at the time of his death, had a 15-year-old son in a special school in Falls Church, Va., under provisions of CHAMPUS. Sergeant Major Palmer was recommended for the Silver Star, but it was really a hollow gesture for the family who saw the benefits for their mentally retarded son terminated effective the day of his father's death.

Mr. Chairman, this unfair situation, which places additional burdens on the families of men who have given their lives in service of their country, must be rectified. S. 421 provides that dependents of military members who died from disease or injury while in receipt of hostile fire pay at any time beginning January 1, 1967, will remain eligible for benefits until they reach 21 years of age. I urge that this committee favorably consider this humanitarian legislation.

I might add, the cost to the Government would be, if this bill is enacted, and signed into law, would be $135,000 for the first year, and it would decrease after that each year.

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.

Mr. Brinkley.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I have three questions.

It seems to me that this bill has three limitations, each of which is designed to narrow the beneficial range. For example, it limits the benefits after the age of 21 years of age. It limits benefits for those who die while in receipt of hostile fire pay. And it does not apply to those who are killed or die prior to January 1, 1967.

Therefore, I think it is somewhat to be categorized as special legislation. This would suit me just fine, but in my own opinion, it would even be better to amplify the legislation, broaden it, to make it apply to all service personnel regardless of hostile fire pay, to extend it to reach beyond 21 years of age, and to make it indefinitely retroactive as to its applicability.

Is it your feeling it is better to start with a small beginning? Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes. This was my idea, and also Senator Stennis' idea, in that a similar bill was introduced the last time. It passed the House but it failed to pass the Senate. I think you have some very valid points as to the age, 21. I think it is the feeling that this would actually be the retirement age of a serviceman after serving 20 or 30 years in military if he had a retarded son, and the son had reached 21 years of age, he probably would go back to his home State and he would establish residence there. There is a good possibility he could get this retarded son into one of the State mental institu tions and the State would bear the cost.

It is a problem now, because of the serviceman traveling around, he can't establish a residence, and as you know in Georgia, and Mississippi, it is really hard to get retarded people into these hospitals.

So that is the reason for the age of 21. It would save the Government some money, and it would cut off, put a cutoff date on it. And counsel would have to help me on your next question.

This Public Law 89-614, which is called CHAMPUS, is a new law, I think, adopted in 1966, and you have to go back and amend that law to pick up persons further back, and the cost might be almost unlimited, Congressman Brinkley.

I think the questions are valid. I would hope, though, the committee could act on the bill as it is now, because there is a need, a dire need for this bill, and as I said, it would be a cost to the Govern

ment of less than $135,000 for the first year, and it would decrease after that.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Thank you, very much. I would like to stress I am for the bill. The only thought I had was the fact perhaps it was too restrictive, and certainly this is a good beginning, it appears to me. Mr. BYRNE. Are you finished?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, thank you.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Hunt?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Montgomery, your testimony sounds very fair, due to the fact that it is quite difficult for a serviceman to have a child admitted into these types of institutions. It is also a well-known fact today many of those who are mentally retarded are eligible, and as such, while with their parents somewhere, may be placed in a school where they are improved greatly. I have a situation where a young boy, a son of a serviceman, has for 4 years, attended the Bancroft School, and this has proved out so well he can now take a summer job as a mailclerk. That is one of the additional benefits that will be derivative from this bill when passed. Of course the rationale of 21 years is as you say at the retirement age, that is available for servicemen with that time of service. I think the bill as it is written right now, and not going back beyond the 1966 date of CHAMPUS, is a good cutoff date.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I certainly agree with them. I think one other point I mentioned in my testimony, besides the shock of losing your husband in combat, all of a sudden you lose some funds that take care of a mentally retarded child. I think this is one of the big issues in this type of legislation. This would eliminate-not only did she lose her husband, but she lost the funds that were keeping this child in this school.

Mr. HUNT. This is a much-needed piece of legislation. It is not asking too much for a man, a boy, and the family, of whose father got killed in action. Certainly we can do this for a child who is that unfortunate. Thank you.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. CHARLES WILSON. I have no questions.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Whitehurst.

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am just in favor of the legislation, too, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. I think it is well covered. Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Cook?

Mr. Cook. No questions.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Montgomery, thank you.

Mr. Vernon McKenzie, special assistant to the Assistant SecretaryHealth and Environment-Department of Defense.

STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON MCKENZIE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. MCKENZIE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Vernon McKenzie, special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health and Environment. I have been designated to represent the Department of Defense in connection with this legislation.

I have a brief prepared statement which I would like to present to the subcommittee.

The purpose of S. 421 is to permit certain surviving dependents of members of the uniformed services who die while eligible for hostile fire pay-or from disease or injury incurred while eligible for such pay-to continue to receive benefits under the so-called handicapped segment of the civilian health and medical program of the uniformed services (CHAMPUS) in the same manner as though the member were still alive.

Under present law, when an active duty member dies, his surviving dependents continue to be eligible for regular health care benefits under the CHAMPUS, but under a different cost-sharing arrangement. For outpatient care the differences are minor, but large differences exist with respect to inpatient hospital care.

For civilian hospitalization the dependents of active duty members are only required to pay $25 if the duration of the hospital stay is 14 days or less.

For periods of hospitalization of 15 days or more they are only required to pay $1.75 per day. However, on the day following the death of an active duty member and for any subsequent period of hospitalization his surviving dependents would be required under present law to pay 25 percent of the total cost of the care obtained.

Under the special program for mentally retarded and physically handicapped dependents, which involves training, rehabilitation, special education, and institutional care, all benefits under the program end under present law as of midnight on the date of the member's death, discharge, or retirement.

If this bill is enacted, it would permit the mentally retarded or physically handicapped spouse or children of a member killed in Vietnam, for example, to continue to receive benefits under our special program, with the same cost-sharing arrangements that applied before the member's death. Benefits under this part of the program would continue until the survivors passed their 21st birthday.

The bill would cover the dependents of members who died on or after January 1, 1967, under the circumstances in question, provided they were receiving handicapped benefits at the time of the member's death. The bill has no retroactivity, however, from the standpoint of the benefits which it covers. Benefits for persons covered by the bill would commence as of the date of its enactment.

The Department of Defense recognizes the financial hardships of certain surviving dependents which the bill seeks to overcome. We have concluded that the unintended results of present law place additional burdens on the dependents of men who have given their lives in the service of their country at a time when the dependents are least able to bear them. For these reasons, the Department of Defense favors continuing these special benefits to surviving dependents and favors the enactment of legislation to accomplish the purposes of S. 421. Accordingly, the Department of Defense recommends that the subcommittee act favorably on the bill.

I appreciate this opportunity of appearing before the subcommittee and shall be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the bill.

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie.

Mr. Brinkley?

Mr. BRINKLEY. No questions.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Hunt?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, Mr. McKenzie, I raise that question on the disease. Is this all-encompassing of all diseases they might incur?

Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. HUNT. It is pretty broad. It says, who are eligible for hostile.

fire pay.

Mr. MCKENZIE. That is true, Mr. Hunt. If they incurred a disease or injury of any type during that period of eligibility and subsequently died from it, this bill would cover their surviving handicapped or retarded dependents, regardless of the nature of the disease.

Mr. HUNT. Just the handicapped dependents?

Mr. MCKENZIE. Just the handicapped and retarded dependents. Mr. HUNT. Nobody else?

Mr. MCKENZIE. Nobody else.

Mr. HUNT. That answers my question.

Mr. COOK. Mr. McKenzie, how many people do you estimate will be affected by this bill?

Mr. MCKENZIE. We would estimate that there are approximately 100 survivors, handicapped survivors who would be affected by this bill.

Mr. Cook. What would you estimate the annual cost of this program to be?

Mr. MCKENZIE. We estimate the annual costs at approximately $150,000, and I would like to put that in context. The total CHAMPUŠ program estimated costs for fiscal year 1973, are $360 million.

Mr. Cook. Would you please tell us what benefit-monetary benefit limitations are under this program for the handicapped and mentally retarded children?

Mr. MCKENZIE. There is a provision in the CHAMPUS law which normally limits the Government's expenditures for an individual case to $350 per month. I say "normally" because there is also a provision in the statute which says that if a member has two or more handicapped dependents participating in the program at once, he shall only be charged for one such participating dependent.

The amount of the individual's contribution varies under the law, based upon his pay grade, with a low of $25 per month for enlisted personnel in the lowest pay grade, to a maximum of $250 per month for a four-star general or admiral, with members in all other pay grades paying various amounts in between those two figures.

Mr. Cook. Following the line of inquiry that Congressman Brinkley has suggested, would you feel that this should go back prior to the date of enactment, or go back beyond 1966?

Mr. MCKENZIE. With respect to going back beyond 1966, it would be our feeling that since there was no handicapped program until January 1, 1967, which was the effective date of the Military Medical Benefits Amendments of 1966, that there would be no point in moving the effective date beyond that.

Mr. COOK. What would be your reaction, again following Congressman Brinkley's suggestion or line of questions, to extend this beyond the 21st year?

Mr. MCKENZIE. The Department of Defense favors the present provision of the bill limiting the maximum age for participation to 21 years. We do this on the grounds that this is the general cutoff age for benefits for children under the CHAMPUS program.

Mr. COOK. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question, if I may.

Mr. BYRNE. Feel free to ask your question.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I would like to ask the witness to possibly reevaluate his response about taking it back behind 1966. The fact no program existed prior to that time does not mean there might not be people affected. Perhaps there would be some point in taking it behind that, but it might not be very practical. Is that not true?

Mr. MCKENZIE. I believe it would be very difficult, Mr. Brinkley, to administer any such retroactive provisions as that, which went back further in time than the very program that we are dealing with.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I think it might be difficult, too, but I can visualize a situation where a man might have lost his life in Vietnam in 1965, and he might have a mentally retarded child who could be justified by any standard to these benefits, as one who was killed in 1970. But I recognize you can't have perfect legislation, and I am not faulting this legislation, but I am just thinking most equity could possibly be served by a date which covered the entire Vietnam war.

Mr. MCKENZIE. It was our view, Mr. Brinkley, that this bill is intended to restore to individuals a benefit that they were already receiving, but which was terminated because of the member's death. Mr. BRINKLEY. That is good rationale.

Mr. MCKENZIE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Cook. Following up that line of questioning, Mr. McKenzie, are you aware of any case prior, where a man was killed in Vietnam, prior to 1966, leaving a retarded child?

Mr. MCKENZIE. No, Mr. Cook, we have had no such case brought to our attention.

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie.

We will now consider H.R. 1409, and we are inviting the Honorable Robert L. Leggett of California, the sponsor of the bill, to come forward.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. LEGGETT, REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I submitted a statement which I would ask to be incorporated in the record at this point as though I delivered it with one correction on page 1 of the bill, about midway we talk about $50 per year deductible. Actually, it is a variable deductible as you know. If we make that correction in the formal statement I would appreciate that.

(The written statement of the Honorable Robert L. Leggett follows:)