institutions are always changing and veterans' programs are no exception. Our objective throughout should be to promote not only what is best for the veteran, but also what best serves the interest of the Nation. What best serves the Nation in the long | run will be in the best interest of the veterans. MAJOR PROGRAMS Service-Connected Disability Compensation The Veterans' Administration disability-compensation program on the whole is operating well. Total incomes, including VA compensation, of disabled veterans compare favorably with those of the nondisabled. Of the 2 million veterans on the rolls at present, more than one-half are rated as disabled 10 and 20 percent, so their earning capacity is not greatly impaired. Six percent are rated as totally disabled. Of all the disabled, only 25 percent have disabilities which were incurred in combat zones. The basis of the disability compensation program-compensation for average impairment of earning capacity-is sound and should be continued as the major factor. Revisions of the compensation system have never reached the core of the problem. The Commission's studies show that the rating standards, presumptions, and followup procedures have many inconsistencies and are not in line with present-day medical science. The progression of ratings from degree to degree does not accurately reflect differences in capacity to earn or in longevity. The rates of compensation for those rated totally disabled appear inadequate. There is an overemphasis on obvious disabilities in comparison with equal disabilities which are not so evident. Consideration should be given to incorporating the statutory awards within a comprehensive rating scale that will encompass economic, physical, life impairment, and other factors. The disability benefits programs of Government agencies are expanding. Various disability programs affect veterans, but there appear to be great differences in philosophy and purpose. There is a need for better coordination and for common standards on a governmentwide basis. The need for coordination is only part of the problem. There are instances in which more than one program applies to the same category of people. For example, since 1949 a substantial overlap has developed in the VA disability-compensation program and the military-disability retirement program. Monetary compensation is but one phase of the Government's responsibility to the disabled. The objective should be to restore every disabled veteran to a useful place in our economy and society. Effective rehabilitation offers the greatest possibility for further improvement in the Government's programs dealing with the disabled. All disability programs should be oriented toward effective rehabilitation. Service-Connected Survivor Benefits The survivor benefits have been under almost continuous study for a number of years both in the executive branch and in the Congress. The piecemeal growth of six different programs through the years has produced an uncoordinated and complex situation in this field. As a result, benefits for many families are relatively large, while in other cases, particularly for career officers, they are inadequate. A bill pending before Congress (H. R. 7089) would provide a more uniform and equitable system of survivor benefits, with appropriate recognition of attained pay level. This legislation is highly desirable from a career incentive standpoint in a free and competitive society. The Commission strongly approves the system of survivor benefits that would be established by H.R. 7089. Readjustment Benefits The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944-better known as the GI bill-opened a new and hopeful chapter in veterans' programs. It created a comprehensive system of benefits to assist veterans in reestablishing themselves in civilian life. This approach, which provides constructive assistance when it is most needed, is now generally recognized as the best way to meet the Government's obligation to nondisabled war veterans. Except for land grants and mustering-out pay, veterans of early wars received little help in adjusting to civilian life. Vocational rehabilitation for disabled veterans of World War I was a step in the right direction. Veterans of World War II and the Korean conflict have had access to a wide variety of benefits: Mustering-out pay for every man; cash income during unemployment; assistance in obtaining new jobs or reinstatement in former jobs; opportunities for education or training at Government expense; and special loan programs to assist in purchasing homes, farms, or businesses. The program as a whole recognized that individual readjustment needs would differ. Individuals were free to use those benefits which best met their problems. The benefits were intended to provide help during the period just after discharge from service, and to accomplish their purpose within a limited time, thus putting the veteran in a position where he would have no need for aid as a veteran in later life. Four out of five World War II veterans used major readjustment benefits. By and large, the kind and amount of benefits adequately met the real needs. The World War II program was not perfect. Some benefits were used unwisely and others were ineffective. Most of these weaknesses were corrected over the years. They have been largely overcome in the present programs for Korean conflict veterans, although improvements are still possible, particularly in the loan-guaranty program and certain types of training benefits. The Readjustment Act approach proved more effective than would have any system of uniform monetary payments to all veterans. As a group, the veterans for whom the two GI bills were adopted reestablished themselves successfully in civilian life. Their economic status, by objective measurements-income, occupation, home ownership, or steady employmentcompares favorably with that of nonveterans of similar age. Plainly, the expenditures for readjustment benefits were a sound investment. The readjustment program as a whole has fully discharged the Government's obligation to nondisabled veterans and has provided benefits that in many cases more than balanced any handicaps resulting from military service. The Nation, too, has gained. Education and training benefits, in particular, helped overcome what should otherwise have been a serious deficit in education. The successful absorption into our economy of 10 million veterans during a single year after World War II, with relatively little friction or distress, was largely due to the GI bill. Peacetime Ex-Servicemen One of the most fundamental and potentially far-reaching questions considered by the Commission was whether and in what form readjustment, disability and related benefits should be provided for ex-servicemen and women who have had only peacetime military service. A continuation of selective service in the present cold-war situation, inevitably means that a substantial proportion of those who serve in the Armed Forces undergo an interruption of their normal pattern of civilian life. The significance of this issue arises from the fact that our country may have to maintain substantial Armed Forces for an indefinite period. The Commission's projections indicate that if an armed strength of 3 million with an annual turnover of 700,000 is continued, there will be, by the end of this century, 26 million living peacetime ex-servicemen. This problem requires careful evaluation of the adequacy of military service in peacetime as a criterion for the extension of special educational and related benefits. Provision of benefits on this basis would have profound long-range effects on our society. Under present-day conditions, military service in itself-especially if it is reasonably compensated-cannot continue to serve as a basis for special privilege. The young citizen must be prepared to serve in the Armed Forces as a matter of course, and under a permanent program he can plan for such service. In keeping with this approach the Commission believes that the Government's postservice obligation to peacetime ex-servicemen should be limited to compensation and assistance for such significant disabilities as may arise directly out of military service, and to provision of the usual benefits to which any employee would be entitled. Under present circumstances of military service, the Commission believes the Government should provide the following major benefits to peacetime ex-servicemen: Service-connected disability and death compensation at the same rates as for wartime servicemen; medical care for service-connected disabilities; reemployment rights; and unemployment compensation on a basis comparable to that given Federal civilian employees. Vocational rehabilitation should also be provided to those disabled in service through the Federal-State vocational rehabilitation program, on a priority basis, with the Federal Government bearing 100 percent of the cost. The present selective service deferment policies allow all young men who so desire, to complete high school and also permit college students, who demonstrate ability, to complete their college education before induction. Military service is reasonably well compensated and there are substantial opportunities for training and useful experience while in the Armed Forces. The Commission believes that under such conditions military service does not involve sufficient interruption to the educational progress of servicemen to warrant a continuation of a special educational program for them. There is an immediate and growing national need for highly educated and skilled personnel. This is a general problem and not one primarily due to the existence of compulsory military service. The solution should be achieved on a broad basis and not through a program open to a special group. The Commission believes that if this national need is to be recognized by the Federal Government, any assistance provided should be on a basis of the ability of all qualified aspirants, civilian as well as ex-servicemen. Non-Service-Connected Disability and Death Pensions Non-service-connected pension programs for veterans have existed for nearly 140 years. While not related to needs arising out of military service, they have been justified on the basis of war service. Fostered by organized pressures on behalf of veterans, they have pioneered in the field of social welfare and have kept "old soldiers" and their families from destitution. They represent perhaps the earliest effort by the Government to provide honorable protection against the loss of family income due to age, disability, or death. Important changes in our society have recently come about which fundamentally affect the justification for veterans' pen |