| |
G.
The debate about how to spend a budget surplus must include
veterans. Promises made in the past to our nation's veterans
must be met before any new governmental initiatives are made
with the surplus. Many of the problems we have outlined above
in the new VHA may be a prelude to systemic problems associated
with lack of adequate resources rather than mismanagement or
inefficiencies in the system.
H. Again, BVA
requests introduction of legislation by these Committees that
amends Title 38 and authorizes VA to pay travel costs associated
with veterans attending a VA special disabilities program. We
also recommend amending the Means Test Law exempting catastrophically
disabled veterans from SSA co-pay responsibility when receiving
service from a special disabilities program.
I. BVA, like its
sister VSOs, is deeply concerned over the substantial numbers
of America’s veterans that are homeless. Consequently,
we support adoption of strong legislation that will assist in
eradicating this problem. Specifically, we urge support of the
Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Act of 2001 introduced
today by Mr. Evans. BVA commends Mr. Evans for his leadership
on this important issue and trust that each member of the House
Veterans committee will cosponsor this bill and work towards
its early adoption. We also encourage the Senate Committee on
Veterans Affairs to join Mr. Evans in this effort.
J. Again this
year, BVA urges Congress to take strong decisive action to improve
the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB). We commend Congress for its
action last year to increase the education payments made under
this bill but believe much more must be done if this important
benefit is to have its intended effect. The GI bill adopted
following World War II has been heralded as one of the most
significant pieces of legislation ever passed because its profound
effect on the lives of those who served during the war and the
tremendous impact their lives had on the continued growth and
prosperity in America.
i. The educational purchasing power of the MGIB
has been eroded to the point that it provides little incentive
to active duty military personnel, both in terms of recruiting
and retention. Legislation intended to make dramatic improvements
in this benefit has already been introduced in this Congress.
We urge your support and leadership to guide such legislation
through Congress this session, specifically S 131 introduced
by Senators Collins and Johnson, and HR 320 introduced today
by Mr. Evans and Mr. Dingle. At the very least, Mr. Chairman,
we urge each committee to include $1 billion dollars in its
Views and Estimates to its respective Budget Committees to
cover the cost of whatever version of this vital legislation
is finally adopted this year.
K. Several years
ago, the Social Security benefits were modified to allow seniors
between the ages of 65 and 69 to retain more of their earned
income before losing any of their Social Security benefits.
After five years, this group would be able to earn up to $30,000
per year before they experience any reduction in their Social
Security retirement benefits. Moreover, they would only lose
one dollar for every three dollars by which they exceed the
earned income limitation.
i. SSA was again reformed last year to remove all
earned income limitations for this group. Seniors now have
no limitations on income without the loss of Medicare benefits.
Prior to the change in the law, blind Social Security Disability
Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries had their income earning limitations,
known as Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) levels, directly
linked to that of seniors. The new law severed that linkage.
Worse was that when a blind SSDI beneficiary exceeded the
SGA level by as little as one dollar, they lost the total
benefit.
We believe the same elimination of earned income limitations
should be provided to Blind SSDI beneficiaries. BVA strongly
urges support for such a measure.
L.Under current
law, the SSA is required to evaluate claims for disability benefits
using a definition of legal blindness found in statute.
This definition requires specific diminution in one’s
visual field, which is determined primarily, if not exclusively,
by using a procedure called manual perimetry, or the
Goldmann perimeter. For a number of years now optometrists
have been moving toward another standard for visual field testing,
which isautomated perimetry and especially the Humphrey
automated perimeter. These twotechnologies do not always
give comparable results. The Social Security Administration
has engaged researchers, and held meetings with advocacy groups
and medical professionals, to address the impact of this changing
technology on the Administration’s ability to accurately
evaluate the disabilities of claimants seeking benefits under
the statutory blindness definition. Many have suggested that
the key to resolving this issue is a change in the definition
of statutory blindness, which would reflect changes in technology.
Others have suggested changes that are more sweeping. It is
noteworthy that many government programs rely on the definition
of blindness used by the SSA in establishing their own eligibility
criteria. Therefore, substantial changes in this definition
could affect programs and services for the blind nationwide.
A much narrower definition, for example, may result in denial
of disability benefits to individuals who should qualify because
of severe vision loss. A broader definition could extend the
criteria established in the listings to many individuals who
might not be considered statutorily blind under the current
definition, thereby diluting already scarce resources to persons
currently defined as blind.
BVA encourages Congress to give careful scrutiny
to any proposed changes in the statutory definition of legal blindness.
Such scrutiny will ensure that the SSA has the ability to update
its listings to reflect current advances in measurement technology
without altering the intent of the statute, which is to extend
benefits and services to Americans facing severe vision loss.
BVA supports a standard of no more than 10 percent of normal vision,
as measured either in central or peripheral vision, with best
correction in the better eye.
|
|
