RESPONSE OF THE PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS Question 1. Sometimes around this place, we are faced with ideas and situations which have enormous emotional appeal. Yet, in this time of limited resources faced with enormous deficits, we need to take a hard look at what we are doing, what we want to do, and then, what we wpould like to do, but must postpone or deny. One of these appealing ideas is contained in a provision of S. 2269 which would authorize the VA to provide bereavement counseling services to family members of a deceased veteran if the family members were recipients of counseling services at the time of the veteran's death. The nature of counseling services provided to assist family members with emotional and psychological stress of death is quite different from counseling services provided before the veteran's death. Thus, the bereavement counseling provision in S. 2269 might be seen as a new service, no matter how meritorious its benefits, rather than as an eligibility question. What do you think about this distinction? Answer 1. The proposal contained in S. 2269 to extend counseling services to certain survivors of deceased veterans is a most worthwhile effort. PVA supports such services because the needs and well-being of family members are inextricably tied to the services and sacrifices of individual veterans. This is particularly true in the case of catastrophically disabled veterans where family members have spent years caring for and supporting the veteran. The veteran's death is a traumatic time for the family and support services and counseling are critical elements in assisting family members in their readjust ment. Question 2. Last year we talked about moving the beginning date for the Vietnam era from its current date of August 5, 1964, to July 8, 1959. Each of you spoke in a way that reflected your appreciation of the several considerations of such a move. So, I would ask each of you again, what impact would the change in definition of the Vietnam era have on Vietnam veterans and how do your members no view the proposed change? Answer 2. It would give proper recognition to those veterans who had served in Vietnam during our country's early involvement. The impact of making this change would result in creating eligibility for a new group of Vietnam-era veterans. Two of the most significant changes we see that would be affected are the GI Bill, Chapter 34, and the non-serviceconnected pension. It could also result in eligibilities for various State benefits provided for Vietnam veterans, such as the Vietnam bonus. Under the present system of defining wartime dates, there are inequities which harm those individuals who served in these and other situations. Two recent examples of where individuals served during dangerous and trying times are Grenada and Lebanon. It is PVA's view that those who served there but who were not injured deserve recognition as fully as do veterans who served during wartimes. Furthermore, at least since the Korean conflict (and perhaps earlier) America's Armed Forces often have been in small but dangerous conflicts and hostile situations, or places on alerts to join our allies who are in wars and conflicts; therefore, the reasonable solution seems to be to abolish the wartime/peacetime dichotomy that denies pension eligibility to certain NSC disabled veterans. Under the existing system an individual is likely to have served in a rigorous and danegrous situation but the coincidence of the dates service was rendered denies him or her benefits to which justice dictates that they qualify. Question 3. S. 2269 proposes to expand eligibility for VA readjustment counseling to certain active duty military personnel within the limits of VA facilities. This raises for me two kinds of questions which I would ask each of you to address. A. First, where is the division of responsibility between the VA and DOD? Should the VA, in the absence of a sharing agreement with DOD, treat active duty personnel in this manner? B. Second, what is the meaning of the words "within the limits of Veterans' Administration facilities". The idea of making use of all of the capacity of the VA is good, but we all see problems of how to implement priority eligibilities at medical centers. Do we want to create the same problems in a program we already know is in high demand from veterans? Answer 3A. The Veterans' Administration is responsible for all honorably discharged military personnel and their health care. The DOD should be responsible for their active duty personnel, up until date of discharge. In the absence of a sharing agreement the VA should not be expected to treat active duty personnel. Answer 3B. We view readjustment counseling at Vet Centers to be "within the limits of Veterans' Administration facilities". These facilities are already operating at capacities that have created months of writing for much needed counseling by our already existing veteran population. Providing program eligibility for active duty personnel in Vet Centers would only exacerbate an already strained segment of the VA system. Question 4. As you know, Public Law 95-202 provides for an administrative determination respecting whether the service of any non-military group or individuals was equivalent to, or tantamount to, active military service. This law has been implemented by the Department of Defense as the Defense/Civilian Review Board. A finding that service was tantamount to military service confers veteran status. What is the view of your members regarding the Defense/Civilian Military Review Board and what is your view toward providing Federal benefits for those whose service is not deemed to be tantamount to military service? Answer 4. The precedent established by the passage of Public Law 95-202 confirming veteran status to members of the Women's Auxiliary groups who assisted in World War II is not synonymous with the issue of civilians who served in Vietnam. Even though DOD's Defense/Civilian Review Board has the administrative authority to issue a determination that one's non-military service is equivalent to, or tantamount to active military service, we feel that veteran status should be issued only in those cases where service was tantamount and then with serious reservation. The reason being--military service, in most cases, lacks the privilege of assignment choice as enjoyed by the civilians who served in Vietnam. To infer that the service of any civilians who served in Vietnam is equivalent to or paramount to military service thus deserving of veteran benefit status would at the same time confer a great disservice to those military personnel who without choice gave service and incurred injury. Mr. PRINCIPI. Testimony from additional witnesses has been requested for the record by the chairman and without objection will be included in the published hearing record. The committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [The committee received the following written statements and letters for the hearing record:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF GWENYTH R. VAUGHN, PH.D., CHIEF OF AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH PATHOLOGY SERVICE, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has requested information concerning I am telecaptioning devices for veterans with profound hearing losses. offering my professional opinion as a chief of audiology and speech pathology in one of the many Veterans Administration Medical Centers, Telecaptioning devices are only one of a number of assistive devices that are available for consideration by impaired veterans. Obviously, a need exists for telecaptioning, but the assistance given to the veteran is beneficial in only one situation. I should like to take this opportunity to provide the Committee with some information about telecaptioning and also to offer some comments about the more general area of assistive listening devices. Many people believe that any listening impairment can be overcome with just the use of a hearing aid. This is not true. A hearing aid does amplify sound, but there is a great different between hearing and understanding. A good example of this difference can be felt by even the normally hearing person while he or she is trying to talk with someone in a large cocktail party or restaurant. In this situation, most listeners may know that another person close by is talking, but the listeners have considerable difficulty in understanding what is being said. The simple solution of just placing a hearing aid on the hearing impaired person is frequently not enough. The needs of the person may go beyond the capability of a personal hearing aid. Except for meeting an isolated need, the promotion of telecaptioning may not be the answer to the total communication needs of an individual. If only telecaptioning, which is just one of a vast array of available assistive devices, is to be addressed by the Committee, there is some information that I should like to offer. Incidence statistics for the general population have shown that there are 18.7 million hearing impaired persons in the United States. Of these, 2 million have profound hearing losses. The incidence of persons with a profound hearing loss within the VA is not as easily documented. It is possible to quickly determine the number of veterans who are receiving compensation from the VA for a service-connected hearing impairment, but there is still a large number of veterans with hearing impairments who cannot be identified. A hearing impairment is not one of the primary diagnostic medical codes, and, therefore, the data from these individuals is not easily retrievable. As a result, the number of veterans who ultimately may desire telecaptioning devices is difficult to predict. When considering the use of a telecaptioning device, it is important that, in my opinion, at least three criteria should be utilized: 1. the veteran cannot benefit from the use of a hearing aid or an assistive listening device in order to view television, 2. the veteran is able to read and understand the captions, and 3. the veteran can benefit from a telecaptioning device as a part of his or her rehabilitation and personal and social well being. 37-524 0-84-29 |