H.R. 11543 would provide that service-connected disabled veterans in the 30-percent through 90-percent disabled category, upon reaching age 65, would get a 10-percent increase in their monetary payments. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the "advanced age factor" is not new to VA rating evaluations. In the pension program at age 55 the criteria for determining total disability is reduced from that which applies to veterans 54 years of age or younger. Again at age 60 the criteria is made less stringent and at age 65 a pension applicant is presumed to have a total disability and no physical exam or medical evidence is required for submission.

Conversely, the rating schedule does not take into consideration advanced age in determining evaluations. It attempts to reflect the impairment caused by a service-connected disability on the average individual; and therefore very deserving cases are not adequately covered under the schedule.

I have given you an example in my testimony about how an amputation can affect a 20-year-old veteran and a 65-year-old veteran. We feel that this measure has merit and we urge the committee to act favorably upon it.

H.R. 11531 proposes a 6-percent increase in the dependent parent DIC program. We support an upward adjustment of these benefits. However, since these beneficiaries are subjected to the same inflationary pressures and have financial need, we do not feel that their increases should be proportionately less than those of compensation and DIC recipients. So we would suggest that 11351 be amended to provide a 7-percent increase.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention H.R. 6501. This measure is not pending before this committee. In fact this subcommittee and the House of Representatives gave approval to this measure. They passed it last May 23 and referred it to the Senate.

It proposes to provide additional compensation to certain veterans who are service connected for the loss of one extremity and who subsequently have suffered the non-service-connected loss of the second paired extremity.

Under section 360 of title 38 the concept of "paired organ involvement" does apply to the loss of eyesight, kidney function, and hearing, 6501 would apply the same concept to the loss of extremities.

The Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee has not acted upon this measure and it appears they will not do so despite our urging.

So, again, we would ask your assistance. Specifically, we request that you take the provisions of 6501 that you have approved and place them as provisions in the compensation legislation that you expect to report to the full committee. In this way the Senate committee might be induced to act upon 6501 itself or to accept it as a provision of a House-passed bill.

That just about sums up our prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would say that we do support an increase in the benefit payment for Congressional Medal of Honor winners. It has been $100, I think, since 1962. We also see merit in Mr. AuCoin's proposal for liberalizing the criteria and doing away with the continuous existence of a disability for 20 years to a 20-year total. That sums it up, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, thank you very much. You summarized it

very well. You did an excellent job. I think you covered all the bills and did it very effectively.

We will consider your suggestions. We will consider the House bill that we passed-it is over in the Senate-and we will consider your suggestion of adding that onto the compensation and cost-of-living increase legislation.

I thank both of you gentlemen for being here today.

Mr. HEILMAN. Yes, sir, and if I can make one further point-I feel I must do this because I appear here as an advocate for the service-connected disabled veteran. The recent pension reform bill that has been acted upon by the subcommittee and the full committee proposes improvements that would total in cost, I think, about $941 million. All the legislation covered today in this hearing, which would improve the condition of the service-connected veteran-the most deserving beneficiary, in our opinion—all of that legislation totals in cost some $200 million less than it looks like pension recipients will receive. We feel that priority consideration must be given to the service-connected disabled.

We know the committee is under budgetary restraints, but we would late to see, because of such restraints, that the deletion from proposed initiatives be taken from the service-connected legislation. In our opinion, that would be a reversal of priorities.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, thank you. Thank you. That is a very good point that you made. We appreciate you being before the committee today and also bringing the other guest. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HEILMAN. You are welcome, sir.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Our last witness this morning is Colonel Burke. As I said, he is a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and he serves at this time as vice president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Colonel Burke is also a congressional liaison officer for the Army working on the House side.

I would like to welcome you, Colonel Burke, to the subcommittee hearing and would like to hear your comments on H.R. 10547.

STATEMENT OF COL. LLOYD BURKE, CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT

Colonel BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of being here this morning. I will be very brief.

I testify as an individual recipient of the medal. I am not representing the views of the Medal of Honor Society since our charter prohibits the society from lobbying for any special legislation.

I would have one comment. Most of our Medal of Honor recipients living today and there are 283-are over 60 years of age. And, as was pointed out by the VA Committee's statement, this $100 a month special pension has not been increased for the last 17 years.

At our convention this past November in California we had about 168 recipients present and the talk was about whether that pension could be raised, because over the years it has become a part of a fixedincome type of thing where an individual receives no other entitlements. With the inflation and everything else that has gone on in the last 15 to 20 years, we do have those who are needy and deserve to have the increase.

I, for one, appreciate the chairman introducing this bill and would support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let me ask you something, Colonel Burke, since you are familiar with most of these people. As you say, 283 would be affected. A large percentage of them-what percentage did you say were over 60 years of age?

Colonel BURKE. I would say at least 55 to 60 percent of those living today are over 60. I have a breakdown just briefly for the record if you would like to have it.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. OK.

Colonel BURKE. The recipients living today up to and through World War I number 18 and I figure their average age is about 83. Our oldest is 100 as a matter of fact. World War II is a big hunk. There are 149 living and I estimate an average age there of 58 to 60. In the Korean group there are 35 and I would estimate their peer group to be 53 to 58 years old. There are 81 Vietnam era holders of the medal and I would figure their age to be from 35 to 45.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Do you have a figure of the percentage breakdown of the officers and the enlisted personnel of the 283?

Colonel BURKE. No, sir, I do not. I will provide figures for the record.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
Washington, D.C. March 23, 1978.

Hon. G. V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Compensation, Pension and Insurance,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MONTGOMERY: I appreciate the opportunity afforded me to testify before your Committee on HR 10547.

One of the questions I failed to answer was the ratio of Enlisted VS Officer Medal of Honor recipients. The ratio of living recipients is 56 percent enlisted and 44 percent officer.

As I mentioned in my testimony, many of our MOH recipients are living on a fixed income and as you are aware the $100 per month special pension enacted in 1961 has never been increased. I honestly believe, what with cost of living increase and inflation, that the additional $100 per month would materially assist many of our members. By the same token there are some members who can make it without the increase. But under the law each member must apply for the special pension. It's an individual choice.

It may be helpful to point out again the numbers and age groups of our members. Information follows:

As the above table reflects, over 60 percent of our members are over age 60. Our oldest is 100 years and the youngest 33. We have lost 11 members in the past 2 years. At present we have several in very poor health. I expect our attrition to increase over the next several years.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your interest and concern in this matter and I am confident I speak for all our members.

Respectfully,

LLOYD L. BURKE,

Colonel, GS, Chief, Army Liaison Div.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Would you say 50 percent or do you know? Colonel BURKE. I just do not know. Probably that is a good figure. Mr. MONTGOMERY. There is some need by some of these Congressional Medal of Honor winners in their income?

Colonel BURKE. Yes, sir, without going into case histories—and some of these field officers in back of me may know of some-I know of several who are practically destitute.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, thank you very much, Colonel Burke. We will bring this bill up before the subcommittee after Easter and we will try to take some action on these legislative proposals before May 15. Some of this legislation we probably will have to bring up before May 15 and some will have to come afterward because of the budget process, but I can assure you that this legislation will be given total and full consideration. I appreciate your being here this morning. Colonel BURKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. If there are no further witnesses, the committee will now be adjourned and wait to be called by the Chair. [Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at 10:11 a.m.]