wherever possible. A permanent disability is a disability which it is reasonably certain will continue unimproved throughout the disabled person's life. With disabling diseases and injuries of long standing, the probability of any improvement under treatment shall be conceded as remote, unless specific treatment is indicated for a particular disability. All disability ratings relating to impairments, the lesions and symptoms of which have persisted at approximately the same level of severity as shown by two or more examinations at least five years apart, unless material improvement in the near future may be anticipated on the basis of evidence pertinent to the individual case, shall be placed on a permanent basis. With a major disability rated on a permanent basis, minor disabilities shall be placed on a permanent rating, without regard to fluctuations in the past, except that in the case of diseases or injuries of fluctuating severity over the past five-year period, where the conversion of the current temporary rating to a permanent rating of the same degree would not be justified, permanent ratings may be made on the basis of the average severity disclosed by examinations covering this five-year period, including a recent examination, or an examination required in order to determine the current disability. Nothing herein shall prevent rating on a permanent basis the residuals of all healed injuries.

SEC. 6. The service-connected compensation, exclusive of any amount authorized as a statutory award, payable to any World War veteran who reaches or has reached the age of forty-five years, shall be increased by 10 per centum and shall be further increased by 10 per centum of the basic compensation, exclusive of any amount authorized as a statutory award, upon reaching the ages of fifty-five and sixty years, respectively. Where the degree of disability changes after the veteran's forty-fifth birthday, the veteran shall receive the compensation payable under such changed degree of disability increased for the attained age as herein provided.

SEC. 7. All decisions granting service connection rendered by special boards established under the provisions of section 20 of Public Law Numbered 78, Seventy-third Congress, June 16, 1933, are hereby declared final, notwithstanding decisions rendered to the contrary by appellate or other authority. Payments to veterans restored to the rolls under the provisions of this section shall be effective the date of enactment of this Act, and payments to widows, children, or dependent parents shall not be effective prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 8. Permanent and total service-connected disability compensation ratings in cases of World War veterans which, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, have been in effect for a period of at least five consecutive years shall not thereafter be reduced.

SEC. 9. Effective on and after the date of enactment of this Act, the rate of interest to be charged on premiums for reinstated insurance under the provisions of section 304 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, shall be 3% per centum.

[H. R. 7558, 76th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To equalize the extra compensation payable to certain World War veterans who suffered the loss of the use of one or more feet or hands

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That on and after the date of enactment of this Act, World War veterans otherwise entitled to the statutory award under the provisions of the last paragraph of section 202 (3), World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, for the loss of the use of one or more feet or hands, shall be paid $35 per month additional compensation in lieu of $25 per month previously authorized.

Mr. KIRBY. Of course, it is understood, we have other proposals that properly come before other committees of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. KIRBY. Our program provides that the Disabled American Veterans, independently and in cooperation with other patriotic organizations, aggressively combat all forms of subversive movements calculated to destroy the American form of government. And that obviously is not a subject before this committee necessarily.

We are supporting an investigation of the various isms and we are strongly on record against any ism which is against the American. form of government. We have an Americanization committee that has made an exhaustive study of this subject and which has been in close touch with the Dies committee.

The second provides that the Disabled American Veterans, whilesupporting all worthy movements for better international understanding, continues to advocate a proper military and naval prepared

ness.

Under that provision we naturally are supporting the extension of the Military and Naval Establishments during the present critical times. In short, the D. A. V. position is that we want to keep foreign agitators out of America and American troops off foreign battlefields. Our proposal is that all hospitalized service-connected World War veterans receive total ratings while hospitalized.

That is a point that properly should come before this committee.. The situation, as you know, now is that when a man is hospitalized for disability, if he is single he receives only $15 a month even though his compensation outside of the hospital might be $100. And a man hospitalized for a service-connected disability, married or otherwise, is carried on the same rating he has before entering the hospital. Obviously a man in a hospital for any considerable time is totally disabled economically. In other words, he passes up any earning capacity and very frequently he jeopardizes his job while carrying what might be but a small compensation rating. Furthermore, there is a natural disinclination for any sensible man to enter a hospital unless compelled to do so and when he realizes the loss he is going to suffer financially he optimistically feels if he stays away from the hospital he will overcome his disability without hospitalization. And so many of these men aggravate their condition and in the long run both the veteran and the Government are the losers. We most certainly do not want in the hospitals men who should not be there. On the other hand, we think every reasonable inducement should be offered to those who need treatment to be hospitalized. We urge that all of the service-connected disabled veterans be paid the same standard of compensation, provided that any statutory award to which a veteran is entitled shall not be disturbed.

As you know, through years of study the committee adopted the so-called presumptive clause which extended on the average 5 or 6 years. In 1933 that presumptive provision was suddenly removed from the law and the destitution and the suffering that resulted developed such a reaction that the law was subsequently changed. There was then set up throughout the country boards made up of those not employed by the Veterans' Administration which regularly passed on all these cases almost without limitation of law. To explain this differently, if a man was in the presumptive class and he was dropped under the Economy Act, that man had the right to have his case reviewed by an outside board. However, there was a limitation in the law that the men reinstated by those outside boards should be paid at 75 percent of the standard of compensation for the other

cases.

Now, the boards went into those cases from every angle and I have the word of many civilians who sat on these boards that put these

so-called presumptives back on the rolls and there was no question in the world in their minds that the men should be on and should have never been removed.

It is unsound medicine to attempt to say that you can cite the time and incident and place that marked the beginning of the average chronic disability. You cannot take an N. P. case today or years ago, or a tubercular case or the other chronic cases and prove that the inception of that disability started at a given place or at a given time because of a given incident. In originally adopting the presumptive clause, as the chairman recalls, the Congress did it partly on account of medicine and partly to overcome an administrative impossibility. The doctors knew and the committee knew that to require a man who was obviously extremely sick and impaired to try to prove exactly when this trouble started and where it started and what brought it about was out of the question. For several years when these men broke down and commenced to build up evidence for compensation, they were told by the Government such evidence was unnecessary as the Government under the law was definitely presuming service connection within the presumptive period. Now the Government has repudiated that agreement and has cut these men 20 percent. So it is our feeling now that these men who are returned to the compensation rolls at the standard rule. There are slightly more than 21,000 of these at present, and they cannot go back 15 or 20 years and prove by records that their disabilities arose from this incident and at that place and at that time. Indeed, many who might have aided them-doctors and members of their own outfits-have passed on during the years. Therefore, we urge that these so-called presumptive cases be restored to the rolls at 100 percent rather than at 75 percent, which prevails at the present time.

Mr. VOORHIS. Have you a bill on that, Captain Kirby?

Mr. KIRBY. Yes; H. R. 7560 introduced by the chairman.

I would like to emphasize that all the men about whom I am talking are now on the rolls. The issue is whether they should be paid at a 100-percent standard, or whether they should continue on a 75percent basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Captain Kirby, would you be bothered by an interruption at that point?

Mr. KIRBY. Not at all.

The CHAIRMAN. If these veterans die their widows and orphans are taken care of under the present law; that is correct, isn't it? Mr. KIRBY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, just the same as service-connected cases. I want to get that in the record. If you remember back in 1930 when we were trying to pass what they called the Rankin bill to advance the presumptive period to January 1, 1930, if that bill had passed all the veterans who went on would have been taken care of as presumptive cases and when they died their widows and orphans would have been taken care of.

Mr. KIRBY. On the same basis as anybody else. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But that was vetoed and the disability allowance bill passed on it and the widows and orphans are out and it only takes care of now the totally disabled veterans.

Mr. KIRBY. That is all so far as the non-service-connected pension group is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. And pays them up to $30 a month?

Mr. KIRBY. Yes; for the Economy Act threw them out, the man as well as his widow and orphans.

The CHAIRMAN. The Economy Act did not throw them out entirely but reduced them to $20, didn't it?

Mr. KIRBY. It reduced them but it also cut out the various grades and for a man to get a pension now he has to be totally disabled. The CHAIRMAN. It left the totally disabled man at a certain rate on the roll?

Mr. KIRBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But it did not do anything for the widows and orphans.

Mr. KIRBY. NO. Our point is that a man who is on the compensation rolls is service connected, so these men should be paid on the same basis as men who possibly started developing evidence earlier or possibly had full military records that would prove exactly when the trouble started. On a wounded case there is no argument. You can prove by records that a man was wounded at a certain place at a certain time by an enemy instrumentality of war. But you cannot prove that in the case of 21,000 men who are on these rolls as a result of a congressional enactment or rather as a result of a Presidential Executive order, which set up independent civilian boards around the country to review the cases that had been suddenly hurled off in spite of the Government's pledge that they held service connections that were inviolate for life. Those boards were just as hard boiled as any Veterans' Administration board ever was and in fact when they put these men back they were of the belief they were service connected, so we feel they ought to be paid at 100percent rather than at 75 percent.

We ask that there be reenacted the "presumption of soundness" clause of the World War Veterans Act of June 7, 1924.

Prior to the Economy Act we had the presumption that a man who entered service was sound except for the defects noticed when examined. That presumption of soundness was removed through the Economy Act and you now have the situation where the Veterans Administration will claim that a man who has disability brought it into the service with him.

Of course there is no record of such a disability but they conclude that the man must have brought it into the service. And now, in the original enactment you had protection because you said there was a presumption of soundness if there wasn't any notation of a defect. If there was a notation of a defect, obviously the Veterans' Administration would take note of it. But we do believe that the presumption of soundness would go far toward justice to these men who are barred for alleged pre-war disabilities of which there was no notice when they were accepted in the national crisis. They werepassed as good enough to be shot at but now they are not good enough to be compensated as they are forced to carry the heavy cross of mental or physical handicap.

We have before the Military Committee a provision to modify the present provision regulating the Disabled Emergency Officers" Retirement Act. The trouble is a so-called "causative factor" requirement of the Economy Act of 1933. While the former emergency

officer who was shot in the lines may easily prove that he was hit at a certain time and place, practically all others have been barred. There is no new principle of law whatever involved in this. It is not a question of retiring disabled emergency officers. Congress decided that more than 10 years ago, in 1928. We are just asking a change that will make it possible to return to the rolls those with meritorious

cases.

A bill to amend the Disabled Enlisted Veterans Act, passed the Senate the other day, but even this is so restrictive that it is my opinion it will benefit few cases. It is now before the Military Affairs Committee of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. Did not the Military Affairs Committee report it out last year?

Mr. KIRBY. They did but it has been kicking around from one House to the other since the Economy Act of March 20, 1933. I might say right here, that the original George bill has been amended so severely so that there is now grave doubt in my mind whether it will do what the proponents of the bill intend, as many features of the extremely severe causative factor still remain in the measure. The bill that passed the Senate may do some good.

The CHAIRMAN. Captain Kirby, that originally came to this committee by mistake and the Military Affairs Committee ruled that it had jurisdiction of that legislation, and Speaker Longworth told me that it was an error, and that it ought never to have been referred to this committee. But it was helpless to get away from that bill and since that time the legislation has been referred to the Military Affairs Committee.

Mr. KIRBY. The subcommittee of the Military Committee has just favorably reported the measure which passed the Senate. I bring this up because, as the chairman recalls, that bill did originally come to the Veterans' Committee years ago, and was favorably acted upon by this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the property, that is the bill is the property of that committee.

Mr. KIRBY. Another point in this program is that the Disabled American Veterans continued its policy of urging sites for hospitals according to the density of the military population rather than locating the institutions according to congressional districts, State, county, or city lines.

In the early days before this committee was formed all matters relative to veterans' hospitals were handled by the Public Buildings and Grounds Committee. In those years there developed a more or less scandalous condition the way the hospitals were placed without any particular consideration of the need of the locality. So today the Veterans' Administration has on its hands several hospitals that I know it would be glad to turn over to other Government departments, if they could get suitable replacements, simply because the locations are impossible. Since the Federal Board of Hospitalization took over there has been a marked improvement in the matter of locating hospitals. The present procedure is that if it is proposed that a hospital be built in a certain area the proponents are invited to come before the Federal Board of Hospitalization and urge their case. And after deliberating over it with an almost total