MISCELLANEOUS VETERANS' BILLS MONDAY, MAY 21, 1960 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 4232, Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph W. Yarborough (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Yarborough (presiding) and Goldwater. Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Frederick R. Blackwell, counsel to the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, and Raymond D. Hurley, associate minority counsel. Senator YARBOROUGH. The Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs will come to order. The hearing is being held this morning to receive testimony on three bills. The first of these is S. 2201, introduced by Senators Bartlett and Gruening, proposing to amend the definition of the term "Veterans' Administration Facilities" as contained in section 501 (4) (C) of title 38, United States Code, so as to permit veterans of any war to use private contract facilities if no Veterans' Administration hospital is located within a State or within 500 miles of its border. Since there are no Veterans' Administration hospitals in either of the two newest States of Alaska or Hawaii, it seems to me that that is a very badly needed measure. The next bill is S. 2235, introduced by Senator Hubert Humphrey, to provide certain readjustment benefits to persons who graduated from the Air Force Reserve Officers Training Corps in 1954 and served on active duty for training in the Air National Guard before February 1, 1955. The third bill is S. 299, a private bill for the relief of Dalworth C. Ebner. Mr. Ebner is seeking to receive vocational rehabilitation for a period for which he would have been eligible to receive training if the Veterans' Administration had not terminated his training. (The bills and departmental reports referred to follow :) [S. 299, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL For the relief of Dalworth C. Ebner Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) notwithstanding the provisions of part VII of Veterans Regulation Numbered 1(a) or any regulation promulgated thereunder, Dalworth C. Ebner of Austin, Texas, shall be eligible to receive training pursuant to the provisions of such part for any period equal to the period for which he would have been eligible to receive training thereunder if the Veterans' Administration had not terminated his training under such part 1 in March 1954 because of unauthorized adjustments made by him in his training program, the said Dalworth C. Ebner not having been informed that such adjustments would result in the termination of his training eligibility under such part. (b) Any such period of training to which the said Dalworth C. Ebner is made eligible by virtue of the enactment of this Act shall remain available to him for the same period it would have been available if his training eligibility under such part had not been terminated, except that such period shall not commence to run until the said Dalworth C. Ebner resumes his training under such part; but no training under the provisions of part VII of Veterans Regulation Numbered 1(a) shall be afforded him as a result of the enactment of this Act unless such training is instituted within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1959. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of February 7, 1959, for the Bureau's views on S. 299, for the relief of Dalworth C. Ebner. The Veterans' Administration is opposed to this bill for reasons set forth in its report to the committee. The Bureau of the Budget concurs in the adverse position of the Veterans' Administration and therefore recommends against enactment of this relief proposal. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Hon. LISTER HILL, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1959. Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR HILL: Further reference is made to your request for a report on S. 299, 86th Congress. The purpose of the bill is to render Dalworth C. Ebner eligible for additional vocational training from the Veterans' Administration to which he is not entitled under existing law. S. 299 is identical with S. 4106, 85th Congress, on which a Veterans' Administration report was made to your committee on July 30, 1958, where the bill was pending at the close of that Congress. Part VII, Veterans Regulation No. 1(a), referred to in the bill, was repealed, and comparable provisions are now contained in chapter 31, title 38, United States Code, enacted September 2, 1958. This report assumes S. 299 is intended to refer to appropriate provisions of existing law to accomplish the stated purpose. Dalworth Carol Ebner (C-10107702) served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II. While in service, he was hospitalized on one occasion for a condition diagnosed as lymphadenitis, cause unknown, and during another period when the final diagnosis was neurasthenia, cause unknown. Since his discharge from service in 1945, Mr. Ebner has been examined and hospitalized by us on numerous occasions. The final summary of his most recent period of hospitalization of record, which ended in January 1957, shows no physical disease found but that he had a "paranoid personality, manifested by tendency to projection, by rigid attitudes, and by periods of marked anxiety during situational stresses." He has drawn service-connected disability compensation benefits, in varying amounts, from the day following his discharge from service. He is currently rated as 50 percent disabled because of psychoneurosis, severe, and is being paid compensation of $131 per month, including $31 on behalf of his wife and four children. The records show that although Mr. Ebner contemplated taking vocational training for some time, he did not make himself available for that training until the summer of 1953. Following vocational counseling, he entered train ing at the University of Texas on July 16, 1953, to train for the objective of mechanical engineer. Under the vocational rehabilitation program, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is charged with the responsibility of prescribing and providing such vocational rehabilitation as will restore a service-connected disabled veteran to employability. The veteran is expected to pursue his training on a full-time basis, allowing nothing to interfere with his course. In cases like Mr. Ebner's, training had to be completed by the statutory delimiting date of July 25, 1956. Since the law required the Administrator to restore a veteran's employability, the Veterans' Administration regulations provided that a veteran could not be placed in rehabilitation training unless a reasonable certainty existed that he could complete the prescribed course of training prior to the applicable delimiting date. In view of these provisions, it was necessary that Mr. Ebner carry a full load of courses during all regular sessions and the summer sessions, starting in July 1953. A veteran undergoing training was admonished to pursue his program without making any changes or allowing changes to be made except with the prior approval of his training officer. At the time Mr. Ebner entered training, he acknowledged receipt of a form containing the statement "No change in your training program is permitted without the prior approval of your training officer." In December 1953 and January 1954, Mr. Ebner indicated that he was having difficulty with his schooling, that his schedule was too much for him, and requested that the number of courses be reduced. He was counseled to the effect that any such deviation from the agreed schedule could jeopardize his training. Nevertheless, on March 8, 1954, without the knowledge or consent of his training officer, Mr. Ebner dropped two of his courses. On March 11, 1954, his training officer afforded him the opportunity of resuming the dropped courses and devoting his full time to training. Mr. Ebner declined, and the training officer informed him that it would be necessary to discontinue training. This was done, effective March 20, 1954, for the reason that he failed to avail himself properly of the training, rendering it impossible for him to complete the program by the delimiting date. The statement in S. 299 (lines 1, 2, and 3, p. 2) to the effect that Mr. Ebner had not been informed in the matter at the time does not appear to be consistent with the facts. In May 1954, Mr. Ebner requested further training in an objective which could be completed prior to the delimiting date. Revaluation counseling was completed and the objective, junior accountant, was selected as the one most suitable. He reentered training in the Dunaway School of Accounting, Austin, Tex., on June 14, 1954. On August 31, 1954, he requested a change of objective to resume his training at the University of Texas in a course to extend beyond the July 25, 1956, delimiting date. His case was reviewed in the light of the act of August 20, 1954 (68 Stat. 755). That act extended to July 25, 1960, the date for completion of training of any person who the Administrator determines to have been prevented from entering, or completing, training because of one of several enumerated conditions. The review found that none of the conditions was applicable to Mr. Ebner's case. He was notified accordingly. On December 9, 1954, the veteran voluntarily withdrew from vocational training to accept fulltime employment with the Post Office Department. In March 1955, he filed an appeal for further vocational training. In its decision of June 27, 1955, the Board of Veterans Appeals, after reviewing the facts and law, concluded that further vocational training was not warranted. S. 299, if enacted, would render Mr. Ebner eligible to receive additional vocational training from the Veterans' Administration for a period of not more than approximately 28 months, provided he enters such training within 1 year after enactment. That was the maximum training period available to him in March 1954. The records show that the Veterans' Administration training officer and other officials made every effort, within the limitation prescribed by law, to assist Mr. Ebner in achieving his occupational goal and becoming rehabilitated. However, because of the late date on which he made himself available for training and his failure to cooperate with the training officer and other employees of this agency, and to devote full time to his college course, he failed to complete his vocational rehabilitation. The circumstances of this case have been carefully considered and no reason is apparent why it should be singled out for special legislative treatment to the exclusion of other cases which must be denied where similar circumstances exist. To do so would be discriminatory and precedential. The Veterans' Administration does not believe that private bills of this nature should receive favorable consideration. Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Deputy Administrator (For and in the absence of (Sumner G. Whittier, Administrator). [S. 2201, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend section 601 of title 38, United States Code, with respect to the definition of the term "Veterans' Administration facilities" 66 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 601(4) (C) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out "or (iii)" and inserting in lieu thereof ‘(iii)”, and by adding immediately before the period at the end thereof the following: "; or (iv) for veterans of any war in a State (not including a Territory, Commonwealth, or possession) if not hospital under the direct and exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrator is located in such State on the effective date of this Act, and if no such hospital is located within five hundred miles of the border of such State." Hon. LISTER HILL, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., August 17, 1959. Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of June 20, 1959, inviting the Bureau of the Budget to comment on S. 2201, a bill to amend section 601 of title 38, United States Code, with respect to the definition of the term "Veterans' Administration facilities." The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, in the report being made to your committee on this bill, is recommending against its enactment for the reasons set out therein. This office concurs with the views contained in the report of the Veterans' Administrator and recommends that this measure not be enacted. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., August 13, 1959. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR HILL: The following comments are furnished by the Veterans' Administration on S. 2201, 86th Congress : The bill proposes to amend the definition of the term "Veterans' Administration facilities" contained in 38 U.S.C. 601 (4) (C) to include private contract facilities for veterans of any war in a State if (1) no Veterans' Administration hospital is located in the State on the effective date of the act, and (2) no Veterans' Administration hospital is located within 500 miles of the border of the State. This would permit the use of private contract hospitals for the care of war veterans with non-service-connected disabilities in the State of Alaska. With the advent of statehood for Hawaii before enactment of the bill, private hospitals there could also be used for hospitalization of veterans with non-service-connected disabilities. The statutory term "Veterans' Administration facilities" now includes private contract facilities to provide hospital care "for veterans of any war in a territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States." This is an exception to the general provision that hospital care for non-service-connected disorders can only be provided to the extent beds are available in VA or other Federal hospitals. With the admission of Alaska to statehood, the Veterans' Administration was deprived of its general authority to provide contract hospital care there for veterans suffering from non-service-connected disabilities. This will also be true of Hawaii. It has long been Government policy to provide hospital care for our war veterans for conditions not related to their service only to the extent of available Government facilities. It has not been the policy to attempt to care for all such cases. To do so would require a great expansion of Veterans' Administration hospital bed capacity. Consistent with the traditional policy, the President has recently established an Executive limitation of 125,000 beds on the overall authorized bed capacity of VA hospitals. Historically, the exception to permit hospital care in private facilities for war veterans with non-service-connected conditions in a territory or possession was based upon special considerations. These apparently included the factors of great distances from the mainland, difficulty in transferring patients to the States, and the relatively small volume of patient demands in the territories and possessions. The practical situation at this time does not, however, present as serious problems as might be assumed to exist. It is true that there is no VA hospital in either Alaska or Hawaii. But arrangements have been made in both to care for war veterans with non-serviceconnected disabilities in other Government hospitals. In Alaska we have beds allocated for VA beneficiaries in hospitals of the Department of Defense and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In Hawaii additional beds will be allocated for our use by the Defense Department in Tripler General Hospital. We anticipate that the needs in both Alaska and Hawaii can be satisfied to a reasonable and proper extent by the use of these Government facilities. In other States, a substantial share of the responsibility for hospitalizing veterans for conditions not arising from service is borne by the States themselves. It seems reasonable to expect that this should also be true of these two new States. Use of private contract facilities in Alaska and Hawaii, as States, for providing hospital care to veterans with conditions not growing out of their service might well become a precedent for authorizing the use of contract facilities in other States. During fiscal year 1958, inpatient care for an average daily veteran patient load of 38 was provided in the territory of Alaska. The major portion of this care was furnished through allocated beds in two Air Force base hospitals. As stated, arrangements have been made for using additional beds in hospitals under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to offset the loss of authority to handle non-service-connected cases through private contract hospitals. It may be of interest that, in addition to those who were being cared for in Alaska, an estimated average daily patient load of 85 veteran residents of Alaska were hospitalized in fiscal year 1958 at various places in the 48 States as VA beneficiaries. These were mostly long-term tuberculous and psychotic cases. The number of service-connected veteran patients hospitalized in Alaska ranged from one to four during fiscal year 1958. Veteran applicants needing care for service-connected conditions in both Alaska and Hawaii will, of course, continue to receive that care in private contract hospitals wherever necessary. The basic law applicable throughout the United States permits this, when the use of Federal facilities is not feasible, so that our primary responsibility to the veteran with service-connected disability will be fully met. The situation in Hawaii is similar to that in Alaska. It is planned for the Department of Defense to provide some 155 beds for use during fiscal year 1960, as compared to 100 beds which were allocated to VA in Tripler General Hospital for fiscal 1959. Some veterans suffering from long-term non-service-connected neuropsychiatric disabilities will become a responsibility of the new State of Hawaii. We think it quite probable that the bed arrangements which are already being made will meet the reasonable obligations of the Government in both Alaska 55227-60-2 |