House Concurrent
Resolution 235
On April 4, the House Transportation Committee marked up and approved House Concurrent Resolution 235 introduced by Congressman Lane Evans (D-IL-17). The resolution states that “it is the sense of the Congress that each State should require any candidate for a driver’s license to demonstrate, as a condition of obtaining said license, an ability to associate the use of the white cane and guide dog with visually impaired individuals and to exercise great caution when driving in proximity of such individuals.”
BVA is urging members of the Senate to support passage of the Senate version of the resolution. Senate Concurrent Resolution 71 was introduced by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Ranking Member Daniel Akaka (D-HI). The resolution failed last year because there was no companion resolution on the Senate Transportation Committee.
As of this writing, the Senate version has only six senators signed onto it. We are pleased that the companion House version has some 20 co-sponsors. We hoped that in May the House would take it to a vote on the full floor. The resolutions have no cost attached to them but could, over the long haul, drastically improve conditions for blind pedestrians.
H.R. 2963
Some good news occurred with respect to a bill with which BVA members have been assisting throughout the past year. On April 6, we provided oral and written testimony regarding the “Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans Equity Act of 2005,” or H.R. 2963, before the House VA Subcommittee on Disability Benefits.
As part of our statement, we thanked Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-2) for introducing this important legislation to correct a problem with the Paired Organ law passed in August of 1964. Currently, veterans who are service connected for loss of vision in one eye due to injury or illness incurred on active duty are sometimes denied additional disability compensation if they become legally blind in the remaining nonservice-connected eye. This is because the U.S.C. Title 38 Paired Organ statute on vision has not used the legally accepted definition of blindness. The Social Security Administration and every state law governing motor vehicle licenses define legal blindness as visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or loss of field of vision of 20 degrees. The World Health Organization also accepts this as the definition of legal blindness in both eyes.
Representative Tammy Baldwin (center) with David Danielson, Depty Director of Government Relations for the American Optometric Association, and BVA Government Relations Director Tom Zampieri prior to House Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2963. |
VA frequently refers to the Veterans Benefits Administration’s Section 1160(l) to determine blindness. Section 1160(l) defines blindness as loss of vision beyond 5/200 or 20/800. Since no definition of legal blindness was included in the Title 38 Paired Organ statute, veterans who have been 30 percent service connected for blindness in one eye and who have later lost their sight in the nonservice-connected eye, for any reason, have had to meet the 5/200 standard. BVA has recommended a change in the Title 38 Code that would make the legal blindness standard consistent with that of the Social Security Administration and all 50 states.
The change in the Paired Organ statute would affect only an estimated 5 percent of the 13,109 veterans who are currently service connected for blindness and loss of vision in one eye, a fact we emphasized in our testimony to illustrate how little the legislation would cost. We argued that veterans with blindness in one eye who subsequently develop blindness in their nonservice-connected eye should not be denied the benefits that other paired organ veterans have received. BVA asked Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-FL-1) why a veteran should be required to meet a higher standard of legal blindness than a social security disability applicant in order to receive benefits.
The good news is that at the time of this hearing H.R. 2963 had 80 co-sponsors in Congress. In addition, VA officials testified that they supported this legislation as long as some technical amendments were made to the original language. We hope that within the next month this bill will be marked up and out of the Subcommittee, ready soon after for a vote by the full House VA Committee.
|
