LEXINGTON, Va., July 7, 1953. Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.: Ernestly hope you may be able to give favorable consideration to the revised Nixon amendment.

FRANCIS P. GAINES, President, Washington and Lee University.

STOCKTON, CALIF., July 6, 1953. Congressman WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, Washington, D. C.: College of the Pacific supports Public Law 550 amendment as important step in right direction. Present educational provision for veterans is highly discriminatory to private institutions.

ROBERT E. BURNS, President, College of the Pacific.

ELKINS, W. Va., July 6, 1953. Congressman WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Urge support of Public Law 550 amendment as presently supported by Tolley committee. Recommending division of funds now going to veterans so that single veterans enrolling after September 1, 1953, will receive $80 monthly subsistence while VA will grant $30 monthly as part payment on educational costs to nonprofit institutions of higher learning for each veteran enrolled with no distinction being made beu-veen taxsupported and private institutions. R. B. PURDUM, President, Davis and Elkins College.

CHAMPLAIN, ILL., July 8, 1953.

Dr. ARTHUR S. ADAMS,

President, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C.

For your information regarding July 10 joint conference on Public Law 550. In view of difficulties with law as now operating, University of Illinois joins other institutions in support of Congressman SPRINGER's proposal to (a) separate payments of tuition from subsistence; (b) pay fixed sum such as $30 per month to the institution for each registrant on full enrollment status; (c) make uniform payments to all institutions public and private, (d) require no negotiation or contract, but only certification of each registrant and without regard to existing tuition schedules. We believe this is best way to eliminate present tendency of veterans to be influenced by the law in selecting institutions and to establish equity as between public and private institutions. We favor united action by all educational organizations on this basis. It will be all right to quote us accordingly.

GEORGE D. STODDARD, President, University of Illinois.

tuition schools by providing higher subsistence levels than those attending schools with higher tuitions.

A. A. LEMIEUX, S. J., President, Seattle University.

SPRINGFIELD, MASS., July 7, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives:

We endorse the revised Nixon amendment and urge adoption.

THORNTON W. MERRIAM, Dean and Vice President, Springfield College.

COLUMBIA, S. C., July 8, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives: We earnestly support the amendment now being proposed to Public Law 550 which will provide for direct Veterans' Administration payments to educational institutions. We believe this new amendment provides for a more equitable division of veteran students. DONALD RUSSELL, President, University of South Carolina. LAKELAND, FLA., July 7, 1953. Congressman WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Florida Southern College heartily endorses your amendment granting monthly payment on educational costs under Public Law 550. The bill as it now stands has forced almost all under its provisions out of private institutions.

LUDD M. SPIVEY, President, Florida Southern College.

SALEM, OREG., July 7, 1953. Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: The continued efforts to provide a more equitable administration of veterans' educational benefits are greatly appreciated. I understand that consideration is now being given to the amending of Public Law 550. I hope you will continue to use your influence in favor of the revised Nixon amendment. G. HERBERT SMITH, President, Willamette University.

MIDDLETOWN, CONN., July 7, 1953. Congressman WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.: Have just learned of the proposal that Public Law 550 be amended to grant $30 monthly as part payment of educational costs to nonprofit institutions of higher learning for each veteran enrolled with no distinction being made between tax-supported and private institutions. I am impressed with proposal as being a fairer arrangement among institutions and particularly giving veterans a wider educational choice. Wish you to know I thoroughly approve.

Dr. VICTOR L. BUTTERFIELD, President, Wesleyan University.

ALMA, MICH., July 7, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.: We at Alma College heartily endorse the proposed modification of Public Law 550 as submitted by the subcommittee on the association of American colleges.

Dr. JOHN STANLEY HARKER.

OMAHA, NEBR., July 7, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.: Am in total sympathy with revised Nixon amendment. Public Law 550 is unsound and unfair.

CARL M. REINERT, S. J., President, Creighton University.

a most important consideration in the building and activation of hospitals in this category. In fact, the Topeka hospital is the big training center of the VA for psychiatrists.

4. The authorization for the San Francisco installation and the acquisition of grounds for the Topeka hospital survived the Presidential cutback of 16,100 beds on January 10, 1949.

The VA appropriations for the fiscal year 1953 did not carry over previous contract authorizations, with the result that the preliminary work that had been started on the San Francisco project had to be suspended. Preliminary planning thereon has been only partially completed. Although provision is made to appropriate $2,500,000 for completion of these plans, and although the press quotes the chairman of the subcommittee to the effect that it would be impossible for the Veterans' Administration to get started with the construction of these three projects during the current fiscal year, we most earnestly request reconsideration and the restoration of the full amount for the construction and completion of these hospitals approved by the House.

If this is done, it would not necessarily mean the expenditure of more cash than the VA could actually use in planning, preparation of specifications, advertising for bids, and otherwise going ahead with the construction as promptly as conditions permit. But it would afford positive assurance that Congress is back of these projects and that funds are really earmarked for these purposes. The delays already occasioned, especially as to the San Francisco hospital, and the evergrowing need for these additional beds, make it imperative, we feel, that these funds, $48,867,000, be restored.

DENTAL SERVICES

The second item is the restriction imposed upon out-patient fee-basis dental care. According to VA interpretation, this program is virtually at a standstill. The Director of the National Rehabilitation Commission reports receipt of airmail complaints over the meaning, interpretation, intent, and applica

likely require additional man-hours in the adjudication service, increase the current adjudicatory load, and cause further delays in the initial dental care of war veterans whose conditions were incurred in or aggravated by service. We respectfully submit that the dental records at separation from service of the Spanish-American War veterans are nil, and those for the World War I and World War II veterans very inadequate. Removing the presumptive period without hearings as to the consequences and how procedures might be reasonably altered to reflect the real wishes of Congress may very well inflict greater damage contemplated.

Moreover, there is a limitation as to the amount expended in the appropriation itself. If the amendment should prevail, not very much of the $23 million can be used to cut down the pending load and alleviate the dental troubles of thousands of deserving veterans whose dental conditions are in fact due to service.

The final consideration on this point is that the change is made effective only for the fiscal year 1954. What is to be done at the expiration of this fiscal year? Does the VA then revert to the system in vogue up to June 30, 1953, in the adjudication and establishment of service connection in dental claims?

In conclusion, we support the Senate Committee on Appropriations in its recommendation "that the entire program of dental service to veterans be reviewed by the legislative committees of the Congress." If it is the desire of Congress that the manner of establishing service connection for dental conditions be amended and the extent of treatment be restricted, we sincerely submit that the reasonable and sound method of accomplishing this is through hearings before the appropriate legislative committees of the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

MILES D. KENNEDY,

Director.

For example, one message from a State service director is to the effect "we are in a complete tailspin as to the meaning and correct interpretation * * *" of VA instructions on the restriction in dental and out-patient dental care. Another is to the effect "we are quite confused and concerned over some recent TWX's from central office with reference to treatment for service-connected dental conditions."

The above, in our opinion, is but a forerunner of what can prevail if the provisions of H. R. 5690 pertaining to out-patient feebasis dental care obtain as passed by the Senate.

Briefly, the effect of the new amendment is to require that original applications for dental care pending rating determination as of July 1, 1953; applications rated but treatment not authorized as of July 1, 1953; applications pending as of the same date; and applications received within 1 year from July 1, 1953, will have to be referred to the adjudication division or service for determination or redetermination of whether or not service connection on a direct basis is in order, that is, the disability or condition shown to have existed at time of discharge. It is estimated that there are about 240,000 applications of World War II and Korean veterans which will have to be rerated and eligibility redetermined.

Moreover, the elderly group of veterans covered by Public Law 791, 81st Congress, and disabled veterans being treated under Public Law 16, 78th Congress, may not now have dental care unless they meet the new requirements.

The present Congress is intent upon economy and reduction in expenditures. With that the American Legion takes no issue. However, we here have a proposal which will

a letter from Admiral Boone, of the Veterans' Administration, regarding the article From A to Z on this medical question.

(The letter follows:)

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., July 17, 1953. Hon. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C. DEAR MRS. ROGERS: In view of the fact that in my testimony yesterday before your.subcommittee I made reference, as you know, to the article I prepared entitled "From A to Z-An Examination of Certain Popular Misconceptions Concerning the Medical and Hospital Program of the Veterans' Administration," and the chairman of the subcommittee kindly permitted me to introduce into the record certain correspondence between Dr. Karl Menninger and the American Medical Association, which letters I read prior to their submission, I feel that if the subcommittee is willing, that the original correspondence which emanated from me with the American Medical Association in regard to the article, should be included in the record in the proper place. I am therefore attaching certain correspondence which will provide informative background and make for more completion of the subject.

One of the letters, as I said, is my original one to Maj. Gen. George F. Lull, secretary and general manager of the American Medical Association, under date of May 11.

The second is a telegram from me to General Lull, under date of May 27, with a telegraphic reply from him of the same date.

Next is a letter from Dr. Austin Smith, editor of the Journal of the American Medi

cal Association under date of May 27. It will be noted that there is a lapse of almost 2 weeks from the date of submission of my article until it was returned to me, not having been accepted for publication.

You will note from my letter of May 11 that my article was written solely at the behest of the special medical advisory group, which, as I explained yesterday, is the statutory body of consultants provided for in Public Law 293, and the article was not one that I personally instigated. It would well seem that it would not have been as important for it to fail to publish an article which had been written on a personal basis, as to fail to publish an article which was prepared as a result of a resolution emanating from a statutory policy advisory body as the special medical advisory group. In the discussions bringing forth this resolution at a meeting last fall, it was brought out by the special medical advisory group that it was their feeling that there was so much misinformation and lack of information abroad that if the facts were presented to the medical public, they would dispel and allay much of the criticism. The members of the group are well informed on our medical program and have very materially helped to formulate it.

There is another reason why I am submitting the attached correspondence for the information of your committee and your subcommittee, and that is because there is a reference in the correspondence, placed in the RECORD yesterday, with a very definite relationship between what was then presented and what I am now presenting. The fact that I did not ask to have the latter inserted yesterday, was an oversight on my part, in the attempt to cover-as you and the members of your committee so well know-many subjects in the hearing period.

It must certainly be obvious to you and the members of the committee that for me to have to voice an opinion not in consonance with the board of trustees of the American Medical Association and many other colleagues and intimate professional and personal friends, is most unpleasant. I love my profession dearly and I am enriched by a host of friends in my profession. I have given to it freely with an intense devotion for 40 years. I would be just as negligent to fail to point out what I consider to be the error of its ways as I would as a parent in facing the issues of the day with my child or with any of my associates. The Chief Medical Director of the Veterans' Administration must provide a leadership for the largest single segment of physicians and ancillary personnel in America. It would not only be unbecoming for me to fail to defend the medical mission of the Veterans' Administration but it would be cowardly. I cannot pursue the easiest course in meeting the issues of the day. President Harding so well said in my presence:

"It is wise to pound out the great issues of the day on the anvil of public opinion." Your committee, as representative of the body politic, are most admirably doing that very thing and I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for the magnificent and vital role that you have taken in these recent months in bringing before the American public facts and truth. My faith is such that I know the cause of the present medical program for the veterans of this Nation is a just and wise one; therefore, I have no apprehension about the outcome. Your committee has given me tremendous assistance in making it possible for me to try to accomplish my single ambition and that is to so do the job and to found it on such firm foundations that my successor will be able to do an infinitely better one.

With my gratitude to you and each member of your committee for the service it is rendering us here in the Veterans' Administration, to the veterans of this country

who presently medicalwise are my charges and to me in this very difficult position, I am Very sincerely,

J. T. BOONE,
Vice Admiral (Medical Corps), United
States Navy, Retired, Chief Medical
Director.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I should like to say to the House that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Hospitals [Mr. KEARNEY] held very fine hearings last week, and the acting chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR] has held very important hearings this week. There was a statement by the head of the Tuberculosis Association of the United States today, which was a very fine contribution, which I will include as part of my remarks regarding hospitalization of tuberculosis cases. His organization went on record favoring hospitalization of all tuberculosis cases, whether they can afford to pay or not. It believes the cure of tuberculosis is vital, not only to the patient but to the Nation, so that it is imperative to give them free hospitalization. The State of New York does not ask whether a man can afford to pay or not for tuberculosis care. As the House knows there is a shortage of beds all over the country.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I wish to include as part of my remarks a statement by Dr. Perkins, which is as follows:

STATEMENT ON POLICY OF TUBERCULOSIS HOSPITALIZATION ENTITLEMENT OF VETERANS (Presented by James E. Perkins, M. D., managing director of the National Tuberculosis Association, before the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Hospitals, Washington, D. C., July 17, 1953)

AUTHORITY OF STATEMENT

Since there is no opportunity for the clearance of this statement by the executive committee or board of directors of the National Tuberculosis Association prior to this presentation, this statement must be considered the personal opinion of the managing director. He believes, however, that it probably represents the opinion of the majority of the board of directors and of those involved in the voluntary tuberculosis control movement throughout the United States.

NATURE OF THE NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS
ASSOCIATION

The National Tuberculosis Association, together with its State and local affiliated associations, is one of the oldest voluntary health organizations in the country, having been established in 1904, and is one of the most completely organized. There is a tuberculosis association in every State, as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Essentially, every community has a local tuberculosis association, operating under the various State associations; a total of some 3,000 tuberculosis associations associations involving hundreds of thousands of people as members, board directors, and staff. Its medical section, the American Trudeau Society, has a membership of over 5,000 physicians. This movement is supported, almost in its entirety, through the sale of Christmas seals bearing the registered trade-mark of the double-barred cross.

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER DATED JUNE 19, 1953, FROM THE HONORABLE B. W. KEARNEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOSPITALS, APPEARING ON PAGE A3858 OF THE APPENDIX OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD FOR JUNE 22, 1953

"1. Policy re hospitalization for tuberculosis of non-service-connected veterans "For the country as a whole, there is a marked shortage of hospital beds for the

treatment of tuberculosis. Because tuberculosis is a communicable disease, and because the cost of the prolonged hospitalization necessary in the treatment of tuberculosis is such that essentially no patients can afford such hospitalization through their own financial resources, it has become generally accepted that such hospitalization must be provided through governmental agencies and paid for through tax funds.

"From the standpoint of segregation of the infectious patient until he is no longer a menace to others, it does not matter whether such hospitalization is in an inment, State government, or local governstitution financed by the Federal Government. The quality of care provided by the

Veterans' Administration for tuberculosis patients is equal to, and frequentaly better than, that provided by State and local tuberculosis hospitals.

"Since tuberculosis is the most serious communicable disease problem in the United

States, since it is still the leading disease as a cause of death between the ages of 15 and 34, which are such important years from the standpoint of family life and productive manpower, and since the TB death rate is twice as high among men as among women, it would seem to be desirable to make available hospitalization to veterans for nonservice-connected cases, as well as serviceconnected cases, as part of the all-out campaign throughout the country to rid ourselves as soon as possible of this completely unnecessary drain on our finances and manpower. Priority, however, should be given

to service-connected cases if funds and facilities are not adequate to cover both the service-connected and non-service-connected cases.

"Establishment of an unqualified policy by Congress to the effect that non-serviceconnected cases are eligible for such hospitalization would greatly facilitate adequate planning on the part of the tuberculosis division of the Veterans' Administration. Under the present indefinite policy it is difficult to estimate future needs for facilities. "2. Is payment for all or a part of the hospitalization for the non-service-connected case feasible or desirable?

"Because of the communicable nature of tuberculosis, it is my opinion that no payment should be required for hospitalization of either the non-service-connected case or the service-connected case of tuberculosis in a veteran. Very few patients can afford to pay for such care anyway and it is to the advantage of the general public that there be no barriers to prompt segregation of the

infectious patient, with sufficiently prolonged

and adequate treatment to render him so well cured that it is unlikely he will again break down into an infectious case.

"It is difficult enough as it is to persuade a patient to remain in the hospital long enough to thoroughly stabilize the healed area in the lung and reduce the likelihood of a relapse. When payment for care is required the patient is more likely to leave the hospital too early and against the advice of his physician. Instead of becoming a permanent taxpayer instead of a tax consumer, such a patient usually breaks down again shortly and second attempts at cure are always more prolonged, more likely to end in tragedy, and more costly than an adequate period of continuous treatment to begin with.

"3. Would it be desirable that contract hospitalization be provided for certain nonservice-connected cases over and above that authorized today?

"Although taking the United States as a whole there is a shortage of beds for the hospitalization of tuberculous patients, there are some areas which have more beds available than they can now fill because of extensive local hospital construction programs in the past, intensive case-finding programs over a prolonged period, and other factors.

It would seem reasonable, insofar as possible, that such of these facilities which are so located and so staffed as to give care of high quality by current medical standards be utilized on a contract basis by the Veterans' Administration to care for either serviceconnected or non-service-connected cases of tuberculosis in veterans.

"4. What standards do you think should be set for determining eligibility for hospitalization for the non-service-connected case? "In my opinion, so far as tuberculosis is concerned, the only requirement should be the diagnosis by competent medical authority of active tuberculosis requiring hospitalization.

"5. Should the possession of a private-hospital-insurance contract entitling the veteran to treatment in a private hospital be a bar to hospitalization in a VA hospital? "I believe practically no private-hospitalinsurance contract includes tuberculosis as one of the illnesses for which the contract is valid, so that I believe this does not enter the picture so far as tuberculosis is concerned."

SUMMARY

I believe that Congress should establish an unqualified policy that veterans suffering from non-service-connected tuberculosis should be eligible for hospitalization through the Veterans' Administration as well as veterans with service-connected tuberculosis, although priority should be given the serviceconnected case if inadequate funds or facilities make necessary differentiations between the service-connected and non-service-connected case.

THE NEW ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, MR. HARVEY V. HIGLEY

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House how glad I am and how much interested I am in the announcement of the President, in sending the name to the Senate of Mr. Harvey V. Higley, of Marinette, Wis., to be Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. I believe the membership of the House and the country and the veterans will receive that news with a very great deal of approval.

Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I

yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. I should like to say that I know Mr. Higley. He comes from my State, from Marinette, Wis. I know him to be a great, good, intelligent man, and know he will do a wonderful job for the veterans of this country. I commend the administration for this appointment. I know the gentlewoman will agree with me as she comes to know him, if she does not already know him.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I know him a little, and I know of his good works. I know of his ability as a business executive and I know of his great activities for the American Legion locally, and nationally. He was commander of the State American Legion and a member of the executive committee of the national organization. I hear wonderful things about his kindness to disabled veterans, veterans who have had no way of being hospitalized or of getting care. He has taken great personal interest in all veterans' problems.