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.

This might be a reasonable argument if the cases involved in this continuous 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 service connection affirmed and continued. Under the rotation policy of the VA with respect to rating boards, probably anywhere from 9 to 15 different rating officers 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, still acting in accordance with the previous administration's policy of "cut as many as you can," will decide that the previous rating boards were mistaken and will discontinue his service connection and compensation. 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 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 develop that were not treated and that a vast number of cases were treated but never recorded. It is impossible to 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, has 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 13 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 VA 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 thousands 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 has felt that it may adopt any policy it wishes.

I believe this situation should be corrected. H.R. 2304 is designed to correct it, and in a reasonable manner. It would forbid the VA to discontinue service connection 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 involves 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. 2304 would also make it possible for a veteran whose service connection was severed before enactment of the bill, to have his service connection reinstated upon his application. 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. DORN. Thank you Congressman Smith. Our next witness will be the Honorable Seymour Halpern, of New York:

STATEMENT BY HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this committee today on behalf of legislation to correct the inequitable anachronism of veterans compensation benefits. As a member of the Veterans'

Affairs Committee and as a sponsor of H.R. 5895, H.R. 5896, H.R. 5897, and H.R. 5531, I take particular interest in today's testimony which I believe will be harmonious in the direction that the compensatory benefits our veterans receive have fallen behind the times and need updating.

H.R. 5531 which I introduced on March 13, 1961, with the support of the American Legion and their able legislative director, Miles Kennedy, is aimed at an extension of the presumptive period for determining service connection of a psychosis disability.

The present provisions of section 312 U.S.C. 38 permit a grant of service connection for compensation purposes of a chronic functional psychosis manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within 1 year following discharge from a period of wartime service.

Three years would be a far more realistic approach to the problem. No one can tell with certainty either the cause of, or the date of onset of, a functional psychosis. The field of psychoneurosis, and psychiatry itself, is a very young area in relation to the other medical arts. There is much disagreement and great need for further exploration but the profession is in complete agreement on two points. Psychoses are the products of long and continued emotional stress, and development is slow and insidious, and the disease may lie dormant for months or years before it manifests itself.

In no other field of human endeavor are the nerves and the emotions of a man put to the test more than in a combat situation. Away from his home, in a new surrounding, with a loss of identity, under a regimented arbitrary leadership, with the constant fear of death, and the many other demoralizing aspects of war, it is easy for the seeds of schizophrenia or paranoia to develop. But these are only the seeds, and although they have only to grow, they need time.

I believe that present compensation does not take this into view. By the time the symptoms of the psychosis become full blown, more than a year could have easily passed. It is therefore that I believe my legislation should receive favorable action. The result of this bill would be to grant service connection if the psychosis should manifest itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within 3 years after termination of war service unless the Government can show circumstances, whether before or after war service, to which the psychosis can be attributed.

H.R. 5895 has for its purpose an increase in the death-compensation rates payable to the survivors of veterans who died of serviceconnected disabilities. In view of the increasing cost of living, with many of the recipients of death compensation not having any other income upon which to rely in the struggle for the necessities of life, it is my opinion that substantial relief is indicated in order to provide more than a bare marginal existence for the widows, children, and dependent parents of the deceased veterans whose service-connected deaths terminated the possibility of other assistance from that source. The most recent legislation authorizing general increases in disability compensation was enacted in 1957 and since that time the cost of living index shows a substantial increase in the critical items that enter into the scheme of living for all of us. Recognizing the fact that general compensation increase legislation can only be exprected at intervals of several years, with such increase not automatic

but dependent upon economic and living cost factors, among other considerations, it is my belief that the time has come for an acrossthe-board upward adjustment in the disability compensation structure. Hence, I submit H.R. 5896, which would grant a 10 percent increase over the existing rates for statutory awards and statutory ratings, and also H.R. 5897 with its proposed 15 percent increase in the regular disability compensation rates under the scheduled evaluations assigned by the Veterans' Administration ranging from the minimum 10 percent compensable rating to and including the 100 percent rating.

By introducing these three bills calling for an upward revision in veterans compensation payments I have been motivated by a desire not only to meet current and immediate needs but by a challenge to perhaps reexamine and rethink the entire concept of compensation for our veterans.

It is manifestly proper to adjust compensation payments within the framework of the pressing demnads of a rising cost of living. Since last the Congress voted an upward revision of our cost of living has ballooned another 5.4 percent. Yesterday's payments do not buy very much of today's food, clothing and rent.

Perhaps we should look again at the standards by which the Congress deems a compensation payment satisfactory in terms of making life more viable for our veterans. Those who planned and devised the compensation concept in the early days of the old Veterans' Bureau looked to workman's compensation as a model. It was their idea that those veterans eligible for compensation payments would be provided an income as nearly commensurate as possible with their earning capacity so that it would be more than just a supplement to whatever the individual unfortunate veteran could obtain by way of income. That the legislative branch has never implemented concept does not mean we are restrained from a more balanced view in our present attitude toward veterans' problems.

I know that you have other identical bills before you for consideration and I am glad to know that other Members of Congress share my view that something should be done now for the service-connected disabled veterans of this Nation.

Mr. DORN. Thank you Congressman Halpern. Our next witness will be the Honorable James E. Van Zandt from the State of Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear before your committee in support of my bill, H.R. 5498, which amends title 38 of the United States Code to provide a further period for presuming service connection in the case of war veterans suffering from chronic functional psychosis.

The present provisions of section 312 of title 38, United States Code, permit a grant of service connection for compensation purposes of a chronic functional psychosis manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within 1 year following discharge from a period of wartime. service.

My bill, H.R. 5498, seeks an extension of the presumptive period to 3 years for the reason that no one can tell with certainty either the cause of or the date of onset of a functional psychosis.

It is known that strong emotional factors and long-continued emotional and mental stresses can bring about such a psychosis. In most cases, the development of the disease is so slow and so insidious that it can be present for months or years before it is recognized.

Who can say with certainty that the condition did not have its origin in the individual's war service? Prior to service he had no problems greater than the average man in his community. He was happy and contented within his family or community group. War suddenly casts him into a rigid environmental situation, wholly intolerable to him. His life becomes regimented. He has no voice in the conduct of his life. He is faced with the possibility of armed conflict. He is no longer an individual. These, plus physical hardship leave their mark. Any one or all of these factors may well have contributed to or have been precipitating factors in the development of the functional psychosis manifested initially after discharge to civilian life.

By the time the individual consults a doctor, his mental condition is such that he gives no help to those trying to evaluate evidence to show the onset of the disease. Affidavits of close relatives are generally not given due weight because they are interested parties and considered to be self-serving in the claim for service connection.

Therefore, unless the Government can show circumstances either before or after war service to which the psychosis can be attributed, service connection should be granted if manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within 3 years after termination of war service.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5498 was introduced by me at the request of the American Legion and stems from a resolution adopted by their 42d Annual National Convention which was held in Miami Beach, Fla., last fall and I hope that this committee will take favorable action on the measure.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Van Zandt. Our next witness is the Honorable Bradford Morse from the State of Massachusetts.

STATEMENT OF HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to express my appreciation for this opportunity to speak in behalf of my bill H.R. 6795 which is presently before your committee, along with other compensation measures.

My bill would provide additional disability compensation for seriously disabled veterans as partial compensation for the reduction of their life expectancy because of the service-connected disease or ailment. It would provide a 5-percent increase in disability compensation, liberalize effective dates of certain awards, and would make other changes in existing law governing veteran compensation benefits.