Mr. CHRISTOPHER (acting chairman). Does that conclude your statement?

Mr. CASH. Yes.

Mr. HOGAN. I have just a few comments to make.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER. You may proceed.

Mr. HOGAN. I want to explain to this committee that we appreciate the fact that you have a right to know "why are these resolutions passed in our conventions?" and "Why is there need for new legislation?" I have been in this work, ladies and gentlemen, a long time, about 30 years, and I want to speak specifically upon one of the bills or sections of the bills that we mentioned today and that was the protection that would be given to beneficiaries of a man totally or permanently disabled or even drawing in excess of that amount by statutory awards that were granted to him. I have never, in my 30 years of experience, in this work, witnessed such adverse decisions as those that are coming out of the Veterans' Administration Board of Veterans Appeals. I have presented some of these decisions to Congressmen and Senators who are as amazed as I am over the results. I will not be able to do more than cite a couple of cases.

I have one case before me and the decision is very recent, less than a month or 2 old, where the man was drawing total and permanent benefits from 1925 until 1941, when he was granted an additional amount for aid and attendance having suffered from a condition that was finally diagnosed, after his death, as cerebellar ataxia. He was completely bedridden for the last 15 or 16 years of his life, unable even to care for the needs of nature. His wife was his nurse. She kept him out of hospitals. No one, to this day, questions the service connection, yet the Veterans' Administration said:

Because he died of a heart condition his 100 percent service-connected disabilities did not contribute to his death, so the claims for widow's benefits is denied.

That happens to be one case.

The other case even shocked me more because I do not believe, as Congressman Henderson brought out so forcefully today, that the Veterans' Administration is carrying out the intent of the law or carrying out its own regulations. I do not believe the regulations can be improved upon. But are they observed? Let me cite to you a battle casualty, a man who lost both legs at Bougainville and was drawing at the time of his death $367.50 for a series of disabilities that included anatomical loss of both feet, permitting prosthesis, the result of gunshot wounds; 50 percent anxiety reactions severe; 30 percent thromboplibitis, deep vein, left thigh; 20 percent neuroma, peroneal and tibital nerves, bilat; 10 percent lumbo sacral strain, neuritis, severe; and then he dies before he is 50 years of age and the Board of Appeals says:

It is the determination of the Board that the evidence does not demonstrate that the service-connected conditions of bilateral amputations below knees, anxiety reaction, neuroma, thrombophlebitis, or lumbosacral strain, contributed substantially or materially to the cardiovascular condition causing the veteran's death. It is the decision of the Board that the evidence does not establish the incurrence or aggravation during service of a cardiovascular condition nor was such a condition shown to exist to a degree of 10 percent or more within 1 year following termination of active wartime service. Service connection for the cause of death is not warranted by the evidence.

The appeal is denied.

There is not a Congressman nor a Senator who would have believed that such a decision could be rendered by the Board on that appeal. I approached the chairman of the Veterans' Appeals and I told him, and I mean it, it is in the file because he made a note of it, that such decisions as this will bring more criticism on the Veterans' Administration than all the good they can possibly do.

I do not believe, in spite of medical evidence, that they can say there was no relationship between this man's service connectibility and the fact he died with a heart condition. Any person with the slightest sympathy will say, "Don't tell me that this man's service-connected disability did not shorten his life by at least 20 years in spite of what medical science will say.'

I will not take any more of your time because I know there are others who wish to testify. If this committee wishes to have more examples, I will be only too pleased to send them to you. Never before have we looked to the committee with more apprehension as to what is going on in the Veterans' Administration than is going on now. Thank you. Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Thank you, Mr. Hogan, very much.

Mrs. ROGERS. Will the gentleman tell me why he thinks that this is going on? May I tell why I think it is going on: It is because there are people down there at the Veterans Administration not of the Veterans' Administration, they may have been connected with it at one time, sitting by watching the ratings and it is a regular Gestapo. It is a regular Gestapo. It is the worst thing I have ever seen.

Mr. HOGAN. All I can say is that the Congress of the United States. a very liberal Congress, passed a bill, a very controversial bill known as 881 to protect the beneficiaries of the man who died of his serviceconnected disabilities.

Probably, the defect in the bill is that you were too liberal so the Veterans' Administration apparently has instructions from the higher ups to the effect of "Don't pay these death claims."

I do not know of any other excuse for these decisions such as I just called to your attention.

Mrs. ROGERS. It is an outrageous thing. People ought not to be in the VA, employed there, if they are going to be afraid and we ought to do something about it. Why do we fight for the veterans? We give them these guns and missiles and we are going to help them go up to see the moon, yet when it comes to taking care of their claims and preventing these cuts we do nothing about it. We start another investigation which means still more delay.

I know I am right and you do, too.

Mr. HOGAN. I know you are right and I want to say this, that I am more than pleased to witness the number of Congressmen who came here this morning and manifested their interest in the problems of the veteran, the service-connected veteran and others. That means that this thing is going to be corrected and I know there are men in this committee that have received the reports from the Disabled American Veterans who will correct this thing and that is our only hope. It will have to be corrected by congressional action.

Mrs. ROGERS. The public does not want the veteran to be treated the way he is. It is an outrageous thing and I think it is a regular Gestapo. Mr. HOGAN. I know publicity will correct these things, and, if necessary, the Disabled American Veterans will publicize them. If it is necessary to put them in the papers, we will do that, because the

American public feels just like you feel and just as the other members of this committee feel. This was not the intent of the law. What is wrong with the Veterans' Administration that allows something like this to happen?

Mrs. ROGERS. I think the Veterans' Administration is afraid. They shouldn't be afraid, but I think they are. It does not come from the White House, I am sure of that.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I thank you, gentlemen, very much for your appearance and I assure you you appeared before a sympathetic committee.

STATEMENTS OF FRANCIS W. STOVER, COUNSEL FOR THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS; NORMAN JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE; AND ELMER P. RICHTER, CHIEF OF

CLAIMS

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Our next witnesses are the VFW representatives. Mr. STOVER. My name is Francis W. Stover. I am counsel for the national legislative service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and I have with me Mr. Norman Jones, assistant director of the national rehabilitation service and Mr. Elmer P. Richter, who is chief of claims.

We appreciate the privilege and opportunity to appear here this morning to present the national viewpoint of the Veterans of Foreign Wars with respect to the many legislative proposals under consideration today.

As you know, the legislative objectives of the Veterans of Foreign Wars are controlled almost entirely by the resolutions adopted at our national convention.

Last summer, at Miami Beach, Fla., at our 58th annual convention, seven resolutions were adopted and approved, which are germane to the many bills under consideration here today. If I may, I will just read the digest of these five resolutions.

The first one of these reads as follows:

Where the disability, including aggravation, has been attributed to combat or overseas service in time of war, such service connection having been in effect ten years or longer, it shall not be severed except when the basic rating was based on fraud or on the service records of some other veteran.

Mrs. Rogers' H. R. 405 would carry out this resolution. Another resolution reads,

Psychoses manifested within five years after release from active duty following combat service experience shall be presumed to be service incurred for compensation purposes except when there is clear and unmistakable evidence of an intervening cause.

Now, one of the bills under consideration which will carry this out, is H. R. 4621. Another bill which implements another of our resolutions and was introduced at our request by the chairman, Mr. Dorn, reads as follows:

Disability, the result of unauthorized in-service handling of duds, should be compensable without regard to “line of duty."

This bill is H. R. 3971. Another resolution reads as follows:

In any case wherein the Service Department concerned does not positively certify "not in line of duty" death during service shall be presumed to have been in "line of duty" for compensation purposes.

This bill was introduced by Mr. Christopher at our request, for which we are deeply appreciative. That is H. R. 3822. We have another resolution, Resolution No. 57, which relates to the presumptive bills which are being considered. Very briefly, it reads:

To increase the presumptive periods to establish service connection for the chronic diseases which are listed in Veterans' Administration Regulation 1086. Sixth, the VFW favors increasing the burial allowance to at least $200 and up to $300. Seventh, the VFW believes there should be a right to reelection as between death compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation as proposed in H. R. 10798.

Now, our delegates were silent on many of these bills which are under consideration today. However, on these five categories they feel very strongly, and we urge this subcommittee to report one of the bills in those categories, if it sees fit.

I will now turn the remaining time over to Mr. Jones who will analyze these bills and cite cases which will demonstrate the need for this legislation.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to ask if you have any priority in the passage of these bills?

Mr. STOVER. I will say this, that as far as we are concerned none of our resolutions take precedence over any of the others. The bills that I have cited I believe would very well carry out and implement our resolutions. They were brought to the attention of our convention because of the inequities or oversights or hardships that are caused by the present law and I realize there are many bills which would carry out these resolutions. I have cited the ones I believe would carry them out in the right manner.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I will say that I have no pride of authorship as to this bill and if I can get enough help and can get it out I will appreciate it, and if I cannot I will help anybody else get a similar one out. The thing I am interested in is getting help for the veterans and any bills in that line will get my support whether it is my bill or a similar bill from someone else.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Stover, Mr. Chairman, and Mrs. Rogers. It is a privilege to be here this morning to testify on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I know your time is short and I will move along as rapidly as possible. Many of these bills touch upon medical subjects and I regret it was not possible for our medical consultant, Dr. Robert A. Bell, to be with us this morning. I would be presumptuous to cite medical opinions from my own meager medical knowledge. Therefore if I do refer to medical opinions at any time during my statement, I wish the committee would understand that I am relaying Docter Bell's opinions as he expressed to me after studying these bills, even though I may neglect to say so at the particular time.

Now I would like to discuss these bills by groups.

The first are

the three bills to raise the burial allowance to $250-9671, 9710, and 11801. This is supported by Resolution No. 76 of our organization, although our resolution urges that it be increased to $300. We think even $250 is a paltry sum in view of the cost of a burial service and the attendant cemetery services nowadays.

I need not cite any figures to prove that fact; you can read the ads in the local papers almost every day.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I will say to the gentleman that you could not buy a respectable casket for $250 even if that were the only expense involved.

Mr. JONES. Thank you.

The next group of bills are the two which would freeze the 1945 schedule for rating disabilities-9730 and 11343. About a year ago, as has been stated here this morning, that the Veterans' Administration sent out manuscripts to change the rating schedule. We opposed most of the proposed changes and submitted considerable material to the Veterans' Administration in opposition to them. I think today the Veterans' Administration realizes that most of the material was hurriedly prepared and perhaps not justified and now changes in the system are proposed by individual codes or paragraphs. We think this is a much better procedure. We received the first proposed individual change recently.

Now, although we are quite concerned as to what might be done by way of changing the rating schedule this year or next year, the VFW does not at this time believe that freezing the schedule by law is the answer to the problem. We would rather wait and see perhaps another year. I do not want any misunderstanding to exist. We may be back next year supporting such a bill as strongly as anyone, but as of today we do not believe that is the best answer.

We would like to work with the Veterans' Administration for another period of time in connection with this subject before taking a positive stand. We feel that some of the changes they have proposed have been proposed without much sound basis behind them. We believe that if the Veterans' Administration is going to make any changes they should have adequate studies and material from those studies to justify them. As far as we can determine, there is no written information available to us, nor in the hands of the Veterans' Administration, which justifies or pretends to justify the proposed schedule changes. We think if the Veterans' Administration has such information it should be made available to us; but it has not been made available to date.

Mrs. ROGERS. May I ask you this question: Who is responsible, do you feel, primarily for that rating schedule?

Mr. JONES. Do you mean for the proposed changes?

Mrs. ROGERS. The head of the Board, who is it? I have forgotten his name.

Mr. JONES. Are you speaking of the changes proposed last year? Mrs. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. JONES. I do not think I can speak for the Veterans' Administration as to who took the initiative on those.

I am in agreement with some of the statements made by speakers this morning that perhaps the Bradley Commission report might have had some bearing on it. We should allow a period of time to go by to see what is going to be done and evaluate the import of it before supporting a law to freeze the schedule, which of course could operate both ways, not just one way.

On the various bills to prohibit severance of service connection after 10 years, paragraph 3 of our Resolution No. 2 supports such a proposal if the disability is attributed to overseas or combat duty. We are not objecting to a bill of broader application, but our specific sup

27111-58--7