dependent or dependents as may be determined by the Administrator of Veterans Affairs sec. 12, PL 144, 78th Cong.); divorce, the date preceding the date of divorce; in the case of a child, the date preceding the 18th or 21st birthday, or cessation of school attendance (see VA Regulations 1287 and 2598), or the date preceding the date of marriage; in the case of a dependent parent, the date on which dependency ceases, will be the effective date. Where a minor child of a disabled person being paid apportioned disability compensation, pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay enters the active military or naval service, such apportioned award will be discontinued as of the date of last payment and, effective as of the next day, such child's apportioned share will be added to the disability compensation, pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay otherwise payable to the veteran. Where the estranged wife of a disabled veteran is receiving apportioned disability compensation, pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay in behalf of herself and a minor child and such minor child enters the active military or naval service, the apportioned share for the estranged wife will be continued in the same amount as was payable prior to the child's entry into active service, such increased amount to continue during the child's minority, or until the cessation of the condition upon which the apportionment was made. (Oct. 28, 1954) "(E) Where no fiduciary has been or is to be appointed or when payments to an unsatisfactory fiduciary have been stopped or suspended, as indicated in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, apportionment to dependents will be under VA Regulation 1315." AMVETS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TEAGUE: In response to your invitation to testify on H. R. 72, scheduled for hearings on July 25, 1957, I regret that I will be unable to appear before your committee because previous commitments make it necessary for me to travel to the west coast. On March 11, 1957, I testified before your special subcommittee and expressed the views of AMVETS on H. R. 72. My statements and other remarks are contained on pages 1365 through 1368 of the hearings. Since that date we have reviewed our stand on this bill and have had an opportunity to listen to arguments by those opposing this measure and, in spite of this, our views have not been altered. We, therefore, urge your committee to report this bill as previously reported. Also, it would be very much appreciated if you would make this letter a part of the hearings on H. R. 72. I again express my regret that my schedule will not permit me to appear before your committee. Very sincerely yours, JOHN R. HOLDEN, National Legislative Director. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TEAGUE: This is to thank you for the opportunity afforded the Disabled American Veterans to appear before your committee on July 25, 1957, at which time the recommitted bill, H. R. 72, will be made the subject of hearings. The reports of the debate held in the House on July 12, 1957, on this proposed legislation, have been studied with much interest. We do not feel qualified to discuss the question raised with regard to the constitutionality of the proposals embodied in the bill, but nevertheless discern that they do raise serious issues which amply justify the reconsideration your committee is to accord the whole subject. We do not plan to be present at the new hearings as witnesses as it is believed this letter will suffice to state the DAV position relative to those matters of concern mentioned in previous correspondence. It is our firm conviction that the bill should omit the requirement of dependency as to father and mother and we are also of the opinion that brothers and sisters should be placed in the permitted class and without qualification. Perhaps there are some siblings who have been far too aloof and indifferent but there are also many other instances where brothers and sisters have undergone great worry and disruption of their own home lives because of an incompetent brother even though they might not be able to show very substantial or regular monetary contributions to his support. With these objections to the present bill overcome we would not continue to oppose the attainment of such a worthy objective. Sincerely yours, OMER W. CLARK, National Director of Legislation. Mr. OMER W. CLARK, National Director of Legislation, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., July 22, 1957. Disabled American Veterans, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CLARK: I have your letter of July 18, 1957, in which you express the views of your organization concerning H. R. 72, and advise that you will not be represented at the hearing which starts Thursday, July 25. Your reply raises some rather basic questions in my mind, the answers to which I would appreciate receiving from you: First, as you know, Public Law 881 passed both Houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote. As I recall, it was passed with the complete support of the Disabled American Veterans. That law, among other things, says that parents, with incomes of more than $2,400 per year, who lose a son in the field of battle, will not be entitled to any compensation. How do you make your position in favor of such legislation jibe with your letter of July 18, in which you ask that the funds of an incompetent veteran, who had the good fortune to live but lost his mind, be distributed to parents without qualification when, in all likelihood, the veteran has been cared for at Government expense ever since he suffered the disability? You underscore your objection to the disqualification of the right of brothers and sisters to obtain the estate of an incompetent beneficiary. From your long experience in the Veterans' Administration, as well as your experience with the DAV, I am sure that you know that brothers and sisters are not within the permitted class in either the compensation or pension laws as they exist today or as they have existed in the past. Am I to infer from your statement that the DAV is now embarked on a campaign to obtain compensation benefits for brothers and sisters of deceased veterans? Do you advocate that Public Law 877 of the 80th Congress should be amended to provide additional compensation for veterans who have brothers and sisters? I would appreciate hearing from you on these points and if possible prior to the hearing scheduled for July 25, 1957. Sincerely yours, OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. TEAGUE: This will acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated July 22, 1957, which referred to my letter of July 18, 1957, commenting on H. R. 72 which bill was recommitted and is now being made the subject of new hearings before your committee. In my opinion, the instances you cite for the purposes of comparison are not at all similar. The Disabled American Veterans does not advocate the broadening of existing compensation and pension legislation to bring in parents who are not dependent, and brothers and sisters. H. R. 72, as we understand it, has a laudable objective but goes too far in certain respects in restricting the descent and distribution of estates of incompetent veterans who die without leaving a widow or child. No distinction is made in the bill between moneys that are held by the VA in personal funds of patients and moneys that have actually been paid to guardians or other legal fiduciaries. In the latter category we do not believe that the Government has any right to reach out and take back the funds so paid, to which title has passed, simply because parents cannot show actual dependency on the veteran, or where the only remaining close heirs are brothers and sisters. As the moneys held in the personal funds of patients it will be appreciated that some of these funds probably contain moneys that under former VA procedure were "awarded" into what was then known as the funds due incompetent beneficiaries (FDIB) and there may be some question raised as to whether title passed in these instances. However, the DAV is not making that an issue. No doubt the courts will review the whole situation in its various aspects should H. R. 72 or a modification thereof be enacted. Sincerely yours, OMER W. CLARK, National Director of Legislation. [Excerpt from the April 1957, issue of the American Legion magazine] WOULD RESTRICT INHERITANCE OF ACCUMULATED GOVERNMENT BENEFITS OF INCOMPETENT VETERANS Another Teague bill (H. R. 72) proposes that unspent Government vet benefits held in trust for incompetent vets must go to a restricted class of immediate dependents, on the death of the veteran. * * * Lacking such close relatives, they'd revert to the Government. *** If nothing else, this is an interesting and complicated subject. *** Such benefit checks at present go to the estate of the deceased vet, finally passing on, in some instances, to heirs who neither rendered the service to the Government for which the benefits were paid, nor were ever remotely dependent upon the deceased vet. *** Sometimes accumulated thousands of dollars in compensation payments pass on to 11th cousins from Timbuctoo by this process, and it is Teague's reasonable view that this is an unintended use of vet benefit appropriations. Rep. Teague anticipates that control of such sums already in trust, having been paid out under existing law, might be contested in court battles with the outcome questionable. *** He is more confident that future payments, if H. R. 72 were enacted, could be so controlled. * * * Total vet benefit payments held in trust for incompetents or minors is nearly half a billion dollars, not all of which would be affected by H. R. 72. *** American Legion National Rehabilitation Committee has approved H. R. 72. Mr. HARVEY V. HIGLEY, Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., July 16, 1957. Veterans' Administration, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HIGLEY: Your attention is invited to pages 4207 and 4230 of the hearings held by a subcommittee of this committee on July 12, 1956, involving the bill, H. R. 10478, which sought to regulate the disposition of certain Veterans' Administration benefits which are unpaid at the time of death. H. R. 10478 passed the House but failed of enactment in the Senate. H. R. 72 of the 85th Congress, a bill substantially similar to H. R. 10478, was reported by the committee and was recommitted for further study on July 12, 1957. It is my understanding that approximately $60 million is in the person funds of patients and under the control of the Veterans' Administration. As a representative of the Veterans' Administration made clear in the hearings cited above, such money is not a payment and is under the control of the Veterans' Administration. It seems clear to me that the House in debating and considering H. R. 72 clearly wanted this money in the personal funds of patients to be recaptured if it were possible to do so. The statement of the Veterans' Administration representative on page 4230 of the hearings leaves no doubt that this is within the administrative discretion of the Veterans' Administration. I am therefore asking you to take immediate action to see that these funds are construed as indicated on page 4230 and that payments be restricted to beneficiaries in the immediate family circle of the veteran and prevented from being distributed to remote heirs, as the records compiled by this committee clearly show has been done in all too many instances. Very truly yours, OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. TEAGUE: This has reference to your letter of July 16, 1957, inviting attention to pages 4207 and 4230 of the hearings held by a subcommittee of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on June 12, 1956, involving the bill H. R. 10478. You request that immediate action be taken to see that personal funds of patients are construed as indicated on page 4230. It is assumed that your request is with regard to reversing the precedent established by Administrator's Decision No. 815 dated June 3, 1949, wherein it was held that moneys properly deposited in funds due incompetent beneficiaries subsequent to August 8, 1946 are to be considered as having been paid in the same manner as though awarded to a guardian or other fiduciary. Moneys heretofore deposited in funds due incompetent beneficiaries are now deposited in patients funds. As you will note from the Administrator's decision, copy of which is attached, the holding was based on the conclusion that to construe the Act so as to permit discrepencies between section 1 (A) and section 1 (B) thereof would be contrary to the intent of Congress. The above precedent has been effective for approximately 11 years from date of enactment of Public Law 662, 79th Congress. The General Counsel and his staff, after a careful study of the decision and the legislative history therein referred to, have expressed the opinion that it cannot be said the decision of the former Solicitor, approved by the then Administrator, and promulgated as Administrator's Decision No. 815 is clearly erroneous. Sincerely, 1 JOHN S. PATTERSON,, Deputy Administrator. For and in the absence of H. V. HIGLEY, Administrator. ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, No. 815, JUNE 3, 1949 Subject: Interpretation of section 1(B), Public Law 662, 79th Congress-Disposition of moneys deposited in funds due incompetent beneficiaries. Questions 1. May moneys deposited in "Funds Due Incompetent Beneficiaries" subsequent to August 8, 1946, date of enactment of Public Law 662, 79th Congress, be considered as paid and disposed of, as provided in section 21 (3), World War Veterans' Act, as amended? 2. Are the amounts withheld by virtue of the reduction provisions of section 1, Public Law 662, supra, to be included in determining whether the estate of the incompetent veteran equals or exceeds $1,500? Comment. Prior to the passage of Public Law 662, 79th Congress, depositing moneys in the Funds Due Incompetent Beneficiaries to be held in trust for the incompetent, pursuant to Veterans Regulation No. 6, as amended (section 13, Public Law 144, 78th Congress), and section 21 (3), World War Veterans' Act, as amended (38 U. S. C. 450), was not considered as constituting such payment as would have been effected had the moneys been paid to a guardian and passed entirely out of the control of the Government or even if paid to the medical officer in charge as trustee and placed in patients' funds. Hence, they were held as still subject to certain restrictions as to payment (for example, as accrued compensation). However, they were considered as part of the veterans' estate for the purpose of paragraph VI (B), Veterans Regulation No. 6 (a), which provided in part that pension, compensation, or retirement pay will not be paid where the estate of the "disabled insane veteran, derived from any source, equals or exceeds $1,500" and that "further payments of such benefits will not be made until the estate is reduced to $500." Public Law 662, 79th Congress, provides: "That (A) (1) where any veteran having neither wife, child, nor dependent parent is being furnished hospital treatment, institutional or domiciilary care by the Veterans' Administration, any pension, compensation, or retirement pay otherwise payable shall continue without reduction until the first day of the seventh calendar month following the month of enactment hereof, or the month of admission of such veteran for treatment or care, whichever is the later. If treatment or care extends beyond that period, the pension, 'compensation, or retirement pay, if $30 per month, or less, shall continue without reduction, but if greater than $30 per month, the pension, compensation, or retirement pay shall not exceed 50 per centum of the amount otherwise payable or $30 per month, whichever is the greater: Provided, That if such veteran is discharged from such treatment or care upon certification by the officer in charge of the hospital, institution, or home, that maximum benefits have been received or that release is approved, he shall be paid in a lump sum such additional amount as would equal the total sum by which his pension, compensation, or retirement pay has been reduced under this section: Provided further, That where the treatment or care is terminated by the veteran against medical advice or as the result of disciplinary action the amount by which any pension, compensation, or retirement pay is reduced hereunder, shall be paid to him at the expiration of six months after such termination or, in the event of his prior death, as provided in paragraph (2) hereof; and the pension, compensation, or retirement pay of any veteran leaving against medical advice or as the result of disciplinary action shall, upon a succeeding readmission for treatment or care, be subject to reduction, as herein provided, from the date of such readmission, but if such subsequent treatment or care is continued until discharge therefrom upon certification, by the officer in charge of the hospital, institution, or home in which treatment or care was furnished, that maximum bencits have been received or that release is approved, the veteran shall be paid in a lump sum such additional amount as would equal the total sum by which his pension, compensation, or retirement pay has been reduced under this section subsequent to such readmission. "(2) In the event of the death of any veteran subject to the provisions of this section, while receiving hospital treatment, institutional or domiciliary care, or prior to payment of any lump sum authorized herein, such lump sum shall be paid in the following order of precedence: First, to the widow, or widower; second, if the decedent left no widow, or widower, or the widow or widower be dead at time of settlement, then to the adult or minor children in equal parts; third, if no widow, widower, or children, then to the father and mother in equal parts; fourth, if either the father or mother be dead, then to the one surviving; fifth, if there be no widow, widower, children, father, or mother at the time of settlement, then to the brothers and sisters in equal parts: Provided, That if there be no persons in the classes named to whom payment may be made hereunder, no payment shall be made, except there may be paid only so much of the lump sum as may be necessary to reimburse a person who bore the expenses of last sickness or burial, but no part of the lump sum shall be used to reimburse any political subdivision of the United States for expenses incurred in the last sickness or burial of such veteran: Provided further, That no payment shall be made under this paragraph unless claim therefor shall be filed with the Veterans' Administration within five years after the death of the veteran, except that if any person so entitled under this paragraph be under legal disability at the time of death of the veteran, said five-year period of limitation shall run from the termination or removal of the legal disability. "(B) Where any veteran having neither wife, child, nor dependent parent is being furnished hospital treatment, institutional or domiciliary care by the Veterans' Administration, and shall be rated by the Veterans' Administration in 95196-57-5 |