The law does not impose an equal penalty on those whose misconduct is of the same nature, because resistant cases may require prolonged hospitalization, while others may be treated without absence from regular duty. The penalty is attached not to the misconduct but only the possible result of such misconduct. A further reason for the repeal of the law exists in view of the fact that infected selectees are accepted for military service and are hospitalized at once with a consequent forfeiture of pay.

The purpose of the new sections added to the bill is to liberalize the misconduct bar under existing law governing the payment of pension or compensation by the Veterans' Administration. The new provisions are definitely related to the repeal provision contained in section 1 of the bill inasmuch as they contain appropriate changes in the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration governing compensation and pension consistent with such repeal.

The last paragraph of the memorandum of disapproval of the President, July 13, 1943, to the Congress on H. R. 986, Seventyeighth Congress, an act to define misconduct, for compensation and pension purposes, as limited to felonious misconduct, contained the following statement:

I am advised by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs that as a result of studies made pursuant to understanding with certain committees of the Congress suggestions as to possible amendatory legislation to remove recognized defects will be submitted for consideration of the Congress at an early date.

The provisions of sections 2, 3, and 4 of S. 1250, as reported, are identical with the provisions of the bill recommended by the Veterans' Administration in a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives dated October 5, 1943. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the submission of that proposed legislation to the Congress for consideration. The letter of October 5, 1943, is incorporated in this report and sets out in detail the effects of the proposed legislation and the justification for the changes in the existing law.

Representatives of the War Department testified in support of section 1 of this measure at hearings held on March 9, 1944, and also testified that the Navy Department concurred in the recommendations of the War Department. The War Department representatives further testified that the Department could not recommend enactment of section 2 of the Senate bill. The testimony of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs and the Solicitor, Veterans' Administration, followed generally the letter of the Veterans' Administration to the Speaker, House of Representatives, dated July 5, 1943, wherein the committee were advised of the objections to section 2 and that that section of the bill in the form as it passed the Senate would not be in accord with the program of the President.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 2A of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, changes in the paragraphs and sections of the act of May 17, 1926 (44 Stat. 557; 10 U. S. C. 847b; 34 U. S. C. 882b), made by section 1 of the bill are shown as follows (existing law proposed to

be ornitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

[SEC. 2. That hereafter no person in active service in the military or naval service who shall be absent from his regular duties for more than one day at any one time on account of the direct effects of a venereal disease due to his own misconduct, shall, except as hereafter provided, be entitled to any pay, as distinguished from allowances, for the period of such absence: Provided, That such absence is within a period of one year following the appearance of the initial symptoms of such venereal disease and regardless of whether the appearance of the ini ial symptoms occurs prior or subsequent to the date of entry into the service.]

In compliance with the above rule, there are also shown in similar form the changes made by sections 2 and 3 of the bill in paragraphs VIII and IX of Veterans Regulation No. 10, as amended:

SEC. 2. "PAR. VIII. An injury or disease incurred during military or naval service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not the result of the veteran's own misconduct when the person on whose account benefits are claimed was, at the time the injury was suffered or disease contracted, in [the] active service in the military or naval forces, whether on active duty or on authorized leave, unless [it appears that the] such injury or disease [has been caused by] was the result of his own willful misconduct [on his part]: Provided, That venereal disease shall not be presumed to be due to willful misconduct if the person in service complies with the Army or Navy regulations requiring him to report and receive treatment for such disease: Provided [however] further, That the requirement for line of duty will not be met if it appears that at the time the injury was suffered or disease contracted the person on whose account benefits are claimed (1) was avoiding duty by deserting the service, or by absenting himself without leave materially interfering with the performance of military duties; (2) was confined under sentence of court martial or civil court [or was resisting lawful arrest; (3) was relieved from all active performance of duty by command of his superior officer as a result of the intemperate use of drugs or alcoholic liquor or because of injury or disease contracted or suffered as a result of his own misconduct; (4) was acting in disobedience of the lawful orders of his superior officer or in violation of the rules and regulations of his organization; or (5) whether at his post or lawfully absent, if the injury or disease was in fact, caused by something not involving misconduct but done in pursuing some private business or avocation]."

[Where the injury or disease occurs while on leave, the burden of proof shall be on the claimant to show that it was incurred in the line of duty, but where the injury or disease occurs while at camp or post of duty, the burden shall be upon the Government to show that the disability was not in line of duty.]

SEC. 3. That paragraph IX of Veterans Regulation Numbered 10, as amended, be and is hereby amended to read:

"PAR. IX. [A disability will be held to have resulted from misconduct when it is due to venereal disease, unless it is affirmatively shown that the disease was, in fact, innocently acquired, or when caused by an act of commission or omission, wrong in itself; or by an act contrary to the principles of good morals; or as a result of gross negligence, gross carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, or selfinfliction of wounds] Pension shall not be payable under part III, Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), as amended, for any disability due to the claimant's own willful misconduct or vicious habits."

SEC. 4. This Act shall be effective from the date of its approval. Sections 2 and 3, inclusive, shall be applicable to claims filed or adjudicated thereafter and the beginning date of awards shall be as provided in applicable statute or regulations: Provided, That no claim heretofore disallowed by reason of misconduct or line of duty requirement shall be revived but benefits may be payable on the basis of a new claim filed hereafter in such form as may be prescribed by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

The letter from the Secretary of War to the Speaker of the House of Representatives dated June 18, 1943, recommending repeal of section 2 of the act of May 17, 1926, is as follows:

THE SPEAKER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

JUNE 18, 1943.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is enclosed a draft of a bill, H. R. 3021, to repeal section 2 of the act approved May 17, 1926, which provides for the forfeiture of pay of persons in the military and naval service of the United States who are absent

from duty on account of the direct effects of venereal disease due to misconduct, which the War Department recommends be enacted into law.

The purpose of this proposed legislation, as its title indicates, is to repeal the provisions of section 2 of the act approved May 17, 1926 (44 Stat. 557; 10 U. S. C. 847b; 34 U. S. C. 882b), which provides for the forfeiture of pay of persons in the active military or naval service who are absent from duty on account of the direct effects of venereal disease due to misconduct.

Section 2 of the above-cited act was enacted in the light of the definite and expressed opinion of the War Department that the forfeiture provision of the law was a large contributing factor in the control and diminution of venereal disease (H. Rept. No. 1058, 69th Cong.). The legislation now proposed represents, therefore, a distinct reversal of War Department views, for the reasons set forth below. For many years the War Department has recognized the fact that the control of venereal diseases has been one of its most important health-conservation problems. Since 1909 the office of the Surgeon General has concentrated its efforts in this field on measures for the elimination, control and prevention of venereal diseases among military personnel. These measures are educational, through lectures, films, and instruction; medical, by means of periodic physical inspection for detection of disease, hospitalization and treatment; and preventive. by means of quarantine and forfeiture of pay.

The ratio of admissions to hospitals per thousand showed a continued decrease as follows:

1 The forerunner of the present law was enacted as temporary legislation in 1912 and 1913 and then as permanent legislation by the act approved Apr. 27, 1914 (38 Stat. 353, 354).

The intent of the act of 1914 had been to withhold pay from individuals who, through illicit sexual intercourse, had contracted venereal disease which prevented their performance of full military duty. However, the Comptroller General ruled in 1922 that individuals who were so absent from duty came within the purview of the act irrespective of the date that the venereal disease had been contracted and irrespective of the stages of the disease. Accordingly, the 1926 revision of the law was recommended by the War Department so as to provide that an absence from duty due to venereal disease must occur within 1 year following the appearance of the initial symptoms to effect a forfeiture of pay. Thus, by the act of May 17, 1926, the remote effects (occurring more than one year after the appearance of the initial symptoms) of venereal disease, which cause hospitalization and absence from duty, do not entail forfeiture of pay.

Reconsideration of the problems concerning venereal diseases among military personnel has caused the War Department to doubt the advisability or efficacy of the present forfeiture provisions and its earlier view that forfeiture of pay is a contributing factor in the control and diminution of venereal disease.

Studies have disclosed that forfeiture of pay is not a deterrent to exposure to infection. On the contrary. its effects are to promote concealment of infection, self-treatment, and treatment by nonmilitary personnel, which usually results in inadequate and ineffective treatment. As concealment precludes quarantine, the disease during its infectious stages may well lead to a spread of infection. Furthermore, it has been observed that concealment of venereal disease leads to a particularly dangerous situation in the Army Air Forces. Some military personnel on flying status and receiving additional pay seek unauthorized treatment to avoid financial loss. Drugs used in treating venereal diseases are of such toxic effect as to require the "grounding" of flying personnel undergoing treatment, yet individuals administering self-treatment or receiving unauthorized medical care continue on regular flying status, lest their condition be revealed, and thus endanger both men and equipment.

Moreover, the War Department believes that the present law is discriminatory in effect. Certain types of venereal cases respond to treatment without causing absence from duty; others require prolonged hospitalization. As between these contrasting cases, the penalty can hardly be said to be related to the degree of

misconduct. The discriminatory effect is most apparent in those cases involving infected selectees who are accepted for military service and are thereafter hospitalized with consequent forfeiture of pay.

The War Department believes that the repeal of section 2 of the basic act will encourage the early disclosure of infection by affected personnel and thus aid in the treatment and control of venereal diseases. In the existing circumstances, and due to the widespread belief that easily procured sulfa drugs are á cure-all for venereal disease, an ever-increasing number of men in the military service infected with venereal disease are endeavoring to treat themselves and thus avoid the loss of pay that would result if the facts of the disease were made a matter of military record and the soldier hospitalized for treatment. The unauthorized use of these drugs makes detection of venereal disease by medical inspectors difficult. The serious consequences that can result from the improper use of sulfa preparations are ever present. It is believed that the repeal of section 2 would remove an existing impediment to self-disclosure and encourage men to report promptly a venereal infection in the same way that they would report any other illness. It would also remove a reason which heretofore has caused some fellow-soldiers not to report for treatment soldiers so affected. All cases of venereal infection should be a matter of military record and thus protect the individual by proper diagnosis and treatment and his fellows from contamination.

I am advised that the venereal disease subcommittee, National Research Council, has recommended the repeal of section 2 of the act of May 17, 1926, and that the Canadian armed forces have not caused forfeitures of pay for venereal disease since May 15, 1942. I am further advised that the Navy Department has informally concurred in this proposed legislation.

For the foregoing reasons the War Department urges the early enactment of the proposed measure.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this proposed legislation for the consideration of the Congress.

Respectfully,

HENRY L. STIMSON,

Secretary of War. The letter from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to the Speaker, House of Representatives, dated July 5, 1943, is as follows: JULY 5, 1943.

Hon. SAM RAYBURN,

The Speaker's Rooms,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Because of the administrative complications and injustices which would result under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration from the enactment of S. 1250, Seventy-eighth Congress, a bill to repeal section 2 of the act approved May 17, 1926, which provides for the forfeiture of pay of persons in the military and naval service of the United States who are absent from duty on account of the direct effects of venereal disease due to misconduct, as amended and reported by the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate July 1, 1943, Senate Report No. 380, copy enclosed, special consideration thereof is respectfully requested. The bill passed the Senate July 3, 1943.

Section 1 of S. 1250 was recommended by the War Department and no comment on the merits of that section is offered, as it would not affect detrimentally the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration.

Section 2 of the bill was added as a committee amendment and provides as follows:

"No person shall be denied, after separation from the service, any right, benefit, or privilege granted by law, solely by reason of a venereal disease contracted by him either before or during service in the armed forces; and no record thereof made by the War or Navy Department shall be revealed to any person not in that department or to any other governmental department, bureau, or agency, except with the consent of such person."

The section, which was not recommended by the War Department, would have far reaching detrimental effect upon claims under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. It would (1) in an indirect and not sufficiently explicit manner materially amend the existing laws administered by the Veterans' Administration governing the granting of monetary benefits, hospitalization, and domiciliary care, and (2) it would prevent the Veterans' Administration from securing adequate medical records in the cases of venereal disease, or would delay the adjudication of claims affording necessary treatment pending the securing and recording with the service departments of consent thereto of the person who

served. If refused, it would prevent the Veterans' Administration securing clinical history adequate to affording necessary medical care and treatment in many cases. It conceivably might require payment of pension for a disability for which the person refused medical treatment-a purpose inconsistent with section 1 of the bill.

The language is sufficiently broad to apply to active military or naval service during World War II, prior wars, and peacetime. Line-of-duty requirement for service-connection purposes was included in the earliest pension statutes and is contained in the general pension law, Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, and the veterans regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended. Further, misconduct is a bar to both service-connected and non-service-connected pension under Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, and the veterans regulations as amended. The line of duty and misconduct limitations apply to disabilities or deaths the result of types of misconduct other than incurrence of venereal disease. Special provision was made for certain World War I cases by section 200, World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended by the act of March 4, 1925, under which no person suffering from service-connected paralysis, paresis or blindness could be denied compensation by reason of willful misconduct nor could any person who was helpless or bedridden as the result of any disability be denied compensation by reason of willful misconduct. This law was repealed by Public Law No. 2. Seventy-third Congress, March 20, 1933, but was restored as to service-connected blind cases on the rolls by Public, No. 141, March 28, 1934, and as to other cases was restored with limitations and modifications by Public, No. 196, Seventy-sixth Congress, July 19, 1939, and Public, No. 866, Seventy-sixth Congress, October 17,

1940.

The foregoing statements are furnished to indicate the long established policy with reference to venereal cases and the necessity for careful consideration of any proposed legislation in the light of its effects upon existing laws administered by the Veterans' Administration.

There are pending in the Senate S. 227, Seventy-eighth Congress, a bill to define misconduct, for compensation and pension purposes, as limited to felonious misconduct, and an identical bill H. R. 986 which passed the House of Representatives. The Veterans' Administration has under consideration proposed legislation with justification therefor intended to be submitted as a substitute for S. 227 and H. R. 986, after ascertainment of its relationship to the program of the President.

In view of the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Veterans' Administration that section 2 of S. 1250 is not sufficiently clear as to its purposes, and for the reasons given should not be enacted into law without careful correlation with laws administered by the Veterans' Administration so as to clearly indicate the intent and scope of any changes proposed by the Congress.

I am advised by the Director, Bureau of the Budget, that there would be no objection to the submission of this proposed report to the Congress as the enactment of section 2 of the bill in the form in which it passed the Senate would not be in accord with the program of the President.

Very truly yours,

FRANK T. HINES, Administrator.

The letter from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to the Speaker, House of Representatives, dated October 5, 1943, is as follows:

Hon. SAM RAYBURN,

OCTOBER 5, 1943.

The Speaker's Rooms,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a proposed bill entitled "A bill to amend Veterans Regulation No. 10, as amended, to define line of duty and misconduct for pension and compensation purposes, with the request that the same be introduced and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration.

Reference is made to the enclosed copy of the memorandum of disapproval of the President, July 13, 1943, to the Congress on H. R. 986, Seventy-eighth Congress, "An act to define misconduct, for compensation and pension purposes, as limited to felonious misconduct." The last paragraph of the memorandum is quoted for convenience.