Mr. JACKSON. Also the Navy, for 90 days.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Navy also holds them for 90 days. I am not sure about the Army and the Air Force.

It is streamlining the administrative chain of the service, because when they get a guy that walks into a recruiting station and he says, "I've made a big mistake; I have been out 90 days and I can't find a job," all that recruiter has to do is go back to the headquarters for his service and they pull the records and say, "Yes, the guy can reenlist." He's blessed and within 24 hours he's back in the Armed Forces. Whereas, if they had to go all the way back to the Records Center in St. Louis, it may take a week or more, and by that time the guy has changed his mind again or he's found a civilian job and has decided he doesn't want back in the service.

Mr. APPLEGATE. I appreciate that, and I know it is a major problem. It is one that we will definitely look into and see what can be done to correct it.

Thank you very much, all of you.

Mr. APPLEGATE. For panel No. 2, we have Chuck Partridge, National Association for Uniformed Services, Rick Heilman from the DAV, and Ellsworth Sharpe, Blinded Veterans Association. Gentlemen, if you will all come forward, we would appreciate it.

Gentlemen, you can proceed as you wish. Mr. Partridge.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES; JOHN F. HEILMAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; AND ELLSWORTH L. SHARPE, IMMEDIATE PAST NATIONAL PRESIDENT, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE

Mr. PARTRIDGE. I would like to express our appreciation on behalf of the National Association for Uniformed Services for the opportunity to present our views here today. I would also like to thank you and members of the subcommittee and the staff for the excellent legislative package represented in H.R. 5688. The hard work and concern on the part of the members and staff of this subcommittee are clearly evident in the bill and for that we are grateful.

You have my written statement before you. It is consistent with this association's previous testimony. Therefore, I will not read it. But I would like to highlight our concerns regarding dependency and indemnity compensation.

First, dependency and indemnity compensation rates should take into consideration more than the pay grade of the deceased. It should include other factors such as time in service and conditions or circumstances surrounding the cause of death.

Second, we believe that automatic adjustments to dependency and indemnity compensation should be based on the Consumer Price Index as is currently done for Social Security beneficiaries. Third, widows drawing dependency and indemnity compensation should be allowed to remarry after age 60 without losing eligibility for benefits. This opportunity is afforded to widows in other pro

grams. The cost to do this is small. We think the issue here is equity.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be glad to respond to any questions.

[The statement of Charles Partridge appears on p. 74.]

Mr. APPLEGATE. Thank you very much, Mr. Partridge.
Rick.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. HEILMAN

Mr. HEILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burton.

I will also summarize my statement, Mr. Chairman. I know you will put it in the record.

Let me first say that we do appreciate the fact that your subcommittee has decided to hold these oversight hearings. I do want to say that as far as the DAV is concerned we believe that the compensation programs, their evaluation, modification and periodic adjustment should remain firmly in the hands of this subcommittee, the full committee, and your counterparts in the Senate.

We have just one specific concern to address this morning, as indicated in our statement, and that does relate to the dependency and indemnity compensation program. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of a mandate received from our most recent national convention, we are pursuing a legislative objective that would call for a change in the current rank-based formula that governs payments under the DIC program. As has been indicated earlier, payments are based upon military rank of the deceased serviceman at time of death for an inservice death, and the rank at military discharge for postservice death.

Notwithstanding that fact, we do believe that a more equitable distribution of payments can be achieved. Factors such as the percentage of disability evaluation at time of death have no bearing whatsoever on the current formula. Also, the longevity of a serious service-connected disability has no bearing, as does the fact that for postservice deaths the lifestyle of the veteran and their family, the estate that is left to the survivors, has no bearing in terms of rank of a PFC or an E-3 corporal that were held perhaps some 20 or 30 years ago. So we do believe that the payment formula should be changed.

As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, we have petitioned the VA to come up with some data relevant to the DIC awards so that perhaps various options could be looked at and cost estimates obtained. We were quite disappointed that the information was not available at the time of these hearings. I heard the VA witness indicate earlier that this information would be provided later this year. I would just hope that later this year does not, in fact, mean 5 minutes to midnight on December 31. As you know, we want to finalize a proposal, if possible, and get it introduced and get some cost estimates so that the subcommittee and the full committee can look at the dollar figures that are involved in terms of the budget recommendations that they may or not make next year.

Let me conclude just by saying that our mandate is quite flexible. We certainly intend to work with the subcommittee and the

staff. We are willing to work with all interested parties in pursuit of this objective.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement of John F. Heilman appears at p. 78.]

Mr. APPLEGATE. Thank you very much, Rick. I appreciate your statement.

Mr. Sharpe.

STATEMENT OF ELLSWORTH L. SHARPE

Mr. SHARPE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as you may know, one of the objectives of the Blinded Veterans Association is to assure that blinded veterans get just compensation for their disability. Also, we believe that one of the reasons for this committee's existence is to see that all veterans are justly compensated for their service-connected disability.

Last year, this committee supported a bill which concerned blinded veterans with a combined hearing loss as well. This bill was approved by the full committee and also by the House, and it was later combined with a Senate bill which was somewhat watered down. But later, this was signed by the President. Although it wasn't as much as we thought was necessary, we believe it was a step in the right direction and thank this committee for their support.

The Blinded Veterans Association is aware that congressional action is not always necessary to do away with inequalities in the compensation rating schedule. The VA itself can make some of these changes. As you know, often it is necessary for this committee to monitor and oversee and even legislate to keep the VA straight.

In a recent meeting between members of the Blinded Veterans Association and the chief benefits director of the VA three problem areas surfaced. The first of these areas is an area which years ago the VA agreed was an unjust rating method. This involves veterans who have both visual acuity and visual field losses. The present method for rating these veterans is that the most severe of the two conditions is used to determine the rating. An extreme case of showing how this is inequitable is a blinded veteran might have a 5 degree field of vision, but in that small peashooter he is looking through, he might have 20-20 vision; whereby another veteran with a 6 degree field, with very poor vision at the end of his peashooter, would get less money than the first one.

In another area, a recent study conducted by a prominent researcher at the Wilmer Clinic of the Johns Hopkins University Hospital concluded that retinitis pigmentosa is not necessarily an inherited disease. The Veterans' Administration has accepted this conclusion. However, the Veterans' Administration will not change its rating procedures until additional tests are developed to differentiate between genetic and nongenetic retinitis pigmentosa.

Until, this test is perfected, these veterans will not be justly compensated. We believe something should be done now.

The third area of disagreement is one in which the Blinded Veterans Association and the VA disagree completely, and this is the area of severely limited field of vision.

Just by way of background, a normally sighted person has a vision field of approximately 180 degrees. A person could have just a 10 degree field and his vision would not be 10 over 180 or 1 over 18 or less than 5 percent. His actual field of vision would be 1 over 18 squared or a closer approximation being an area where you are measuring less than 1 percent. Yet, he is not called 100 percent disabled at this point. We believe those scales should be changed somewhat so that a veteran with less than a 10-degree field should be rated 100 percent disabled. Likewise, on down to a person with a 20 degree field, it should be 70 percent disabled.

In another area, according to our belief, it has been the philosophy and the rationale of the VA in designing their benefits program, that the amount of payment for disability should be reflected by the economic loss caused by the disability. As you know, blinded veterans have difficulty obtaining and maintaining decent jobs.

Another area, though, that might not be quite as obvious, sighted people, whether handicapped or not, take for granted such things as are involved in daily living activities. This area includes driving a car, reading your paper, reading your mail, paying your bills, or doing minor home repairs. In these areas, blinded veterans need help, perhaps the employment of someone else to do these tasks for them. We believe that this should entitle them to aid and attendance. As you know, veterans receiving aid and attendance do not necessarily use that directly for medical aid.

Last but not least, we agree with the other speakers today that DIC based on the rank of the individual when disabled is not relevant to a veteran who was injured 40 years prior to death. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The statement of Ellsworth L. Sharpe appears at p. 87.]

Mr. APPLEGATE. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharpe. I appreciate very much your input.

As Mr. Heilman pointed out, your statements will all be made a part of the record and, of course, will be scrutinized and analyzed very carefully and fully utilized by us in our deliberations.

We thank you all very much for appearing before the committee. Panel No. 3, we have Jean Arthurs, National Association of Military Widows, Donald Schwab, VFW, Earl Derrington, American Ex-Prisoners of War, and Colonel Houston, Veterans of World War I. If you would all come to the table.

Chivalry being what it is, and still maintained by this committee, we will start off with Jean Arthurs.

STATEMENTS OF JEAN ARTHURS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MILITARY WIDOWS; HERBERT M. HOUSTON, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, VETERANS OF WORLD WAR I, INC.; C. EARL DERRINGTON, JR., NATIONAL COMMANDER, AMERICAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR; AND DONALD H. SCHWAB, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

STATEMENT OF JEAN ARTHURS

Mrs. ARTHURS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National Associa

tion of Military Widows at this oversight hearing on the compensation program.

The National Association of Military Widows is a nationwide organization dedicated to the welfare of all military widows. Our goal is to assure the equitable treatment for all military widows through legislation, assistance, information, and membership.

In regard to legislation, we work for changes in the laws to correct inequities and make survivor benefits for the military widows on a level comparable to the other Federal agencies. It is our view that since the Federal agencies and the military share the same paymaster, all should receive equal treatment and benefits.

It is now time for Congress to correct the dependency and indemnity compensation program on the same basis as applicable to the Federal civil service program. A substantial difference in death compensation exists at every pay level between DIC and FECA programs. This is due to the varied compensation formula used to compute the benefits under each applicable law.

The FECA compensation formula is computed at 55 percent of full civilian pay and escalates to 80 percent in some cases as bonus payments are included.

In comparison, the annuity for widows of privates, airmen, and seamen in pay grade E-1 equals 55.15 percent of the serviceman's pay. The maximum amount for DIC widows of servicemen pay grade 0-10 is 15.7 percent. Dependency and indemnity compensation is the only such formula that is self-reducing. The higher in rate or rank attained and the longer served, the lower the percentage the widow receives. The average DIC entitlement really averages about 20 percent of the serviceman's pay. There is very little comparison between these two systems. The following comparison illustrates the difference:

For a military O-5, the monthly pay would be in the area of $4,029. The DIČ benefit is $726. The comparable foreign service monthly pay is $4,166. If the formula was computed at 50 percent, the widow would receive $2,082, or if it goes to 75 percent, as it does in some cases, it would be $3,123. With an E-6, which is the most common type as far as DIC is concerned-there are more enlisted men's widows than officers-the E-6 in the military would receive $1,811 monthly pay and the DIC benefit would be $526. The comparable foreign service monthly payment to the man would be $2,500, and 50 percent annuity would be $1,250, or at 75 percent, $1,875. So you can see there are great discrepancies. The Iranian hostage crisis and the Beirut Marine attack are cases in point.

To overcome these inconsistencies, we recommend that the long established FECA program apply to all federal employees, whether they are military civil service personnel.

For many of these widows, DIC is the sole means of support. Congress originally intended that DIC be a supplementary compensation as recompense for the death of the sponsor from active duty or service-connected causes. An analysis, with an in-depth view, points out that the loss of a serviceman to a military widow is just as great as the loss to a civil servant. In some cases, due to the logistics of the situation, it is much worse. Most civil servants have a stable, home base.