is also 1 year, and my bill seeks to extend the presumptive period to 3 years. However, there is another provision under the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 which provides that if the disease of psychosis is diagnosed 2 years from the date of discharge this shall provide for priority in the admission to a Veterans' Administration hospital for care and treatment. No compensation is provided by this second provision, and my bill, of course, would provide both admission priority and also full compensation.

Great strides have been made in treatment of the diseases of the mind in recent years, but most psychiatrists will acknowledge that we have much ground yet to cover. Who can say with certainty that a man who has undergone combat or a man who has been removed from a restrictive environment and placed in the somewhat rigorous life of one of the branches of the Armed Forces, and who later cracks up did not have the seeds of crackup planted during the period of service? Here again, I think we should be generous in protecting the veteran and his family. We come to another practical consideration here. People who are suffering from this disease must be treated and taken care of whether they are veterans or nonveterans. In most instances the expense must be borne by the Government-Federal, State, or local. If a man is a veteran I think he should be cared for in a veterans' hospital.

I hope that the committee will see fit to report liberalizing legislation along the lines provided for in my bill.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I am not exactly sure of the position of the Veterans' Administration. The last paragraph of a report from the Surgeon General reads as follows:

If you will indicate the general disease areas which your committee is interested in in reconsidering the present provisions for statutory presumptions of service connection, we will be glad to make available to you the technical advice of Public Health Service experts in those fields. We do not however believe that we are in a position to comment on the desirability of the particular proposals.

Mr. TEAGUE (California). Which report is that?

Mr. ASPINALL. Committee print 202 from the Surgeon General. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DORN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Teague?

Mr. TEAGUE. No. But just let me say that we have been glad to have had you and I think it is a good bill and certainly deserves the consideration and support of the subcommittee. Thank you so much for coming over.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

Mr. DORN. We thank you.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION

Mr. DORN. I would like to state Mr. Thompson is acting executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association of the United States. Mr. Thompson, we are glad to have you and you may proceed and say anything you have on your mind.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words to the committee this morning with reference to two bills which have been introduced and are presently before the committee. The first is H. R. 10461.

Section 315 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 deals with disability compensation which is paid to veterans who have or who have incurred disabilities in the Armed Forces when those disabilities are considered to be service connected.

Subsection (m) of section 315 respecting blindness currently reads:

or has suffered blindness in both eyes, rendering him so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance ***.

H. R. 10461, as you know, would amend subsection (m) by inserting immediately before

*** or has suffered blindness in both eyes having only light perception

We feel that this amendment is desirable and necessary in order to correct certain inequities which have developed because of the varying definitions given to the phrase:

so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance * *

Under subsection (1) of section 315, a blinded veteran is entitled to receive disability compensation if he has

suffered blindness in both eyes, with 5/200 visual acuity or less * * *. Also, under subsection (n), a blinded veteran may be entitled to receive a statutory award if he

*** has suffered the anatomical loss of both eyes * *

In both instances, subsections (1) and (n), this determination is made upon the determination of physical findings. Under subsection (m), respecting the condition of blindness as cited above, an intensive subjective entity has been brought into the picture. The Veterans' Administration has interpreted this to mean that in order for a totally blinded veteran to receive disability compensation under subsection (m), it must be shown that he is "helpless." The Veterans' Administration rating boards and local regional offices are charged with making these determinations and they are made in these rating boards on each individual case, but there is no uniformity of decision. Some rating boards have denied a totally blinded veteran disability compensation under subsection (m), because, in their opinion, he was not helpless, whereas in other rating boards veterans with similar eye conditions have been granted the award.

We feel that this is a basic denial of the excellent rehabilitation policies that have been espoused by our Government and effectively implemented by the Veterans' Administration.

We believe that it is unfair to deprive a blinded veteran, a totally blinded veteran, of disability compensation because he has, through the process of rehabilitation, demonstrated his independence.

In short, the Blinded Veterans Association believes that a veteran who is totally blind, having only light perception, should be entitled to receive his disability compensation based upon specific physical findings, and not upon a subjective determination, in the same way that veterans with a small residual vision, 5/200, or less, and veterans with the anatomical loss of both eyes receive their awards, based upon specific physical findings.

We respectfully urge favorable consideration of this piece of legislation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, is it proper for me to comment upon the other bill I have in mind or shall I wait until a later time?

Mr. DORN. Yes, Mr. Thompson. We will be glad if you do.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much.

H. R. 10462. The beneficiaries of this legislation would be the survivors of veterans who fall into the so-called severely disabled category. Subsections (m), (o), and (t) of section 315 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957, which are, of course, referred to in this 10462, these subsections involve veterans who have suffered blindness in both eyes or the double loss of, or loss of use of, extremities, or combination of these disabilities.

The Blinded Veterans Association believes that the survivors of these veterans should be entitled to receive dependency and indemnity compensation without regard to whether or not the veteran's death was service connected.

This group of veterans find it is extremely difficult to prepare for the future of their families and provide for certain eventualities, using the normal insurance channels. Insurance coverage for these men is either prohibitedly expensive or not available at all in the normal way.

Likewise, in this group, you will find the highest proportion of veterans, who despite rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation, and job placement assistance, have found it very difficult or impossible to get gainful employment.

These men, through the statutory awards, disability compensation, with careful planning, find it possible to order their lives with a certain measure of independence and without the degradation of severe financial privation. They are not, however, for the most part, in a position to put into practice the saving and the laying aside of funds, which is so important to their families.

Although, in many cases, the deaths of these men cannot be traced directly to their service-incurred disabilities, it is probable that in many instances the severe nature of these disabilities has, generally speaking, shortened their lives.

Who can say that men who are living out their lives carrying on day-to-day activities under the handicaps of blindness or of bilateral amputation, are not subject to stresses and strains which will eventually take their toll? Many veterans, or the survivors of many veterans who are currently receiving or entitled to receive disability compensation on the death of the veteran, may be entitled to receive a death pension from the Veterans' Administration under the appropriate circumstances. That pension amounts to $50 approximately a month for unremarried widows, $60 for a widow and 1 child, and $7.50 for each additional child.

Considering the rather unique situation of the group of men about which I am talking, this is not a large sum upon which to plan for the future. We are dealing here with a group of individuals who have been, and are being, deprived of the opportunity to provide adequately for their families across the board due to their service-connected disabilities. The Blinded Veterans Association feels that this is an area of responsibility which has so far been overlooked and we offer H. R. 10462 as a means of correcting that oversight and urge your favorable consideration of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

27111-58- 3

Mr. DORN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Teague.

Mr. TEAGUE. I would like to compliment Dr. Thompson on a very fine presentation and certainly this committee will give it its support and most careful consideration.

Mr. DORN. Thank you Doctor, very much for your fine statement on both bills.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE HOLT, A UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. DORN. We next have Joe Holt from California. Mr. Teague. Mr. TEAGUE. I am happy to welcome our distinguished colleague, Joe Holt of California. Mr. Holt, as we all know, had a very great deal of combat service with the Marines. He has always shown a sincere interest in the problems of veterans, particularly those perhaps that went through such combat experience as he did and he certainly is an authority on this subject. I know that you join with me, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming him to this committee to give us his recommendations and viewpoints.

Mr. DORN. I certainly do. We are delighted to have you and you may proceed in any manner you choose. We like to have people who know something about these things to give us their views.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, my good colleague from California and friend, Charley Teague, for those kind words.

I am here to testify to a bill that I introduced, H. R. 3630.

I introduced this legislation because a large number of the veterans involved lived in the congressional district I represent. Because there is a special paraplegic hospital built there, known as the Birmingham Hospital, a lot of those fellows after World War II went out and settled and built special homes for wheelchairers near there and they encountered some difficulties when the hospital closed for economy reasons and they had to be transported, they had to go about 30 or 40 miles to another hospital. I have lived with these fellows and I know their problems. I think probably more of them percentagewise live in our area than in any other area, which is because of weather and other factors. The Paralyzed Veterans Association asked me to introduce this legislation, which I did last March, and it provides, as the report says, Report No. 207, that this bill provides aid and attendance allowance of $200 a month for triple and quadruple amputees, among others, during periods in which they are not hospitalized at Government expense.

In other words, when they are not in a hospital it would give them $200 a month to provide for someone taking care of them in their homes, which I would like to see occur, because it is not very pleasant. These fellows have a difficult time as it is. Some of them have a limited life span and whenever possible I would like to see to it that they can stay at home. A lot of them have not been married and their families have trouble taking care of them and they like to be independent and alone. They live a life all their own. Their hours are different and everything else. So, if at all possible, I would like to see legislation enacted to allow them to be taken care of at home when they are not being hospitalized.

I was just informed, and I have heard it before, that it costs about $25 a day to hospitalize one of these fellows, so the Government, in the long run, would be saving money, in my opinion.

I notice that the report points out that my legislation would take care of other people, in their opinion, those that have other disabilities, such as spinal cord injuries, and so on, and they also state, "It must also be recognized that certain veterans who do not presently have service-connected loss or loss of use of 3 or 4 extremities will sooner or later manifest such loss or loss of use in the usual course of progress of their respective disabilities."

In my opinion, it would not be proper for me to comment on that or as to exactly what form the final legislation would be written. That would be entirely up to the wisdom of the Veterans' Affairs Committee which has had so much experience in this field and in coordinating it with other programs, but I would like to present that matter to you and leave it to your discretion as to exactly what should be done.

That is all I have to say.

Mr. DORN. Do you have any questions?

Mrs. ROGERS. No, but I do want to comment to the extent that I wish to say it is a very meritorious statement and deserves our support.

Mr. HOLT. I thank you very much.

Mr. DORN. We will certainly give it every consideration and we appreciate your coming.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. SMITH, A UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. DORN. We have another distinguished colleague of ours with us. this morning, a combat veteran of Europe, and I know that the committee is very anxious to have his testimony, the very distinguished and very able Member of Congress, Mr. Smith, of Mississippi. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This morning I want to testify on behalf of a bill which I introduced, H. R. 9726.

I have a prepared statement which I will give out copies of in order to save time and I will not try to read the whole statement, but I would like to briefly outline the purpose of this baill which I believe has a great deal of merit and I hope that the committee will give servious consideration to doing something about this situation.

As I am sure you know, for the past year or two, the Veterans' Administration has been engaged in a detailed review of all serviceconnected disability claims.

Mrs. ROGERS. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. DORN. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. I think this is one of the most outrageous and cruelest things I have ever known where we have these instances of a man who has been separated and then having to get a lower rating schedule than the one he had originally. I think it is an outrageous thing and is horribly cruel. Under the guise of trying to help people, they deliberately hurt them.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mrs. Rogers. I agree very thoroughly with your statement.