Page images
PDF
EPUB

under the FBCA receive 55% benefit plus one year's pay; the Foreign Service widow receives 75% benefit and one year's pay plus a few other fringes. Way are DIC widovs "partially endowed" at not more than 40% ? DIC is unique in

another way

it is the only benefit program wherein the longer the serviceman

served and the higher in rats or rank he attained, the less porcentage in

proortion the widow receives.

Being "partially" benefited means this DIC widow who has so gallantly moved from pillar to post, made due with an inadequate income, tried to aduate children properly, cared for an 111 husband, is often faced with not only the bereavement but the financial inability to cope with about 40% of the income. It she has

& house she can't afford to live in it.

The burdens are unending.

“Partially benefited means the DIC widow must go to work regardless of

oiroumstances, low pay in the military preoludes the establishment of much of

& savings account.

Wives of military personnel have little opportunity to

establish a career for themselves so they are wable to build up a retirement

program for hersell. Generally, their age and lack of slalls make finding a Job almost Lápossible in this youth oriented society of ours.

Widors of servicemen vho served in the first and second World Wars are

now in their sixties, seventies, and eighties. They are facing the hardships of the loneliness of old age, the inability to cope with the spiraling taflation, and the fears and uncertainties of a spartan existence. Condo conversions

continue to fill my mail with horror stories.

It is our plea today that this Congress see fit to correct the inequities

of the DIC program and place it on equal footing with the other Federal benefit

programs.

When Abraham Lincoln stated in his address to the Hation that this country

would care for the

widow and orphan surely he meant on an equitable basis.

I will be glad to answer any

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. of your questions.

Jean Arthurs

86-844 0-81-26

STATEMENT OF
CHARLES E. JOECKEL, JR.
DEPUTY NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION, PENSION & INSURANCE

OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

OCTOBER 27, 1981

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

The Disabled American Veterans appreciates this opportunity

to appear here today to discuss the impact of the Administration's

proposed Fiscal Year 1982 Budget reductions on the VA's

Department of Veterans Benefits and other matters relating to the benefits provided to service-connected disabled veterans, their

dependents and survivors.

Mr. Chairman, since a segment of our testimony today deals

with the relationship between federal spending cuts and VA's

ability to deliver essential service to veterans, I would like to

take this occasion to extend to you and the members of the :

Subcommittee our sincere thanks.

I refer, of course,

to the pro

vision contained in Public Law 97-66 designed to allow

Congressional oversight of any plan which proposes to reorganize the Veterans Administration---particularly, those proposals aimed

at centralizing VA claims processing.

In our view, the Administration's original plan to establish

one VA Central Office for the adjudication of all VA claims

would, no doubt, have had a drastic adverse impact on VA

claimants nationwide.

We think the concern for timeliness, effi

ciency and quality expressed by members of this committee, and by

many other members of Congress, brought about the demise of the

"centralization" plan and resulted in the restoration of funds to

the VA aimed at maintaining the staffing levels for the

Department of Veterans Benefits.

For this, Mr. Chairman, you, Chairman Montgomery and the

entire membership of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs have

our sincere gratitude.

Further FY 1982 Budget Reductions

As you know, on September 24, 1981 the President announced a

second round of federal spending reductions for Fiscal Year 1982.

This new proposal is basically identical to the Revised Fiscal

Year 1982 Budget Request submitted to the Congress on March 10,

1981.

In terms of the Veterans Administration, at least, these

reductions have already been turned back by the Congress once and

we hope they will be rejected again.

However, the Administration

is seeking a reduction of $451.7 million from the Fiscal Year

1982 VA appropriation as contained in H.R. 4034--the measure

which implements the spending targets of the Administration sup

ported Gramm/Latta Substitute Budget Resolution.

With respect to the subject matter of today's hearing, Mr.

Chairman, the new round of Fiscal Year 1982 budget cuts propose

to reduce VA's General Operating Expenses Account by some $55.8 million. These funds are generally provided for staffing and

operating the Department of Veterans Benefits.

At this time,

we

are not prepared to charge that this reduc

tion will cripple VA's ability to deliver essential benefit ser

vices to veterans.

However, it can be said that (1) a reduction

of this magnitude ($55.8 million) will result in DVB staffing

below the personnel levels proposed by the Congress in both the

First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (Gramm/Latta) and

H.R. 4034 (VA FY 1982 appropriation) and that (2) further

staffing reductions in DVB will adversely affect the timeliness

of VA claims processing.

For quite some time, Mr. Chairman, the VA has been asked "to

do more with less."

We think the VA has reached a point of

diminishing returns.

And, in spite of Honeywell's advertisement

in The Washington Post last Sunday, we simply do not believe that

the on-line capability of the Target Computer System substantiates further staffing reductions in DVB or additional cuts in

operating expenses.

Further, Mr. Chairman, Public Law 97-51 provides emergency

funding for the government for the period October 1, 1981 th

ugh

November 20, 1981.

This law requires that VA programs be funded

at the levels contained in the Conference Report on H.R. 4034-

the HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Measure.

However, we have recently learned that the office of

Management and Budget has instructed that VA operations during

the period covered by Public Law 97-51 (10/1/81-11/20/81) be

limited to the levels specified in the President's September 24,

1981 Budget Revisions.

Considering this and the track record of this Administration

thus far, we suspect that OMB will continue in its efforts to

circumvent the intent of Congress--thus, inhibiting VA's ability

to render service to veterans in an effective and efficient

manner.

VA Unemployability Review

Mr. Chairman, the Disabled American Veterans, an organization

with a membership comprised solely of veterans who have incurred

a wound, injury or disease while serving on active military duty,

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »