how the situation is then. I do not think I can name a particular date because I understand some of these cases continue for many years. However, next June 30 it may be determined that it should be closed at that point.

I would like to make very clear our own feeling, though, on this whole question, which is that what is needed is an over-all policy on the question of devices such as these.

Mr. Bolté himself initially argued against certain provisions of the original bill because he felt that it might take money away from the development of prosthetic devices, of making better arms and legs. He felt that if a bill like this became law, although he realized it would be needed for rehabilitation, he was afraid it was going to take funds away from a program, of a really adequate program of research in prosthetic devices.

I wish that somehow the committee could get over to the appropriations people for something like that, for an adequate program on the whole question of the development of prosthetic devices. We have considerable interest in that program.

Likewise, I would like to point out that although this is a partial rehabilitation move that the total rehabilitation is going to have to be in terms of jobs for everyone and general security for these people and this is only one small step and should not in any way be used as a substitute for a broad over-all program.

For that reason, we feel we should not lose sight of the total program even though these are specific small items in connection with that.

I would, in passing, like to comment that in the case of the automobiles which are manually operated there is evidently a considerable additional expense of perhaps $100 or $200 where it is impossible to use the lower part of your body, that I think perhaps the committee could well take into consideration, some adjustment where the automobile is completely hand-operated.

I think other than that, sir, that I have covered most of the bills that were submitted in the letter and I have nothing further to say at this point.

Senator MORSE. Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. ROBERT R. POSTON (legislative representative, American Legion). Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me to introduce Charles W. Stevens, assistant national rehabilitation director, the American Legion, who will be our witness on all these bills before you.

Colonel Taylor expresses his regrets at not being here personally to introduce the gentleman.

Senator MORSE. If Colonel Taylor wants to, at a later time, file a written memorandum with the committee over and above the testimony of the witness, we will be glad to receive it.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. STEVENS, ASSISTANT NATIONAL REHABILITATION DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, approval on August 8, 1946, of Public Law 663, Seventy-ninth Congress, established a liberal policy on furnishing automobiles and other con

veyances to disabled veterans of World War II entitled, under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, to compensation for the loss, or loss of use, of one or both legs at or above the ankle. Establishment of this policy by the Congress immediately caused concern that there be an equalization of status of veterans of World Wars I and II and of those suffering impairment of upper, as well as lower, extremities. This is evidenced by the bills before this committee.

My appearance before this committee is for the purpose of stating the position of the American Legion as pertains to the pertinent bills under consideration.

It has been difficult to understand why those who suffer the loss, or loss of use, of an arm or hand were not included. Although the American Legion had no resolution or instructions for or against the provisions of the present law, many of us were called upon by numerous veterans to explain the reason for this apparent discrimination. National Rehabilitation Director T. O. Kraabel, whom I represent today, had an opportunity to consult with a group of arm amputees just as this law was being enacted, and he recalls vividly their reaction. Why, they were not bitter, but they were perplexed and uncertain as to just what would be the basis for providing cars for leg amputees and not for them. It was recognized, however, that with the one group covered by the law the element of locomotion and transportation was the main consideration.

In the use of mass transportation systems, those individuals with disabilities of the upper extremities experience difficulties similar to those with disabilities of the lower extremities. Both attain a selfconfidence and a sense of freedom from handicap in the operation of their own vehicles.

The application of the provisions of this law to the cases of those entitled quite naturally generated a feeling on the part of World War I veterans who were similarly handicapped that the law should be equalized to include them. This thought found expression in one of the departments of the American Legion, was considered, approved, and referred to our national convention at San Francisco, September 30-October 4, 1946. There again the matter was gone over by the convention committee on rehabilitation, was recommended for approval, and passed by that convention. This is resolution No. 637. This resolution establishes the position of the American Legion on this matter. It states that the American Legion favors the placing of a veteran of World War I who lost his limb or limbs in the service of his country on equal status with the veteran of World War II, insofar as it pertains to the donation or gift from our Government of an automobile.

The American Legion mandate seeks provision, through legislation, of an automobile for each veteran of World War I who is entitled, under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, to compensation for the anatomical loss or loss of use of one foot or one hand, or of both feet or both hands, or of one foot and one hand.

This goes beyond the present law. Included would be veterans with loss, or loss of use, of a foot below the ankle. Presently such veterans are entitled to the additional compensation allowance for such loss but are not among those for whom an automobile is provided. The American Legion thinks they should be.

It will be observed also that the American Legion asks extension of the law to include the upper-extremity loss cases. The resolution pertains solely to provision of automobiles for World War I veterans, as stated. However, it was understood that legislation was contemplated to amend Public Law 663 so as to include the World War II veterans with loss or use of one or both hands. Bills before you ask this.

In any event the American Legion resolution asks for equalization of status of World War I and World War II veterans as to the provision of automobiles. Speaking for the American Legion, I respectfully urge this committee's favorable consideration of equalizing this benefit for the two groups of veterans.

Mr. Chairman, the American Legion has before this committee or before the Senate no bill introduced on behalf of the organization. Mr. Hartley, of New Jersey, introduced in the House H. R. 2990, covering the American Legion's mandate and it provides solely for the World War I veteran cases. We are naturally interested, too, in the World War II veteran but did understand that before the Congress there were the bills that benefit those veterans as well.

Our convention wanted to attempt equalization of benefits for veterans disabled as a result of the two World Wars.

Now, one of the things that I think should be mentioned particularly is the varied cost of an automobile to veterans residing in different localities.

Senator MORSE. May I interrupt to say, or to ask this question, Mr. Stevens?

Do you not think the Hartley bill should be introduced on the Senate side so we could have a companion bill in the Senate to consider along with this legislation?

Mr. STEVENS. It would appear to be advisable; yes. I only represent the rehabilitation division and Colonel Taylor will take care of that with the legislative division of the Legion.

The cost varying as it does, there are veterans located in communities or cities, States near the site of production of cars that can get a bettertype automobile with more appliances than can those who reside, for instance, in the deep South or on the coast.

There is a ceiling of $1,600 in the present law, Public Law 663. The American Legion believes that the draft of the bill which will be prepared in the committee here will take this into consideration and also could take into consideration the fact that presently the determination as made by the Veterans' Administration that the Federal tax is included in the cost of the automobile. For instance, on the $1,600 car, the Federal tax may be around 20 percent, or $320. If the tax is forgiven through legislation, then a better automobile could be obtained for the money that is presently provided.

Senator MORSE. Do any of the proposals, any of the bills propose a tax exemption in this case?

Mr. STEVENS. None of which I know; no, sir.

Senator MORSE. I might say, Mr. Stevens, that the committee has already asked the Veterans' Administration to submit to us full data on how many veterans would qualify under the various acts before us: No. 1, blind veterans; No. 2, those that have lost an arm or both arms; and No. 3, certain types of foot amputees below the ankle which

are not now covered by the Isgislation and therefore do not qualify under the act.

We felt that we ought to consider the legislation covering those that will qualify under the act; also those that will not fall in the categories the chairman has just enumerated.

Mr. STEVENS. That will help; that will be helpful information. I feel the committee needs it and the Congress needs it.

There is presently a requirement that the claim for disability compensation be adjudicated before July 1, 1947, because the appropriations act which had made provision for the grant of automobiles holds that the veteran must be entitled to compensation for certain losses and unless that is shown before the July 1, 1947, dead line, the automobile may not be provided, and as was mentioned, there are a great many men still in service who are under treatment who would not be able to obtain an automobile.

There are undoubtedly men who will later lose the extremity or develop a loss of use of extremity from a service-incurred disability and it is believed that the committee will want to consider that group as well.

Senator MORSE. I think it is obvious, if we are going to consider this legislation, the date must be extended.

Mr. STEVENS. That is all I have to say.

Senator MORSE. Any questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Stevens.
Is Eugene Cotton here?

(No response.)

Is there any other witness who wishes to testify?

(No response.)

The Chair is advised that the committee has heard all of the witnesses that desire to be heard on the bills discussed.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Williams is very anxious to have this article in the Blinded Veterans Association Bulletin inserted in the record. At the top it says, "that the blinded veteran may take his rightful place in the community of his fellows and work with them toward the creation of a peaceful world."

Senator MORSE. The article in the journal referred to will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The article referred to is as follows:)

BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION SECURES DEFINITION CHANGE IN ROGERS AUTO BILL-REWRITTEN BILL IS INTRODUCED TO HOUSE

On March 18, BVA officials from national headquarters conferred with Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers, chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and author of H. R. 289, the proposed bill to furnish automobiles to certain groups of handicapped veterans including the blinded veterans. On the afternoon of March 18, the BVA met with Mr. Charles E. Calkins, administrative assistant to Senator Brien McMahon of Connecticut, who has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. John Brady, H. P. Adams and Lloyd Greenwood were received by Congresswoman Rogers in the committee room of the House of Representatives.

During the conference BVA officials pointed out that the BVA suggests a change in the definition of blindness set forth in the bill. In the auto bill, H. R. 289, introduced by Congresswoman Rogers, sums for automobiles are to be granted to those service connected disabled veterans who in the course of such service suffered "permanent blindness of both eyes with a 5/200 visual acuity or less."

BVA representatives stated that the accepted definition of blindness for the administration of similar benefits had been 20/200 or less in the better eye with corrective glasses and with a further definition of constricted field. Mr. Brady said that the BVA believes the definition of 20/200 or less set forth in General Bradley's circular No. 2 is a more appropriate definition for the purposes of the automobile bill. It was pointed out that between 20 and 35 percent of the men now considered as the war-blinded would be ineligible for automobiles if the bill were passed with its present definition.

Later in the interview which lasted over 4 hours, BVA representatives explained that the men with vision up to 20/200 suffer transportation problems which frequently prevent them from keeping good jobs. The Congresswoman agreed that if a bill were passed containing a definition conflicting with the present accepted definition of blindness held by the Veterans' Administration as well as Federal, State and private agencies, confusion might result. After the discussion, Congresswoman Rogers summoned the attorneys who had drafted the original H. R. 289 auto bill and asked that a redraft of the bill containing the BVA's suggested change in definition be submitted to her.

As a result of this meeting, Congresswoman Rogers introduced a new automobile bill, H. R. 2741, in the House of Representatives on March 24. This new bill is identical with H. R. 289, which was printed in full in the March issue of the BVA Bulletin, except for two points.

1. The definition of blindness determining eligibility has been changed from 5/200 visual acuity or less, to the following stated definition: "Permanent impairment of vision of both eyes of the following status: Central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye, with corrective glasses, or central visual acuity of more than 20/200 if there is a field defect in which the peripheral field has contracted to such an extent that the widest diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees in the better eye."

*

2. Instead of providing that the "total purchase price not to exceed $1,700," shall be paid to the seller by the administrator, the new bill provides that "not to exceed $1,900" shall be paid on the purchase price.

The same change in definition was suggested to Mr. Calkins, Senator McMahon's administrative assistant, by BVA representatives on March 18. National headquarters was assured on March 26 that Senator McMahon's automobile bill, S. 555, which was identical with H. R. 289, would be redrawn and the 20/200 definition would be included in the new bill.

It is understood that since both Congresswoman Rogers' and Senator McMahon's bills are intended to accomplish the same purpose, they should be identical to avoid confusion.

The BVA has no way of telling whether or not the auto bill will be passed and become a law. However, the blinded veterans will be notified by the BVA Bulle tin of all further developments concerning this enactment.

For the convenience of the blinded veterans, the new auto bill (H. R. 2741) is printed in full.

[H. R. 2741, 80th Cong., 1st sess.]

In the House of Representatives, March 24, 1947, Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts introduce the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans Affairs:

A BILL To authorize payment by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs on the purchase price of automobiles or other conveyances purchased by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is authorized in the case of any veteran who is entitled to compensation under the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration by reason of disability incurred in or aggravated by active military or naval service due to one or more of the disabling conditions hereinafter specified to pay, not to exceed $1,900, on the purchase price of a suitably equipped automobile or other conveyance which is being purchased by the veteral. Such disabilities are limited to the following:

(a) Loss or permanent loss of use of one or both legs, at or above the ankle: (b) Loss or permanent loss of use of one or both arms, at or above the wrist; (c) Permanent impairment of vision of both eyes of the following status; central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye, with corrective glasses, or