104 (a) containing the provisions of H.R. 1039, H.R. 2070, and H.R. 2906 which will permit concurrent receipt of full military retired pay and veterans disability compensation.

MUSCULAR ATROPHY DISEASE AS A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY

The inequity of the current 1-year presumptive period in cases of progressive muscular atrophy should be corrected immediately. This has been one of our legislative goals for more than a decade. Sections 301 and 312, title 38, United States Code should be amended to provide

that a progressive muscular atrophy developing to a 10-percent degree disability within 7 years of separation from a period of military service shall be considered as a service-connected disability. The cited statute now provides only a 1-year presumption period.

We have encountered heart-rending cases of progressive muscular atrophy amongst veterans who could not have their diseases rated as service connected. This is because the disease in its early stages is almost impossible to diagnose. Its initial symptoms are like so many other illnesses that doctors, even specialists, often diagnose it incorrectly and unknowingly treat the patients for another illness. Seldom is the disease correctly diagnosed for the first several years. Therefore, we whole-heartedly urge that the law be amended to provide a 7year presumptive period, the same as for multiple sclerosis.

CONCLUSION

This concludes our statement, Mr. Chairman. We sincerely appreciate having the opportunity to present our views. On behalf of our 94,000 shipmates I thank you.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you Mr. Nolan. We will move right along to our next witness, Mr. Hallett D. Edson, executive vice president, National Association for Uniformed Services.

STATEMENT OF HALLETT D. EDSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES

Mr. EDSON. Mr. Chairman, while our membership is concerned with all aspects of veterans' entitlements, we desire at this time to center our comments on the provisions for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for widows of both the active and retired servicemen.

We are vitally concerned with the adequacy and equity of DIC payments, as these payments affect the lives of many of our members. We include as regular members not only the active, reserve, and retired, both officer and enlisted, of all the seven uniformed services, but also their wives and widows.

Since the passage of Public Law 91-96 on October 27, 1969, which separated DIC increases from the active duty military pay scale, only one general increase of DIC payments has occurred. This increase for over a 50-month period from January 1, 1970, to March 1, 1974, amounts to only 10 percent. At present, there is no automatic provision for increase based on the rise in the cost of living. During the same period of rising costs of the essentials of life, active military pay-normally the base for establishing DIC payments has risen a cumulative 57.8 percent and social security payments, another guideline of rising costs, has risen a cumulative 62.4 percent. (See enclosure 1.)

The accompanying chart "comparison of payments" shockingly emphasizes the wide variance of increases of payments for DIC and the payments for the active military. (See enclosure 2.) The area on the chart between the line representing DIC and the line representing military pay reflects the gross percentage of moneys lost to the DIC recipient.

Through the lack of any type of automatic increase responsive to the rise in the cost of living, the military widow and her children have been deprived of moneys necessary for their livelihood.

We urgently recommend that Congress immediately make provisions for:

(1) A one-time lump sum payment to consist of 16 percent of the amount of DIC payment multiplied by the number of months since the increase of January 1, 1972. Sixteen percent represents the established CLI for this period.

(2) A one-time increase of 47.8 percent, so as to place the DIC payments on a comparative level with military pay. This figure is the current difference between the cumulative increase of military pay and the cumulative increase of DIC payments during the 4-year period under consideration. This will restore the balance of the payment schedule. It will also recognize the original basic philosophy that the DIC payments should be related to active duty pay, as it progresses. (3) An automatic cost of living increase based on the Consumer Price Index and applied in a manner similar to the CLI for retired civil service and military personnel. Our association considers that the procedure for the CLI is highly desirable, as the widow would then be provided with a periodic adjustment of payments to counter the serious threat and losses due to inflation. Widows would not be dependent upon the somewhat variable and controversial active military increases. The system of CLI has proven its worth in the last 2 or 3 years as being a generally equitable procedure for the periodically required increases of Government retirees' pay.

The recommendations stated above would provide equitable treatment to the widows and children of our dedicated servicemen and at the same time, restore their confidence in the actions of our Federal Government. The lack of any increase of payments in the past 2 years of rising costs has caused many widows to feel there has been a breach of faith on the part of our Federal Government. We are sure Congress did not intend this feeling to be generated.

We consider that this is the time to correct this inequity and provide the widows a reasonable living standard.

In a time of attempting to develop an all-volunteer military force, the success or failure in the final analysis will not depend on glossy recruitment posters, but on the faith our Government maintains in the ranks of the all-volunteer force, and this definitely includes their dependents. The professional military man must have faith in his Government. The fair treatment of a comrade's widow goes far to reinforce that faith.

COMPARISON OF PAYMENTS

DIC

Dependents and Indemnity Compensation

S.S.

A.M.

Senator TALMADGE. Our last witness today is Col. George F. Meyer, legislative counsel of the Retired Officers Association. Colonel, proceed if you will.

STATEMENT OF COL. GEORGE F. MEYER, JR., U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MEYER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Col. George F. Meyer, Jr., U.S. Army, retired, legislative counsel for the Retired Officers Association whose national headquarters is at 1625 I Street NW., Washington, D.C. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of S. 3072 on behalf of our Association of over 178,000 members and, at its request, the Retired Enlisted Association based in Colorado Springs, Colo.

As the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Vance Hartke, Democrat, of Indiana, remarked when he introduced this bill for himself and all members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, dependency and indemnity compensation for widows was last increased by 10 percent on January 1, 1972. By the end of January 1974, the cost of living had increased from 123.2 to 139.7 on the Consumer Price Index, an increase of 16.5 points. This represents a 13.4-percent increase in overall prices while the compensation remained fixed. Senator Hartke stated that currently there are approximately 375,000 widows in receipt of DIC. By far the majority of these are widows of World War II servicemen. For many of these DIC recipients this loss of over 13 percent in purchasing power has meant not just a decrease in their standard of living, but has brought them to the threshold of survival in the face of the dramatic increases in the costs of necessities such as food, energy, and shelter. We feel that the proposed 16-percent increase will bring much needed relief. Therefore, we urge early enactment of S. 3072.

In addition to our active membership some 10,000 widows of deceased members receive our monthly magazine, the Retired Officer. In recent months hardly a day has passed in our headquarters that we did not receive an inquiry concerning DIC and asking why it is not tied to the cost of living as are so many other wage and survivor benefits. We believe that this question has merit and that widows should not have to wait while the cost of living rises to the point where a dramatic increase is necessary to rescue them. We therefore recommend that DIC payments respond to the Consumer Price Index.

The Retired Officers Association and the Retired Enlisted Association support the liberalization of the criteria for DIC eligibility for those widows whose husbands had been released from service with a disability permanent and total in nature and those veterans who subsequent to release from active duty developed a service-connected disability permanent and total in nature if the veterans had held that rating for at least 20 years prior to their death. Although not professing to be medical experts, we believe that the present requirement, that the veteran die as the direct result of his service-connected disability, is too restrictive. While there are no doubt clear-cut cases where death can be attributed to the rated disability, there are many other cases where the disability was a primary contributing factor to the exact cause of death. We feel that the various parts and organs of the