bills pending before the committee. Our comments will be limited to H. R. 2752, which was introduced at our request by Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts. This bill incorporates the three legislative proposals concerning Government insurance passed at our last national convention in September 1952.

H. R. 2752 contains three basic provisons:

1. Veterans of World War I and II would be allowed 2 additional years to once again purchase United States Government life insurance or national service life insurance.

2. Service-connected disability would not be a bar to the purchase of national service life "H" insurance for a period of 2 additional years following the enactment of this proposal.

3. Veterans of service since June 27, 1950, would have an additional period of time in which to purchase insurance under Public Law 23, with a showing of good health during the additional period.

AMVETS strongly supported the passage of Public Law 23. We believed at the time of the passage of the bill that it bad great merits. While our position has not changed, experience has shown that some of the effects of Public Law 23 had not been contemplated. In addition to providing automatic coverage to the individuals on active duty in the Armed Forces since June 27, 1950, in addition to providing a new type of insurance coverage of an inexpensive nature following service since that date, in addition to saving the Federal Government considerable money, in addition to simplifying administration of a gigantic program, it has also made the veteran population of the United States insurance conscious, and we believe this to be good.

Millions of veterans for one reason or another let their insurance lapse or expire following World War II. When Public Law 23 passed, the opportunity to once again pick up NSLI was lost. For the first time in 30 years as a result of this act, veterans suddenly realized that they had to exercise some responsibility in regard to their Government insurance. This, in itself, was a meritorious aspect of Public Law 23. Thus, while there were numerous advantages of the bill, it is true that the great number of veterans suffered the loss of a vital benefit. The reasons they suffered the loss are dwarfed by the loss itself. At present, immaturity, economic instability, and inexperience in insurance matters are largely a thing of the past for many of the individuals who would be entitled to the advantages of the pending bill. And certainly increased family responsibilities make it obvious that many of the individuals aggrieved by the passage of Public Law 23 would now take advantage of the opportunity for restoration of insurance protection.

AMVETS, even though we supported the Indemnity Act, feel that the Congress should set a new delimiting date for the cutoff of Government insurance. H. R. 2752 would provide that those millions of veterans who lost insurance would have 2 years in which to come back into the program. We think this is fair and equitable.

We have no knowledge as to the number of individuals who would take advantage of such a bill. But in any event, such a new cutoff date would settle this matter once and for all. It would place the responsibility for taking advantage of the insurance benefits squarely on the veteran. We have heard the complaints concerning loss of insurance rights for 2 years, and we are convinced of the sincerity of many of these complaints. We trust therefore that this committee will see fit to amend the present law in accordance with our suggestions.

Our second suggestion is one that, in our opinion, has merit beyond question. It concerns those veterans who have serious disabilities as a result of their military service. Since January 1, 1950, the law has precluded insurance protection on many of these worthy cases. At the very time insurance rights were lost for able-bodied veterans under Public Law 23, many disabled veterans had been in the same position for a period of 18 months. We do not believe that this was congressional intent. We feel that the Congress has always looked with favor on benefits for the seriously disabled. And we feel that the Congress today should correct this serious inequity.

The present law does not allow the Veterans' Administration to waive service-connected disability as a bar to a showing of good health in the issuance of insurance. Thus, often veterans who allowed their insurance to lapse following January 1, 1950, who have disabilities which are due to service, are not allowed to participate in this program.

It is noted that even prior to January 1, 1950, these disabled veterans received an inferior type of national service life insurance. If their insurance had lapsed, they were granted so-called "H" insurance, which was nonparticipating. They paid premiums into the Federal Treasury rather than into the National Service Life Insurance Fund, and any payments resulting from the insurance came from direct congressional appropriations each year and not from the fund itself.

The pending proposal, H. R. 2752, would give seriously disabled veterans whose insurance has lapsed, a period of 2 additional years to buy "H" insurance without a showing of good health insofar as service-connected disability is concerned. We are hopeful that the committee will see fit to approve this suggestion.

Our third suggestion is based on a belief that the present 120day period for the purchase of "after discharge" insurance is insufficient. The present law covers the man who has had service since June 27, 1950, for 120 days after service. During this 120 days he can purchase term, nonparticipating, inexpensive insurance without a showing of good health. Our suggestion would extend this 120day period to 1 year for persons presently being discharged or for 1 year following passage of the amendatory act for those veterans already released from active duty. In these latter instances, a showing of good health would be required.

AMVETS believe that our position on these three matters is meritorious.

We are extremely hopeful, therefore, that the committee will see fit to report a bill containing our suggestions.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. PROUTY. Mr. Matthews.

Mr. MATTHEWSs. I have enjoyed this report by Mr. Wilson very, very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am interested to see, too, that this great organization, the AMVETS, has suggested that 2-year cutoff period for the extension of the insurance. I recall the American Legion yesterday said they did not anticipate recommending any cutoff period.

I wonder, Mr. Wilson, if, in your opinion, extending it for 2 more years would have the result that at the end of that time there would be a demand for another 2 more years.

What would be your idea about that?

Mr. WILSON. There might be a demand, sir, but if there is a demand, we would seriously question its merit.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I appreciate that frank statement. And I want to say, very frankly, that I think one thing that is hurting us in trying to get the most essential services is the tendency to press these matters that, to me, are not nearly so important as the hospital matters and others that are so greatly needed. I appreciate your very frank statement about that.

I am a veteran of 4 years in this last war, and I know when I was in there, and since I came out, I heard a tremendous amount of information given out by the Veterans' contact officers, pleading with veterans to reinstate their insurance. And I know that, here and there, there are cases that are rather unfair.

But, frankly, it worries me, Mr. Chairman. It worries me very much to see some of these bills that have come before us, and to feel in my mind that perhaps if we are not careful we are going to hurt our great overall program by insisting on some of these things. That is the only concern I have.

Mr. WILSON. At the very time that H. R. 1 was being considered, which eventually became Public 23, there was a hue and cry, and there was controversy on both sides of the fence. The House passed a very meritorious bill, we thought. It got over to the Senate, and there was a disagreement, and later on, it got in conference, and there was a serious mixup. I feel rather certain that at that time if there had been a suggestion to put the cutoff date 1 year ahead, this whole matter would have been settled. Of course, that is water over the dam now. There has been a cry, however, all over the country for restoration of insurance rights. AMVETS very strongly recommended the passage of Public Law 23. Thus we are somewhat reluctant to come before the committee with a different position, but the plain fact is that we have mandates from our national convention supporting our position.

Mr. SELDEN. I noticed you said a minute ago that if a 1 year cutoff date had been provided at the time the bill was passed, this whole matter would have probably been settled. Do you think it is necessary to have 2 years now?

Mr. WILSON. I think the primary thing, sir, is to reopen it, give people a chance to get back in. We are not at all arbitrary about the date of 2 years. If 3 months would do it, or if it takes 3 years or 2 years or 1 year, our primary concern is having the act opened up so that veterans can come back in.

Mr. SELDEN. You feel, though, if the act is opened up for 12 months, that will entirely settle the matter?

Mr. WILSON. Certainly it would be much better than it is now. As to whether it would end it, I think Mr. Matthews put his finger on it, when he said there will probably still be some argument on the other side.

Mr. SELDEN. Well, as far as your organization is concerned, then, would an extension of 12 months be satisfactory?

Mr. WILSON. We would accept it.

Mr. SELDEN. Gladly? Or otherwise?

Mr. PROUTY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, very much.

The Honorable Charles S. Gubser wishes to make a statement in support of H. R. 4791, which he introduced. Mr. Gubser will you proceed please.

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES S. GUBSER

Mr. GUBSER. H. R. 4791 has been introduced to correct a problem which affects a limited number of national service life insurance policyholders. It has been brought to my attention by a particular constituent and I quote his service record and cite his case in the belief that it is truly representative of all policyholders who find themselves in the situation which this bill would correct.

Subject enlisted in Company D, 2d Georgia Volunteer Infantry May 2, 1898. After muster out, enlisted in Regular Army March 28, 1899, in Battery F, 1st Artillery, after which service was continuous. In 1907, as result of competitive examination, received appointment April 9 as sergeant major, junior grade, Coast Artillery. Served in Philippine Islands 1911 to 1914 at Corrigedor and Subic Bay. Served on Mexican Border with Provisional Battalion in 1916.

Promoted to sergeant major, senior grade, Coast Artillery May 26,

1917.

June 8, 1917, appointed second lieutenant, Artillery, and served as Assistant Adjutant, Coast Defenses of San Francisco. Promoted to first lieutenant November 27, 1917, and in December was assigned to Army Artillery Park, First Army, and appointed adjutant of organization.

May 17, 1918, promoted to captain and served in same organization as adjutant at home and overseas from June 13, 1918, to February 28, 1919, when detached and assigned to duty at Base Section 2, Bordeaux, France, as embarkation information officer. Served until base closed in July 1919. Returned to United States in August 1919 and was discharged as captain at the Presidio of San Francisco, September 3,

1919.

October 3, 1919, reenlisted as sergeant major, senior grade, Coast Artillery, and assigned to duty at Fort Winfield Scott, Calif. July 1, 1920, appointed warrant officer. Served as senior instructor, Clerical Division, Enlisted Men's Section of Coast Artillery School, Fort Monroe, Va., May 5, 1924, to June 30, 1927. Transferred to Headquarters, 9th Coast Artillery District, Presidio of San Francisco.

December 31, 1928, retired after over 30 years' service.

September 7, 1942, called to active duty, at age of 62, as warrant officer, junior grade. October 1, 1942, given temporary appointment as chief warrant officer.

June 10, 1945, returned to retired list at age of 65.

Following my constituent's second retirement at the age of 65, he was allowed to take out national service life insurance.

It is my contention that any man who has rendered 30 years of service to his country and was ready and willing to serve again at an advanced age should not be denied the privileges granted those with considerably less service. The fact that insurance was granted, in my opinion, should entitle the insured the same consideration given to others. I, therefore, urge your favorable consideration of H. R. 4791. Mr. PROUTY. The hearing stands adjourned at this time until Friday, May 22, at 9:30.

(Whereupon, at 9:40 a. m., the hearing was adjourned. until 9:30 a. m. Friday, May 22, 1953.)

BILLS SEEKING TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION

FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a. m., in room 356, Old House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Bonin, presiding.

Mr. BONIN. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are meeting this morning to hold what we believe will be the final session of the subcommittee insofar as the present hearings are concerned.

On Monday we heard representatives of the Veterans' Administration, the American Legion, and the VFW; on Tuesday, officials of the Disabled American Veterans and AMVETS appeared before us; and today we have several members of Congress who wish to testify on specific bills, as well as a representative of the National Association of Life Underwriters.

We will now hear from Congressman Antoni Sadlak.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONI N. SADLAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Insurance of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am delighted to come here this morning to have this opportunity to appear before this committee.

I am here primarily to support H. R. 2278, which was introduced by our distinguished friend and colleague, General Kearney. My particular interest is in section 4 of this proposal, under the provisions of which it is my belief that desirable remedial action can and should be obtained for a matter recently brought to my attention by a constituent in my State of Connecticut.

For obvious reasons, as I shall outline, Mr. Chairman, I should not name the people involved here, but I have that all in my file.

My constituent is the mother of a deceased veteran who was killed in action on the United States Ship Thompson (DM S-38) August 20, 1952, during the Korean conflict. She is presently protesting the injustice in the present law which would divide the gratuitous insurance of the serviceman between her and the deceased veteran's father, who abandoned the boy May 1, 1934, when he was a child of 2 years of age.

In addition to the son who was killed in action at the age of 20 in 1952, my constituent by her own efforts and sacrifice raised also

1175

33667-53--8