The following table indicates rates payable under current law and the proposed increases in compensation payments if the Veterans Disability Compensation and Survivor Benefits Act of 1975 is enacted: TABLE 3.-COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION RATES UNDER PRESENT LAW AND UNDER S. 1597 (1) Anatomical loss or loss of use of both feet, 1 foot and 1 hand, blindness in both eyes (5/200 visual acuity or less), permanently bedridden or so helpless as to require regular aid and attendance. (m) Anatomical loss of use of 2 extremities so as to prevent natural elbow or Limit for veterans receiving payments under (1) to (n) above.. (0) Disability under conditions entitling veteran to 2 or more of the rates provided in (1) through (n), no condition being considered twice in the determination, or total deafness in combination with total blindness (5/200 visual acuity or less).... (p) If disabilities exceed requirements of any rates prescribed, Administrator (r) If veteran entitled to compensation under (0) or to the maximum rate Total number of cases affected.... In sum, 2.2 million disabled veterans will receive additional benefits totaling $467 million in the coming year. In addition, Mr. President, the bill would increase the annual clothing allowance payable under section 362 of title 38. United States Code from $150 to $175. My colleagues will recall that this provision which I was privileged to author, was part of the Veterans' Compensation and Relief Act of 1972-Public Law 93-328. This provision provided for an annual clothing allowance of $150 to a veteran, who because of his compensable disability wears or uses a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance-including a wheelchair-which tends to wear out or tear his clothing. Because this allowance has not been revised since it was first created, it is our conviction that the modest cost-of-living increase provided in this bill is thoroughly justified. Preliminary estimates indicate that this amendment will have a first year additional cost of approximately $1.4 million. The bill would also provide a 14 percent increase in the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation payable to survivors of veterans who have died of service-connected causes. I have been in close contact with the Gold Star Wives of America, particularly with their able national legislative chairman, Geraldine G. Chittick, concerning the need for these increases. Just last March, Mrs. Chittick and a number of officers of the Gold Star Wives relayed these concerns as to the need for such increases to me. The following table indicates rates payable under current law, and those proposed in the Veterans Disability Compensation and Survivor Benefits Act of 1975: E-1. E-2.. E-3. E-4. E-5. E-6. E-7. E-8. E-9. W-1. W-2. W-3. W-4. 0-1. 0-2. 0-3. 0-4. 0-5 0-6. 0-7. 0-8. 0-9 0-10. Pay grade TABLE 4.-COMPARISON OF DIC RATES UNDER PRESENT LAW AND S. 1597 Mr. President, the Veterans Disability Compensation and Survivor Benefits Act would also liberalize the eligibility for payment of DIC to certain survivors of disabled veterans. Currently survivors are entitled to DIC payments if it can be established that the veteran died as a direct result of a service-connected disability. The bill I introduce today would automatically entitle a survivor of any veteran who at the time of his death had a compensable disability rated total and permanent in nature to DIC benefits. A similar provision was included in my bill, S. 3072, which was considered by the committee last year. At that time the committee received considerable testimony in favor of this automatic entitlement from the Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion and the Blinded Veterans of America. The administration however opposed the provision. In light of conflicting viewpoints, and the lack of available information the committee did not report this provision, but instead directed the Veterans' Administration pursuant to section 207 of Public Law 93-295 to conduct a study of DIC claims of survivors of those veterans who had been rated totally and permanently disabled at the time of their death. The committee directed the Veterans' Administration to place particular emphasis in its analysis of disposition of DIC applications, first to the difficulties in establishing service-connected death by widows; and second, to the financial situation of those widows and families denied DIC benefits. The study, which was submitted to the committee of January 20, 1975 reveals a number of things which bear on both of these questions. First, the study reveals that nearly 25 percent of all claims for death benefits by widows of veterans who were totally and permanently disabled during their lifetime, were denied by the Veterans' Administration. It is my conviction that many of these denials were caused by the Veterans' Administration's failure however well meaning claims adjudicators may be in taking into full account the total impact of a total and permanent disability. Such a condition may be a contribut ing factor to a death resulting from a disease of disfunction which of itself may not be regarded as service-connected in origin. Existing procedures often do not take into account the recognized fact that catastrophic disabilities cannot be isolated in the body to one organ, one limb or one particular disfunction, but rather affects in one way or another a person's entire physical and mental system. The present practice also fails to adequately acknowledge that a total and permanent disability can severely shorten a life expectancy of a veteran. In short, the present system is imprecise, vague, and can lead to injustice where injustice is particularly tragic. In its comments accompanying the report on its study of DIC denials, the Veterans' Administration said that its determinations were made on a "very liberal basis." Nevertheless, the Veterans' Administration recently recognized the inherent problems and difficulties in making such judgments in a program guide change issued on March 27, 1975, subsequent to report to the committee. The purpose of the program guide issued by the Acting Director of Veterans' Administration Compensation and Pension Service and approved by the Chief Benefits Director-was "to reemphasize and encourage more equitable use of the broad discretionary power" in the rating boards with respect to death claims. Whether or not this implicitly admits that less than equitable decisions have been made in the past, it seems to me that it does point up the need for increased compassion when dealing with surviving spouses of veterans who are totally and permanently disabled during their lifetime. The program guide acknowledges that greater consideration should be given to whether service-connected conditions impaired the general health of the individual so that he or she was less able to ward off the effects of disease or trauma. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the program change be inserted in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection the program guide change was ordered printed as follows: VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., March 28, 1975. Department of Veterans Benefits PG 21-1, "Program Guide, Compensation and Pension", is changed as follows: Pages P-2-1 and P-2-2 : Insert these pages attached. These pages are added to reemphasize and encourage a more equitable use of the discretionary power which is vested in the rating boards by controlling regulations and instructions pertaining to contributory cause of death. J. C. PECKARSKY, Acting Director, Compensation and Pension Service. RUFUS H. WILSON, RATING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES DEATH The purpose of this program guide is to reemphasize and encourage a more equitable use of the broad discretionary power which is vested in the rating boards by controlling regulations and instructions pertaining to contributory cause. Toward this end, the provisons of VAR 1312(C) and PG 21-1, section P-1, should be carefully studied and applied. In giving more thought as to how a service-connected condition can contribute to death, the following should be considered by the rating board: (1) Does it impair the general health of the individual so that he or she is less able to ward off the effects of disease or trauma? (2) Does it act together with other conditions so that to produce a combined effect that overwhelms the individual's natural defenses? (3) Does it deprive his body of its built-in reserve capabilities such as when one lung, or one kidney is removed and death is later due to a non-service-connected involvement of the paired organ? (4) Does it leave a vital organ so damaged that it renders it incapable of resisting the effects of an unrelated superimposed pathology such as viral pneumonia upon fibrotic lungs? (5) Does it materially adversely affect the natural psyche to live, leading in the obvious cases to suicide and in the more subtle cases to subconscious behavior patterns, such as alcoholism, gluttony and drug addiction; or such as a profound and total disregard of normal self care measures leading inevitably to fatal consequences? These mental processes are often observed in psychotics and psychoneurotics with severe symptoms bordering on psychosis and those with very incapacitating conditions such as paraplegia, gross mutilation and disfigurement. During the rating board's deliberation, the following guideposts should trigger in-depth consideration of the issue of contributory cause of death: Does he have service connection for: (1) A cardiovascular condition? (2) A genitourinary condition? (3) Other involvement of a vital organ? (4) A chronic constitutional disease? (5) A disability ratable at 50% or more? Minor service-connected disabilities of a static nature which do not affect a vital organ do not, as a general rule, play a part in hastening death from an unrelated disease. It is to be recognized, however, that these disabilities of low evaluation can increase in severity prior to and at time of death and may as an active process become a material factor in hastening death. Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, aside from the very difficult question of deciding whether death was service-connected, there is the additional question of the financial condition of those the totally disabled veteran leaves behind. According to the study submitted by the Veterans' Administration, the total income of those widows denied the DIC benefits averaged $2,621 a year. Thus, even if we assume a case in which there is no ambiguity with respect to service connection, I believe a strong argument can be made for a compassion and generosity toward this group of widows who have devoted so much of their lives to their totally disabled veteran spouses. Such recognition for those married to veterans with disabilities total and permanent in nature would not be unique. For example, educational and training assistance benefits are currently provided under chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code. Second, medical benefits are authorized for the spouses of totally disabled veterans under the Champva program, created by the Veterans' Health Care Expansion Act of 1973-Public Law 93-82. And finally, job counseling, training, and placement assistance under chapter 41 of title 38, United States Code was made available to this group under the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974-Public Law 93-508. Thus, automatic entitlement to DIC benefits would be a logical extension of the special status we accord to the spouses of severely disabled veterans. Further, the assurance of this additional income for the survivors should provide peace of mind for severely disabled veterans during their lifetime, knowing that their widows and children will be cared for. The cost of this provision would, according to the Veterans' Administration, be “negligible"-probably less than $1 million a year. In addition, this cost should be considerably offset by reduced administrative costs currently entailed in determining such claims. In closing, Mr. President, it should also be noted that cost-of-living increases have been acknowledged in the overall budgetary process as contemplated by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Earlier this year I wrote the Senate Budget Committee, pursuant to section 301 (c) of Public Law 93-344, setting forth views with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of the committee which I am privileged to chair. In that report I noted that because of rapid increases in the consumer price index that there was a "pressing need for rate adjustments this year in the range of from 10 percent to 14 percent producing first full-year additional costs of from $300 to $600 million." The Budget Committee in its deliberations explicitly agreed with the need for cost-of-living increases. The precise cost of this cost-of-living measure, which has just been received by the committee from the Veterans' Administration, clearly falls within the parameters submitted to the Budget Committee. In introducing this measure I am aware as my colleagues undoubtedly are also, of the President's intention to "draw the line" and oppose any new spending programs. However, as I just noted, the Veterans Disability Compensation and Survivor Benefits Act of 1975 has been considered by the Budget Committee and has been incorporated as part of the overall budget resolution reported by that committee. Moreover, the President in his March 29 televised address, acknowledged an exception to his no new spending position for what he termed "urgent humanitarian needs." I am hopeful that the President will recognize that restoring lost purchasing power to the Nation's disabled veterans and survivors of those who have died as a result of the military service is a measure which is clearly humanitarian in nature and should be supported by him. [No. 14] COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Hon. VANCE HARTKE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are pleased to respond to your request for a report on S. 1597, 94th Congress. The measure to be cited as the "Veterans Disability Compensation and Survivor Benefits Act of 1975," would accomplish the following purposes: (a) increase the monthly rates of service-connected disability compensation payable to veterans, including the additional amount authorized for dependents; (b) increase the monthly rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) payable to widows and children of veterans whose deaths were service connected; (c) increase the annual clothing allowance to certain veterans wearing or using a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance; and (d) authorize payment of service-connected dependency and indemnity compensation to the widow, children and parents of a veterans who died of a non-service-connected cause, but was at the time of his death in receipt of or entitled to receive compensation for a total service-connected disability permanent in nature. The basic purpose of the disability compensation program, (ch. 11, title 38, United States Code), throughout its history has been to provide relief for the impaired earning capacity of veterans disabled as the result of their military service. The amount payable varies according to the degree of disability which, in turn, is required by the law (38 U.S.C. 355) to represent, to the extent practicable, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such disability or combination of disabilities in civil occupations. Additional compensation for dependents is payable to any veteran entitled to basic compensation for disability rated at not less than 50 percent. Under chapter 13 of the stated title 38, DIC payments are made to widows and certain parents and children of veterans who die of a service-connected cause. For widows, the monthly rates are geared to the pay grade of the deceased veteran, ranging from $215 for the widow of an E-1 to $549 for the widow of an O-10. The applicable widow's rate is increased by $26 for each child of the veteran under age 18. An additional amount of $64 is payable where the widow is (1) a patient in a nursing home or (2) helpless or blind or so nearly helpless or blind as to need or require the regular aid and attendance of another person. |