General HINES. Yes; I think it will be proportionately less, but mind you, this has only a short period to run. In other words, if you should pass this amendment now there is no limitation.

Mr. RANKIN. How long did this have to run?

General HINES. From June 7, 1924, to December 31, last year. Mr. RANKIN. A year and a half. Could it not be done this way? On line 13, page 33, you will find this phraseology, "The time herein provided may be extended by the director not to exceed two years for good cause shown." If that were made five years, would it not allow consideration of these worthy cases that are disturbing the service organizations?

General HINES. It would allow consideration of those cases that would come up in that period. That would be extending it 3 years more, five plus two is seven. If you are going to give the director discretion for an extension of 3 years, that would be a total of 10 years. If the committee feels that at that time you will not be confronted with the same proposition as now, that would be an adviseable thing to do.

Mr. LUCE. We have been confronted with it every year since I have been here.

Mr. JEFFERS. It is just a question of whether we will remove this time limit and allow the Veterans' Bureau with its present machinery to pass on these cases on their merits, or whether we will individually ourselves begin to go to the committee on private claims and try to show them those individual cases, and I believe that the bureau is probably in better shape now to pass on the merits of the affidavits that these men can submit since June 7, 1925, than our committee here is at the present time in attempting to pass on the merits.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee of Congress would not have medical experts to assist them and it is purely a medical matter.

Mr. JEFFERS. For instance, we have a case made out now in our office and the bureau says we can not even take that case up for consideration, even though you have got the full set of affidavits from the date of discharge up to date, because they were not filed. until after June 7, 1925.

Mr. LUCE. I quite agree with you. I would have private legislation taken out of Congress altogether, but it may be suggested, in view of the lapse of time and increased difficulty of getting adequate evidence, that perhaps some stricter method like that of the Court of Claims ought to be followed rather than the rather liberal policy heretofore followed by the bureau.

Mr. BROWNING. Do you not think the buerau could protect itself properly with regulations and policies on this subject?

Mr. LUCE. I should hope it might, but I am not at all sure that it is not adequate at the present time.

Mr. MILLIGAN. Is there any time limit for veterans of the Civil War?

Mr. LUCE. No. These cases that come to us in Congress are the exceptional cases.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. If this is properly administered there is no purpose in a statute of limitation, so why consider it?

Mr. RANKIN. Let me make this suggestion. My honest opinion is that this change in the law and extending the time will postpone

the day of a general pension bill for World War veterans, and I believe it will not only be morally right from my viewpoint, but I believe it will be an economic saving to the Government to extend this time for these men to prove their service connected disabbility under the supervision of the Director of the Veterans Bu

reau.

The CHAIRMAN. These laws affecting the disabled have been very much liberalized in the last two years since the formation of this committee. Men who would be entitled to privileges under the new laws have only had a year or two to present their claims.

General HINES. They have had practically a year and a half. The CHAIRMAN. They have had but a year and a half to present.

them.

General HINES. There is one thought that I should point out to the committee, that even with these two sections repealed and retention in the law of section 210, which makes retroactive payment of compensation only back one year, it would still safeguard that

retroactive feature.

The CHAIRMAN. If we leave everything else in and write in line 14, five instead of two, it would accomplish the purpose, would it not?

General HINES. It would accomplish it for three years.

Mr. CONNERY. You would have to change both sections, one for filing claims and the other proof.

General HINES. You would have to change both sections.

The CHAIRMAN. It could be done?

General HINES. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you prepare something along that line for the consideration of the subcommittee?

General HINES. Yes.

Mr. BROWNING. Would there not have to be a cause shown why they had not done it earlier?

General HINES. That is covered by the proviso that the time can be extended in the discretion of the director. We require them now by regulations to show reason. We have been very liberal in those reasons. If a man gave any reason that was fairly sound, we allowed the claim to go in.

Mr. BROWNING. Would the bureau accept the reason of ignorance on the part of the man?

General HINES. Yes; that is one of the main reasons.

Mr. CONNERY. Congressman McKeown, of Oklahoma, asked me yesterday to ask you if you had recommended any legislature or if any legislatian was necessary in reference to insurance policies which were lost in the mail, and what is the situation of men under such a condition?

General HINES. Is he referring to the adjusted service certificate? Mr. CONNERY. I think both.

General HINES. We have worked out with the comptroller a regulation to cover that.

Mr. CONNERY. You do not need legislation?

General HINES. No: if he is referring to the adjusted service certificate, if he is referring to insurance, existing regulations cover' that.

Mr. JEFFERS. I do not know whether I gathered all that you said to Mr. Connery. I have a case where the insurance policy, or adjusted compensation insurance policy, has never reached the man, and the bureau says that is was mailed and the Post Office Department is not able to make any report on it at all. It is lost and the man has made affidavit that he never has seen it.

General HINES. We have agreed with the comptroller on an effort to cover those losses of any kind, by fire or anything else. Mr. JEFFERS. How long?

General HINES. Just recently; in the last 10 days.

Mr. JEFFERS. The last information I had from the bureau on that was to the effect that it would require legislation by Congress on that point, because the law provided no way for the bureau to work out a regulation to issue a policy in lieu of the lost policy.

General HINES. We have worked out with the comptroller a regulation and indemnity bond to protect the Government, and as I understand it, the comptroller has accepted our proposition on it and they are now drawing up the regulations on that subject.

Mr. E. M. LEWIS (national legislative committee, American Legion). The Mills bill, introduced by Ogden Mills, covers the point you have in mind.

Mr. MILLIGAN. Can you require them to give an indemnity bond! General HINES. Yes.

Mr. MILLIGAN. And every man who loses his certificate must give bond?

General HINES. He must give some security. That is necessary in order to prevent these being presented by somebody else later, although my office and the comptroller were not wholly agreed on that. I feel that the regulations we have drawn up are as liberal as we can draw them under the law.

Mr. JEFFERS. Here is a case where a man did not receive his insurance policy and then, whether he lost it or otherwise, he has never received it, although the bureau claims they put it in the mail and the Post Office Department is not able to report on it, and the last information I had from the bureau was that nothing could be done except to have the man make his showing, to put his case in shape so that when Congress gives legislation his case could be taken up.

General HINES. I would like to look into that question, but I am confident that the regulation covers all cases, and we have been trying to avoid the hardship of indemnity, but I know of no way of protecting the Government except that.

Mr. MILLIGAN. I have my own case where they said they mailed my certificate which I never received, and they sent me an affidavit the other day to make out, so that when the legislation was enacted it would be in shape so that there would be no delay in it.

General HINES. It may be necessary to have legislation, but we are trying to avoid it.

Mr. BROWNING. Does the same proposition apply where a man gets his certificate burned?

General HINES. The same bond. We try to cover all losses by theft or otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with the next amendment on page 34 section 12.

General HINES. Section 12. I would like to ask Mr. Roberts to consider the effect of that change. It is a legal change.

STATEMENT OF J. O. C. ROBERTS, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU

แ

Mr. ROBERTS. I refer the committee to the wording of the bill on page 34, line 11. That word "active" was inserted before the word service" in the June 7 law changing the World War veterans' act. The intent of that was to allow payment of compensation to those men in the Naval Reserve who receive a retainer pay of a dollar a month. The Comptroller General had ruled that service pay included this reserve pay. Consequently, as long as a man was in receipt of that reserve pay he could not draw compensation. The word "active" was inserted in the June 7 law to provide for the payment of that compensation, but the proviso was not made retroactive, and consequently the purpose of it was in reality defeated, and the addition of this language, this proviso to be effective as of April 6, 1917, is to carry the provision back so as to permit payment of compensation in those cases from the original date of the passage of the war risk insurance act.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that has been thoroughly covered in the hearings last year.

Mr. ROBERTS. It covers 735 disallowed claims because of the receipt of service pay, and 939 disallowed because of reenlistment in the service.

The CHAIRMAN. You recommend its adoption?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The next amendment is section 13.

Mr. HAYDEN. Line 4" in the event of death in the service." Does that come out?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 13 is next.

Mr. ROBERTS. The bureau had always ruled relative to applications for insurance of men entering training camps or called into active duty for the purpose of training that it was entrance into active military service, consequently, we permitted those men who entered those various training camps or followed tours of duty subsequent to the World War to apply for insurance while they were at those camps and within the 120 days allowed by the law. That practice continued for about two and a half years, when the question was placed before the Comptroller General and he ruled that such service was not active service within the meaning of the World War veterans' act or the war risk insurance act as amended. We were faced with the proposition of having issued policies to a lot of those

men.

It is practically impossible for the bureau to comb its files and determine which one of the applications made during this year and a half or two years period were men who were at training camps, for the reason that the applications do not show that; they simply show that First Lieutenant So-and-so applied for insurance on such a date, but he may have been in the Regular Army or on a training status. There is no way for us to determine that; and to do justice to these men and not wait until they die and then be confronted with

the proposition of not being able to pay them, the bureau recommended that these applications which have heretofore been made be validated. Men now entering those training camps or for a tour of duty have been advised by the War Department regulation that they are not entitled to apply, and consequently there are no new cases under this.

General HINES. The bureau recommends the provision. The next section covers the subject of insurance, and unless the committee is going to remain in session for some time, I would suggest that we start here the next time. It is a subject that will require considerable discussion. I have a long memorandum myself that I desire to put in the record and discuss with the committee, and it is a matter which should not be hurried over. It is very important and I ask that we take considerable time to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, the committee, at 12 o'clock noon, adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, January 14, 1926.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION,

Thursday, January 14, 1926. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Royal C. Johnson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We finished yesterday to line 7, page 36, where we find the beginning of the so-called insurance amendment to the veterans' act, the first one being section 14, an amendment of section 301 of the law. General Hines would you give us your view points on that section.

STATEMENT OF GEN. FRANK T. HINES Resumed

General HINES. Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the matter of Government insurance is, in my judgment, a very important matter, and I feel before referring definitely to this proposed change that I should place in the record and place before the committee a little of the history of this insurance and just how far the Government has gone in the matter of insurance, and, as far as we are able to at this time predict about where we are going to.

The committee now understands that we have two types of insurance: The first is known as the yearly renewable term insurance. I will refer to that first.

Under the provisions of the original war risk insurance Act, every person in the active military or naval service was given the privilege of obtaining insurance from the United States in the event of death or permanent total disability. This insurance could be obtained in amounts from $1,000 to $10,000, in multiples of $500.

This insurance was issued on yearly renewable term plan for the temporary war emergency.

No charge was included in the calculations for the premium to cover the extra hazards of war, disability, benefits, or the cost of