and we agree in principle, but it is our feeling that what good might result from such a provision would be more than offset by the operations of the machinery necessary to build up the facts to prove pauperism in each individual case. In other words, our major argument at this time is that there is distress everywhere, and that the veterans, speaking generally, need this money and need it now. If every one of the tens of thousands of men who ask this relief are to be subjected to the interminable red tape that would probably be necessary to establish necessitous circumstances, the suffering in most cases will be intensified rather than lessened.

While we do not object to a form of application having the man certify that he is applying because of need, we do feel that if this is to be followed up by an extensive system of investigation, alleviation of the suffering would be delayed and the Government will be building up a tremendous administrative cost.

Therefore, we urge that, regardless of what plan may meet with congressional favor, that the pauper clause be eliminated from serious consideration.

General Hines stated the death rate among World War veterans is below the accepted mortality table, but this appears easily explainable by the fact that these schedules are built upon average expectancy, and the former service men can not be included in that broad classification due to the fact that the whole armed force was composed of picked men in the sense that they had to undergo physical examination to prevent rejection. Under these conditions it is natural that the deaths among these men at this time would be below the average of those of comparable age, but within a few years, it is to be expected that there will be a marked increase in mortality among those who served during the war.

As public interest in the cashing of the certificates has spread there has been injected into the discussion the allegation that the retirement of these papers at this time will interfere with relief of the disabled. As a matter of fact, as shown by the record, and regardless of any other protestation about the disabled receiving priority, relief for the disabled has consistently followed bonus legislation. The original adjusted compensation measure preceded the enatcment of the ReedJohnson bill of 1924, and in each successive session of Congress since that time liberalizing amendments to the law governing the Veterans' Bureau have trailed amendments to the bonus act. To-day we are urging additional hospital construction to meet insistent demands for more beds and we have before the Veterans' Committee of the House a number of proposals to amend the World War veterans act, but in authorizing some form of cashing the certificates, regardless of any other legislation for the disabled, this Congress would be consistent. with the programs of the past.

With a high percentage of Members of the Senate and House in favor of making some adjustment on this matter at present, it is manifest that one of the difficulties of this committee is in choosing the best of the main plans already organized. Up to this time between 50 and 60 bills of one sort or another have been introduced to bring about the cashing of these certificates in one form or another. Many of these are duplications while others differ rather in the method of payment than in the principle of redemption.

37803-31-7

Of course, we are fully mindful of the fact that the availability of money is one of the most important factors in the whole bonus equation. Secretary Mellon and Undersecretary Mills have jointly presented a most impressive picture of the financial problems involved in this movement and their statements should and will receive the most serious consideration of all those interested in the matter. When the armistice abruptly ended hostilities, America was spending on the war about $29,000,000 a day or more than a million dollars an hour, and was planning for the ultimate triumph during the following year. The Nation overcame that gigantic financial crisis just as it can meet the test presented in paying the cash bonus at this time. The Treasury Department throughout the long campaign leading up to the enactment of the adjusted compensation act consistently fought the whole proposition in principle and in detail, and a comparison of the statements just made by the Treasury officials with the statements made by the Treasury officials six years ago show a striking similarity.

The D. A. V. would prefer the enactment of the Brookhart-Patman bill, which would pay to-day the amounts that would be due to the men in 1945, plus the $60 bonus which was deducted in the computation of the figures. Secondly, the Connally-Garner plan has the strongest appeal to our membership, but, at a recent meeting of national officers of our organization, it was definitely agreed that under no condition would we favor a lower payment than is provided for in the so-called Fish bill, which, in substance, calls for payment immediately of 25 per cent of the certificate's value.

Senator WATSON. How many members are there in your organization?

Mr. KIRBY. Between 30,000 and 40,000. A prerequisite for our membership is a service-connected disability. All of our men have disabilities resulting directly from the war.

Senator WATSON. How much money would it take to carry out your immediate plans of hospitalization?

Mr. KIRBY. We are asking for 5,000 beds at a cost of about $3,000 each, or $15,000,000.

Senator WATSON. That is the sum total?

Mr. KIRBY. Yes.

Senator REED. Has the bill been reported out of the House committee yet?

Mr. KIRBY. No, sir. Hearings on that bill started on the 1st of April. They continued during the session. They were resumed in December. They are on to-day, and the schedule calls for the 3d of November. They are having very exhaustive hearings on the several State proposals. Our position is entirely different. We think that the hospital beds should be appropriated for in blanket appropriations, and the sites should be selected according to the density of the disabled military population, regardless of State lines, so we have taken no part in the representations.

Senator HARRISON. What is the attitude of the Veterans' Bureau with reference to it?

Mr. KIRBY. Our proposal concerning the locations has been extremely well received, not only by the Veterans' Bureau but particularly by the Federal Board of Hospitalization, which finally decides where these locations will be selected.

Senator REED. Does this bill now pending provide specific locations for these hospitals?

Mr. KIRBY. No, sir. The bill generally is for about 20,000 beds, and the hearings now are in order that subcommittee, headed by Mrs. Rogers, of Massachusetts, should indicate to the Federal board generally the areas in which they should be located.

Senator BINGHAM. You spoke of hearings to-day. The hearings before the subcommittee to-day are on a special bill introduced by Congressman Tilson to increase the number of beds in the new hospital in Connecticut, and not in connection with any general bill.

Senator REED. I suppose I am as bad an offender as anybody, because I have introduced specific bills for hospitals in Pennsylvania, but it does seem to me that we would be doing better for the veterans if we followed the example of the rivers and harbors bill, by appropriating a lump sum and letting the Federal board locate the hospitals where they are needed.

Mr. KIRBY. That is exactly the principle we follow, Senator, and the bills have been introduced over there without drawing lines in particular States. For instance, the State of Nevada is among those that want hospitals. We know that the proper way to handle hospitalization is to get an outline of the United States, forget all State lines, and shade that map according to the density of the disabled military population, and place those hospitals, as nearly as practicable, in the centers of that disabled military population. Taking specifically your own State, we just got that hospital in Easton, Pa., and you have asked for one in the West. You justified that, not because of the State lines of Pennsylvania, but because of the density of the disabled military population. That is the only principle we have adhered to before committees.

Senator HARRISON. Without question, legislation dealing with that subject ought to be passed at this Congress.

Mr. KIRBY. Absolutely. We would go this far, Senator. Early this session, regardless of the bonus, regardless of amendments to the World War veterans act, or anything else concerning the disabled, we think that priority should be given to hospital construction. We like to help the well man, or the half-sick man, but we want the sick man taken off the streets.

Senator HARRISON. Only two years ago, I think it was, we passed a bill carrying approximately $14,000,000. I know they consti ucted 3 or 4 new hospitals, 1 in your State, 1 in Utah, and 1 in West Virginia, I believe.

Senator WATSON. Yes.

Senator HARRISON. If more are needed, they ought to be provided.

Senator WATSON. There is no doubt about that. I think we all agree on that.

Senator HARRISON. And if they ought to be enlarged, that ought to be taken care of.

Mr. KIRBY. We favor the extension of existing facilities rather than the establishment of smaller units all over the country, as an administrative proposition. For example, if Senator Reed wanted another hospital in Pennsylvania for tuberculosis, I think our organization would favor the extension of Aspinwall rather than the purchase of another site.

Senator REED. I have introduced a bill for the extension of Aspinwall.

Senator HARRISON. Why has not the committee taken up that proposition?

Senator REED. We are waiting for this bill to go through the House.

Senator HARRISON. We ought to do something ourselves to speed up the House.

Senator BINGHAM. This is one of the things that ought to be done very promptly, not only because of the fact that there are hundreds of veterans who can not be hospitalized at the present time, but also because it would aid the unemployment situation. There is very little building going on normally, and there are more carpenters, masons, and painters out of work than any other one class.

Senator HARRISON. And there ought not to be any controversy about it that would delay that kind of legislation.

Senator BINGHAM. No.

Mr. KIRBY. I think Senator Bingham's State shows that as well as any other State. The Newington Hospital, one of the recently authorized hospitals, is opening up, and before they can get it ready, they need more room.

Senator BINGHAM. There is a waiting list already, and the hospital is not opened yet.

Mr. KIRBY. It can draw from both the Boston area and the metropolitan area of New York, and still you can justify a hospital, Senator, for your State alone.

Senator BINGHAM. I would like to ask the witness whether he is familiar with the plan adopted by the State of Connecticut with regard to disabled veterans? You will remember that shortly after the war there was an effort made in many States, including Connecticut, to get a bonus paid to all veterans, irrespective of need and irrespective of disability. This was opposed, and in its place a measure was adopted providing for an endowment fund to be raised by the State, the income to be devoted to disabled veterans and their families and needy dependents. There has not been any complaint about red tape with regard to the proving of disability or need, and the general impression among the veterans in Connecticut to-day is that they are much better off with the income from that fund being applied than they would have been had their original request for a cash bonus payment been adopted.

Mr. KIRBY. It so happens, Senator, that I am familiar with that. Frank Butterworth and Major Bannigan and others had that, and they did not handle it as a governmental red tape proposition. Common sense and humanity dominated the thing, and I think it has done a wonderful amount of good up there. It was a fund for immediate relief. There was no red tape, as far as they could eliminate it.

Senator BINGHAM. If we could make the relief measures now before us something in the nature of relief payments to the disabled and the needy, I think that that could be done without any kind of an economic disturbance, which must, in the long run, be to the disadvantage of all veterans.

Mr. KIRBY. The only thing, Senator, is that invariably when you go into the matter of need you are in a fog, and you have delay.

The demand in this particular instance is national, just the same as it affected Connecticut as a State immediately after the war. If you are going out here and investigate to find out whether a man has a second suit of clothes, or whether his wife has an organ or a radio set, and build up a big machine like that, you are going to save a few dollars, but you are going to delay meeting a need that is absolutely distressful.

Senator BINGHAM. Would it require so much investigation? As I recollect it, our law with regard to needy veterans and their dependents places the administration in the hands of the American Legion, and the Disabled Veterans, who are familiar with all the cases. Their organizations are now in existence. It would not take a lot of red tape and a lot of investigation by Federal agents from Washington to secure that information.

Mr. KIRBY. In your particular State, Senator, being particularly familiar with it, even though every State has a different arrangement, you will recall that outside of Hartford, you have that Meehan Camp, a summer camp maintained by the citizens of Connecticut generally, and particularly in Hartford, that is extremely useful. The men go there in the summer time. If it were not for that, they would have no opportunity at all for a vacation, and in addition to pleasure, it is rated as good medicine.

Senator BINGHAM. What I am trying to do is to provide for the needy and destitute veteran without upsetting the economic life of the country. I was inclined to be in favor of the bill for the immediate payment until my attention was called yesterday by the Treasury Department to the fact that to float any one of these enormous loans would so upset the economic balance of the country that it would eventually be to the disadvantage of the veteran.

Senator WATSON. Let us not argue that now.

Senator HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest-and I will make a motion-that immediately at the close of this hearing, when we have considered this piece of legislation, we proceed with the hearings on this hospitlization proposition, irrespective of what the House does.

Senator BINGHAM. I would like to see that done.

Mr. KIRBY. I can go on record right now as saying that it meets absolutely with the support of our organization. We have felt, from the start, that while the bonus is important, and the amendments to the act are important, this hospitalization is the most imperatively needed thing surrounding the veterans.

Senator WATSON. My understanding is that the Veterans' Bureau is now making a survey of the whole United States in order to determine where those hospitals can be most advantageously located.

Senator REED. Why do we need to wait for that?

Senator WATSON. At the present time they are opposing individual hospital bills, because when they make the survey they may not be needed.

Senator HARRISON. The trouble is that we have only about 35 days remaining of this session. I think we ought to go into it immediately, and if they are not ready to present their findings, we can be getting the thing together and getting ready.

Senator COUZENS. Let us stay here after we finish the job. What is the objection to that?