tion for the Veterans Administration to furnish through its own facilities, or otherwise, outpatient treatment to these veterans for their service-connected conditions during the new 5-year period. Thus, the bill would authorize an extension of both features of this hospital and medical care program. However, the bill places a ceiling of $500,000 on the amount which may be expended for payments covering hospital care, including travel expenses, for any fiscal year during the extended 5-year period. We think this is desirable and that sufficient funds for this purpose can be provided within the proposed ceiling. The Veterans Memorial Hospital is a 722-bed institution currently recognized as one of the outstanding medical facilities in the Far East and is a symbol of the solidarity of the two nations. In its original concept, the provision for hospital care for Commonwealth Army veterans with service-connected disorders contemplated that the Philippine Government would gradually accept full financial responsibility for the operation of the hospital and the treatment of these veterans. However, it has been demonstrated throughout the period of the grant-in-aid program that grave difficulties would be faced by the Republic of the Philippines in attempting to finance the operation of the hospital and provide for the medical needs of these veterans who fought alongside our own veterans in World War II. While there is a decreasing number of service-connected veterans in this group who require hospitalization or out-patient care, it now seems apparent that continued assistance for an additional temporary period will be required after the end of fiscal year 1963. Some data on the status of the program will be of interest. In fiscal year 1960 the average daily patient load in the hospital phase of the program was 211; in fiscal year 1961 it was 172; and for fiscal year 1962 it had decreased to 166. This factor, coupled with the declining per diem rate, shows a gradual lessening of cost to the U.S. Government for its part in continuing this important program. Based on experience in the last 4 years, the first-year cost of hospitalizing Commonwealth Army veterans, including travel, would not exceed $350,000 for fiscal year 1964, and the entire cost for the additional full 5 years would probably be less than $2 million. In addition, we estimate that the cost to the Veterans Administration for the supplementary outpatient part of the program for Commonwealth Army veterans is now approximating $300,000 per year, and this annual rate should not be materially exceeded during the additional 5 years of the proposed extension. We believe that the existing statutory program, with the implementing agreement, provides a reasonable and prudent manner for furnishing hospital and medical care to Commonwealth Army veterans and that, under all the circumstances, it should be continued for another 5 years. Accordingly, we recommend that S. 331 be favorably considered. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, J. S. GLEASON, Jr., [S. 384, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended, in order to provide increased protection against eviction of dependents from premises rented for dwelling purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (1) of section 300 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 530), is amended by striking out "$80" and inserting in lieu thereof "$135”. EXPLANATION OF S. 384 This bill amends section 300 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended regarding eviction of dependents of servicemen, drafted or involuntarily called into service, from a rented dwelling place, by increasing the present monthly rental limitation of $80 to a rental limitation of $135 per month. Because of the rise in the costs of rent since 1940, the $80 per month limitation does not afford today the protection for servicemen and their families intended by the original act. The new monthly rental limitation of $135 takes into ac count the increased rental costs, as gaged by the Business Consumer Price Index. Hon. LISTER HILL, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., March 12, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will reply to your letter of January 23, 1963, with respect to your request for the comments of this Bureau on S. 384, a bill to amend the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended, in order to provide increased protection against eviction of dependents from premises rented for dwelling purposes. The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the enactment of S. 384. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 12, 1963. Hon. LISTER HILL Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN.: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to S. 384, 88th Congress, a bill to amend the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended, in order to provide increased protection against eviction of dependents from premises rented for dwelling purposes. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Department of the Air Force the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense. The purpose of S. 384 is to amend the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, to provide increased protection against eviction of dependents of military personnel from premises rented for dwelling purposes. Current law provides that where dependents of a person in the military service occupy a dwelling for which the rent does not exceed $80 per month, they are protected from eviction from such dwelling during the period of military service except upon court order. S. 384 would extend this protection to the dependents of servicemen who occupy dwellings for which the rent does not exceed $135 per month. This increase in the maximum rent for which protection is afforded recognizes the increase in current rental prices over those in effect at the time of enactment of the present law. This proposed amendment to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act would increase the number of service families protected by law. Current law which establishes $80 per month as the maximum rental for which protection is afforded significantly limits the number of families protected. The Department of the Air Force, on behalf of the Department of Defense recommends that favorable consideration be given to the enactment of S. 384. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely, EUGENE M. ZUCKERT. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, Hon. LISTER HILL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for a report by the Veterans' Administration on S. 384, 88th Congress. The bill, if enacted, would increase from $80 to $135 the maximum monthly rental of servicemen's dwellings which are subject to the protective provisions of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 530). At the present time section 300 of such act provides generally that in the absence of judicial consent it shall be a misdemeanor to evict the wife, children, or other dependents of a person in military service from any premises occupied chiefly as a dwelling for which the agreed rent does not exceed $80 per month. No change in this amount has been made since 1940 when the section was originally enacted. The comparable figure in the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1918 was $50 per month. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act was designed to afford broad protection to persons while in military service. Except for article IV, relating to the guarantee of certain commercial life insurance premiums, the provisions of the act are not administered by the Veterans' Administration, although our loan assistance activities are sometimees affected if the veteran has reentered the service. Most of the provisions of the act, including section 300, are construed and enforced by the courts in additional cases. The Department of Defense and the Department of Justice would appear to have considerable interest in the type of legislation proposed by S. 384, and the committee may desire to obtain their comments on the bill. Under the circumstances, the Veterans' Administration defers to the views of those Departments as to the merits of the proposed legislation. Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, J. S. GLEASON, Jr., Administrator. [S. 412, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend title 38 of the United States Code to provide for waiver of indebtedness to the United States in certain cases arising out of default on loans guaranteed or made by the Veterans' Administration Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subchapter III of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding after the semicolon in section 1820 (a) (4) the following: "and the authority to waive or release claims may include partial or total waiver of payment by the veteran, or his spouse, following default and loss of the property where the Administrator determines that the default arose out of compelling reasons without fault on the part of the veteran or that collection of the indebtedness would otherwise work a severe hardship upon the veteran ;" EXPLANATION OF S. 412 This bill authorizes the VA to waive certain indebtedness owed the United States by the veterans or their spouses on account of defaults on guaranteed or direct loans. The new authority permits waiver under certain circumstances in which waiver is now denied. Specifically, waiver would be permitted where there is a determination "that the default arose out of compelling reasons without fault on the part of the veteran or that collection of the indebtedness would otherwise work a severe hardship upon the veteran." Although existing law provides broad authority for waiver, VA believes that administrative action granting total forgiveness of indebtedness on the basis of hardship would be very questionable in the absence of specific authorization. Consequently, the VA has officially requested enactment of this legislation to clarify the law and effect more equitable settlements in hardship cases. The new authority applies to hardship cases only. It would not authorize the VA to grant complete waiver where the veteran's financial situation is such that he could arrange to pay all or a substantial portion of indebtedness without severe hardship on himself or his family. Hon. LISTER HILL, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The following comments are furnished in response to your request for a report on S. 412, 88th Congress. The purpose of this bill is to provide for waiver of recovery from veterans of indebtedness to the United States resulting from the payment of loan guarantee claims or from default on direct loans, under circumstances in which waiver is now denied. Specifically, the bill would provide that where there has been a default and loss of the property the Administrator may waive recovery if he determines "that the default arose out of compelling reasons without fault on the part of the veteran or that collection of the indebtedness would otherwise work a severe hardship upon the veteran." The law now provides (38 U.S.C. 1820) that the Administrator may "pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption" with respect to matters arising under chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, which deals with the loan guarantee and direct loan programs of the Veterans' Administration. For many years this general authority with respect to waiver has been implemented by regulations which establish standards authorizing waiver (1) when the veteran was not at fault in the creation of the indebtedness and (2) where recovery would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized or would be against equity and good conscience. These regulatory standards are like those governing waiver of recovery of erroneous payments or overpayments of benefits under our programs as specifically set forth in provisions of the code dealing with benefits generally (38 U.S.C. 3102). However, it has not been considered that general waiver of debts due the United States by reason of default on guaranteed or direct loans should be granted out of compassion or because of such factors as existing hardship and present or near future inability to pay an indebtedness. This has not prevented appropriate compromises which, in some instances, involve a relatively small payment on the outstanding indebtedness. Moreover, these standards permit waiver of the right to offset the amount of the indebtedness against benefits otherwise payable to the veteran where it is found he was without fault and that the circumstances show that the offset would work such a hardship on him as to defeat the purpose for which such benefits are payable. We recognize that the authority of the Administrator to waive or release claims in connection with the loan assistance programs is cast in broad terms. However, we have felt that without a specific legislative indication that total forgiveness of the indebtedness could be granted on the basis of financial hardship, it would be very questionable whether it would be proper to interpret and apply the waiver authority to that extent. In this area we are dealing with an indebtedness incurred by the veteran as a result of his original voluntary act of negotiating a loan guaranteed or made by the Government and the obligation he concurrently assumed to pay the Government in the event it was required to fulfill its obligation on the guarantee. The matter has been considered as materially different from overpayment of gratuitous benefits, such as compensation and pension, which involves a mistake on the part of the Government. In the latter circumstances, a full waiver of recovery is sometimes granted pursuant to statutory authority. In the light of experience, we believe that the law respecting waiver of loan indebtedness should be clarified to provide in specific terms for general waiver under conditions provided in the proposed legislation. The enactment of the bill would not, however, permit general waiver of the indebtedness where such action would be contrary to the purpose of the loan programs. It is not intended, therefore, to be used for granting complete waiver of the veteran's liability where his financial situation is such that he can arrange to pay all or a substantial part of the indebtedness without severe hardship on himself or family. Liberalization of the waiver authority as contemplated in the proposed legislation would involve some reduction in the amounts which are now recovered from veterans. However, it is believed that the resulting financial loss to the Government would be small and that any increase in administrative costs would not be significant. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend favorable action by your committee on S. 412. We were advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there was no objection from the standpoint of the administration's program to presentation of a similar report to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on H.R. 242, a bill which is identical in substance with S. 412. Sincerely, J. S. GLEASON, Jr., Administrator. [S. 449, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To liberalize the provisions of title 38, United States Code, relating to automobiles for disabled veterans Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1901 of title 38, United States Code, is amended (1) By striking out clause (3) in subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(3) Permanent impairment of vision of both eyes of the following status: Central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye, with corrective glasses, or central visual acuity of more than 20/200 if there is a field defect in which the peripheral field has contracted to such an extent that the widest diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than twenty degrees in the better eye; and for each veteran who suffered the loss or permanent loss of use of one or both feet due to disability incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service during the induction period, if such disability was incurred or aggravated in line of duty (1) as a direct result of armed conflict, or (2) while the veteran was engaged in extrahazardous service (including such service under conditions simulating war)." (2) By amending subsection (b) to read as follows: "(b) For the purposes of this section "(1) the term 'World War II' includes, in the case of any veteran, any period of continuous service performed by him after December 31, 1946, and before July 26, 1947, if such period began before January 1, 1947; and "(2) the term 'induction period' means the period beginning on February 1, 1955, and ending on the day before the first day thereafter on which individuals (other than individuals liable for induction by reason of a prior deferment) are no longer liable for induction for training and service into the Armed Forces under the Universal Military Training and Service Act." SEC. 2. Section 1905 of title 38, United States Code, is amended (1) by striking out at the beginning of the first sentence thereof "The benefits", and inserting in lieu thereof "(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the benefits", and (2) by adding at the end thereof a new subsection as follows: "(b) In the case of any veteran who suffered any of the disabilities specified in section 1901 of this title as the result of service during the induction period and who was discharged or released from active military, naval, or air service before the date of enactment of this subsection, any applicable time limitation contained in subsection (a) of this section which otherwise would have begun to run prior to the date of enactment of this subsection shall not begin to run until that date." |