World War Veterans' Act was passed. The Chairman's assistance and interest aided very materially the progress of what we then regarded and still regard as the most generous and far-reaching piece of legislation, for its time, with regard to disabled soldiers and sailors that the world has ever known.

I hope to proceed with this presentation in a manner which will not try the patience and make too much of an impost on the time of a very busy group of members of the national legislature and I am sure that I can conclude before the time for the convening of the House.

May I proceed now, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Miller. Will you insert in the record at this point your two bills covering the disabled veterans and also the widows and orphans so we will have them before us when we go to read these hearings?

(The bills referred to are as follows:)

[H. R. 7593, 76th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To provide Government protection to widows and children of deceased World War veterans

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the surviving widow, child, or children of any honorably discharged person who entered the service prior to November 12, 1918, or if the persons were serving with the United States military forces in Russia before April 2, 1920, and served ninety days or more during the World War, or who, having served less than ninety days, was discharged for disability in the service in line of duty, dies, or has died from a disease or disability not service connected, shall, upon filing application and such proofs in the Veterans' Administration as the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs may prescribe, be entitled to receive compensation: Provided, That payment of compensation under the provisions of this Act shall not be made to any widow without child, or a child, whose annual income exceeds $1,000, or to a widow with a child or children whose annual income exceeds $2,500. In determining annual income, payments of war risk term insurance, United States Government life (converted) insurance, and payments under the World War Adjusted Compensation Act, as amended (U. S. C., title 38, ch. 11), and the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act, 1936, as amended, shall not be considered.

SEC. 2. (a) The monthly rates of compensation shall be as follows: Widow but no child, $30; widow with one child, $38 (with $4 for each additional child); no widow but one child, $15; no widow but two children, $22 (equally divided); no widow but three children, $30 (equally divided) (with $3 for each additional child; total amount to be equally divided).

(b) The total compensation payable under this section shall not exceed $64. Where such benefits would otherwise exceed $64, the amount of $64 may be apportioned as the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs may prescribe.

SEC. 3. That as used in this Act

(a) The term "person who entered the service" shall mean a person, whether male or female, and whether commissioned, enlisted, or drafted, who was finally accepted for active service in the military or naval forces of the United States, members of training camps authorized by law, and such other persons heretofore recognized by statute or veterans' regulations as being eligible for World War service connection for disability;

(b) The term "widow" shall mean a person who was married prior to the date of enactment of this Act to the person who served: Provided, That all marriages shall be proved as valid marriages according to the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of marriage or the law of the place where the parties resided when the right to compensation accrued; and

(c) The term "child" shall mean a person unmarried and under the age of eighteen years, unless prior to reaching the age of eighteen the child becomes or has become permanently incapable of self-support by reason of mental or physical defect, who is a legitimate child, a child legally adopted, a stepchild

if a member of the man's mousehold, an illegitimate child, but as to the father only, if acknowledged in writing signed by him or if he has been judicially ordered or decreed to contribute to such child's support or has been judicially decreed to be the putative father of such a child: Provided, That the payment of compensation shall be continued after the age of eighteen years and until completion of education or training to any child who is or may hereafter be pursuing a course of instruction, entered into before said child reached his or her twenty-first birthday, at a school, college, academy, seminary, technical institute, or university, particularly designated by him and approved by the Administrator, which shall have agreed to report to the Administrator the termination of attendance of such child, and if any such institution of learning fails to make such report promptly the approval shall be withdrawn.

SEC. 4. That payment shall be effective from the date of enactment of this Act in all cases where application under Public Law Numbered 484, Seventythird Congress, as amended, is on file in the Veterans' Administration prior to the date of enactment of this Act, and in all other cases payment shall be made from the date the application of the widow, child, or children, in the form prescribed by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, is filed in the Veterans' Administration.

SEC. 5. This act may be cited as the "World War Widows' and Dependent Children's Act, 1940".

Mr. MILLER. We have as part of our general program emanating from the Chicago conventions four resolutions relating to the judicial side of the Government contract of insurance. One asks that the present statute of limitations on the filing of suits on war-risk insurance (yearly renewable term) policies be repealed and an extension of 90 days be given from the date of repeal for the presenting of claims and suits. There is no bar against the filing of, and consideration of, claims on these policies by the Veterans' Administration even though no premiums may have been paid since discharge from service. The state of the law on suits is that they must have been filed within 6 years after the right accrued or before July 3, 1931, subject to a tolling of the statute even after this cut-off date for a time equivalent to any period before July 3, 1931, during which the denied claim has been under administrative review by the Government. There is a further allowance of ninety days from the mailing of the notice of the denial by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to the claimant's last address of record. This under the terms of an amendment sought by the Legion and approved by the President on June 29, 1936, as part of Public, No. 844, Seventy-fourth Congress.

Mr. Engel has introduced H. R. 7697, seeking to extend the statute of limitations of the filing of suits.

Another resolution asks that insurance awarded by court decree be continued except upon discontinuing action by a court of competent jurisdiction. This will require legislative consideration, of course. It has been suggested by prior conventions and presented to the Congress by bill and discussion with the insurance subcommittee of the World War Veterans' Committee. Our last bill was H. R. 4793, of the Seventy-sixth Congress, by Mr. Grant of Alabama.

The other resolution suggests that the statute of limitations as to suits on automatic insurance be repealed and the right to sue on this form of insurance be extended at least one year from the date of the repeal act. In event the general statute of limitation be extended, the right to sue under any such extension would go to contests on automatic insurance as well as the so-called contract insurance. Just as an observation, we see few such causes though the courts have affirmed the right to sue on the automatic insurance provision of the law.

Mr. Chairman, I know that these suggestions are controversial and undoubtedly they will be opposed by the Government. But I have thought that there is some justice certainly in the proposition that insurance awards as decreed by the Federal courts should be continued unless reversed by courts of equal jurisdiction. We have a paralled in our Federal statutes now where there is a judgment in favor of the Government against an individual by a court decree and the Government claims a set-off for an alleged indebtedness. The current laws require that the Comptroller General go into the Federal courts and seek a judgment for the Government. Now, we have almost a parallel situation. I think I ought to say in fairness so far as I know, court decrees on insurance payments are not upset administratively in an arbitrary manner. Ordinarily the case where a court judgment is reversed administratively and insurance payments discontinued the Government has found or has thought it has found the veterans in such shape as to be able to make a livelihood. In other words, the theory is that in order to reverse administratively they have to hold that the man has improved in health, mentally or physically, over his condition at the time the Federal court awarded the judgment. I would not come in here saying that these matters are handled by the Veterans' Administration in an arbitrary or capricious manner. But the committee may find some justice and some equity in the proposition that once having forced the man into court to get his insurance they should go into court to take it away from him.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection in just a few words I want to call to your attention an injustice which the committee cannot cure but which another committee can. What they are pleased to refer to as the soldiers' bonus was adjusted compensation and that pay that he earned during the war, and under the law the time of making application has expired. Also, the men who reported that legislation out of the Committee on Ways and Means were not very friendly to it and they hedged it about with the limitation requiring that it should be paid only to a veteran's wife, child, father, or mother. The veteran who had a crippled sister or brother depending on him could not get his pay and if he had to borrow money to pay doctors' bills and so forth in his last illness, it could not even be used for that purpose.

I have introduced a bill to extend that time for filing those claims. to 1950. It ought to be indefinitely. And also to change that provision and make it payable to the same persons in order that they are in the original bill and if none of them are living then to his brothers, sisters, or his other relatives, or to his estate. That measure is pending before the Ways and Means Committee and I trust that the veterans' organizations will get behind it and help to put it over. I do not want to take up your time, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. The Chairman referred, I take it, to instances where a veteran during his lifetime did not apply for his adjusted-service certificate and the dependents in the order named by law were entitled to apply and receive what is called the net adjusted-service value in 10 equal quarterly installments.

The CHAIRMAN. He did not collect it during his lifetime.

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And if he died without leaving a wife, child, father, or mother, while it lapses, although he might have been in debt for his maintenance in his last illness or he may have left brothers or sisters who had always been dependent on him. That was not the intention of the committee or of the House of Representatives. At the time, we intended for it to be adjusted compensation and that it should be paid to the veteran or to members of his family or to his estate. It is part of his estate and I want it treated as such. I will contend for that as long as I am in Congress to get that bill changed.

Mr. MILLER. According to your theory, which has been so well expressed, it is not a gratuity but an adjustment of compensation.

The CHAIRMAN. Why, certainly, they do not get as much as the average fellow going around in one of these cantonments carrying a hammer or a nail or a paint brush and working for 8 hours a day. Mr. MILLER. Yes; they can only get the net adjusted service credit which is quite different from the matured value of the certificate.

Mrs. ROGERS. I agree with the chairman on that matter. I think the American Legion ought to go on record. Is it not in favor of an extension of the time for filing of the bonus claim?

Mr. MILLER. Without question, Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. I introduced a bill for an extension of 2 years. I felt that had more of a chance of getting through and the bill which provided for a 5-year extension was pocket-vetoed by the President last year. It had passed both the House and the Senate with no opposition.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rogers, that is good as far as it goes. That was for veterans who did not know or who did not file?

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But this is for veterans who died before they collected their compensation and left brothers and sisters who may have been dependent on them.

Mrs. ROGERS. I agree with you. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, lady, and gentlemen, another resolution from the convention suggests amendatory legislation to make mandatory the according of full value to medical and lay evidence unless there is rebuttal or conflicting evidence. May I please observe that the current regulations, such as R. & P. R. 1031, are completely expressive of the intent of the resolution. From our viewpoint and from the viewpoint of one who has lost a case which it felt should have been allowed, the fault seems not to lie in inadequacy of regulatory matter but in difference of opinion probably quite honest. Doubt is expressed if a law could be had which would be any stronger than the regulations of the Administration on this important element. However, on August 10, 1938, at our intimation, the Administrator sent to the field a service letter emphasizing the proposition that the laws are to be given the broadest and most liberal interpretation and that the veteran is not required to establish service connection to either a mathematical or moral certainty. We are advised that this communication has stimulated rating officials as to their responsibilities in the matter of effectuating the liberal policies as enunciated by the Administrator. Even with all

this, there will be argument as to case equities as between our groups and the Government and that is as it should be in an undertaking so fraught with varying human judgment. That would still be true if a law were devised and put into the statutes decreeing liberality in the consideration of lay and medical evidence.

Personally I have thought that legislation should not be required but it comes to us in this form and I must present it to this committee. It is difficult now, 22 years after the war, to always determine and secure a balance between pro and con evidence in a given case. But the Legion thought if the Administrator, in view of the difficulty existing now and the increasing difficulty that will come as we get further and further away from the war in point of time, if the committee cared to give the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs a little something in the way of support to him in the handling of evidence that it would be of assistance to him and of assistance to many worthy disabled persons who have struggled along through two decades attempting to keep from coming to the Government for support. They are persons who are rather proud of war service. Maybe they did not get any medals, but they took the war seriously and have the right to feel proud of their share in it. I apprehend that in another 10 years if the question of service connection is not eliminated from the law so far as living veterans are concerned we will be in a very tough position in respect to determining values in the new cases coming to us.

The CHAIRMAN. The Supreme Court of Tennessee said that positive testimony should be given more weight than negative testimony because if a man might hear or see anything and forget he would not remember it if he never saw it or heard it. And especially when we get so far from the war as we are I think you are right that positive testimony should be given every consideration.

Mr. MILLER. A typical instance which would be of receiving testimony, some of it medical testimony, and some of it lay testimony, or of a mixture of both, where it is asserted just following a man's discharge from the service but that he had suffered from a physical impairment. Now, there may have been in the meantime two or three examinations, as by old Veterans' Bureau, and those examinations may have been principally directed to some other impairment of the body and yet the absence of reference to what is now alleged to have existed at that time of these examination reports will not infrequently prevail against the sort of evidence the chairman just referred to.

Mr. BRYSON has introduced House Resolution 7977 on that behalf. We are asking an amendment to make possible the waiver of overpayments made without fault of the payee, under Public, No. 484, Seventy-third Congress (widows and orphans), and its amendatory acts. The World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, carried (section 28) the right to waive recovery of overpayments when such recovery could be held to be against equity and good conscience. This authority was carried into the Economy Act by a saving clause but when Public 484 was passed, it was, through inadvertence, not written therein.

A plain statement of the situation is that under all other World War compensation acts if an overpayment has been made, perhaps through a bookkeeping error or through an inadvertence and without

214844-40——5