Providing for Concurrence by House with Amendments in Senate Amendment to H.R. 797, Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007

PROVIDING FOR CONCURRENCE BY HOUSE WITH AMENDMENTS IN SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 797, DR. JAMES ALLEN VETERAN VISION EQUITY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - December 11, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Filner.

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 855, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act that I introduced earlier this year. This bill fixes an inequity in the current paired organ statute that has resulted in a denial of appropriate disability compensation to blinded veterans.

Congress has rightly recognized that some human organs or limbs are designed to work in pairs: legs, hands, kidneys, lungs, ears and, of course, eyes. In the instance of eyes, blindness in one eye profoundly affects depth perception even if sight is fully retained in the other eye. The paired organ statute was written to assist those veterans who experience a service-connected loss of a paired organ or limb. The statute recognizes the interdependency of paired organs and endeavors to treat the combined disability created by a nonservice-connected loss, injury or degeneration of the remaining paired organ or limb as though it was the result of a service-connected disability. In general, the paired organ statute accomplishes this task, with the exception of its treatment of eyes and loss of sight.

I want to share with you the story of Dr. James Allen, after whom this legislation is named. Dr. Allen is a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine in my district. He has worked at the Veterans Affairs Hospital for 33 years and treated numerous eye patients, including veterans who are blind.

One example is Mr. Donald May. Don is a World War II veteran who lost his right eye in a hand grenade explosion. A few years ago, Mr. May became legally blind in the nonservice-connected left eye. He applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs for help and was denied further benefits. He was told that the current law in regard to paired organs did not apply to him, even though he was legally blind in his service-connected right eye.

After Dr. Allen brought the plight of his patients to my attention, I began to research why these veterans were being denied the benefits I felt they deserved, benefits that I believe Congress intended to grant them. Through my work with the Blinded Veterans Association, we discovered that while the current paired organ statute covers blindness, in practice few, if any, veterans have ever been able to qualify for such compensation.

In theory, the statute provides that a veteran who is service-connected for blindness in one eye could qualify for additional disability compensation if they become blind in the remaining eye for nonservice-connected reasons. However, the statute does not define the term ``blindness,'' nor is any provision made for impairment of vision in the nonservice-connected eye short of blindness.

Rather than using visual acuity of 20/200 or loss of field of vision to 20 degrees as the definition of legal blindness that has been adopted by all 50 States and the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs uses a much more restrictive definition, 5/200, as a rating for legal blindness, which in rough layman's term is the equivalent of having an eye with light perception only. As a result, few, if any, blinded veterans are able to qualify for additional compensation under the paired organ statute.

H. Res. 855, the Dr. James Allen Veterans Vision Equity Act, fixes this problem. It defines blindness as impairment of vision where the impairment is to a visual acuity of 20/200 or less or of a peripheral field loss of vision of 20 degrees or less. This change in the law would only affect a small percentage, estimated to be roughly 5 percent of the 13,000-plus veterans who are service-connected for loss of vision in one eye. Yet such a change would send a powerful message that our Nation's blinded veterans and the hardships that they have faced are not forgotten.

Indeed, our Nation's blinded veterans face significant challenges in the labor market. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research found that for individuals with visual impairments, to the extent that they are unable to read letters, the employment rate is only 30.8 percent, compared to 82.1 percent for those without disability.

I want to mention that this resolution complies with the PAYGO rules. The costs associated with H. Res. 855 are fully offset. This bill directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to match and compare VA needs-based pension benefits data, parents' dependency and indemnity compensation data, health care services data and unemployability compensation data with the National Directory of New Hires maintained by DHHS, for the purpose of determining eligibility for such benefits and services. According to the GAO, such data matching will help reduce fraud and abuse within the VA system as it determines eligibility and benefits to those veterans thought to be unemployable but are indeed working.

I would like to just thank Chairman Filner, Subcommittee Chairman John Hall, as well as Congressmen John Boozman and Vic Snyder for their unwavering support of this bill. I also want to thank the staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their help in advancing this legislation.

H. Res. 855 is a modest but important step in restoring fair treatment to those veterans blinded due to their service to our country and to further our commitment to them. Their sacrifices and their service to this Nation should be matched by our desire to improve the quality of life for them and their families.

Earlier this year, the Blinded Veterans Association had found over 200 soldiers returning from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom who are blinded in one eye due to their service-related injuries. They could be benefited in the future by this legislation.

I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support H. Res. 855.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source