VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, DVB Caseload trends, pars. K and Q, sec. 314, title 38, United States Code 1 Public Law 427, 82d Cong., effective Aug. 1, 1952, liberalized entitlement for arrested TB and loss or loss of use of creative organ. NOTE. Data for June 30, 1959, not available as of Aug. 14, 1959. Mr. DORN. In accordance with committee practice we have invited all of the authors of these proposals to testify, if they so desire, or to submit statements in behalf of their proposals. Now, we have several of our distinguished colleagues with us this morning. I see in the committee room the Honorable Frank E. Smith, of Mississippi, who introduced H.R. 660. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. DORN. Congressman Smith, we are delighted to have you, and if you will come around and sit down here, anything you have to say will be most welcome. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement here, but I will not attempt to read it. Mr. DORN. Your statement, without objection, will be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE FRANK SMITH, MISSISSIPPI Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear in behalf of my bill, H.R. 660. This bill would make it unlawful for the Veterans' Administration to discontinue a rating of service connection where a disability of a veteran has been adjudicated as service connected when the veteran has been so rated and receiving compensation for 10 years or more. This bill was introduced because the practice of continuous review of service connected disability cases by the Veterans' Administration has resulted in a great many cases of obvious and serious injustice. These cases resulted from the review the Veterans' Administration has been making for the past several years of all approved service-connected claims of veterans under 55 years of age. The VA 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 adjudicated a disability service connected 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; however, that is not what has happened. Almost without exception, every one of these cases and claims has been routinely reviewed anywhere from three to five 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 ever-present possibility that some new rating board, prodded by executive attempts at economy, will decide that the previous rating boards were mistaken and will 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 Veterans' Administration 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 arise 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 examinations for World War II are concerned, have been destroyed. The VA, though it says it accepts lay statements from fellow servicemen, commanding officers, private physicians, and so on, have never, in fact, given the first ounce of weight to such statements in making its decisions. Even if the Veterans' Administration 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 VA 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 VA 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 service-connected 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 VA 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. 660 is designed to correct it, and in a reasonable manner. It would forbid the VA to discontinue service cennection in any case where disability of the veteran has been rated service connected and he has been receiving compensation for 10 years or more, unless the case involved 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. 660 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. Many illustrative cases could be offered here, but I will not offer detailed examples. 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 review boards of the Veterans' Administration. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like briefly to outline what this bill does, and I will appreciate the careful consideration by the subcommittee and the full committee, of this full statement, in support of this bill. My bill, briefly, would make it unlawful for the Veterans' Administration to discontinue a rating of service connection where the disability of a veterans has been adjudicated as service connected, when the veteran has been so rated and receiving compensation for 10 years or more. The one qualifying item that would be put in, of course, would be that if fraud was shown in connection with a claim, of course, it could be discontinue; but my bill is an attempt to try to bring about a halt to the ceaseless review of these long-established cases which, to my mind, has been a great source of harassment to the veterans involved, and it does not involve any particular savings to the United States, even when there might be some injustice involved, because I think these constant reviews, as much as anything else, are just a sort of shuffling of papers back and forth in the Veterans' Administration, to help to justify a lot of the jobs in existence which are not essential. If a man has had a rating which has been continued for 10 years, of course it has become a part of his own economy, and there is obviously great merit in it, and where obviously it never would have been granted and have survived the initial reviews which are proper should not be discontinued. These long reviews which are made apparently with no justification, and purely on records that turn up in the file, and without the ability of the veteran, quite often, to show the situation involved or to show the extent of his disability, I think are decidedly unfair; and I believe that a careful consideration by the committee of the costs involved in these constant reviews, and the appeals that follow, and so forth, would indicate that there is no savings to the Government, in toto, from the changes that take place. I am familiar with the fact that these reviews often turn up or make it necessary for the veteran to have to attempt to bring new evidence in to prove his case is service connected, whereas it has been accepted before, and you know, just like I do, how almost impossible it is to obtain that type of evidence, that is, for the veteran to obtain that type of evidence himself. I am sure you and most other Members of Congress have attempted to help veterans trace out old outfits or people who could give them information about that. I know, from my own experience, even on this type of tracing, if the people were available, quite often it would be impossible, in a judicial sense, to find needed evidence because, in a combat zone, a good soldier quite often purposely refused medical attention when he needed it and it is nothing to the credit of the U.S. Government to have this man, as a veteran, in later life, suffer for his zealousness in time of great need. I would appreciate the careful consideration of this proposal by the committee. I believe that enaction by the committee in some form on this proposal would have a great effect on the Veterans' Administration, in causing them to reduce or eliminate this practice that they have, which I believe serves no useful purpose to either the veteran or the Government. Mr. DORN. Congressman Nix. Mr. Nix. I have no questions. Mr. DORN. Mr. Fino. Mr. FINO. Mr. Smith, H.R. 660 would prohibit the service connection to be discontinued except in the case of fraud, and if fraud is uncovered, that would knock out the whole thing; is that right? Mr. SMITH. That is right. Mr. DORN. Mr. Smith, we were very happy to have had you this morning, and I assure you your statement and bill will be considered very carefully by the subcommittee. Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF HON. EUGENE SILER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Mr. DORN. Our next witness is the Honorable Eugene Siler from Kentucky. We are awfully glad to have you with us, Congressman, and I am sure the subcommittee is interested in any statement you care to make. I believe you introduced H.R. 2254 ? Mr. SILER. That is correct. My bill, I believe, is practically the same as the bill introduced by Congressman Smith who just testified, and I do not know that there is anything I could add to what he has stated, but I will say I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and give you a brief statement in support of my bill, H.R. 2254, seeking to amend the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 so as to prohibit the reduction of disability ratings which have been in effect for 10 years or more. It seems to me that the constant and persistent calling of veterans before the Veterans' Administration for the purpose of examining those veterans is a very expensive process and is certainly quite trouble some to the veterans. One physician who works with the Veterans' Administration in my State estimated that a veteran is called in for an evaluation of his case. Some of these veterans are required to travel 200 miles or more in order to take the examinations that are required. If a veteran has had a rating based on his service-connected disability that has been constant over a period of 10 years, then it is hard to visualize any situation in which there could be anything like a substantial decline in the veterans' percentage of disability, after such a period of time, 10 years, in which the veteran has continued to have a fixed percentage of disability. It is my opinion that it would be a great service to the veterans and would save money for the taxpayers if my bill and other similar bills were adopted. I do not believe that any injustice will be done to our Government or to the Veterans' Administration or to the taxpayers of the country if my bill were enacted into law by the Congress. I thank you again for your willingness to hear me in support of my proposal. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Siler. Any questions? Mr. Nix. I have no questions. Mr. DORN. Mr. Fino? Mr. FINO. No questions. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, A MEMBER OF Mr. DORN. Our next witness is the Honorable James E. Van Zandt. Jimmy, I think you have been national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars quite a few times. How many times actually has it been? Mr. VAN ZANDT. Three times. Mr. DORN. We are delighted to have you before us this morning. Mr. VAN ZANDT. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to appear before you. I have with me Mr. Elmer Richter, who has been many years a claims officer of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and who was a very close associate when I was serving the Veterans of Foreign Wars as their commander in chief. Together we have been endeavoring to assist a certain type of claimant and appear here this morning in support of H.R. 6394, a bill to provide death compensation on behalf of widows and children of severely, and I repeat, severely disabled veterans. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished subcommittee. I want to express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before you. As you will note, the bill was introduced by me upon request, however, I should like to emphasize before going further that my feelings in this matter are far more than routine. This bill shapes up the merits of a problem which, in recent years, has escaped serious consideration of the Congress, while at the same time the equities are so preponderant as to cause me to anticipate that your committee will take early, wholehearted, and favorable action thereon. In fairness, let me say that this oversight is a natural one. It results from the fact that the cases embraced by my bill are spotted, |