Mr. MADIGAN. No, sir; not completed.

Mr. RANKIN. Has it been started?

Mr. MADIGAN. I do not think it has been started. I have information on it here.

Mrs. NORTON. Madam Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes.

Mrs. NORTON. I understood it was the purpose of the committee not to introduce bills for hospitalization in special places. I was interested in getting a hospital for New Jersey last year, and I was told we were not permitted to introduce bills for a hospital in any particular place. Have we changed our program or policy on that? Mrs. ROGERS. I think it was more a matter of procedure, Mrs. Norton, until the time for the hospital in Kentucky, when that matter was introduced. That was the first special bill.

Mr. SwICK. Did not that apply only to new projects, Mrs. Rogers? Mrs. NORTON. I am not opposed to this in any way. I am merely asking for purposes of information.

Mr. SwICK. I thoroughly understand that, Mrs. Norton.

Mrs. ROGERS. Any Member has a right to introduce a bill upon any subject, and it is really done for the purpose for bringing it to the attention of people in their States.

Mr. FENN. In regard to the Kentucky and Connecticut and southern New England hospitals, bills were introduced for those hospitals, but the way it was carried through was the way it was in the report. Mrs. ROGERS. But the Kentucky hospital bill was reported out of committee as the special bill, and I think it was unwise procedure. Mr. FENN. The last procedure was in regard to those specifically named in the bill; but in the report General Hines said he would follow the recommendation of the report.

my

stand.

Mrs. NORTON. That was as a result of Mr. FENN. Yes; and that relieved the committee of the duty of reporting on special bills.

Mrs. NORTON. The question in my mind was whether we had departed from that policy.

Mrs. ROGERS. I introduced an omnibus bill that takes care of these projects, but a special bill brings the special project before the committee. All bills approved will be incorporated in an omnibus bill.

Mr. FENN. Having the bills before us gives us the particular desires to work for.

Mr. RANKIN. How did Kansas get in on that?

Mr. MADIGAN. You gave the Director of the Veterans' Bureau $1,780,000 to spend in his discretion?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. One or two sites were secured and built upon under that appropriation.

Mr. RANKIN. Then out of this amount he constructed a hospital in Kansas.

Mr. MADIGAN. That is contemplated.

Mr. RANKIN. Where?

Mr. MADIGAN. The location has not been determined.

Mr. RANKIN. And I think you said Bellport

Mrs. ROGERS. We will now hear from Commander Charles I. Engard.

STATEMENT OF COMMANDER CHARLES I. ENGARD, COMMANDER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, OF THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. ENGARD. I want to put before this committee, if I may, the program that we feel interested in for the hospital program of the Department of Pennsylvania. We are seeking an increase in beds at the United States veterans hospital at Coatesville of 769 beds; an increase at Aspinwall hospital of 200 beds; a new tuberculosis hospital for northern Pennsylvania of 500 beds; and to make hospital No. 49 in Philadelphia a diagnostic center. And, of course, the naval hospital at League Island. That will include a 600-bed hospital, with 400 beds for veterans.

Mrs. ROGERS. There is no appropriation or authorization_under the Naval Affairs Committee for that additional hospital at League Island?

Mr. ENGARD. The bill has been put in and has passed the House, and it is now before the Naval Affairs Committee of the Senate.

After considerable study of our cases in Pennsylvania, we find the situation is really worse than it was last year, with our additions of 400 beds at Coatesville; and our cases are still increasing in the State hospitals. We have 532 men in the State hospitals at the present time; and we have about 900 outside of the State. These cases are increasing daily, as we get reports from the various State hospitals, as high as 300 per cent of neuropsychopathic cases.

Doctor Pleasant, of the veterans' rehabilitation committee, is here, and so is our Past Commander Gebhard, and Mr. Dowd.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you know how many service-connected cases you have?

Mr. ENGARD. I imagine at least 2,000 cases, and 200 are serviceconnected cases or N. P. cases.

Mrs. NORTON. Did I understand you to say you were asking for over 700 additional beds above those which have just been completed. at Coatesville?

Mr. ENGARD. Yes, Mrs. Norton.

Mrs. NORTON. That is extraordinary.

Mr. ENGARD. Our original request several years ago was for 1,000beds there, but our accommodations have increased.

Mrs. NORTON. Is your hospital open now?

Mr. ENGARD. Just opened. We are putting patients in there now. Mrs. NORTON. We have the same condition in New Jersey, and we are short, but not to that extent.

Mrs. ROGERS. We will now hear from Doctor Pleasants.

STATEMENT OF DR. HENRY PLEASANTS, JR.

Doctor PLEASANTS. Commander Engard has just given the program for Pennsylvania. I will only say a few words as to the necessity we have for the N. P. cases particularly. We have estimated that our N. P., load in Pennsylvania of service-connected cases is or will be at least 1,200. That is service connected. Those are absolutely service-connected cases that need hospitalization.

Mrs. ROGRES. I will be glad to have those names, if you can give them to me. It will make a much better story than just the figures..

Doctor PLEASANTS. I am giving you the figures, according to our N. P. load in Pennsylvania. The approximate number is what I have given.

Mr. SwICK. Are these cases now hospitalized?

Doctor PLEASANTS. They are in different parts of the country; yes. Those are the ones hospitalized outside of the State of Pennsylvania, and they weigh on the Veterans' Bureau all the way through; and we are estimating that all those in county institutions and jails, and other cases, they are cases which are hospitalized. Our whole N. P. load will amount to a little more than 2,000, and of those the serviceconnected cases are between 45 and 50 per cent, and that would bring those cases up to about 12,000.

Mrs. ROGERS. And your State hospitals are overcrowded?

Doctor PLEASANTS. Yes, Mrs. Rogers. The N. P. cases represent an important problem. The other cases can be held over. But where you have your N. P. cases facing you, you must have some place to put the men in even while the case is pending. I am to speak particularly this morning on the diagnostic center in old hospital No. 49. The cases there are being removed to Coatesville from hospital No. 49.

Mrs. ROGERS. Did they send you a message from Congressman Welsh? He is much interested in the care of the disabled.

Doctor PLEASANTS. Yes. We have the bill' from the Congressman, and that authorizes this matter in relation to No. 49 at Philadelphia. His bill reads:

That the Director of the Veterans' Bureau is hereby authorized to have Veterans' Bureau hospital No. 49 at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, converted and reconstructed for use as a diagnostic center. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any funds in the United States Treasury not otherwise appropriated, a sufficient sum to accomplish this conversion and reconstruction.

We have the particular facilities in Philadelphia of fine medical training at the different medical schools there, and it is possible to have these cases classified and studied out so they can get the proper treatment they should have. It is not practicable for us to send our cases to Washington and other places, as well as it would be to have a diagnostic center right there. The diagnostic center will relieve our N. P. load. If you have such a center, you will find the definite course of the trouble, and you can put the patients under the treatment when they can not go there.

Now, the set-up at No. 49 is perfectly satisfactory as far as its use as a diagnostic center is concerned. It is not suitable for permanent N. P. cases, but its location is perfectly satisfactory. The Government has the ground there and the Government has the equipment, to a certain extent there, and the use of that as a diagnostic center would be of the greatest possible advantage to the service. Now the Philadelphia officers in that school, they have had during the period January 1, 1930, to December 1, 1930, 130 cases. The Pennsylvania officers sent to the diagnostic center approximately 50 patients during this same period, making a total of 170 cases from Pennsylvania. The diagnostic center could serve Delaware and New Jersey, and make its facilities available for other States of the Union, for these physicians, their advice and treatment is sought all over the country. We are furnishing this medical aid to the entire country. In the

cases where there is a definite diagnosis and a recommendation for treatment is needed, we furnish them.

That is the sum and object of our request for a diagnostic center. Mrs. ROGERS. Your men are now sent to the Mount Alto Hospital? Mr. ENGARD. They are sent to the original center, with the offices in Washington.

Mr. RANKIN. This will help New Jersey and New York with their load?

Mr. ENGARD. Yes, sir.

Mrs. ROGERS. I trust that Boston will be given one for the New England load.

Mr. ENGARD. The advantages in having all your section near the water line. I am much in favor of the diagnostic center. I wish we had more of them.

I thank you very much.

Mr. FENN. Would it not reduce the expense to the Government, having these diagnostic centers around, within reasonably approximate distance, they would reduce the travel and transportation costs of patients to the Government. Take a man from Pittsburgh going to Washington-his traveling expense would be much more sending him to Washington than if sent to Philadelphia.

Mr. ENGARD. Yes, sir; absolutely.

Mr. FENN. And the same is true with respect to all other parts of the country?

Mr. ENGARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. FENN. It would be a matter of economy also for the Gov

ernment.

Mr. ENGARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. FENN. For the Government?

Mr. ENGARD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now have a word from Congressman Kelly, from Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLYDE KELLY, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. KELLY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee.

I am intensely interested in this problem and this matter which your subcommittee has before it. This diagnostic-center question has been of vital importance. Congress has passed legislation which makes this a Government necessity, to hospitalize these boys under this legislation, having adopted that policy. In Pittsburgh we have a situation which is rather deplorable. Many of the soldier boys there need but can not have hospitalization, and a waiting list of 500 or 600 of these boys who are really entitled to hospitalization under the law is there.

In a conference a few months ago I took that up and talked of a plan to enlarge the United States marine hospital there. It has given splendidly satisfactory service. However, there are only 82 beds in the institution, and 60 or 62 of those are available for the veterans in this World War legislation, and I introduced a bill (H. R. 13524) providing for the enlargement of the United States marine hospital and talking it up with veterans and others with whom I

came into contact I found something could be done at the marine hospital. That is not a veterans' hospital. It is a public-service hospital. We have the building and we have the land, and the suggestion was to make out of that a 250-bed hospital. This bill which I have introduced covers that point.

Mr. RANKIN. Where is the marine hospital?

Mr. KELLY. It is in the lower district of Pittsburgh.

Mr. RANKIN. Had you considered establishing this diagnostic center in connection with the marine hospital?

Mr. KELLY. Yes; I had thought of that; but this being under the Public Health Service I thought it would be better to have it under the United States Veterans' Bureau.

There are over 600 boys there praying for treatment, and many cases there, necessitating operations, can not be treated for several months. There is a plan to take in general medical and surgical cases at Aspinwall. I would be glad for the committee to take that into consideration in planning its program.

Mrs. ROGERS. Your idea was for the Veterans' Bureau to construct the building?

Mr. KELLY. Yes; but have it under the marine-hospital plan at present.

Mrs. ROGERS. It would not come to this committee.

Mr. KELLY. It was so understood at the time.

Mrs. ROGERS. Is not the marine-hospital proposition under the committee that handles the Treasury appropriations. The marine hospitals are managed by the Public Health Service, which is headed by General Cumming.

Mr. FENN. The Treasury Department, I think.

Mr. RANKIN. I think the bills authorizing that say that.

Mr. KELLY. I talked to the Veterans' Bureau about it, and they suggested that they now have some contract with these marine hospitals-they take so many beds from them.

Mrs. ROGERS. That is true, but the Treasury Department has done the providing and appropriation. In some cases the Veterans' Bureau has constructed added buildings, I believe, but that is all.

Mr. KELLY. This is a big problem and should be coordinated with the other; I thought while you were considering these Pennsylvania questions, it could be considered with those.

Mrs. ROGERS. I think the Veterans' Bureau cases are getting more attention than the Public Health Service cases. The Veterans' Bureau is given more to spend. The Public Health is very efficiently managed.

Mr. KELLY. I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before your committee, Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. And we thank you for coming.

Our next speaker is Mr. Erk.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND F. ERK, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. ERK. H. R. 14815, a bill to authorize the erection of a hospital in the State of Pennsylvania at Aspinwall, and to authorize the appropriation therefor. As to that bill, unfortunately, I have not

48695-31- -5