Mr. HICKEY. In connection with my statement I would like to submit a letter which I addressed to the Veterans' Bureau that deals with the question under consideration. I have omitted the name of the claimant in whose interest this letter was written.

The statements in the letter show the necessity of inserting the new language proposed on lines 11 and 18 of page 3 of the bill H. R. 6735. It will be noted in this letter that the civilian doctors find tuberculosis while the bureau doctors find chronic arthritis. The bureau doctor, however, states that it is difficult without "examination by microscope and by laboratory methods of specimen removed from the diseased area to clearly diagnose the disease.

Mr. C. E. MULHEARN,

United States Veterans' Bureau,

Arlington Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MULHEARN: I have had much correspondence with the regional office at Chicago, Ill., and also with the regional office at Cincinnati, Ohio, about the above-named case. I am very well acquainted with the claimant, having known him since he was a boy. Personally I feel he is entitled to compensation. There seems to be a dispute between the doctors with respect to his present physical condition, and also with respect to the origin of his present disability.

Dr. H. H. Martin, a leading physician and surgeon of La Porte, Ind., makes this statement with respect to the case:

"X ray taken as ordered by Doctor Homan has recently been reviewed by myself, which shows active tuberculosis of the iliosacral joints bilateral, one side badly affected as other, as well as active tuberculosis of the body of first lumbar vertebræ. As you will recall, he has been in bed many months and spent five or six months in one of the Government hospitals, where his condition was diagnosed as that of arthritis nontuberculosis. This diagnosis was made from X-ray plates taken at that time. However, when I visited the hospital and talked with Doctor Fields (I presume a Government doctor) and others in charge of his case and showed them the original X-ray plates, they agreed with me that the condition was tuberculosis of the iliosacral joints and of the body of vertebræ above mentioned."

Dr. Grace Line Homan, now a physician and surgeon at Los Angeles, Calif., but who practiced in La Porte, Ind., until about a year ago, makes this statement about the case:

66 * * * radiographs made by various competent roentgenologists disclosed the following condition: Hypertrophic arthritis of the dorsolumbar region; a destructive process, considered tuberculosis in both sacroiliac joints; radiographs of the lungs showed peri-bronchial thickening and some fibrosis * * * that claimant is suffering from quiescent pulmonary tuberculosis and an active tuberculosis, arthritis of the sacroiliac joints; that claimant's present physical condition dates back to his service * * * disqualifies him for any occupation requiring any reasonable degree of physical strength * *

She was formerly a member of the physician.

Doctor Homan's affidavit is in the files. Mayo staff, and considered a very capable Dr. Edwin W. Ryerson, orthopedic consultant of the Veterans' Bureau, Chicago, Ill., in a statement under date of September 10, 1925, has this to say: "The opinion of the examiner would, therefore, be that this condition is due to an infectious osteoarthritis rather than to tuberculosis, but it is admitted that the only absolute conclusive proof of tuberculosis joint disease, is the examination by microscope, and by laboratory methods of specimen removed from the diseased area. It would not be possible to remove such specimen from the lumbar vertebrae, but it would be possible to do so in either sacroiliac joint."

Doctor Ryerson, and Dr. Paul F. Brown, also connected with the bureau, under date of February 14, 1924, make the following statements:

Examination.-" The X-ray film shows a sharp spur projection from the upper portion of the second lumbar vertebra on the left side. This is constant in all pictures of this back. The intervertebral space between the first and second lumbar is not diminished. There is evidence of bone destruction."

Diagnosis." This is known as a hypertrophic arthritis, with spur forma

tion."

Recommendation." It is recommended that a Taylor brace be applied to this man to prevent, so far as possible, motion of the diseased portion of the spine. It is believed that this process will eventually subside and it is recommended that the tonsils, teeth, and other possible foci of infection be investigated."

This man has been able to work but little since his separation from the service. He has made several efforts but after a brief period has been compelled to give up work. He has been confined to the house much of the time, and confined to his bed part of the time. He is compelled to wear a brace all the time. In appearance he looks pretty well but, as I have indicated, as soon as he attempts exertion of any kind he is obliged to give up.

Gentlemen, we have with us also this morning Representative Robert G. Simmons, of Nebraska, who was formerly a member of this committee. We were very sorry to lose him, as he was demoted to the Committee on Appropriations [laughter], but we are very happy to have you with us again, Mr. Simmons.

It will be recalled that by reason of a fight he made before the Veterans' Bureau, it was made possible to add together the different disabilities a man might have in computing his compensation. It was one of the fine things that have been done by Members of Congress, and we are very glad to hear from you, Mr. Simmons, on this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON, ROBERT G. SIMMONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy and the fine words of weclome you have given me. I have full confidence that the work of the veterans' committee will be carried on to the fullest extent that it could be done and in the best way possible with the membership that it now has. I am sorry that I could not remain on this committee.

I would like to direct the committee's attention to two sections in this bill, relating to matters that have come to my attention from service men of Nebraska, and I assume that the same condition applies to other sections of the country.

One relates to the provision of the bill taking care of those vocational training students who are now in training and carrying on their work satisfactorily to the Veterans' Bureau but who, by the limitations of law, must stop that work on the 30th day of June of this year.

I have in mind now one service man in my district who is in his junior year in the University of Nebraska, qualifying as a farm agent under the general Federal and State aid program for better farm service. His records at the university are high. He is interested in his work. It is going to be a very satisfactory manner of rehabilitation for him, but he can not finish unless the law allows the director to complete his training. He does not have funds and his parents are without funds and, in any event, they should not be called upon to complete his rehabilitation.

Another man, who is married, is carrying on vocational work at one of the teachers' training colleges in Nebraska, and he, likewise, could complete his rehabilitation as a teacher if he could have another year's time in which to do it.

In both of these cases, so far as effective rehabilitation is concerned, to stop their vocational training now would mean to lose the great benefit that has come from this training to those men and lose the investment that the Government has placed in their training.

I use these cases as two illustrations to show the necessity of that. there are over a dozen of these cases in Nebraska.

Then another thing that I had in mind was the question of extending the time for the conversion of the term insurance that a lot of us carry and which we carried during the war. We are going to be required to convert that to some other form this year unless Congress changes the law.

Speaking now for myself, I am carrying $10,000 term insurance just as I carried it during the war. I have not enough money to convert it as I want to convert it; I believe that there are a large number of others who feel that they would like to continue all or part of their term insurance as they are now carrying it, and that extension ought to be enacted into law.

Just one other thing: I have a letter here from one of the service men in Nebraska suggesting that the Veterans' Bureau should be authorized to furnish transportation to any ex-service man of any war from his home or place of filing claim to the national soldiers' home for domiciliary care. I do not have any illustrations at hand. to show the necessity for that, but it has been submitted to me by a man who is directly concerned in the administration of the Veterans' Bureau and its affairs.

I am grateful, sir, for the privilege of appearing before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Simmons, in relation to this insurance, it should be said that the Veterans' Bureau has under contemplation now the issuance of a combination policy which would allow a man to take term insurance for five years with the privilege of conversion, the rate on term insurance to be slightly higher, and we may be able by executive action through the bureau to secure exactly what we want with reference to this insurance without extending the time.

Mr. SIMMONS. It has been a matter of considerable concern, I know, to a lot of service men who want that insurance protection and who feel they are entitled to it, but who can not take over $10,000 in insurance under the converted forms such as are now offered.

Mr. RANKIN. With reference to that indefinite word "slightly " in there, I would like to know how much ground that would cover. The CHAIRMAN. It is only a few cents a month.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I do not know how the rest of the committee feel about this term insurance, but the way it was represented to me through the Government agencies was that this term insurance was a permanent thing. They never mentioned anything about converting it.

Mr. SIMMONS. That is, at the time you took it out?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; at the time we took it out, and I think we should be permitted to continue to carry it as long as we choose.

Mr. BROWNING. Do I understand that next July a man can no longer carry term insurance?

The CHAIRMAN. That is the law.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I think this conversion should be wiped out entirely. A man should be permitted to continue to carry his term insurance.

The CHAIRMAN. The law providing for conversion was passed at the time of the original insurance act.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Nothing about conversion was mentioned to us at the time we made the contract with the Government.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I was scared into conversion. I supposed I had to do it. It cost me a lot of money. I have to pay $276 a year now for my insurance, and I appreciate the courage of my colleagues who were not scared into it. I do hope that if the matter is extended indefinitely, and I have no objection to it, that something may bẹ done to take care of the rest of us poor fellows who have converted it.

Mr. BROWNING. You will want to "unconvert" it.

Mr. MILLER. I do not know whether the gentlemen who have spoken on this matter of insurance have looked into the matter of these rates, but it is perfectly true that the net carrying charge on any form of the converted insurance is less per year than the net carrying charge on any term insurance at any given year. It is true that at the beginning of the year you have to dig up more money to pay the premiums on the converted forms of insurance, but the cashsurrender values and earned dividends make the net carrying charges of that insurance less than the net carrying charge of the term insur

ance.

It is going to be a costly thing for those men indefinitely to carry their term insurance as they get older.

The CHAIRMAN. It should be said in that connection that the cost of this Government insurance is approximately 28 per cent less than that of any insurance company in the world.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. But in that regard we do not carry insurance for its surrender value. We carry it as protection entirely, and there are lots of men whom I know, and I am one of them, that can not afford to convert that insurance and pay a higher premium.

Mr. MILLER. Your charges, as you go into middle life, if you continue that insurance, will be exceedingly high.

Mr. SIMMONS. Should not that be a matter of policy and business judgment for the veteran who carried the insurance? Congress ought not to legislate its own ideas of business judgment into the policies that the service men carry.

Mr. MILLER. I believe that the right to carry term insurance should be extended. There are 160,000 who have not converted, and they have been paying for this insurance for a good many years, and it is especially true of the men who are getting older. The necessity of paying the higher premiums will work a hardship on them.

The CHAIRMAN. But it will work a greater hardship on them as they get older if they do not convert it.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Here is a case where the Government makes an out-and-out contract with a man, and then by legislation changes the

96994-26- -32

terms of this contract. Any man who carries insurance carries it so that his dependents may, if he dies, be protected. What assurance do I, or any of these other insured men, have that the Government may not change the terms of their payments to the beneficiaries after they have died? They have not kept their contract with us; what assurance do we have that they will keep it with those we seek to protect?

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection I would suggest that any change of that contract would necessarily come before this committee, and I do not think that the contract is going to be changed to the injury of the beneficiary.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the chances are that it will not be, but the Government is no better than the men who administer its affairs.

Mr. RANKIN. I am not going to consent to the Veterans' Bureau making a rule with reference to the expiration of the time within which this term insurance may be converted, as they have, when the law specifically gives us, as I understand it, five years from the date of the close of the war by proclamation of the President, and the President's proclamation did not come in July, 1921. It was issued in March, 1922, if I am not mistaken.

Now, I called the attention of the Veterans' Bureau to that and asked them to correct that ruling, but they did not do it. I called General Hines's attention to it the other day, and every time that comes up I want to go on record as calling attention to that fact, be cause we are going to have a number of men who will die during those intervening months and under the law they are entitled to carry their term insurance until the five years have expired following the close of the war by the proclamation of the President, which did not come in July, 1921, but in March, 1922, as I remember it, which would make the five years expire in March, 1927, instead of July, 1926.

Mr. SIMMONS. Whether it is July, 1926, or March, 1927, the fact remains that there will be probably 150,000 of these men who will be confronted at that time either with dropping their insurance or converting it, when many of them may not be able to carry it under the renewed conditions. A lot of those men are married and they have children. They are just getting started. They need every dollar of protection they can get. They are not in the position to go into insurance as an investment or a saving proposition.

Mr. RANKIN. I agree with the gentleman from Nebraska and shall support the proposition before the committee to extend this time for five more years at least; but in case, we fail to get that extension I shall then stand on the right of these men to carry their term insurance until the expiration of five years after the close of the war by proclamation of the President.

I did not want this discussion to go by and seemingly carry with it the implied agreement that we all understood that we only had until July, 1926, to convert our term insurance in case this provision was not put into the law extending the time.

The CHAIRMAN. We have several Members of Congress who desire to appear this morning, and our time is very limited.

We have with us Mr. Jeremiah E. O'Connell, of Rhode Island, who has a matter he desires to bring up, and we are very glad to have you with us and to hear from you.