Mr. DORN. Thank you, very much, Colonel Houston. When your illustrious ancestor left Tennessee, Gen. Sam Houston, he went to Arkansas. I want to present to you the Congressman from Arkansas, Mr. Hammerschmidt, for questions. Colonel HOUSTON. He is probably a cousin of mine. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Thank you, Colonel Houston, for a very helpful statement. I have served on this committee a little over 5 years, and I suppose if there is any story that really ever touches my heart, it is the World War I testimony that comes before us. We are always behind-it seems to me-in affording proper benefits. I go across my district in Arkansas probably 35 or 40 weekends a year. I talk with people and one of the most pathetic things I encounter is our elderly widows trying to get along on World War I benefits and on social security, and trying to make a go of things. As you point out, the numbers are not so great but the need is dramatic. In direct relationship to the 1212-percent increase, has Veterans' Administration given you a cost? Colonel HOUSTON. No, sir. The reason we arrived at that figure, the recommendation of 6 percent that the recent testimony had submitted, as discussion pointed out, some time ago, by the time this law goes into effect there will be an additional increase since it seems to take about 2 years to change these to meet current economic cost-of-living increase, so we tried to arrive at a figure of not what it was in 1971 or 1972, but what it might be in 1973 and 1974, because-should there become an upsurge in the cost of living-we veterans would be in a bind even more than we are now, and who can tell what the future might hold. We arrived at it purely as a recommendation for your consideration. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our counsel to get that cost figure for the benefit of the subcommittee. Mr. DORN. It will be done, Mr. Knapp, our committee counsel, will get those figures for us. COUNSEL. Mr. Hammerschmidt, for the record, at this time, subject to your approval to correct it, if I am in error, I believe the cost figures run $26 million for every 1-percent increase. If that is correct, and I will attempt to confirm it, a 1212-percent increase would run $325 million. Mr. HAMMERSCMIDT. That figure of $26 million for 1 percent would be meaningful to the committee, I think, in considering what is within the realm of possibility on what might be done. Thank you, sir. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Hammerschmidt. Mr. Houston, I want to thank you for a very fine statement, and we think you are doing a splendid job as national legislative director of your great organization. Since I brought up the subject of your representative from Arkansas, I would be derelict in my duty if I didn't say it is my great privilege to sit with him on the Public Works Committee, right beside him, and today I do not know of a Member of the Congress that is more persistent in seeing we get good legislation. I hope you folks, I know you will, in the great State of Arkansas, remember that, particularly this fall. Thank you, sir. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, if you yield just a moment, so I can respond, it is the great inspiration I get from this leadership that makes me want to attend, because I know of his great concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel HOUSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an inspiration to us to find statesmen occupying those chairs. Mr. DORN. Thank you. We will now hear from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Alan Langer, national service officer. Mr. Langer, we want to welcome you before the committee. We are very happy to have you, because I guess you gentlemen, as much as anyone, know what compensation and all of this means, so we are happy to have you. You may proceed. Mr. LANGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce Mr. Harry Schweiker, accompanying me, our executive director. STATEMENT OF ALAN S. LANGER, NATIONAL SERVICE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA Mr. LANGER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for allowing me to appear before you today on behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Nation's disabled veterans. Mr. Chairman, as we are all too well aware, in the 20-odd months since the last compensation increase, this country has been faced with and is facing a grave economic crisis. While the cost of living and wages have skyrocketed, disability compensation has remained the same. PVA asks for equitable legislation that will cover the ground already lost and to provide a cushion so that the disabled veteran won't have to be required to play a catchup game, once again. We agree in essence with H.R. 14489-whose companion in the Senate, S. 3338, was reported favorably by the Subcommittee on compensation and Pension-which provides for an across-the-board raise and for a clothing allowance of $150 annually for those veterans who wear prosthetic devices. PVA would like to see H.R. 14245 incorporated into this bill to provide $300 annually for those veterans who use two prosthetic devices. In addition, we would like to see the term "wheelchair" clearly defined in this bill. The reasons for this are numerous. Wheelchairs tend to wear a person's clothing at the elbow, cuff of the sleeve, and seat of the pants. Due to the loss of anal and bladder sphincter control, pants tend to be ruined quite easily, especially in the case of the spinal cord injured. We also desire this definition so that there can be no mistake in the interpretation of the intent of the law. Mr. Chairman, the last time rates were raised for the statutory award for anatomical loss or loss of use of an upper or lower extremity was 1952. At that time, the rate was increased from $42 to $47 per month. We strongly urge enactment of H.R. 14491 which would increase this rate to $80 per month, certainly a more equitable figure. For many years, PVA has supported legislation to equalize the compensation rate payable to those veterans who served during socalled "peacetime" with those of the wartime veteran. We cannot justify in our minds, how the veteran who served overseas during this "peacetime" period is any less deserving than the veteran whose entire military career may have been served in the United States during a wartime period. These peacetime veterans gave no less a part of their body than those who served during wartime. So why should their compensation be 20 percent less? Does it cost them 20 percent less to live? When the first compensation law was enacted in 1862, there was no distinction between wartime and peacetime service. It wasn't until 55 years later-in 1917-that this discriminatory policy was first instituted. This policy has been upheld in all veterans legislation down through the years, only to be raised from its original 50 percent to 75 percent and now to its present 80 percent. This legislation has become historical in nature rather than practical. Following this line of thought, Mr. Chairman, as we are aware, the first American advisers were sent to Southeast Asia in November 1950. The administration has publicly stated that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is not the basis of authority to operate in Southeast Asia, and recent selective service legislation indicates "hostile fire" in 1957. PVA requests not only enactment of legislation to set the starting date of the Vietnam era at February 1, 1955, but a complete eradication of the term "peacetime" from title 38, United States Code. The Veterans' Administration has spoken out against the "peacetime" differential on many occasions, one of their main reasons being the difficulty in administering two compensation programs. It seems most peculiar and almost ludicrous that veterans from the war which is the most publicized, most hated, most resented, and most criticized, are subject to the most discriminatory legislation. PVA supports H.R. 7672 to provide the same eligibility criteria for benefits for Vietnam era veterans as those which were available to World War II and Korean conflict veterans. Is there any reason why the Vietnam veterans should not be eligible for the same benefits? H.R. 13349 and similar legislation provide for presumption of service-connected death of a veteran who was rated permanently and totally disabled as a result of a service-connected disability for 10 years prior to his demise. It is the position of PVA that presumption of death from service-connected cause should be established for every veteran who, during his lifetime, suffered debilitating physiological paralysis as a result of service-connected spinal cord injury or disease. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say again what an honor it has been to appear before you today and that the specific data which cover the recommendations made in my statement is attached. I ask that it be made part of the record along with my testimony. Thank you for your consideration. (Data referred to follows:) LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS IN BRIEF 1. Increase compensation under Section 314, Title 38, United States Code by a minimum of 10% in all categories. 2. Complete eradication of all sections of Title 38. United States Code which discriminate against the so-called "peacetime" veteran. 3. To amend H.R. 14489 to include H.R. 14245 to allow $300 per year to those veterans who wear and/or use two prosthetic devices. Also, provide that a new sentence be added to read: "Veterans otherwise eligible, who use a wheelchair on a regular basis due to their disability, will be considered eligible for such clothing allowance." 4. Increase statutory award for anatomical loss or loss of use of an upper and/ or lower extremity from $47 to $80 per month. (H.R. 14491.) 5. Similar eligibility criteria for benefits for Vietnam Era veterans to that which was available to WWII and Korean Conflict veterans. (H.R. 7672.) 6. Service-Connected Death to all veterans who, during their lifetime, have suffered a debilitating physiological paralysis as a result of spinal cord injury or disease. Hon. W. J. BRYAN DORN, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC., Chairman, Subcommittee on Compensation and Pension, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DORN: In accordance with the Committee's request, I am pleased to submit this additional statement incident to the testimony presented before your Committee on Tuesday, May 23, 1972. It would be sincerely appreciated if this could be made part of that testimony. At the time of our presentation, we were questioned on that part of our testimony which declared that veterans of the Vietnam era are being discriminated against in benefits available to them as compared to those benefits available to veterans of World War II; the Korean Conflict; post-Korea, and the so-called peacetime periods in between. These discriminations occur in the areas of education; vocational rehabilitation; loan guaranty; automobile grant, and hospitalization and pension benefits for those who were severely disabled after their honorable discharge from service. In the area of education, I believe the Committee has already recognized the discrepancies and is in the process of remedying them in legislation now being considered. Chapter 31 of Title 38, United States Code, provides that veterans who served between July 26, 1947, and June 26, 1950, and those who served after the Korean Conflict, including Vietnam veterans, must have a service-connected disability of 30% or more, or prove that their disability is such that they have a pronounced employment handicap, in order for them to be eligible for vocational rehabilitation benefits. World War II and Korea veterans did not have these two restrictions to contend with. Chapter 37, Title 38, provides that any veteran under this chapter who has served a total of 90 days and was discharged, released, or retired under other than dishonorable conditions, may be entitled to a home, farm, business, or insured loan, except if his service is after January 31, 1955. Under the latter circumstance, the veteran must have at least 181 days of active duty, and then his eligibility extends only to the home loan. Chapter 39 of Title 38 states, in effect, that if a veteran meets all other requirements, and was on active duty at the time he incurred his disability, he would be entitled to an automobile grant. If service was after January 31, 1955, then the disability must have been incurred in line of duty as a direct result of the performance of military duty. Title 38 provides that a veteran who served during the so-called peacetime periods, and who suffers total and permanent disability after his discharge from service, is not entitled to pension benefits, and is on lowest priority for hospital care. Further, after his discharge from the hospital, he is not eligible for the issue of drugs, medicines, or prosthetic supplies. It is the contention of this organization that "peacetime" has been an ephemeral thing for the military forces of the United States during the past twenty-five years, and should be struck entirely from Title 38. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this opportunity to add to my previous remarks. If you have any further questions, I would be only too happy to discuss these matters with you or a member of your staff. Respectfully submitted. ALAN S. LANGER, National Service Director. Mr. DORN. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record, and it is an honor to have you with us. You brought us some beautiful testimony here, new aspects of it, on the Vietnam situation, particularly, which we appreciate, and we will certainly consider it in our deliberation in the subcommittee. Mr. Hammerschmidt. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. I, too, want to thank you gentlemen for a very helpful statement and for legislative recommendations which we certainly will seriously consider. Is there any reason why Vietnam veterans should not be eligible for the same benefits? Are you referring back to the period of time we are not considering now? Mr. LANGER. No, sir. These veterans are not eligible under the same criteria, under the same criteria that Vietnam veterans were entitled to. That is even after that. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. That is something the subcommittee ought to look into. Mr. LANGER. We appreciate that. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Langer. Mr. DORN. The next witness is David L. Schnair, Blinded Veterans Association, national service officer, accompanied by Robert Carter, acting executive director. Mr. Schnair, we are glad to have you. You can proceed in any way you wish. If you prefer to speak extemporaneously, you may do so, and anything you wish to go in the record, will go in the record. STATEMENT OF DAVID L. SCHNAIR, NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICER, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION Mr. SCHNAIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. For the sake of brevity, I believe it would be best, since we are going to summarize our statements, to dispense with the reading of our written statement. Mr. DORN. Thank you, sir, and your statement will appear at this point in the record. Mr. SCHNAIR. Thank you. (Mr. Schnair's statement follows with Resolutions Nos. 12 and 28 attached.) STATEMENT OF DAVID L. SCHNAIR, NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICER, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a privilege for me to be here today to represent the Blinded Veterans Association and to present the views of our Association on H.R. 13799 and H.R. 14489, bills designed to increase the rates of compensation for disabled veterans and their dependents. We would also like to take this opportunity to express our views on other, related bills and other matters of significance to blinded veterans which we feel require legislative action during this session of Congress. As you know, the Blinded Veterans Association was founded in March, 1945 as a membership organization of veterans blinded as a result of their service in the Armed Forces of the United States. The BVA was incorporated in New York in 1947 and chartered by Act of Congress in 1958. Our membership consists of veterans of World War I, and World War II, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era and Peacetime service. Fortunately, the number of living veterans with service-connected blindness is relatively small. However, the problems of the individual blinded veteran and his family in adjusting to blindness can be great. Therefore, the Blinded Veterans Association has concentrated its efforts since its inception in assuring the maintenance of high quality rehabilitation services by the Veterans Administration and in motivating and assisting the blinded veteran to take advantage of these services. Our goal, in effect, is to assist each other to lead as normal a life as possible as productive citizens in our home communities. Needless to say, this goal would be virtually impossible to attain without the aid of the excellent |