The CHAIRMAN. You would advocate taking all discipline awayis that it?

Captain BETTELHEIM. No; I would not advocate taking all discipline away, but I could advocate the discontinuance of cutting the compensation of these men. Now, when a man's compensation is cut, his wife's compensation is cut and his children' compensation is cut at the same time, because they are on a percentage basis, and when a man forfeits his pay or his compensation is cut the dependents suffer at the same time.

Now, if a man has done wrong, we strongly believe that he should be disciplined, but not to the extent of taking away his livelihood nor the livelihood of his dependents.

The CHAIRMAN. We have only two solutions of it his pay or make him leave the hospital.

either reduce Mr. BROWNING. Is it your idea that if you reduce his pay, the reduction should come out of his part but not out of his family's? Captain BETTELHEIM. At least that.

Mr. BROWNING. I can see the justice of that.

Captain BETTELHEIM. Too often, Mr. Chairman, the disciplinary boards in these hospitals reduce the men's pay for minor infractions. Probably they might appear as severe infractions at the time, but when a person gets an opportunity to review them they do not appear to be such a glaring infraction as it is pointed out to be.

In this connection we also believe that the men who are disciplined in the hospital should be permitted to remain in that hospital and their compensation should remain, or at least held in abeyance until a review is had at the regional office or the central office. Too much power is placed in the hands of the hospital disciplinary boards. We had one instance in Oteen, where a doctor called up the man's brother and told him he would have to get him out of the hospital because he had supposedly-and it later developed that he had not-committed some offense. The offense, I think, was drinking. This veteran was wrongly and without opportunity for review of his alleged infraction sent out of the hospital on a stretcher and in an ambulance to the railroad station.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you heard the testimony, Captain Bettelheim, of these great doctors who run the greatest private hospitals and sanitariums in the United States before this committee. They testified that there was no discipline in these veterans' hospitals compared with that required in private hospitals and enforced in private hospitals for the benefit of the other patients.

Captain BETTELHEIM. We believe, Mr. Chairman-don't get me wrong about it-that there should be discipline, but it is the manner of enforcing the discipline and the manner of review that I am talking about. The Constitution of the United States provides for review, but there is very little review, if any, of the decisions of the hospital disciplinary boards, and we believe that a man's case should not be finally decided until at least the regional office of the Veterans? Bureau has had an opportunity from an impartial standpoint to review the facts and the findings of the case. That is only fair.

The CHAIRMAN. If you and I went to a private hospital and were guilty of the slightest infraction of the rules of that hospital, we would leave at once, would we not?

Captain BETTELHEIM. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. The doctors so testified, that they gave no second chance to patients.

Captain BETTELHEIM. I know. That was a pretty strong statement of Doctor Dunn's.

The CHAIRMAN. Everyone testified to that.

Captain BETTELHEIM. The question is whether that was merely a statement or really the fact. Now, we know that hospitals will warn people. I have been in hospitals, and certain people were warned about things, but very often, if the matter is satisfactorily explained, they will permit the man to continue, but that is not anything like the practice of cutting a man's pay by two-thirds.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel that sometimes the doctors in the hospitals are prejudiced against the men?

Captain BETTELHEIM. I know of a number of instances where that is so, and I am sure that the other organizations have instances of such. If the man is wrong, he should be disciplined in some way, but he ought to have an opportunity for at least an outside source to review his case.

The CHAIRMAN. What outside source?

Captain BETTELHEIM. The regional office.

The CHAIRMAN. He has an appeal to the director always, has he not?

Captain BETTELHEIM. He has an appeal to the director, but by the time it gets to the director the man is kicked out of the hospital. Mr. BROWNING. Is there not a provision in this law that some of the members of the board shall be from outside of the hospital force? Do they not call in outsiders?

Captain BETTELHEIM. That has never been put in practice by the Veterans' Bureau.

Mr. BROWNING. That used to be in there?

Captain BETTELHEIM. That used to be in there, but even when it was in there the bureau instituted the boards but seldom if ever called them into session. It was called a morale board.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, the discipline in these hospitals is not entirely for the men themselves. Discipline must be enforced for the other patients who do not break the rules and regulations and who are there attempting in every way to get well.

Captain BETTELHEIM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is so, and there are probably a number of outstanding violations which one would call violations, but the others are mere infractions. They can incur the enmity of a ward surgeon. We have an instance down in Tuskegee where a man made an affidavit which was used against an official of that hospital to show that this official was implicated in the introduction of liquor into the hospital, and the sale of liquor. That man was threatened with being placed in the neuropsychiatric ward. He was also threatened with a cut in his compensation, and it took a special telegram from the director, at the instance of our organization yesterday, to check that medical officer in charge of that hospital from inflicting such severe discipline on that man.

Now, we believe that the discipline should be reviewed at least by the regional office before it is actually put into effect, or, if they want to cause the man to forfeit his pay, it should be withheld pending the review.

Mr. RANKIN. Suppose a man who is not in the hospital uses his compensation to violate the law and is convicted repeatedly and finally sent to prison by the courts of the State or district. Do you favor the continuance of paying him, while he is there, the full amount of his compensation, or do you favor some restriction on the part of the Veterans' Bureau against men using the money that they receive as compensation to violate the laws of the locality in which they live?

Captain BETTELHEIM. I am glad you brought that up, because that substantiates the discrimination against the man in a hospital as against the man outside. The man who happens to be in a hospital and who violates some regulation is disciplined, at least to the extent of taking his pay. Now, if a man on the outside used his money to violate the law, after the money once gets into his possession it is commingled with his own funds. There is no way of telling whether and I imagine you mean the purchase of liquor, or something like that?

Mr. RANKIN. That may be one way.

Captain BETTELHEIM. There is no way of telling whether he used his compensation to buy that liquor or whether he used other funds in his possession, and I can not see where the Government can in any way govern him and his funds. The State can punish a man for any violations, which they do.

Mr. RANKIN. Supposing that man is drawing compensation and it is found that he is manufacturing intoxicating liquors. We will just use that as an illustration. He uses this money to that end. Would you favor a continuance on the part of the Government in paying him this compensation with which to carry on any illicit business, especially when it would not contribute to his physical welfare?

Captain BETTELHEIM. I would not put it exactly that way, but I would not favor any cut in a man's compensation or any discontinuance in the man's compensation. I should not say that it was used for that purpose, because, as I say, when money is paid to him, when his compensation is paid to him, it goes into his pocket or into his bank or whatever it may be and is commingled with other funds, and I can not see where we or anyone else has any right or license to say that that particular money was used for that particular purpose. Mr. RANKIN. I am not asking you 66 about a so-and-so" case now. I am trying to get your viewpoint. Suppose it is conclusively proved, and you are convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt, or that the bureau is convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe that is as far as they require proof to go in a criminal case, what would be your attitude on the proposition?

Captain BETTELHEIM. My attitude would be this, and it is the attitude of our organization: That the veteran has earned his compensation because of his service and it is his, and after it is paid to him

Mr. RANKIN (interposing). Let me get your viewpoint right there. We are now getting to the real gist. Do you regard compensation as a matter of right that he has earned by his service in the Army? Captain BETTELHEIM. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Then one soldier is just as much entitled to it as another.

Captain BETTELHEIM. No; this man is entitled to it because of the peculiar situation that he finds himself in as the result of his service as compared with some other man.

Mr. RANKIN. Because of his peculiar disability?
Captain BETTELHEIM. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. Suppose that the occupation that he is engaging in not only does not help to improve his physical condition but tends to injure it. Then would you be in favor of the Veterans' Bureau or the Government taking any steps to check him in that career?

Captain BETTELHEIM. The only way I can say it, Mr. Rankin, in answer to that is just as I said before. It is outside of the province of the Federal Government in such instances.

I would be very glad to go into this, but I imagine that

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). When we get through with this particular point, I believe it will close Captain Bettelheim's testimony, and then we will listen to Representative Beedy.

Do you have some more questions on that, Mr. Rankin?
Mr. RANKIN. No; that is all.

Captain BETTELHEIM. Mr. Chairman, there is one other item that I would like to call to the attention of the committee. It has to do with subsection 6 of section 202 of the act, and that is, in cases where hospitalization is given for the purposes of observation in diagnostic clinics as part of the examination of a claimant. The bureau has held that a man would not be entitled to compensation other than the loss of wages or reasonable traveling expenses for the time he spent in the hospital.

Now, it is believed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars that if a man is sent to a diagnostic center at the instance of the bureau when he applies for hospitalization, and it is found that he has a service-connected disability, then his compensation should commence from the day he entered that hospital. Too many times have we found that men are out here at Mount Alto hospital for sometimes two, three, and four months, and yet they are not drawing a cent of compensation. They are supposed to be under observation.

The bureau has held in Regulation No. 111, and by letter to me dated October 5, that this is part of his examination. Now, that is radically wrong, and, I am sure, that is not the intent of Congress, that a man who goes to the hospital should be kept under observation and then if it is found that he has a service-connected disability that he should not be given the regular hospital pay during that period, and we would urge that that matter be taken care of in this bill.

There is one more item, Mr. Chairman, before I close, and that has to do with section 30 of the act, of the original act. Section 30 provides that the files of the bureau and the reports and records of the men are confidential and no disclosure shall be made except under certain circumstances, and one circumstance is that they may be made known and shown to the claimant or his duly authorized representative as to matters pertaining to himself "alone."

Now, I want to emphasize those words, "himself alone." By act of Congress, the duly accredited representatives of the veterans'

organizations, as well as Members of Congress and certain other representatives, are permitted to operate as a man's accredited representative and as his attorney.

In cases before the board of appeals in the advisory group, when Members of Congress go to the bureau there are very few, if any, papers in the claimant's folder that pertain to himself alone. They either pertain to himself-in fact, the claim itself pertains to the man and his dependents, himself and others, and the bureau is holding that unless a paper pertains to himself alone it can not be looked into by either Members of Congress or representatives of the veterans' organizations, and therefore we would recommend that the one word "alone" be stricken from subsection (a) of section 30 of the act, so that it would read "concerning himself," and not contain the word "alone."

I am sure that that was the intent of Congress, and that it was not the intent of Congress that statements made by other persons or by his widow or by his wife should not be subject to review by a person appearing, especially in the interest of that man's case.

The CHAIRMAN. I get your point.

Captain BETTELHEIM. Now, Mr. Chairman, in closing I want again to express to you and to the members of the committee the appreciation of our organization in being able to work with you in bringing about legislation which we hope will be of benefit to the men and their dependents whom we are all interested in.

We hope there will come a day when there might be a joint hearing of both the Senate and House committees in order to expedite the passage of this legislation, so that it will save the necessity of going through the same thing all over again in the Senate. We can not help but be cognizant of the courtesies extended by the members of this committee to the veterans' organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. Captain Bettelheim, I desire to thank you and your organization for the help you have given the committee in the hearings on this bill and its two predecessors. You have been very frank in your statements, and I know that you personally and your organization_have been working only for the interest of the disabled men. I thank you.

Members of the committee, we have with us Representative Carroll L. Beedy, of Maine, who has a matter which he desires to present to the committee.

We are very pleased to have you appear and we will listen to you with considerable interest.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARROLL L. BEEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. BEEDY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my attention has recently be called to the fact that no recognition has ever been given to those men who served during the war in the selective branch of the service, so called.

They have, as you know, been considered outside of the so-called armed forces of the Nation, and they are therefore ineligible for membership in the Legion.