totally disabled. And still they only get 79 percent on the rating scale for disability. Now, this bill would make it possible to give them permanent total disability, if the individual because of serviceconnected disability was unable to follow any substantial gainful occupation. It would not be done except where that would be the case. But it would make it permissible and possible, and those boards could take that action as to individuals that is not now possible as to permanent total disability. Only in individual cases can the Administrator, personally, now say as to this individual that he has a combination of disabilities warranting a rating of permanent total disability. I think it ought to be possible to make it done in the field as well.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, your organization, the one you had formerly been connected with, handled the Spanish-American War legislation, and no discrimination has ever been made in the Spanish-American War legislation. But that they should come under a given yardstick, no matter where they lived or what they did and they get a certain amount of pension. There is too much discrimination

Mr. RICE. Do you think I am misunderstanding?
The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not.

Mr. RICE. I am very sorry if you feel I do misunderstand.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I understand.

Because you know, and I can show you that you can take a bookkeeper before the war and with some disability of his he could rate way up out of proportion; you know that.

Mr. RICE. Yes; I know it, but it has nothing to do with this proposed bill.

The CHAIRMAN. This proposed bill judges according to occupation when he went in.

Mr. RICE. No; I beg to differ with you, Congressman; it does not. It provides to base it on the individual.

The CHAIRMAN. If they measure up, if they come under the scale, if this man over here is required to measure up, and if he measures up, then he is entitled to compensation.

Mr. RICE. That is exactly what the reasoning is now, CongressAnd we want to correct that very situation.

man.

The CHAIRMAN. We should measure them all by the same measuring stick.

Mr. RICE. Congressman, we are agreeing, but we apparently do not understand that we are in agreement. We want to correct this situation, and it ought to be corrected. When we know that the Veterans' Administration is now rating them as less than totally disabled on an average basis, we want the field offices for the Veterans' Administration to be authorized to say, in spite of the fact that the average individual might not be totally disabled, that this particular individual is totally disabled. This proposal adds to and does not take anything away.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you do not want to see them too heavy for the average veteran, and this would not be a disability for the average veteran, but owing to this man's peculiar occupation

Mr. RICE. Not owing to this man's peculiar occupation, but because of him.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you mean to say that this would disable this man, it would not disable the other man?

Mr. RICE. No; I do not mean to say that at all.

The CHAIRMAN. You put it on an individual basis, except giving them all the same test.

Mrs. ROGERS. May I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. You mean, because a man might have some nervous disability in addition to some other disability, that would make him totally disabled?

Mr. RICE. If it made him unemployable and unable to follow a substantially gainful occupation, then under this bill the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs would be compelled to rate him as permanently and totally disabled. This has nothing to do with ratings of less than permanent total disability. It has nothing to do with 94 percent or 70 percent or 50 percent or 42 percent, but only as to those who can be rated permanent total disabled, and only as to those who can be so rated.

The CHAIRMAN. But another man with exactly the same situation is set aside?

Mr. RICE. He is set aside now.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly what it is.

Mr. RICE. He is set aside now, Congressman.

The CHAIRMAN. They should be all on the same measuring stick. Mr. RICE. He is set aside now. That is the thing. If I may go

into this-I had not intended to take so much time-but I think it is very, very important that it be understood.

The law now in effect says that compensation ratings shall be determined on the basis of the average disability ratings, which are figured out on the basis of what would be estimated to be the average loss of the average individual in this particular kind of disability who had had that particular kind of pre-war occupation.

In other words, let us take a farmer, or let us take a man who has had his left hand off, right there [indicating]. Now, a farmer would be badly disabled and would therefore perhaps be given a variant of 8 or 9 by reason of that disability. The Veterans' Administration has provided for nine variants, ranging from 1 to 9, with 9 high and 1 low. Therefore in some occupation with this hand where he can wave it just as well after, such as an attorney, that would be a variant of 1 or 2, and the original allowance by the job would perhaps give him 25 percent; whereas the farmer with that disability, and a much more arduous job, it might perhaps go to 60 percent, and with a policeman would go to 65 or 70 percent for the same disability based on his prewar employment, and in some other occupation it would give him a variant of 5 and would perhaps give him around 25 percent for the same disability.

Now, there would never be a possibility of rating this man permanently and totally disabled under this law unless it caused that particular individual to become unemployed and unable to follow a gainful occupation.

The CHAIRMAN. And that kind of provision was never written into veteran laws anywhere else on earth until after the World War; was it?

Mr. RICE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Not only that, but you would pay a lawyer according to what he earned as a lawyer and, as someone remarked a moment ago, the student who did not have any income.

Mr. RICE. You pay a lawyer less, Congressman.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not satisfied with the present law. If I had my way, I would rewrite it.

Mr. RICE. So would I.

The CHAIRMAN. But I am certainly going to be very, very careful not to approve anything I think will further these discriminations. Mr. RICE. I think this would do exactly the opposite.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope you are right. I will look into it.

Mr. RICE. This would not apply to any case of a man less than permanently and totally disabled; but it would say in addition to what he is now getting on the rating scale, if his disability is such as to make it impossible for him to be in any substantially gainful occupation, then it shall be possible to rate him as permanently and totally disabled. And it cannot by any stretch of the imagination reduce any veteran's compensation.

The CHAIRMAN. That is giving the Veterans' Administration the very latitude of which you complain. Now, you have been complaining here about the regulations of the Veterans' Administration, and you would absolutely put these veterans that would come under your law at the mercy not only of the regulations, but at the mercy of, you might say, of the examiner or whoever passes on his case last, whoever the court of last resort might be.

I am going to be frank with you. I am reluctant, I am very reluctant to write anything into these veterans' laws that can be construed to discriminate against any veterans who have the same disabilities. Mr. RICE. I can agree with you a thousand percent on that. We agree absolutely, about that, but we are misunderstanding what the intent of this particular bill is.

Mr. VOORHIS. I would just like to say, if I may, that the purpose of this bill, H. R. 164, was a very simple purpose as far as I was concerned. It was for the purpose of trying to make it possible for a man permanently with a nervous disease, who at present cannot be rated, at least without the intervention of the Administrator himself, cannot be rated as permanently and totally disabled, but where they are found to be suffering from severe industrial inadaptability it seems to me their chances of getting a job were precisely zero. And that was the only thing that was in my mind.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, Mr. Voorhis. I am not questioning the purpose of the author of the bill or the veterans' organization that sponsors it. But I am questioning its ultimate results, that is what.

Mr. RICE. Well, I certainly approve.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, because I consider it very, very important, if you would call an expert from the Veterans' Administration to find out whether or not your fears are well-grounded-if I may say so, without offense.

(Discussion off the record.)

328041-41-13

The CHAIRMAN. There was a representative of another organization to be heard just to make a short statement, if you finish in the morning in time for him.

Mr. RICE. I am certain I can.

The CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow morning at 10:30; but we are not going to meet on Saturday or Monday.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the committee recessed until tomorrow, Friday, May 9, 1941, at 10:30 a. m.)

WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1941

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS LEGISLATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. John E. Rankin (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Rice, Mr. Voorhis wants to be here to hear the rest of your statement.

Mr. Church, I understand you want to make a short statement? Mr. CHURCH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT A. CHURCH, NATIONAL COMMANDER, MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART, INC.

Mr. CHURCH. In opening the brief statement which I have to make this morning, I desire to offer our unqualified approval with regard to the statements made by representatives from the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Disabled American Veterans, Mr. Omer Ketchum and Mr. Millard Rice, respectively.

Both of these men are most emphatic in stating that the example furnished by the United States Government in compensating without stint the men who have served their country in wars previous to the present date will furnish a sufficient incentive for the young men of today who are entering the service for a possible involvement in war. We cannot stress to emphatically the fact that the young men of today are measuring their chances for the future by the consideration which our Government has extended to veterans of former wars.

My principal reason for appearing before your worthy committee is to direct your special attention to section 15 of H. R. 2299, which is as follows:

SEC. 15. Any person wounded, gassed, injured, or disabled by an instrumentality of war in a zone of hostilities in line of duty in the active military or naval service of the United States, who, if rated 10 per centum disabled, would be entitled to receive compensation or pension under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, shall be paid $10 per month, or who is receiving or entitled to receive compensation or pension under the provisions of such laws, shall be paid $10 per month in addition to such compensation or pension. Any World War veteran entitled to the $10 per month herein authorized, or any deceased World War veteran who if living would be entitled to the $10 per month herein authorized, shall be deemed to be or to have been entitled to compensation for 10 per centum or more disability at the time of his death for purposes of Public Law Numbered 484, Seventy-third Congress, as amended. No payments shall be made under this section for any period prior to the date of its enactment.