14/27/72 To: Charles L. Huber National Director of Legislation to me as a This letters to in reference to giving your sxyport for presentation to congress in Bill H. R. 335% granting a clothing allowance to amputee veterand, wearin wearing ustifical limbs or braces in wheelchairs crutched. I feel this hill to important Paraplegia users of crutches & wheel chair & being rated 1080 Quabled. My clother gets extra wear on coat sleeves, by fraying, inagging on+ tear theelchair & crutches. often causing expensive regard destroyed. Clothes also are also soiled more by using a wheelchair & crutcher Particularely in winter. me of wheelchair also is hard on gloves, shoes get roughed up more because of leg supports on wheel -I am sure other Veterans have the some problems & even other reasons for the ве har's trousers' or have to (over's support of this bill you I want to express my appreciation to Eless you for it us I may it thank you. Clifford R. Hofer Velizand Mr. Charles h. Nuber St. Peter Minu. 56082 I would like to see the I.A.V. gut some pressure on Congress to pass these bills this Desaión: * The $47.00 Statutory aw and for hose of be doubled to 94. himba the *. Disability compensation Increase for disabled veteran 60% Disability of 63. mo. Srent govery for for losing by above the knee. A.R. 3352 clothing allowance for Amputee veterans. wearing art. Limite-fracks & Critches. I wear an artificial himt above the knee, and I have to have all my pants made special as the legs & seat of all the trousers, that are really made are too small to get my artificial foot & leg in to be able to put them on. The big & sent are cut massond skimpy. I have had my new suit all torn & frazed & pants the first time I wore them from my artificial & imt & crutches. The serving miss out in crotch of fonts & under arms す (ointment) I have to use amputahin several times a day on my stump to keep it from chefing, getting row and boils. This ointment soaks through all my clothes and they have A be dry cleaned & washed every 2013 days. The outment nd excessive perspiration give off an ung leasent odor. This is les What 3. Clotting allowance would sure help to buy some xtra ante & Ray Deening bills for working ashy drening, and shirt xcret. Thank you! Sincerely S.A.V. Life member Boat # of monk als muin. 55 John H. McCarthy C-4084733 Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Mr. Huber. We are always honored to have you and your great organization appear before this committee. You made a very fine statement. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Huber, I just want you to know that I share the sentiments expressed by the chairman. I think there is no longer any reason to delay the implementation of these very needed and justifiable increases and I suggest that the entire committee would reflect what has been said by the chairman earlier. Thank you for your testimony. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Huber. The next witness is Mr. Michael W. Burns, executive director of Paralyzed Veterans of America. Mr. Burns, you may deliver your statement any way you see fit, sir. If you desire to summarize it, the entire statement will be inserted in the record. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will read the statement. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I would like to thank you on behalf of President Rodriguez and the other officers and members of the Paralyzed Veterans of America for allowing me to appear today to testify on S. 3338 which would provide an increase in compensation for service-connected veterans. I would like to add that we do not comment on the other bills that are before the committee at this time. We support the tenets of S. 3338 and feel that we cannot support the other bills. It is certainly time, Mr. Chairman, that such a raise be considered. It is important to note also that this bill would provide a new section in chapter 11 of title 38 for the purpose of paying a clothing allowance to veterans whose disability requires the wearing of such prosthetic devices which tend to cause undue wear to their clothing. The need for such a provision has long been recognized by most veterans to be a necessary adjustment and we support it fully. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, at their last annual convention, passed a resolution which recommended a 20-percent raise in the amount received by those compensable under subsections (O) and (P) of section 314 of title 38. Here we differ with the proposed bill, but we differ only in the top categories of compensation. We believe that those receiving compensation for the loss of use of two or more limbs, and anatomical loss, are not receiving enough compensation to support them adequately. We are speaking here of totally disabled-not those being compensated for disability which, while limiting their physical abilities to some extent, does not cost them the ability to compete in the labor market and does not cost them their mobility in society. The most seriously disabled are reliant totally on someone else for care which other human beings perform for themselves every day without much thought. They cannot use public transportation because society has seen fit to erect insurmountable obstacles and architectural barriers to them. They must rely on private transportation if they are to have any mobility at all in their lives. Therefore, we must accept the basic fact that it costs these individuals more in expenses to compete with the rest of the world. It costs them more to maintain the same standard of living than those without such crippling disabilities. Title 38 provides a number of relief measures for these individuals above and beyond compensation, but even these have a great bearing on how that compensation is spent. Public Law 702 provides a grant for special adaptation of the dwellings of the veteran in a wheelchair, but upkeep and maintenance of that home once adapted for his use is, as it should be, his responsibility. That takes a portion of income, just as it does for anyone else. Public Law 91-666 provides a grant and adaptive equipment for an automobile for certain totally disabled, but maintenance of that vehicle is the veteran's responsibility. That maintenance takes money, usually more than for the ordinary citizen, since use of the vehicle is generally heavier because it is the veteran's sole means of transportation and because more preventive maintenance is performed to avoid breakdowns on the road. Such breakdowns can be catastrophic for a man in a wheelchair, as I think you can readily see. It can perhaps be argued successfully that the 10-percent raise provided by this bill will meet the rise in the cost of living for most disabled, but we contend that this cannot be argued in the case of those receiving the amount granted under subsections (O) and (P). If 10 percent does indeed raise them to the level of the cost of living on the day this bill becomes effective, it will depreciate in value every day thereafter. For far too long this group of veterans has been playing "catch up" in the area of compensation. Why not, for once, put them on a level which the raise intends, so that inflationary erosion of the dollar value of their compensation is not accomplished within months of the passage of a raise in rates? One of the major concerns of the PVA throughout the years has been the delineation of a so-called "peacetime" period. The most discriminatory and arbitrary of these is the period between January 1955, the end of the Korean Conflict, and August 1964, the beginning of the Vietnam Era of "wartime." It is hard to agree with the assumption made that peace indeed reigned during those 9 years. Surely there was no relaxation of world tensions, those were the "cold war" years. Cold war years which at times got very hot indeed. Those who participated in the American involvement in the Mid-East during the 1950's, those who exchanged fire across the DMZ in Korea, while "keeping the peace," certainly faced the same dangers and risks that those of a "wartime" period did. Why then, when later disabled, should they receive less than the others? The VA has, on a number of occasions, found the distinction discriminatory and without justification. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that this be considered as a possible addition to S. 3338. To say that they deserve less is unfair, to say that they don't need as much to live on is obviously fallacious. Finally, S. 3338 contains a new provision, one which would provide a clothing allowance for those who experience abnormal wear due to the use of prosthetic devices. We are happy to see this included, but are troubled by one point. The wheelchair is not "worn" in the sense that section 362 could be interpreted. While within the Veterans' Administration the prescribing and administration of wheelchairs is handled by the prosthetic department, it has never been clearly defined, other than by general counsel opinion, as a prosthesis, since it is not worn as a part of the body. It does not replace in the sense that |