plate hospitalizing all general medical and surgical cases but does contemplate hospitalizing all mental and tubercular cases, it will require 100,000 beds.

When the President of the United States allotted some $13,000,000 from the P. W. A. he probably did the most splendid thing that has been done in the way of permitting the Veterans' Administration to catch up on their building program, and that money is now available for these institutions that are now building.

The Federal Board does not feel that we will require many new institutions as such. That means most of the additional beds will come from extensions to existing plants. We do feel that at least three additional institutions will be needed to round out the program and to make the beds available within reasonable distance of the homes of the men and take care of certain situations that are not entirely satisfactory at the present time.

With 100,000 beds, and, of course, we may be wrong on that total, although our predictions so far have proved to be fairly accurate, we feel we can take care of the peak loand of the World War group without a change in the law as it now exists. But if the law should be changed giving the veterans of the World War an unqualified right to be hospitalized for general medical and surgical conditions, not in any way connected with service, then it would require an additional building program to meet the peak. But we are basing it on the ratio of the number of beds available in any area to the number of men that are served, making sure that the men in any area have an equal chance with the veterans in any other area. You have heard from time to time, Mr. Chairman, the proposition that we should stop building Government hospitals and use the available beds in civilian hospitals. I have never felt that was a feasible plan. The claim is frequently made that many of the men hospitalized could pay for their hospitalization. They are required to sign an affidavit when they apply that they are unable to pay for it. We are required to accept that affidavit and hospitalize them and if we find they have violated the law, a penalty can be effected. We had very few cases of investigation where we have found that a man who has signed has violated the law. So I feel that the contention that these men should be hospitalized in civilian hospitals is not a sound one. The civilian institutions would not be particularly interested in 99 percent of the business because these men are unable to pay and for that reason I am sure they would be contemplating business from the veterans' group that would not compensate them one cent. Many sections of our country, as the President has indicated, show a present inadequacy of hospital facilities for the civilian group, so I am a strong believer in hospitalization for World War groups and for all veterans. I think it has done much to assist them in getting into shape for employment and it has probably been a splendid thing from a public-health standpoint of this particular group, and for that reason I feel we should not depart from our present program. We should complete the additional beds up to the 100,000. As we approach that we will be in a better position to gage whether we should go further with the veterans' group.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN, Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. I understand the Board of Hospitalization has already recommended for Boston a general medical and surgical hospital?

General HINES. I am not permitted to state, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Rogers, the recommendations of the Federal Board until it has been approved by the President, but I can tell you and Mr. Van Zandt who is interested in one I know in Pennsylvania that the Veterans' Administration recommended to the Federal Board a hospital in the vicinity of Boston and one additional facility in Pennsylvania, and I am unable until the President has acted on the Board's recommendations to disclose what their recommendation has been.

Mrs. ROGERS. We have a very heavy veteran load near Boston, as you know. We have splendid doctors and surgeons there, as you know, to act as advisers.

General HINES. We have depended a great deal on the Naval Hospital at Chelsea, as you know, but considering the beds that could be made available there the Veterans' Administration felt we could have another unit in that State.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. General, there was no way of including in the independent offices appropriation bill covering hospital construction. It is my understanding that the President expects you back probably in the spring to consider the matter again?

General HINES. Yes, Mr. Chairman; when the bill for the independent offices which includes the appropriations for the Veterans' Administration was before the Budget, it was indicated that no new building projects, where they were for veterans' hospitals or for other types of construction, would be undertaken and no money included in the bill. We do get in that bill some additional beds at existing plants but it was also indicated that later on I could take the matter up with the Budget and the President, which I contemplate doing. The money for whatever additional hospitals the Board approves for immediate construction would not all have to be made available and it would be my desire to ask them to approve the long-range program up to 1949 and permit me to go ahead with the plans which will take a considerable time, so that there will be no great delay.

The CHAIRMAN. General, has a proposition for a general medical and surgical hospital in Mississippi been up before the Federal Board?

General HINES. It is before the Federal Board, Mr. Chairman, and I do recall that I have indicated that probably you would like to appear before the Board at a later date. They will be glad to hear you on it.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice in Outwood, Ky., a general medical surgical hospital; is that correct?

General HINES. Outwood, Ky., was initially a "T. B." hospital. In tubercular hospitals, as the load goes down, we convert the part not needed for tubercular beds to general surgical beds. At this time Outwood has some general surgical cases but mostly tubercular cases. Mr. VAN ZANDT, General, I would like to ask one more question. Do I understand now that the United States Government departments using now the facilities of the Veterans' Administration are paying for such service?

General HINES. They have to pay. All of them.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. And the amendment we offered on the floor of the House was written in the Senate, I understand?

General HINES. Written in the bill, as I understand it. But the Senate included also for the Civil Service, which was the only agency that had not included a dime in their appropriation, the sum of $175,000 to reimburse us for anything that was furnished them. Mr. VAN ZANDT. They are paying the bill now? General HINES. They are paying the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that cover-the $3.75 a day-does that cover the actual expense?

General HINES. The $3.75 rate has been agreed upon as a reciprocal rate to cover all Government hospitalization. The actual rate varies, for "N. P." cases, the rate will be down as low as $2 a day while for tubercular cases it might cost as much as $5 a day. The Federal Board fixed that reciprocal rate to simplify the bookkeeping.

Mrs. ROGERS. Are you familiar with the bill which Congressman

Welch introduced?

General HINES. I have just discussed that a few minutes ago. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Welch was here this morning and he has gone. We are all through with that.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you approve of that, General Hines?

General HINES. I cannot approve of it because of the precedent established but I am perfectly willing to give it consideration if the committee feels after executive session that they desire to bring it out and to safeguard the many other groups that I am fearful would follow if that were passed. I always feel in matters of that kind it is my business to give the committee accurate and definite information rather than tell the committee how to legislate.

Mrs. ROGERS. That is not your responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. General, you say that the bill was reported and passed by the Congress and vetoed by the President twice?

General HINES. The Congressman said that. I am not sure of that. I did not say that this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. That was not in the present administration? General HINES. I believe the bill in its present form has never been passed. I think the bill is much more restricted now than I have seen it before.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Would it be possible in your report next year to segregate the nonveteran employees of the Federal Government who use the facilities of the Veterans' Administration and segregate that number and set out a separate paragraph in your report so that anybody that reads that report will understand.

General HINES. You mean in the annual report?

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Yes.

General HINES. You can see from this table in small numbers giving the type in all the various hospitals it is already reported. But I will be glad to cover it in such a way that you will have it clearly before you as to how many in the Civilian Conservation Corps are hospitalized. On our monthly report, we show the number of examinations made for the Civil Service Commission. For instance, in the month of November we made 1,356 and for the Employees Compensation Commission, 133. Then, of course, we have a reciprocal agree

ment with the allied countries, where when one of their veterans is taken ill in the United States he goes into one of our institutions and they pay for him. Those cases are very few. They are generally emergency cases and service-connected. They do not cover any large group. But in this case we made 57 examinations for the Allies. We made 74 examinations for the Civilian Conservation Corps and 81 for the W. P. A., and 307 for the Railroad Retirement. And now all of these examinations are paid for.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. The reason for the suggestion is that a critic reads. the report and he will probably understand then that the total amount of money charged to the Veterans' Administration includes the cost of hospitalizing veterans as well as nonveterans.

General HINES. I will make it clear, Mr. Chairman, it will all be reimbursed now. Now, Mr. Chairman, many of the bills-is that all about the hospitalization?

The CHAIRMAN. I think so.

General HINES. Many of the bills before your committee were introduced by the various veteran groups and they have comparable provisions in other bills. If I may take a minute, I would like to run through that so that we can boil the consideration down to one or two items that the committee will be particularly interested in.

Mrs. ROGERS. Without taking the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, General Hines, can you put in the record what the Administration is doing as to women patients; the hospitals being built and how many do you have already and the types, and so forth.

General HINES. Yes; I can state it very briefly and if there is anything additional I shall be glad to put it in the record.

Of course, the women veterans are entitled to hospitalization and are really granted privileges that are not granted to veterans themselves in that they can be put in a particular institution whether they were disabled in service or not.

Mrs. ROGERS. That is true, I know, as that provision in the law was my suggestion.

General HINES. But in addition in one or two of our larger institutions we have beds set apart.

For instance, we have a certain number of beds in Mount Alto Hospital right here in Washington for women veterans. And recently we have undertaken to build domiciliary facilities for women. Many World War nurses have now reached the age where they are in need of domiciliary care since they are unable to carry on, which I regret to see because they are a splendid lot of nurses. At Bay Pines, Fla., we have a domiciliary barracks for the women. We have one at Los Angeles and one at Dayton, Ohio.

There is some consideration being given now for a similar unit in some of our facilities in the northeastern section of the country, and whether that will be included in the new unit we are talking about in the vicinity of Boston I am not quite sure. But we desire that everything possible be done for women veterans as we do for the men. But I do feel it would be a mistake to endeavor to hospitalize women at all of our institutions, as some are contending, because the numbers would be small and it would be a sacrifice of space and facilities. That is, you would have to have a duplicate of many of the facilities we have, physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, and general messing facilities.

In a few instances we have found civilian hospitals particularly for the neuropsychiatric group of women patients that are not satisfactory. Then, of course, it becomes a problem of arranging for our own facilities, but the civilian facilities generally for women of that type are very good. And the only difference we have is, as the case which has arisen here in Maryland, where the facilities are crowded and they desire them for civilians rather than for veterans. In that case we will have to make an arrangement at an early date, as we contemplate at Perry Point, to relieve that situation.

Mrs. ROGERS. That will take care of it, I hope.

General HINES. Yes. Does that answer your question?

Mrs. ROGERS. Thank you.

General HINES. I started in, Mr. Chairman, to call attention to H. R. 7558. That was introduced as part of the legislative program of the Disabled American Veterans. You have bills identical or very similar in purpose in H. R. 7704 (American Legion) and H. R. 7925, section 17, and H. R. 7925 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Now, at the offset, may I say that the order in which I mention these bills has no significance as to the order of their importance that I put the service organizations. Rather, I am doing this and having them analyzed without regard to which organization introduced them or who introduced them.

Now, that bill would increase the statutory award for specific loss of use for one or more feet or hands from $25 to $35 under the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, in Public 141 cases, act of March 28, 1934. Public No. 198, amended Public No. 2, and covers those cases, both World War, Spanish-American War, Philippine Insurrection, and Boxer Rebellion. The report of the Veterans' Administration is being furnished you today. There are questions of inequalities involved, and I shall be pleased to give any further explanation the committee may desire. The question has arisen because the act of June 19, 1939 (Public, No. 198, 76th Cong.), gave the increase under the act of March 20, 1933 (Public, No. 2, 73th Cong.), and not under the act of March 28, 1934 (Public, No. 141, 73th Cong.).

H. R. 7560 is the legislative program of the Disabled American Veterans and it is parallel with H. R. 7925, sections 25 and 26 (program of the Veterans of Foreign Wars).

If it will help the committee members, I will pass around copies of this summary which I have in my hand.

I would like to address myself a little to that particular subject. You will recall at one time that if a man was rated with a serviceconnected disability of compensable degree, $8 per month minimum, and he went into a hospital, it was increased to $80 a month minimum as he was given what was called then a temporary total rating. I think the theory behind that was that if a man was totally disabled temporarily, therefore, his compensation should be increased and the benefit of it go to his family. They overlooked, I believe, that by so doing you were in effect doubling the benefit of the man, in other words you were furnishing him hospitalization at whatever cost per day it was, and increasing his compensation. That in my judgment was not half as bad as the incentive it established for men to go into hospitals and not be in a hurry to leave the institution. So the Congress very carefully studied the proposition and brought