that such legislation will be beneficial to the Government, economically and otherwise. It is indisputable that it is to the best interest of our country to have the most effective Armed Forces possible at the lowest possible cost. It is axiomatic that to have such effective, economical Armed Forces a career therein must be attractive enough to encourage outstanding personnel, not only to enter the Armed Forces but to make a career thereof. Such does not presently exist. A member of the Armed Forces who is retired for causes other than physical disability, must provide for his survivors on the same basis as a retiree from a civilian industry. Unless, therefore, the benefits for survivors of service personnel compare favorably with what he could have had in civilian industry, there is little or no incentive for one to make a career of military service. We will take the case of a member of the Armed Forces who has served for 30 years and been retired for causes other than physical disability. When this member of the Armed Forces dies, any time after his retirement, the maximum benefits his surviving widow may expect are (a) A pension of $60 per month, provided she does not have other income in excess of $50 a month. If the income of the widow of a member of the Armed Forces amounts to over $150 per month, she is not entitled to anything from the Government. This amounts to being practically destitute before receiving anything from the Government, and should therefore be disregarded in comparing military survivors with civilian survivors. (b) Social security benefits are available to service personnel comparable to such benefits available in civilian life. Social security benefits, being similar, should also therefore be disregarded when comparing benefits available of surviving military and civilian personnel. (c) A monthly amount from the Contingency Option Act benefits provided her husband has elected to receive a reduced amount of retired pay in order to provide an annuity for his surviving widow or children. It is most important to here note, and I emphasize that if such election is made, the retired pay of service personnel is so reduced that it is impossible to live on the amount remaining except on a most austere basis with no possibility of educating children on a college level. It cannot be said that such retired service personnel can pursue civilian employment sufficiently remunerative to meet their needs. Their age would usually be in the midfifties. Industry not only takes a dim view of employing such age groups but in the case of service personnel Federal rules, regulations, and legislation makes it increasingly difficult for retired military personnel to obtain civilian employment based upon stated conflict of interests. In comparing benefits of military retired personnel and their civilian counterparts, the Contingency Option Act should therefore be disregarded. We therefore arrive at the conclusion that the only true and proper comparison to be made between the benefits available to the survivors of military personnel and survivors of civilians is the pension each receives. Practically all pensions received by civilian personnel retired from civilian industry is based on a contributing basis system. Practically all such pensions provide for benefits to continue to the widow after the death of her husband. It has been argued that the pension of retired service personnel is given to them without their contributing anything and therefore no part of such pension should continue to a widow. Such argument is not factually correct. Congressional hearings on pay for military personnel will disclose that a main reason given from time immemorial for not granting raises in pay being sought was that service personnel did not contribute anything directly to their retirement pensions and therefore it was erroneous to consider their prescribed pay their total pay, that in effect they received more. Such proffered statements having prevailed, we cannot refute the fact that service personnel have then in effect contributed to the retired pay they receive as a pension when their active service is ended. They should, therefore, have vested rights in their retired pay comparable to the vested rights civilians enjoy in their retired pay. Such rights do not now exist for military personnel, without which the attractiveness of a military career suffers greatly when compared to civilian careers. It is a common misconception that the widow of a deceased military retired husband continues to receive a pension from the Government after her husband's death. On the contrary, the widow receives nothing. For example, when a captain of the Navy retires after 30 years' active service and subsequently dies, his retired pay ceases entirely and his widow receives no part of his retired pay. Had the husband died 1 day before retirement, his widow would receive $231 indemnity compensation until her death or until remarried. It is this right that H.R. 3352 seeks to establish. That those who have given their entire active lives to the defense of their Nation at fixed salaries and under other income limitations, who are eventually retired without disability, are faced with the known fact that no survivors benefit will be paid to their dependents is undoubtedly a morale-damaging prospect for the active duty man with no ailment. This situation tends to increase the desire for early separation from the service and deter personnel from continuing until they complete 30 or more years. Such action necessarily adds to the cost of defense as it is certain to increase turnover of personnel. Summarizing, H.R. 3352 will— (a) Make military careers more attractive. (b) Establish a justified vested right of retired military personnel in their retired pay. (c) Make personnel of our Armed Forces more stable. (d) Be more economical for the Armed Forces insofar as moneys necessary for active duty personnel. (e) Be a big morale-contributing factor to active duty personnel. From the foregoing it is conclusive that enactment of H.R. 3352 into law would be to the better interests of our Government. Your favorable consideration is therefore urgently requested. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, a RepreseNTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and the members of this subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity of submitting a statement in support of H.R. 2082, to amend the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 with respect to service connection of multiple sclerosis for an additional 4 years. This bill proposes to extend the presumptive period so that it will conform to highly respected and responsible medical opinion which indicates that the average number of years from first symptoms to diagnosis is 7.2 years. It may not be necessary to remind the members of the subcommittee of the insidiousness of the disease but for the record I wish to note here that medical opinion has stated that the onset of multiple sclerosis is very often unnoticed by the patient himself, his relatives, and even by the general practitioner in the event that he sees the patient in early stages of the disease. Early warning signs are slurred speech, along with tingling sensations and numbness, poor coordination, especially in walking, and double vision. However, it should be noted, a person with multiple sclerosis does not always have all of these symptoms, and someone having one or more may not have multiple sclerosis. Furthermore" and I wish to stress this point, many multiple sclerosis patients have "remissions," periods of months or even years during which the symptoms disappear and the individual appears to be well. Mr. Chairman, an outstanding authority, Dr. Thomas L. Willmon, medical and scientific director, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, has made the following statement to Mr. John W. Bill, national service officer of the Disabled American Veterans, in Newark, N.J., at his request: "As you must know, the medical literature on multiple sclerosis makes many references to the fact that the diagnosis of this disease is a difficult one and subject to delays until it has progressed to the point that the physician may be certain that he is dealing with multiple sclerosis and not one of the many other conditions which may have to be considered in the differential diagnosis. "I believe the best reference which you may make is the excellent study made by A. R. MacLean and Berkson, Jr., which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association 1951, 146, 1367. *** In their study of 418 cases they found that an average of 7.2 years had elapsed between the onset of the symptoms and the time the actual diagnosis was made. * * * I could only say additionally that in talking with many people who have multiple sclerosis I find that such a lapse as MacLean and Berkson describe is not only common but usual." I have asked the National Institute of Neurological Diseases within the Public Health Service to furnish me information concerning the latest findings of its research of this point, and with your permission, I will submit the information upon receipt of it for the subcommittee's consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the statement I submitted to the committee in support of H.R. 2082 to amend the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 with respect to service connection of multiple sclerosis for an additional 4 years, I referred to my request of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases to furnish me additional information as to the number of years from onset to disagnosis. I enclose herewith for the record copy of the reply to my letter from Dr. Richard L. Masland, Director of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness. With appreciation for your courtesy and cooperation, I am, Sincerely, GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, Member of Congress. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, Hon. GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, DEAR MR. WALLHAUSER: This is in answer to your letter of April 24 concerning H.R. 2082 and a copy of your statement to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Dr. Thomas L. Willmon, Medical and Research Director at the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, is in an excellent position to review all the published scientific data as well as incidence statistics and time-lag data relating to onset and diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. I have discussed with Institute scientists Dr. Willmon's reference to the study by MacLean and Berkson appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Institute scientists have said that the time lag does differ with people but that 7 years is not an unreasonable period between onset and diagnosis. I hope this further information will be helpful. Sincerely yours, RICHARD L. MASLAND, M.D., Director, Notional Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, Bethesda, Md., May 16, 1961. Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of May 9, I have consulted with members of our scientific staff. It is their opinion that 7 years is not an unreasonable period to recognize as the interval between onset and diagnosis in multiple sclerosis. Under these conditions, the committee would be justified in enacting legislation providing for a 7-year presumptive period for this disease. Sincerely yours, RICHARD L. MASLAND, M.D., Director, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness. STATEMENT OF HON. LAURENCE CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN SUPPORT OF EQUALIZATION OF PEACETIME AND WARTIME COMPENSATION, AS PROVIDED IN H.R. 2884 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, H.R. 2884 is entitled "A bill to amend chapter 11 of title 38, U.S. Code, to provide that the rates of peacetime disability and death compensation shall be the same as the rates for wartime disability and death compensation." This bill is eminently fair, especially so long as our young men are being drafted into the service. Service-connected disabilities incurred in peacetime are just as crippling as those received in war. Compensation is intended to compensate a person for disabilities; and the need for compensation is no less if the disability is received in peacetime than if received in wartime. At the present time compensation for peacetime disabilities is 80 percent of that fixed for wartime disabilities, except for extra hazardous peacetime service. My purpose in introducing H.R. 2884 is to equalize the compensation in these two cases. I do not see how it can be denied that if a young man is drafted for military training in these days and receives an injury in line of duty, he should receive the same compensation as he would if injured in wartime. I respectfully urge the committee to give this bill favorable consideration. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. TEAGUE: I am attaching hereto a copy of a statement and my comments on it which I would like to make in support of H.R. 5089 introduced by me and made a part of the committee's record of the hearings on this bill. Most sincerely, A. SYDNEY HERLONG, Jr. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. A. S. HERLONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN Congress FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA H.R. 5089 During wartime the tender age of youth knew no fear, and showed valor and courage on the battlefield, at sea or in the air, while facing the enemy. They were enthusiastic and patriotic and careless which caused accidents during rough play or in celebration of a victory. In many cases their minds were aflame with scenes of killing in defense of this Nation, and in this condition many accidents did take place. These cases after proper investigation by the armed services, no certificate of willful misconduct was issued. It is unfair for a Veterans' Administration adjudication officer, in the absence of a certificate from the Armed Forces, to rule a case of willful misconduct, and deny benefits to an honorably discharged wartime soldier, or his beneficiaries. There have been cases in which servicemen were confined while in the military or naval service and were injured by bombs dropped by hostile enemy aircraft, others that contracted rheumatic fever producing heart disease and still others particularly in the South Pacific, who contracted malaria and filariasis while so confined. We are mindful of the sense of justice and fairness which runs through our whole structure of veterans' benefits. It is based to a great extent on the tragic consequences resulting from injury and disability while in the armed services of the United States. A very stern and inflexible law relating to line of duty, has worked a definite hardship upon a serviceman or upon the family of a veteran. We do not think that the cost of legislation of this character would be high as there are not too many cases involved. But our principle is if there are a few cases involved and there is no equity, that it should be corrected. In many of these cases the veteran did no intentional wrong and there has been no certificate issue of misconduct by the Armed Forces. The Army and Navy jointly recommended the modification, which Congress passed in 1943, to qualify misconduct, insofar as it applies to venereal diseases. It gave little or no relief to World War I veterans, who have been under the mis conduct bar. The Veterans' Administration must make an arbitrary determination, based on the service record and the information that they receive from the service department. Therefore, it revolves itself around the fact that somebody sitting in the Veterans' Administration that does not know the veteran, had never seen him, will make a decision. The expression "in line of duty" has been used in pension legislation since the beginning of the Government. But two decisions by the Federal courts have been rendered, and they are more or less conflicting. This bill, H.R. 5089, is to take the arbitrary power away from the Veterans' Administration where no certificate of misconduct is issued by the Armed Services, in the case of an honorably discharged member of the military service, injured or diseased in line of duty. This bill, H.R. 5089, would correct the injustice done those veterans and dependents of servicemen who served their country honorably for, in most cases many years, who suffer disease or injury or have lost their lives while on active duty in other than usual or ordinary circumstances, such as accident, suicide, etc. These cases are officially investigated by the service department concerned to determine line of duty status, as a responsible part of military and naval jurisdiction over the person of the serviceman. No Department of the Armed Forces would recognize, accept, or tolerate interference from any outside source, including other Government agencies, in the execution of military and naval affairs of the United States. Therefore, in this matter of such vital importance to our servicemen, our veterans, and their dependents, the Veterans' Administration should be stripped of the arbitrary power they now have to overrule a decision made by proper authority by the Military Department of our Armed Forces. The power now available to the adjudicative members of the Veterans' Administration permits opinion, a latitude certainly not intended by the makers of our laws, in granting the entire field of benefits to our servicemen and veterans. As you know opinion is molded by personal prejudices. In the far-reaching effect of the denial of benefits, no part of such a decision should be left to the possible application of opinion by a member of the Veterans' Administration and certainly not in this particular area, where, before reaching the Veterans' Administration, a decision in each case has been made by competent authority by the department of our Armed Forces, only after the most thorough investigation. Mr. DORN. Our next witness this morning will be the gentleman from Ohio, the Honorable William H. Harsha, Jr. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JR., A U.S. REPRE SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. DORN. We are delighted to have you with us. Please go ahead and state anything you like and submit anything you like for the record. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. I am William H. Harsha, Jr., representing the 6th Congressional District of Ohio. I appreciate having the opportunity to present you my views on legislation concerning our veterans. I appear here in support of H.R. 5669 and H.R. 5670 which I introduced into the House of Representatives requesting a modest increase of existing rates of compensation payments for serviceconnected disability. I am deeply concerned with the adverse results of war and its aftermath upon those who served our country and I have viewed with much alarm the upward spiral of living costs and its effect upon disabled veterans and their fixed incomes. As the cost of living rises the purchasing power of compensation payments declines and this brings about a constant decline in the living standards of America's disabled veterans. These bills, H.R. 5669 and H.R. 5670 would provide much-needed disability compensation increases for service-connected disability and enable the veterans involved to cope more adequately with the ever |