STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. MATHEWS. Go ahead, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in regard to H. R. 2566. The bill, I think, is quite self-explanatory, and I believe there are several others to testify along that same line. To save the time of the committee, as well as witnesses who are waiting to testify, I have a short statement. May I have it inserted in the record? I will just summarize the figures. Mr. MATHEWS. If there is no objection, that will be done. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK, OF MINNESOTA, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIES IN SUP.OT OF H. R. 2566, JUNE 5, 1847 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the many laws enacted by the Congress in the past establishing a benefit and pension system for veterans and their dependents have been based on the same assumption: That the United States Government has certain obligations to those who offered their lives in defense of the state in time of war. I know that most Members of Congress are in agreement with this premise. I am convinced that the United States Government program for the veteran is a sound one. For this reason, there is no need for sweep.ng reforms or major changes. Only a few minor changes are necessary from time to time to correct weaknesses that have developed and to remove inequalities and inequities which have been discovered. It was for the purpose of eliminating certain inequities that I introduced H. R. 2566 on March 17, 1917. H. R. 2566 consists of two parts. Section 1 is designed to liberalize the income limitations governing the granting of pensions to veterans of World War I and World War II. As you know, the Veterans Regulations (sec. II, par. (a), of part III of Veterans Regulations No. 1 (a)) makes provisions for the granting of pensions to veterans of the two world wars for non-service-connected disability. Under the law, a disabled veteran is entitled to a pension of $69 per month. This monthly pension is increased to $72 if the veteran has a permanent and total disability rating for 10 continuous years, or if he has reached the age of 65 years and is permanently and totally disabled. Eligibility for this type of pension is subject, however, to an income limitation. Such a pension is not payable to an unmarried veteran whose annual income exceeds $1,000, nor to a married veteran (or one with minor children) who has an annual income exceeding $2.500. Section 1 of my bill (H. R. 2766) amends the existing law to raise these income limitations governing the granting of pensions for non-service-connected disability from $1,000 to $2,000 for unmarried veterans, and from $2,500 to $3,000 for married veterans. Section 2 of H. R. 2566 has as its purpose the liberalization of income limitations governing the payment of pensions to dependents of veterans of the two world wars in case of non-service-connected death. Under the law, the widow or child of a veteran whose death is non-service-connected, but who was suffering from a service-connected disability at the time of death (this disability clause has been repealed with respect to veterans of World War I), is eligible for pension. A widow with no children receives $42 per month; a widow with one child receives $54 per month with $6 for each additional child; one child and no widow is paid $21.60 per month with additional amounts for each motherless child. Such pensions to dependents are governed by income limitations which parallel those relating to veterans' pensions. According to the existing law (Public Law 484, 73d Cong., as amended by Public Law 198, 76th Cong., as amended by Public Law 144, 78th Cong.), a veteran's widow with no children becomes inelig ble for a pension if her annual income exceeds $1,000. The same is true of a minor child of a deceased veteran. Neither are death-pension payments allowed a widow with children whose income exceeds $2,500 per year. J Section 2 of my bill would raise these income limitations from $1,000 to $2,000 per year for a widow without children, or for a minor child. At the same time, the limitation would be raised from $2,500 to $3,000 for widows with children. The justification for the liberalization of these income limitations is obvious. A couple of concrete examples showing how existing law works hardship on individuals will reveal the need for such changes in the law. Suppose a veteran who is suffering from a non-service-connected disability. At the same time he is receiving a private income of say $1,050 per year or about $87 per month. This veteran cannot obtain a pension. Thus we see that a veteran who makes a few hundred a year from private sources or from a small business is penalized. He is denied a pension, yet his income is not adequate to live decently. No one can live properly today on an income of $87 per month or $21 per week. A married veteran is faced with the same situation. It is hard to make both ends meet on $2,500 per year after taxes have been paid. Yet this veteran cannot obtain a pension if his income goes above this level. The same arguments apply to the income limitations governing pension payments to the dependents of veterans. A widow who receives the $42 per month pension is unable to exist on said pension. She is therefore forced to seek employment to supplement her pension. Today nearly every job that one may accept pays $1,000 per year or more-just enough to make the widow ineligible for a pension. Some time ago I received a letter from St. Louis County Veterans' Service Office, informing me that many widows have become ineligible for receiving this pension because their annual salary just went over the line, and they cannot receive a pension unless they stop working. This is the dilemma facing many widows. Their $42 pension is not enough to live on-yet if they go to work they become ineligible for said pension. The same argument can be used for many widows with children. The rising cost of living might also be mentioned in connection with these income limitations. Since March 1940 the cost of living has gone up by nearly 60 percent; the cost of food has doubled; the cost of clothing has increased by 80 percent. If it was not for this inflation the $1,000 income limitations for veterans and their dependents would not cause real hardship. A single person could exist on $20 per week back in 1940. But today this is impossible. This inflation alone is justification for the liberalization of the law. Mr. BLATNIK. The bill amends the veterans' regulations in two instances by increasing the income limitation, first, in the case of nonservice-connected pensions where the limitation for a single man is $1,000 income per year; if he exceeds that, he is not eligible for the pension. My bill raises it to $2,000. Mr. MATHEWs. Your bill raises it to $2,000? Mr. BLATNIK. A single man now is limited to an annual income of $1,000. We raise that to $2,000. A married man is limited at present to $2,500 annually. We raise that to $3,000. That is the first part. Part No. 2, it is on page 2, line 7. This deals with the annual incomes of the widows, dependents of the veteran. Here again, with respect to a widow with no children, the present limitation is $1,000. We raise that to $2,000; and with respect to a widow with children, the present limitation, which is $2.500, is raised to $3,000. We have received many resolutions from veterans' organizations of my district, and from veterans' service officers urging an increase along this line, and we justify it on the basis, first, that the original limitation is quite low, and, second, in addition, you have the substantial increase in the cost of living, which works a real hardship in the case of both single and married veterans as well as widows without children or with children. The cost of living-I include this in my report here-since 1940 has gone up nearly 60 percent. The cost of food has almost doubled. The cost of clothing has gone up about 80 percent, and we find many of these people just cannot make ends meet. A veteran or a widow with a position paying $1,100 a year, or even $1,200 a year, $100 a month, which is not very much at all, would be ineligible to receive any pension. Hence, we should raise the income limitation. Mr. MATHEWS. May I ask you how you arrive at the specific figures in your bill, $2,000 and $3,000? Mr. BLATNIK. These figures are based on the income needs of the individual. Mr, MATHEWS. I am asking you how did you arrive at these particular figures? Mr. BLATNIK. Well, they are what I consider a reasonably satisfactory income. I believe that the average income would be anywhere from $2,400 to $2,600 for the average person. Mr. MATHEWS. Are there any questions by any member of the committee? Mr. BLATNIK. I might add that the lowest recommendation from veterans' organizations was $1,800; that is, raise the income limitation from $1,000 to $1,800. The highest recommendation was $2,400, and we took a good average around $2,000, based on the recommendations from these organizations. Mr. MATHEWS. Are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Blatnik. Mr. BLATNK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MATHEWS. Are there present any other Members of Congress sponsoring these bills? I have been notified that Mr. Schwabe will send a statement or a transcript of his for the record for the bill H. R. 295. If there are no further witnesses to be heard on this bill, we will go to H. R. 3650, having to do with tropical diseases. There are some witnesses that want to be heard on that, I understand. Mr. Kraabel. STATEMENT OF T. 0. KRAABEL, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REHABILITATION COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN LEGION Mr. KRAABEL. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate very much the opportunity of being heard on these bills. We do not have a covering mandate on the subject matter of H. R. 3650. However, it happens that among our witnesses, and among the witnesses of the brother organization, Disabled American Veterans, there are three men expert in claims and rating and medicine who contributed much to the thinking and philosophy of the improved 1945 schedule for disability ratings back in 1942 and 1943. In fact, these three gentlemen, working together with other experts, and with the VA, did draw up much of the present provisions in the 1945 schedule, and in that schedule, as the chairman pointed out, are provisions and protections in the matter of not only tropical diseases but other diseases and disabilities arising from endemic areas. If it is the pleasure of the committee to hear from these gentlemen, the Legion would be glad to have them speak or answer your questions on the subject matter of H. R. 3650. We did have an opportunity of talking to Congressman Patterson before the hearing so that he understands the points he brought out and the points the committee will undoubtedly develop further as they go into that particular provision. Mr. MATHEWS. I will be very glad to hear them, and, in connection with this bill, I would like to say I have just received a report from the Veterans' Administration, which none of the committee has as yet had a chance to read, and might I suggest, Mr. Kraabel, that you consult with Congressman Patterson over the matter and see if you can work out some suggestion with regard to it. Mr. KRAABEL. We shall be very glad to be available to Congressman Patterson or the committee at any time on that. Mr. MATHEWS. In other words, I, speaking personally, would like to have whatever is necessary in connection with the present regulations of the Veterans' Administration. If they adequately cover these cases, of course, no legislation would be necessary. On the other hand, if there are some cases which are not covered, and cannot be covered, and if legislation can be enacted which would both reasonably protect the Government and the veterans, we would like to report that legislation out. At least, I would, myself. Mr. KRAABEL. I think the experience since 1942, Mr. Chairman, on these points has brought out to our claims people that there are additional protective features that might be possible, and that probably they would want them by legislation not to do a violence to or impair in any way that which is already in the regulatory provisions. Mr. MATHEWS. Very well. We would be glad to hear from the people you have. Mr. KRAABEL. I think that is about all we would say on the point unless you have questions on it. Mr. MATHEWS. Did I understand you to say you had some medical men here who would testify on it? Mr. KRAABEL. We have Dr. H. D. Shapiro, our senior medical consultant, if they desire to ask him on the point. Mr. MATHEWS. I will ask you this question, Doctor: In your opinion, is there now, in addition to the present rating schedule and regulations of the Veterans' Administration, a necessity for legislation to cover cases which might not be covered by those existing regulations and schedules but which deserve to be and should be covered. STATEMENT OF DR. H. D. SHAPIRO, MEDICAL CONSULTANT, NA- Dr. SHAPIRO. As a matter of fact, we made a submission to the Veterans' Administration covering this subject on the 26th of May 1947, on the basis of complaints emanating from the field, from our field people. We have not as yet had an answer to that and, of course, I do not think the Veterans' Administration has had sufficient time to study and answer it. The thing that I think ought to be gotten over to the committee is the question of suppressive treatment of malaria. We have heard a great deal about the men who actually manifested their disease through service, but there are many men who, because of suppressive therapy, never did manifest the disease while they were in the service, but because of the continued use of atropine,. or whatever therapy was used, did not manifest their disease. Now, the Veterans' Administration has the 1-year presumption on malaria. We do have individuals who have lived in nonmalarial areas all their lives, other than the time they spent in the Tropies, or in other areas where malaria is endemic as well as in the service. These people lived in sections of the country, and we have had complaints from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and places of that kind where there is no malaria. The man would get his first manifest attack within a year following discharge from the service. Because of the impassibility of roads in winter conditions, or because of inaccessibility of a doctor 40 or 50 miles away, he may not be able to furnish satisfactory proof to the Veterans' Administration at that time, and perhaps not until after a year. Well, in these cases, unless the man has filed a claim within a year after discharge, he is precluded from receiving benefits. In other words, only in malaria and in tropical diseases, as I understand it, is there any time limit within which a man can file, provided he did not have a medical record. Isn't that correct? In other words, the tropical diseases are singled out in putting a time limit as to when a man can file a claim for these benefits if he has no medical record in service, and we think that is a bar that should be removed. Chairman ROGERS. May I ask a question? Is it not true, Doctor, that during the war a man's relative or wife stated that he had malaria, and the man's case was rated, and recently in the last few months such a service connection could be broken? All the men in my district who had malaria were given a rating. Dr. SHAPIRO. Of course, he could get a rating if he had a medical record showing a number of attacks in service, and after that his rating would be dependent on his demonstrating medically in the frequency of these attacks. Chairman ROGERS. They took the wife's affiidavit. Now, it must be physician's. That happened in Boston in case after case. Dr. SHAPITO. That is what we are trying to get over, that once the disease is established, that the statement of the veteran or his family or another interested party as to recurrent attacks of fever should be accepted in these areas where the service of a doctor cannot be obtained because of climatic conditions, or where the doctor cannot be reached during the time of these attacks. Chairman ROGERS. May I ask one more question? Mr. MATHEWS. Surely. Chairman ROGERS. You see, the boys made no effort, Doctor, because the veteran had given a statement through his wife that he had these attacks. Mr. MATHEWS. Doctor, in part of the statement I read in the record, there is something about suppressive treatment, and that is covered to a certain extent in the schedules; is it not? Dr. SHAPIRO. Well, it is, but here is the thing: The man is only given a 1-year period after discharge within which to prove his malaria. Mr. MATHEWs. You think that is one of the main things? Dr. SHAPIRO. That is one of the main things, and that is what I want to bring out: A man who develops malaria within 365 days after he has been in a malarial zone is entitled to service connection, but the man who develops it after 365 days is out. Now, this was brought out by our legal advisory board. They suggested at the time that the 1-year period was rather arbitrary and would be short, too short in |