STATEMENT OF HON HARLAN HAGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HAGEN. Honorable Chairman and members, I am appearing here with respect to H. R. 3503 which I understand was introduced by Congressman Yorty of California. I have here a statement which has been prepared which I will submit on behalf of Congressman Yorty that deals with the legalisms involved in this bill and the necessity therefor.

I may say that I personally talked with a representative of one of the leading mausoleum, burial, and undertaking businesses in California at some length about this. This bill deals with the burial allowance which is paid to the families of the veterans who are deceased.

Briefly, the inequity that this bill strikes at is this: At the present time, any veteran is initially entitled to a $150 allowance from the Government to pay the costs of his burial. That payment is not based on any consideration of indigency or lack of ability to pay or anything else. A man might have an estate of a million dollars and that $150 would still be paid.

In the light of that consideration, you will see the justice of this proposed amendment because the Veterans' Administration has ruled, as I understand it, not from any policy consideration, but purely as a result of a technical interpretation of the law that if that veteran has burial insurance, we will say with a commercial company, which absorbs the total cost of his burial, then in that event this $150 will not be paid. In other words, he might be virtually a pauper himself, but he has scraped and saved and purchased his burial insurance and his family does not get this $150, whereas a man might have an estate of a million dollars and his family would still get the $150. This seems to me to be a patent inequity in the law and, as I understand it, results in a technical interpretation of the law by the Veterans' Administration.

I also interviewed this man about some of the aspects of these commercial burial policies. As I understand it, at least in California, the purchaser of the policy can designate organization to conduct his burial or he may designate that some member of his family-his wife, for example would be the beneficiary of this particular policy, but at least in California, even though he designates a particular organization to conduct his burial services, the family is not bound to use the services of that organization. They can go anywhere they want. Therefore, under all circumstances they receive the return which the decedent paid for, so this bill would not, as I understand it, result in any gratuity at all to the undertaking or associated businesses.

Further, I understand that there is a procedure presently used whereby the existing veterans regulation can be circumvented, but it takes a little bit of red tape and the thing should be accomplished by a change in the law rather than by devious means which consist, as I understand it, of making the policy payable to the widow or some other close member of the family, and they in turn execute an assignment to an organization engaged in this business and the policy and assignment is then sent to the Veterans' Administration and if it is established that it is a valid assignment, then even though this insurance policy exists, they do make the payment, but that involves another layer of

red tape which the people in the business object to and I guess the beneficiaries of these policies also object.

This would seem to me to be a minor inequity in the law which should be corrected. I could understand the existing policy if there were a means test or something with respect to this $150, but there is not, so that all we are doing is penalizing a man who might be poor who has the foresight to take out a policy of burial insurance; and, as I have stated, as I understand it, this change in the law would not result in a benefit to the people engaged in selling this kind of insurance; it would be a benefit to the veteran's family.

I would like to submit this statement for Congressman Yorty. Mr. RADWAN. If there is no objection, it is so ordered and it will be printed in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL W. YORTY

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, H. R. 3503 provides for an amendment to Veterans Regulation 9 (a) by striking out a portion thereof, so as to permit the family of a deceased veteran to secure the burial allowance therein provided, notwithstanding the fact that the veteran may have during his lifetime attempted through insurance or a burial association to provide against such a contingency. The regulation in question, as approved in June 1933, provided: "No deductions shall be made from the sum allowed because of any contribution toward the burial and funeral (including transportation) which shall be made by a State, county, or political subdivision, lodge, union, fraternal organization, society or beneficial organization, insurance company, workman's compensation commission, State industrial accident board, or employer, but the aggregate of the sums allowed from all sources shall not exceed the actual cost of the burial or funeral (including transportation)."

This paragraph remained unaffected by subsequent amendments to the regulation, until October 17, 1940, when the 76th Congress enacted Public, No. 866, which amendment by that act eliminated reference to "lodge, union, fraternal organization, society, or beneficial organization, insurance company" and set forth conditions under which the allowance would have been reduced or denied by reason of a cash contribution made by a burial association.

The section of Veterans Regulation 9 (a) as it now reads is as follows (the language italicized would be deleted by the bill):

"II, Where an honorably discharged veteran of any war, a veteran of any war in receipt of pension or compensation, a veteran discharged from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard for disability incurred in line of duty, or a veteran of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard in receipt of pension for service-connected disability dies after discharge, the Administrator, in his discretion and with due regard to the circumstances in each case, shall pay, for burial and funeral expenses and transportation of the body (including preparation of the body) to the place of burial, a sum not exceeding $150 to cover such items and to be paid to such person or persons as may be prescribed by the Administrator. The Administrator may, in his discretion, make contracts for burial and funeral services within the limits of the amount herein allowed without regard to the laws prescribing advertisement for proposals for supplies and services for the Veterans' Administration. No deduction shall be made from the burial allowance because of any contribution from any source toward the burial and funeral (including transportation) unless the amount of expenses incurred is covered by the amount actually paid for burial and funeral (including transportation) purposes by a State, county, or other political subdivision, workmen's compensation commission, State industrial accident board, employer, burial association, or Federal agency: Provided, That no claim shall be allowed for more than the difference between the entire amount of the expenses incurred, and the amount paid by any or all of the foregoing agencies or organizations: Provided further, That nothing herein shall be construed to cause the denial of or a reduction in the amount of the burial allowance otherwise payable because of a cash contribution made by a burial association to any person other than the person rendering burial and funderal services: And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall

be construed so as to cause payment of the burial allowance or any part thereof in any case where specific provision is otherwise made for payment of expenses of funeral, transportation, and interment under any other Act."

Notwithstanding the elimination of the words "insurance company" by the 1940 amendment, the Veterans' Administration have interpreted "burial association" to mean a commercial-type organization which issues policies or contracts upon the payment of stipulated premiums, assessments, or dues, the purchase of which is to provide burial and funeral service through the furnishing of merchandise and/or services, or in lieu thereof, the payment of a beneficiary in cash to the undertaker or to some other person.

It appears from the legislative history of Public Law No. 866 that the reason for the 1940 amendment was "so that burial allowance will be paid in certain cases notwithstanding the fact that there has been a contribution by a lodge, union, or insurance company. The existing law has produced unfair results, in that it is usually the veteran of moderate means who purchases burial insurance of this type, whereas the veterans of larger means may leave a substantial estate, and yet the burial allowance would be paid for the veteran in better circumstances. This amendment will remove such inequalities." (Rept. 1814, Committee on World War Veterans Legislation, 76th Cong., 3d sess.).

Unfortunately, the 1940 amendment, in light of the interpretation of the regulation as it now exists by the Veterans' Administration, aid not remove the inequalities complained of. By including in the amendment of 1940 the phrase "burial association," and by the interpretation placed on this wording by the Veterans' Administration to include funeral insurance policies even when issued by an oldline legal reserve insurance company, the veteran of moderate means who purchases such a policy is, under the present law, denied the relief that Public Law No. 866 in 1940 was manifestedly intended to extend to him.

The passage of H. R. 3503 will remove this discrimination and restore the relief to the veteran of moderate means which the action of the 76th Congress clearly intended.

The Bureau of the Budget on July 2,, 1953, made a report to Hon. Edith Nourse Rogers, chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on H. R. 3503, which report is in and of itself one of the best arguments for the adoption of the bill, even though it concludes with a vague statement that some additional administrative cost, as well as some additional benefit cost would be entailed.

In concluding my remarks, may I suggest that either the fundamental purpose of the provision for the payment of burial benefits is sound, and should be paid without discrimination against thrift, or is unsound, and should be repealed entirely. H. R. 3503 will remove the discrimination now existing against the veteran of moderate means.

In other words a veteran may be independently wealthy and yet if he dies without being a member of a burial association or having a policy of funeral insurance, his survivors will be entitled to the full $150 now provided by the regulation. On the other hand, if a veteran of moderate means has had the foresight to join a burial association, or to take out a policy of funeral insurance to provide for his burial expenses, his survivors are penalized to the extent of the amount of such policy, and are not entitled to the full benefit of the regulation.

Mr. RADWAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. NATCHER. I have no questions. Thank you.

Mr. RADWAN. Thank you for coming down.

I know there are other witnesses here who are ready to testify. Because the House is now in session, this committee will stand adjourned until 10, Tuesday morning.

(Thereupon, the hearing recessed at 11 a. m. Friday, April 2, 1954, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, April 6, 1954.)

COMPENSATION AND PENSION BILLS FOR VETERANS

AND THEIR DEPENDENTS

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION AND PENSION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable John P. Saylor (acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. SAYLOR. The committee will come to order.

The first witness this morning is Dr. Overholser, superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital. Dr. Overholser is also past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

It is a pleasure to welcome you back before the committee, Dr. Overholser.

STATEMENT OF DR. WINFRED OVERHOLSER, SUPERINTENDENT, ST. ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL

Dr. OVERHOLSER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. SAYLOR. We have before us this morning a bill, H. R. 6931 and other related bills, on chronic psychotics. We would like to have the benefit of your testimony.

Dr. OVERHOLSER. Thank you very much, sir.

I appreciate being asked to appear before the committee, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

My name is Winfred Overholser. I am the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital, but I am not here in my official capacity. I am here rather, sir, as chairman of the national medical advisory board of the American Legion.

I have had long experience with mental diseases, particularly In hospital work, and a good deal with veterans' problems in particular, and I am very much interested in the particular question which is before the committee this morning; namely, increasing the length of presumption, rebuttable presumption at least, in the case of the socalled functional psychoses to 3 years.

I am convinced that is entirely fair and proper from the medical as well as the legal point of view, and from the point of view of the

veteran.

The so-called functional psychoses are those which do not have any consistent organic known basis. There are certain types of mental disorders which of course are due to damage to the brain from one cause or the other, but in the case of the so-called functional psychoses— and I say "so-called" advisedly because in a way the term "functional" simply means we do not know all we would like to know about the

case we have a group of mental disorders which are insidious on onset but which very often date back as we see the full-blown effect of the psychoses for some little time. It is very difficult to fix that time.

There are some diseases about which we can say: "Yes, the affection occurred today. The full-blown symptoms will occur tomorrow." That is very simple.

Here we are dealing with a lifetime; we are dealing with an individual who has been subjected to various strains, and particularly in the case of the veterans to particular strains of a peculiar sort which do not always show up promptly. There are, of course, some conditions which do show up promptly. We saw a great many of those at St. Elizabeths in the case of Navy patients during World War II.

The person in civil life goes into the Armed Forces and is subjected, if he is not under fire, to a special regime; a special way of life under orders, under strict discipline and feeling that he is not his own master the way he would be if he were in civil life, with the prospect that he may be injured and killed, so there are a lot of psychological factors

at work.

Now, depending partly on the background of the individual, partly on what he has been through in the service, partly on the condition in which he comes back into civil life, he is likely to have, and a good many do have, difficulties in readjustment to the problems of civil life. Sometimes those maladjustments seem to increase in intensity as the individual goes along. The early difficulties may be quite mild. The family may overlook them or may say, "Well he will be better," and they are hopeful, and naturally they do not like to think anybody might be about to have a mental disorder in the family. Then after a prolonged period perhaps, perhaps a year or two-and it could even be longer-we find a condition arising which calls perhaps for the drastic action of sending him to a hospital. It seems to me it is entirely proper then that a presumption, a leaning on the side of the veteran, should be set up which is of a substantial length of time. I think that 3 years is very fair.

I had some reservations in my own mind, I am frank to say, at the time the law was passed right after World War I, which extended the period of a conclusive not a rebuttable presumption-to something over 5 years. I thought maybe that was a shade long. In this case the bill is not asking for a conclusive presumption in any event. It is only a rebuttable presumption, but it means the doubt, if there is any doubt, is resolved in favor of the veteran rather than in favor of the Government.

I am heartily in favor of the bill, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.. I certainly hope it may be enacted.

Mr. SAYLOR. I appreciate your coming before the committee, because I know from association with you in other matters affecting the mentally ill, that you are recognized as one of the outstanding authorities in the country on this subject.

Doctor, I would like to ask you this question: It is not directly connected with this bill, yet it bears upon the subject. Do you feel there should be a differentiation made in psychotic cases where the veteran has service, or combat service, as distinguished from a veteran who does not have combat service?