[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 137 (Friday, October 12, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  INTRODUCTION OF VETERANS' PENSION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--H.R. 3087

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. LANE EVANS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 11, 2001

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' 
Pension Improvement Act of 2001. This important legislation would 
recognize the military service of our Nation's wartime veterans by 
providing low-income veterans with pension benefits at age 65 without 
regard to a finding of total and permanent disability. The bill would 
reinstate a provision of Public Law 90-77, which was repealed in 1990.
  From 1967 until 1990, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was 
authorized to presume that low-income veterans were disabled at age 65. 
In hearings on the 1967 bill, the American Legion testified that 
providing for benefits at age 65 would affect less than one-tenth of 
one percent of pension applicants and that the cost associated with 
providing medical examinations and disability adjudications would be 
reduced. Recent evidence indicates that the Legion's 1967 assessment 
was correct.
  In 1990, Congress eliminated the presumption of permanent and total 
disability at age 65 in Public Law 101-508. At that time, the 
Congressional Budget Office optimistically predicted that the measure 
would generate savings of $17 million in 1991 and total savings of $313 
million over the five-year period. Such savings have not materialized. 
According to VA, it is rare for a wartime veteran with income below the 
pension threshold to be found not permanently and totally disabled. 
Rather than saving money, VA estimates that it is spending more money 
to provide medical examinations than would be paid out if benefits were 
granted at age 65.
  A July 1997 sample of pension claims showed that only 5.9 percent of 
all claims from veterans age 65 and older were initially denied on the 
basis that the claimants were not permanently and totally disabled. In 
1998 and 1999, that number was even lower with only three percent of 
claims denied on that basis. After taking into account reversals on 
appeal, VA estimates that fewer than 300 veterans age 65 and older per 
year are denied disability pension based upon a finding that they are 
not permanently and totally disabled.
  VA projects the annual cost of the benefit will be less than $2 
million per year. The cost of providing medical examinations for these 
claims exceeds $2 million per year. In addition to the costs of the 
medical examinations, additional costs are incurred in rating the 
disability. Our current policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  Currently VBA has a backlog of 536,626 claims pending in regional 
offices. Another 95,066 claims are pending appeals to the Board of 
Veterans Appeals. Requiring the VA to provide a medical examination and 
make a disability determination on claims, which are almost certain to 
result in a finding of disability, is exacerbating the backlog with no 
financial gain to the government. Although prior legislation presumed a 
finding of disability at age 65, this bill would provide for a service 
pension without regard to disability similar to that previously 
provided to veterans of Indian Wars and the Spanish-American War.
  VA would only be required to obtain a medical examination and a 
finding of disability for those veterans over 65 who seek additional 
benefits based upon a disability which renders them homebound or in 
need of aid and attendance. This would reduce the cost and workload of 
providing disability examinations for low-income veterans who are 
almost always found to be disabled.
  The bill does not specifically require that veterans be unemployed to 
qualify for the benefit. This reflects the practical reality that 
wartime veterans whose income is low enough to qualify for pension 
benefits are almost always unemployed. Full-time employment at the 
minimum wage level provides income which exceeds the pension amount and 
would therefore disqualify a veteran for benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to reduce the backlog and reduce the cost of 
making expensive disability determinations for claims of elderly 
wartime veterans. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
support the Veterans' Pension Improvement Act of 2001.




                          ____________________