I do not think there is any question judging from the results of these reexaminations that it is an indication that the policy in connection with these reviews is to result in a lowering or an elimination of the clam or of the rating. Now, my bill would provide that where a veteran has been so rated for service-connected disability and has been receiving compensation for 10 years or more he can no longer be subject to this type of review. Of course it would be possible in cases of fraud or some other similar situation to do it, but on the basis of the normal rating procedure the veteran would not be subject to review.

Now if these claims had been dormant ever since they were first established and never had been checked up until the last year or two, there might be some merit to the idea of having to review them all, but most of them that I have known anything about have been regularly reviewed in the past and usually there was great trouble whenever the veteran had to appeal it. In the area in which I live, recent reviews have been made purely by reference to the file without any check at all of the actual condition of the veteran other than what shows in the file. When the veteran attempts to appeal it to show something in his favor, it involves a great deal of trouble and expense to him, and especially in the area in which I live where almost everyone is several miles or a hundred miles or more away from the nearest hospital and it involves losing time from work as well as a great deal of trouble and expense.

The cutback involved is something that is entirely too difficult for the average veteran to make an adjustment to. The compensation which he has received for some injury, usually from World War II service, is something that he has grown accustomed to as a part of his income, as a part of his readjustment to his life. There are very few specific conditions which would change the necessity for this type of compensation. It would be very, very rare.

I think what is actually involved here would be a greater use of personnel and a greater expense on the part of the Veterans' Administration and it would be such that although they might make some savings in the amount of actual compensation claims that they paid I believe the added personnel that would be needed by the Veterans' Administration would build up a cost to the Government that, in the long run, will be more than what these claims would cost. Í think there would be a necessity for a much larger personnel in the handling of these claims and to make these checks and that the Congress ought to pay some attention to the increased costs involved there rather than to the costs of these compensation claims.

They make the point that a lot of these compensation claims were granted in the period immediately after the war when records were not too good, when people are not too careful, perhaps not stringent enough on passing on these claims; but I think that that very point makes it important, provides a very important reason why most of these claims should not be reexamined-because the information that the veteran has to sustain his claim is, in most cases, gone or impossible to develop.

I am familiar with some of these circumstances because I have kept in fairly close touch with some of the members of my unit that I served with through the entire World War II. I know that with respect to a couple of the calims involved that the Italian surgeon

attached to our unit, who is still alive and still very much interested in giving his personal assistance in cases of this kind, cannot completely remember the details concerning all of the cases. He cannot honestly give a complete report in every case involved. Also, the records that are available are, by no means, complete. Anybody who is familiar with the situation knows that you cannot fight a war and at the same time maintain complete medical records. Our purpose in combat was not to maintain these records. If this procedure is allowed to be carried through, I think that it will provide a great disservice to the veterans of World War II. Possibly, it may have a similar effect in the future on Korean veterans, but I know specifically the situation and most of the injustices that have been called to my attention involve the World War II claims that have been reviewed.

I hope that the committee will give serious consideration to this problem and I hope that they will accept, perhaps as the best way to bring about a just decision in this field, to arbitrarily cut off these reviews, as I propose to do in the legislation that I have submitted.

It is, I think, the only way we can protect the veterans who have had an established claim for service-connected disability from being subjected to these arbitrary actions which I believe are not in keeping with our idea of trying to provide some assistance and compensation for the difficulties and disabilities that they suffered in service to our country in these cases.

I want to stress my very strong personal interest in the committee taking some action along this line.

Mr. DORN. Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. I think the gentleman could not be more right and this committee will certainly support your proposal.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mrs. Rogers.

Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to file as part of my testimony some letters I reecived in regard to cases like this.

Mr. DORN. Your letters will be incorporated and also at this point we will incorporate your statement.

(The material referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE FRANK E. SMITH OF MISSISSIPPI, ON H. R. 9726

I am glad your committee has called these hearings to consider pending legislation covering veterans' benefits, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear in behalf of my bill, H. R. 9726. This bill, as its title indicates, would make it unlawful for the eVterans' Administration to discontinue a rating of service connection when the veteran has been so rated and receiving compensation for 10 years or more.

I introduced this bill because a great many cases of obvious and serious injustice had been brought to my attention. These cases resulted from the "review" the Veterans' Administration has been making for the past couple of years of all approved service-connected claims of veterans under 55 years of age. The Veterans' Administration maintains that these actions are taken only where a clear and unmistakable error was made in the original rating of the claim, and they attempt to justify the review process by saying that during and immediately after World War II, understaffed and anxious to help the veteran whenever possible, they frequently granted service connection without properly checking records and in many instances approved service connection when it was not warranted.

That might be a reasonable argument if the cases involved in this review had lain dormant in the files of the VA since the initial rating action was accomplished. But that is not what has happened. Almost without exception, every one of these cases and claims has been routinely reviewed anywhere from 3 to 5

times under past procedures and rating action taken to confirm and continue service connection. Under the rotation policy of the VA with respect to rating boards, probably anywhere from 9 to 15 different rating officers had reviewed these cases before the current review began.

I sincerely believe that any veteran whose claim has been rated service connected since it was originally approved has a right to expect that rating to continue, and that he should not be subject to unending review and an everpresent possibility that some new rating board, prodded by Executive attempts at economy, will decide that the previous rating boards were mistaken and discontinue his service connection. The disabled veteran drawing compensation for his disability necessarily must have some confidence in the Government's faith in its dealings with him.

A review procedure of this kind is bad enough in itself, but the entirely negative position in which the VA puts the veteran who opposes the severance of service connection is intolerable. The decision is made on the basis of review of the file alone, in most cases. The veteran knows nothing about it until he receives notice from the VA that service connection will be discontinued and that he has 60 days in which to submit evidence to rebut the VA's decision that he should not have been assigned service connection in the first place.

Most of these cases arose from World War II service. In many cases the service files themselves are not complete. Anyone who has served overseas or in combat in wartime knows that a lot of medical problems developed that were not treated and that a vast number of cases were treated but never recorded. You can't keep detailed medical records and fight a war at the same time. In addition to that, selective service examination records are rarely included in the service file, and the records of the Selective Service System insofar as induction examination for World War II are concerned have been destroyed.

The Veterans' Administration, though it says it accepts lay statements from fellow servicemen, commanding officers, private physicians, and so on, has never in fact given the first ounce of weight to such statements in making its decisions.

And even if the VA did consider lay statements, the average veteran is now unable to obtain them. World War II has been over for 12 years, and many of these cases go back as far as 1942. Former comrades are scattered to the four winds; their present addresses are unknown, and the military services are both unwilling and unable to try to help veterans locate them. Many of them are now dead, and in many cases the family physicians who knew the physical conditions of veterans prior to their induction are also dead, though it has been my experience that the Veterans' Administration pays little or no attention to medical statements from any doctor unless he is an employee of the VA or on active duty with one of the military services.

Thus, almost without exception, the veteran is manifestly unable to secure what the VA terms "evidence" to show that his disability was incurred in or aggravated by active duty. And even if he does try to submit evidence, the Veterans' Administration refuses to accord it any weight.

I do not doubt that there are cases rated as service-connected in which error was made, but if the Veterans' Administration is trying to save money by this review to take them off the compensation rolls, I think they have defeated their purpose. They have already spent far more money in staff time alone on this review, to the gross injustice of hundreds of deserving veterans and their dependents, than they can possibly hope to save by the discontinuance of serviceconnected compensation.

It has always been the position of the Congress, and it is supposed to be the position of the Veterans' Administration, that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the veteran. Because there is no avenue of appeal from the actions of the Veterans' Administration in these cases, that agency apparently now feels that it may adopt any policy it wishes.

I believe this situation should be corrected. H. R. 9726 is designed to correct it, and in a reasonable manner. It would forbid the Veterans' Administration to discontinue service connection in any case where the veteran has been rated service-connected and receiving compensation for 10 years or more, unless the case involves provable fraud. This would protect the veteran whose disability arose long ago, and it would give the VA review authority over recent cases where records presumably are available.

H. R. 9726 would also make it possible for a veteran whose service connection was severed before enactment of the bill, and who meets the criteria set forth in the bill, to have his service connection reinstated upon his application that

it be done. The bill places the burden of making the application upon the veteran. These same provisions would apply to dependents of the veterans.

I understand that illustrative cases have already been submitted to the committee from other sources, so I will not offer detailed examples here. I would like to say, however, that the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the State Veterans Affairs Commission of Mississippi, have all been in touch with me about this situation and all of them have many of these cases before them.

I hope your committee will be able to take early action on this bill, so that our disabled veterans will be able to look to the future with some measure of confidence in the integrity of their Government and without fear of capricious action by the Veterans' Administration.

EXTENSION OF STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE FRANK E. SMITH UNDER PERMIS-
SION GRANTED MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1958

DEPARTMENT OF MISSISSIPPI, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,
Jackson, Miss., June 12, 1958.

Hon. FRANK E. SMITH,
United States House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: During the past week the Disabled American Veterans have been in session in their State convention. During that convention we adopted a resolution which is attached to this letter and is selfexplanatory.

Our State convention is greatly alarmed at the present review of cases being conducted by the Veterans' Administration. We feel that the VA has been acting contrary to law and that the only effective means of combating the present thinking within the VA is through the enactment of your bill, H. R. 9726. We urge that you do everything within your power to seek the passage of H. R. 9726 so that it will become law.

The Disabled American Veterans on the national level have presented many, many cases to Congressman Olin Teague and his committee, proving what we feel is a great injustice to our veteran population and in particular our disabled veterans. We could cite to you some of the cases of the veterans in Mississippi who have been taken off the VA compensation rolls after 14 years of recognized disability. We feel that the VA through its regulations has been enacting legislation, and in fact, has been placing in effect laws which are comparable to ex post facto laws.

We in Mississippi have been leading the fight throughout our national DAV for some action to curtail the VA in their present review. We may be selfish from a local point of view; however, we need not tell you that to most of our farm boys $19 a month is a lot of money, and we intend to carry our fight all the way for the enactment of this legislation.

May we suggest that if you desire detailed information on cases and other facts behind this VA review situation, you contact our national director of claims, Mr. Cicero F. Hogan, 1701 18th Street NW., Washington, D. C. We know that they will help in every way possible to present to you and the committee all the facts at their command. We are grateful to you for the introduction of this bill, and we feel that the enactment of H. R. 9726 would be a great thing for our veterans in Mississippi. We know that you will do everything in your power to seek the passage of this bill, and if we may be of further help to you, please drop us a line.

The undersigned has been instructed by our State convention to advise you that by unanimous consent our convention wishes to commend you for the wonderful work you are doing, and in particular, for the introduction of H. R. 9726.

We remain,

Respectfully yours,

GEORGE MCKECHNIE, State Commander. By FRANK L. CALDERALA, State Adjutant.

RESOLUTION No. 8

Whereas Congressman Frank E. Smith has demonstrated his deep and abiding interest in the welfare of disabled veterans through the introduction of House Resolution 9726 in the present session of the 85th Congress; and

Whereas the effect of House Resolution 9726, if enacted, would protect those veterans with disabilities due to war service and whose disabilities have been properly rated by the Veterans' Administration under laws adopted by the Congress of the United States from the severance and discontinuance of service connection after 10 years; and

Whereas the Mississippi Department of the Disabled American Veterans has viewed with alarm and anxiety the action of the Veterans' Administration in the past few years in severing and discontinuing service connection under relentless and continuing so-called review; and

Whereas this ruthless policy has resulted in want and distress in the homes of hundreds of veterans: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Mississippi Department of the Disabled American Veterans assembled in Grenada, Miss., for its 28th annual convention, That the Honorable Frank E. Smith be extended our most sincere thanks and appreciation for his efforts to stay the hands of those who would take away the rights and privileges of those men and women who suffered in times of war and who continue to suffer, that our Nation might enjoy the blessings of liberty today; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be immediately transmitted to the Honorable Frank E. Smith.

This 7th day of June 1958, at Grenada, Miss.
Adopted this 7th day of June 1958.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: I wish to give my unqualified approval to H. R. 9726, introduced by you in the present session of the 85th Congress.

There has been in progress during the past few years a so-called review by the Veterans' Administation of all approved claims of veterans under the age of 55 years. The stated intent of this review has been to correct erroneous ratings made by the VA.

The result of this review has been the discontinuance and severance of the assignment of service connection in a great number of cases. The reason for such action is that, allegedly, a clear and unmistakable error was made in the original rating of the claim. Please bear in mind that in each and every one of these cases the rating action granting service connection was made under the provisions of legislation enacted by the Congress of the United States. As you know, there has not been any change in such legislation since the rating of the vast majority of these cases.

Apparently, the Veterans' Administration, under a terrific pressure from some unknown source, is attempting to purge its rolls of a definite percentage of compensation cases. The method being used is this nationwide continuous review. I use the expression "continuous" advisedly. Under the machinery set up by the Veterans' Administration when a case is reviewed under these instructions, the rating sheet is stamped with a rubber stamp stating that the review has been accomplished. This, to a layman, would indicate that final and definite action has been taken and that, in the absence of future legislation, service connection would remain undisturbed from then on. Such an assumption is incorrect. We have seen cases which have been previously reviewed under these instructions made subject to a rereview, and service connection severed. In other words there is absolutely no protection at the present time and under the present procedures of the VA for any veteran.

These are not cases which have lain dormant in the files of the VA since initial rating action has been accomplished. Without exception, every such case and claim has been routinely reviewed anywhere from 3 to 5 times under past procedures, and rating action taken to confirm and continue service connection. These continuances have not been made by the same board of 3 men, but, under the rotation policy of the VA with respect to rating boards, by the law of averages at least 9 or 15 different authorities have reviewed these cases.