During the past few years, or since the armistice, I have handled many thousands of cases of ex-service men residing in my congressional district, who appealed to me to help them obtain compensation from the Government. A great many of these cases were exceptionally worthy, but because the veteran was unable, for one reason or another, to connect his disabilities with the service, or to show that they were aggravated by the service, the Veterans' Bureau has refused to allow his claim. To remedy this situation, I have suggested a provision that if and when an ex-service man is shown to be suffering with a chronic disease which good medical judgment indicates was incurred or aggravated in the service, such chronic disease shall be held to be of service origin or aggravation notwithstanding the lack of historical affirmative evidence. This provision would do away with considerable so-called "red tape," of which I have received countless complaints from my district.

Many of our young men who fought for the colors during the late war and who were killed in action, or have since passed away, were looked upon as prospective providers of their families. Í have in mind some cases which came to my office wherein mothers and fathers of ex-service men did not become actually and absolutely dependent until several years after the death of their sons. Had these boys lived there is no doubt but what they would be providing for their dependents now. The present law, mark you, gentlemen, says that no compensation shall be payable if the dependency arises more than five years after the death of the veteran. I am absolutely opposed to that provision and it is entirely eliminated from my bill.

Now, I come to one of the most important changes which I am proposing. Many of our veterans, long suffering with tubercular troubles, eventually come to the state which their physicians term an arrested condition. They are still considerably handicapped, and to take care of them, I have proposed the following:

That any ex-service man shown to have had a tuberculous disease of a compensable degree, and who in the judgment of the Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau has reached a condition of complete arrest of his disease, shall receive compensation of not less than $50 per month, as long as such arrested condition shall continue; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall deny a beneficiary the right to receive a temporary total rating for six months after discharge from a one year's period of hospitalization, as provided under the second subparagraph of subsection 2, of section 202: and provided further, that no payment under this provision shall be retroactive.

I have suggested a change in section 202, subsection 4, of the present law, by the elimination of the words: "rating based on civil occupations similar to the occupation of the injured man at the time of enlistment."

I believe those poor unfortunate veterans who have been, and are, judged insane, should have their compensation increased, and my bill provides for an increase of $20 per month, making their payments $40 per month instead of $20 per month, as provided for in

the present law. And I have stricken out of my bill that part of section 202, subsection 7, of the present law, which reads as follows:

After June 30, 1927, the monthly rate of compensation for all veterans (other than those totally and permanently disabled) who are being maintained by the United States Veterans' Bureau in an institution of any description, and who are without wife, child, or dependent parent, shall not exceed $40.

That part of section 202, subsection 9, of the present law, reading: "and not caused by his own willful misconduct," is stricken out of my bill.

In closing I wish to call your attention to just one more provision in my bill. In the event a veteran, hospitalized by the United States Veterans' Bureau, is financially unable to supply himself with clothing, he shall be furnished with such clothing as the Director of the Bureau may deem necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we also have with us this morning Representative Miller, of Washington, who is taking a very great interest in some of the provisions of H. R. 4474.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Miller takes a very great interest in many matters before the House, and I want to say that he is an exceptional representative of his constituency.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you with us this morning, Mr. Miller, and we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I am in receipt of a letter from George E. Flood, service officer of the American Legion at Seattle, for the department of Washington, a very efficient man. It is on the question of dependents.

There is a certain class of fathers, mothers, and widows, and so forth, who are dependent and it is necessary under the existing law for them to file their claims of dependency within a certain

time.

The CHAIRMAN. Within five years, as I recall it.

Mr. MILLER. Now, a certain class of people were not dependent at that time, but since then have become impoverished through the reverses of fortune, or sickness, and so forth, until now they are dependent, and they would have been eligible to receive dependents' allowance if their present condition had existed at the time that they could have filed their claims for dependency under the law. It is on that angle of the law that Mr. Flood writes me.

The CHAIRMAN. He advocates an extension of that five-year program?

Mr. MILLER. Yes; or some method or procedure by which dependency can be established now.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, Representative Miller, the director of the Veterans' Bureau testified either the director or some member of his statistical bureau-that it was probable that 95 per cent of these parents would eventually become dependent. Would you advocate simply an extension of the time for proving dependency for a year or two, or eliminate all time limits?

Mr. MILLER. I do not know what experience would demonstrate along that line. I have an idea that if the law would be changed making dependency subject to establishment at any period of time, there would have to be very careful machinery laid out in order to safeguard the Government; but, at the same time, it would seem that such machinery can be established whereby the dependent can be protected and the Government also, particularly if there were any element of fraud in it or anything like that.

I am not exactly able now to mark out just what kind of a regulation or law could be enacted that would safeguard everything, but I believe it is susceptible of being done.

Now, I should like to submit this letter, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be inserted in the record at this point. Mr. MILLER. That will give you the angle of the service department of the Legion in my State.

(The letter in question is as follows:)

Hon. JOHN F. MILLER, Representative,

491 House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLER: It is very thoughtful of you to have kept in mind our conversation last summer on the subject of dependency payments to parents whose sons died in military service.

Under the present law it is required that the parents must have been dependent upon their deceased son at the time of his death, or, in other words, at the time of the veteran's enlistment. This excludes a certain number of parents, who would now be in need of their son's support were he alive, from sharing in the benefits of the adjusted compensation act. In many cases parents who were not dependent at the time of the veteran's enlistment or death upon his support have become so since that date. Were the veteran now alive such parents would undoubtedly be obliged to rely on their son's assistance. With that assistance withdrawn on account of the veteran's death these parents in their declining years have been compelled to throw themselves upon charitable organizations for help. The tax rolls of the State of Washington will show a large number of them who are receiving financial assistance from our indigent veterans' relief fund. This, as you know, is a grant or dole allowed a veteran or his dependent wife or parents upon signing an oath of impoverishment.

The moral issue in this problem is, as I see it, simply this: Should not all dependent parents who have lost sons in military service be entitled according to the length of their sons' service to share in the benefits of the adjusted compensation act? Were the veteran alive to-day he himself would be entitled to receive the proper amount of the adjusted compensation in the form of paid up insurance. Is it right to permit the Government to make a distinction between the mothers who lost their sons in the service who were dependent upon their son at the time of his enlistment and those who have been dependent since? Every mother who has lost her son in service feels that she has suffered irreparable loss in the death of her son, a loss much greater than the Government will ever be able to recognize. This loss is all the more accentuated in the cases where the mothers have become objects of charity or dependent upon their friends since their sons' death in the service. They can not help but realize that had their son not lost his life in military service, he would in their present hour of need take care of their emergencies. The amount of money required to pay these additional payments would be relatively so small in the total budget allocated to bonus payments that it would be insignificant when compared with the satisfaction that it would mean to these mothers who deserve every measure of sympathetic cooperation which the Government can give them in mitigating the bitterness they inevitably feel over the loss of their sons in the service.

Because I see this situation so frequently I feel very strongly that an amendment would be entirely appropriate to permit every mother or parent of any veteran who died in service during the World War to receive his

adjusted compensation representing their sons' service during the World War, without regard to dependency at time of death.

Again I assure you that the American Legion is very grateful to you for the assistance and cooperation you have always so cheerfully extended. With the season's kindest greetings, I am

Very sincerely,

GEORGE E. FLOOD, Service Officer.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Flood informs me that there are apparently few cases that come under this provision; that is, in my locality. I am not in position to dispute what the representatives of the Veterans' Bureau say.

The CHAIRMAN. In this connection, it might be said that the Director of the Veterans' Bureau testified on this same point, as did the representatives of the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I should be glad to send you a copy of the hearings when published, in event you should desire to send it to Mr. Flood..

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions to be asked of Representative Miller on this point?

If not, we thank you for coming before the committee and for the interest you have taken in this class of legislation.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We have with us also Representative Jenkins, of Ohio. Do you desire, Mr. Jenkins, to make any statement to the committee?

Mr. JENKINS. I have no such desire, Mr. Chairman. Accepting the courtesy of your invitation, I merely wanted to see what your committee is doing. I have not any matters that I know of that are pending before you.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very glad that you have come down, and I know that the service men appreciate the interest that you manifest in this problem.

Mr. JENKINS. I am not a service man myself, but I came near being one. There are some facts relating to my district that I want to bring before some one wha has authority in such matters and some one who knows about them. That is the reason I came up to-day, to get acquainted.

The CHAIRMAN. Referring to administrative matters?

Mr. JENKINS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say in that connection that Mr. Roberts is here, who represents the Veterans' Bureau, and I would be very glad to have you meet him and you may then take such matters up with him.

Mr. JENKINS. I would be very glad to do that, because I have several fellows who feel that they ought to have some expert help, and that I can hardly give them.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready to proceed now, Captain? We were on the amendment on page 31.

Captain BETTELHEIM. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. At the top of page 31, the question of the per diem allowance of $2.65.

96994-26- -29

STATEMENT OF CAPT. EDWIN S. BETTELHEIM, JR., CHAIRMAN NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES-Continued

Captain BETTELHEIM. Mr. Chairman, so far as our organization is concerned, we can dispose of that amendment very quickly by saying it is an administrative amendment and it has the indorsement of our organization.

However, we would like to go on record of urging that, when it becomes necessary for veterans to travel to have fitted prosthetic appliances, the men will be allowed the necessary traveling expenses. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no questions on that, you may proceed.

Captain BETTELHEIM. I have a resolution I should like to have appear in the record on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be received.

(The resolution in question is as follows:)

Be it resolved by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States at its tuenty-sixth annual national encampment, assembled at Tulsa, Okla., August 30 to September 5, inclusive, That Congress be urged to provide legislation which will provide transportation, including the necessary traveling expenses for veterans who are under orders to travel in order to be fitted for prosthetic appliances.

The CHAIRMAN. The next amendment is at the top of page 32. Captain BETTELHEIM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is in reference to section 205 and does away with the time limit for filing claims for compensation. We hope that this amendment will prevail. It was recommended by me to the director.

The CHAIRMAN. This was very thoroughly discussed by the director, and he did not seem to oppose it in principle.

Captain BETTELHEIM. We have numerous instances where the dependents especially are injured by the present law, especially the widows. They do not know much about the Government rulings, and they find when they have filed their claims that the five-year limitation has run, and even the two years additional, and they are prevented from pursuing their claims thereby.

Mr. BROWNING. Do you think it would serve the purpose if we should extend the discretionary period for three more years, giving the director the discretion that he has now?

Captain BETTELHEIM. No; our organization is in favor of wiping out entirely the time limit; that is, any limitation of time in which a man may file a claim for compensation or in which a dependent may file one. There is certainly no detriment to the Veterans' Bureau or the Government. If anything, it becomes all the harder for the man or his dependent to prove his case. Many men have refrained from filing claims for the simple reason that they did not want to do so at the time. They felt that they could get along without filing a claim, but circumstances have arisen whereby it became necessary to file a claim, and we do not think those men should be discriminated against or barred. It is only plain, simple justice.

Captain BETTELHEIM. Now, our organization is on record by resolution at our last national encampment to have that limitation withdrawn.