Mr. BLAND. You are speaking of the present program, the war orphans program?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes.

Mr. BLAND. That was enacted in 1956.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You do not know of an earlier program?

Mr. BLAND. I don't know of an earlier Federal program of that type. That covers, however, World War I, World War II, and Korea. Senator YARBOROUGH. But 1956 was the first act?

Mr. BLAND. I believe it was.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I just thought of that, having remembered the State precedent during the days of the Republic of Texas. They passed a law shortly after their congress began to assemble and legislate, after 1836, providing for education by the Republic of Texas of the orphans of those who fell at the Alamo. Most of them were young men without families. But a few days before the Alamo fell, 32 men with families fought their way through the Mexican lines and got into the walls of the Alamo. They were men from the town of Gonzales, including practically every able-bodied man in the town.

All fell.

After the Republic of Texas obtained its independence, they passed a law providing for the education of the children of those from Gonzales who fought their way into the walls of the Alamo.

That is a fairly early precedent in American law. I did not know if it was a precedent or not, however, for those children of men who fell in combat.

Of course, they were all private schools and tuition was relatively high. They provided for the payment of tuition and certain other

expenses.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Turning to your comments on the vocational rehabilitation program, Mr. Daley, and specifically to your suggested modification of that section of the bill, you would, as stated in the Veterans' Administration report, impose this condition with respect to post-Korean veterans before they would become eligible for vocational rehabilitation training:

If such disability arose out of service after January 31, 1955, and is rated for compensation purposes at 30 percent or more, or if less than 30 percent is clearly shown to have caused a pronounced employment handicap.

As I understand the language, if the percentage is 30 percent or more, the procedures would be identical to those now in effect?

Mr. BLAND. If I may answer, that is correct, sir, as I understand it. Mr. BLACKWELL. However, if the disability is less than 30 percent, the Veterans' Administration apparently would have some discretion in qualifying this man. What, exactly, would happen on the part of the veteran? How would he go about clearly showing that his disability caused a pronounced employment handicap? The connotation there suggests possible disagreement by the veteran with the Veterans' Administration finding.

Mr. BLAND. If I might explain that, this wartime program was concurrent with a general education program originating in World War II. From the very first, it was administered on a very liberal basis, partly because of the strong wartime pressures that were involved, and partly because of the fact that, if the veteran was not given vocational rehabilitation training, he could automatically go into the gen

eral education program, but vocational training, of course, was preferable. So that the latter has always been administered on a very liberal basis.

In effect, there is a presumption, regardless of whether the man's disability is 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 percent, that he has a vocational handicap and that he needs vocational training. That presumption is not overcome unless, as an incident of the counseling process, it develops that he has suitable employment or that he is already completely employable in a suitable occupation.

It is our feeling that this program being placed upon a permanent basis, and perhaps not being accompanied, certainly not permanently, by a concurrent general education program, should be administered in such fashion that it is confined to those having a clear need for this kind of training. We feel that those with a substantial disability of 30 percent or more can be handled in the same liberal fashion as they have been handled since the war period. But when you get to the lesser rated disabilities which, for compensation purposes, are adjudicated on an average basis, there are many of those who will not have a definite need for this kind of training. We believe that the burden should shift in that kind of situation so that there will be an obligation on the part of the veteran to produce evidence affirmatively and clearly showing that he needs this type of assistance.

Mr. BLACKWELL. It is a fact, though, that under the present law concerning Korean veterans the final action in an individual case must be a finding or rather, must be predicated on a finding-by the Veterans' Administration that there is an employment handicap, and that such handicap may be overcome by a particular course of training. That finding is required by the present law?

Mr. BLAND. Yes. The present law is, in turn, designed for one who, by reason of his disability, needs vocational rehabilitation training.

Mr. BLACKWELL. And you are required to make that finding in the 30-percent and lesser area as well as in the higher area?

Mr. BLAND. That is correct. The problem arises in the mode of administering it. It has been administered on a very liberal basis for the reasons I have suggested.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Then what you do by this language is require veterans with 30 percent or less disability to assume the burden of proving their handicap?

Mr. BLAND. In effect, that. The presumption that I have spoken of would not be automatically indulged. We would look very carefully into those cases. We feel there are a good many of those cases where there is no real need for this special training.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank

you very much.

Mr. Daley, I have several general questions which I will go through rather rapidly.

I believe the Veterans' Administration is probably familiar with most of the questions which I have in this series. These are questions raised indirectly by the pending bills. They are not substantive questions contained in the bill.

(1) Should educational and housing loan benefits be made applicable to the period between World War II and the Korean conflict? What would the Veterans' Administration comment be on that?

40408-59

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Blackwell, if I may answer that, we suggested in our report that if the loan guaranty program is extended to the draft group, that there is no apparent reason why the interwar group should not also be included. That is perhaps distinctive for the reason that the World War II program, for example, is still an open program. It does not close out until 1960. We recognized that the veterans may buy a home or want to buy a home right on up to that date. The Congress has successively extended that period.

On the other hand, it is getting rather remote for the purpose of the education program to go back to that interwar period. We have, pursuant to law, tighter deadlines on that program. The theory is that the man needs and should have his educational assistance very early after he gets out of service.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Should the war orphans educational assistance be made applicable to such period, between World War II and Korea? Mr. BLAND. Well, as we pointed out, Mr. Blackwell, you have a broad question here, whether or not that program can be limited to any particular period once you get away from the war period. It is pretty hard to distinguish one period from another in that respect. I would not undertake to argue against including that period if are going to extend beyond the war periods themselves. You might have a problem there, Mr. Blackwell, as to whether or not if you are going to do that you shouldn't go back to 1940, back of the World War II period, back when the World War II draft began in 1940.

And one might argue by 'progression that maybe you should cover all cases where there was a service-connected death between World War I and World War II. It is quite a problem of progression if you once start down that road.

Mr. BLACKWELL. The next question is: should there be a saving provision on educational benefits for persons who, because of mental or physical incapacities, cannot comply with the delimiting provisions concerning commencement and completion of courses? You are familiar with the cases which arise because of physical disabilities, injuries, and accidents.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Blackwell, the Veterans' Administration in dealing with that problem in prior reports has taken the position that it would be inconsistent with the temporary nature of this program to make exceptions of that kind. To pick out one group-those who by reason of physical ability have not been able to enter training-is to discriminate against other groups who, for family and economic reasons, were not able to enter training within the fixed period. The basic question is whether or not the concept of a fixed period after the war, within which training by everybody must be secured, is sound. We have always thought it was. The Congress has adhered to that concept since the program was first enacted. We do not believe that this matter can be handled by piecemeal exceptions.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Does that position apply even to the service-connected disability, a man who is injured toward the latter part of his service and is in the hospital for 3 years?

Mr. BLAND. We don't believe there is much of a problem there, Mr. Blackwell, because the service-connected man is entitled to vocational rehabilitation today on a broad basis. There is already in the law with respect to World War II and the Korean service a provision

that, if the veteran is prevented from taking his vocational rehabilitation for a 9-year period because of his mental or physical condition, he can have an extended 4 years in which to take advantage of that training. Further, if the vocational rehabilitation program is extended to peacetime service, which we favor, disabilities occurring in service since the Korean conflict will be effectively covered.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Daley, there are a few questions remaining which we will submit by questionnaire to you before you leave. We are running short on time and the subcommittee will have to recess. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Senator YARBOROUGH. We want to thank you, gentlemen, for the information you brought to the subcommittee. We do not agree with your conclusions on this bill, your opposition to it, but I do commend you on your knowledge of the field in which you work. I think your knowledge is fine but your conclusions are just wrong. Thank you very much. You have given a lot of information to the committee. You have supported certain portions of this bill. You have added a great deal of information on all of them.

Mr. DALEY. You appreciate, too, Senator, that our role is to indicate the official position of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs as cleared by the executive branch of the Government.

Senator YARBOROUGH. In other words, you are not the policymaking branch.

Mr. DALEY. That is right. The formal reports on the bills reflect the agency views expressed in our presentation.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The policymaking branch has directed you as to what their official position was. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the chair.)

(Pursuant to subcommittee request, the following comments were later furnished for the record by the Veterans' Administration on certain questions not reached by the subcommittee at the hearing:)

1. Should war orphans' educational assistance be made available to children of persons with total and permanent disabilities resulting from military service? This matter was considered at the time the War Orphans' Act (limited to service-connected war deaths) was before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs where the proposal originated. It was determined that the total and permanent disability situation should not be included. The following year that committee did, however, hold hearings and report to the House of Representatives a bill (H.R. 5930, 85th Cong.) which would have covered the permanent and total disability cases. VA reported adversely on that bill, which was not passed in the House, and no comparable bill was considered in the Senate. No current report has yet been furnished, though at present bills to this effect are pending before the House committee. VA fully appreciates that considerable hardship may result for the child seeking a college education where the warveteran parent is permanently and totally disabled from service causes. However, this situation is not unique like that involving service-connected death of the veteran.

In addition to permanent and total disabilities there are serious partial disabilities which severely limit the veteran in his ability to provide for his family, including advanced education for the children. It would be difficult on a logical basis to sustain legislation restricted to the totally disabled class and excluding others who have suffered substantial incapacities. This presents a serious question as to whether the Government should extend this program, in addition to the very substantial compensation benefits for these groups, to include situations other than those in which death has clearly and finally produced a severe dislocation for the family, including the children.

The compensation payments to veterans with total disabilities are, of course, greater in amount than to those with lesser service disabilities. The basic amount for a total disability is $225 per month. If there are special types of severe conditions, such as loss of members and other complications, this rate may range as high as $450 and, in some instances, $600 per month. Additional allowances are also payable in these cases on account of children, and these amounts are continued beyond age 18 and until age 21 if the child is attending an approved educational institution.

2. Should educational benefits be preserved for reenlistees?

This apparently refers to reenlistments after the end of the Korean conflict period (January 31, 1955) and suggests that the commencement and completion deadlines (3 and 8 years after discharge) be extended in such cases by excluding the period of the reenlistment. Even if the overall terminal date of January 31, 1965, were maintained in the face of such exceptions, there is directly raised the question whether this step would not dilute the basic purpose of the program.

Various provisions in the law make it clear that this educational assistance is intended for those who go back to civilian life immediately after the end of their service period involving service during the Korean conflict. The terminal date for the program as a whole, January 31, 1965, is one example of this purpose. Another is the prohibition against granting the benefit while an eligibile veteran is in the active service. Still another are the commencement and completion deadlines for the individual case within the 10-year period of the program's operation. Against this background, reflecting a policy of providing this aid to those who temporarily served during the period of conflict, it would appear that exceptions for later military service would be a definite departure.

Such exceptions would tend to orient the program to those who choose to follow a military career. Retention of the final terminal date would, of course, limit the effect of this changed policy, but it would be a step in the direction of career coverage. The adoption of these exceptions would, in practical effect, convert the readjustment principle to readjustment directly from peacetime service rather than wartime service. Moreover, it would be very difficult, having taken this initial step, to hold fast to the existing terminal date, for there would certainly be recurring pressures to extend it so that those engaged in lengthy tours of service or those desiring again to reenter the service would have preserved to them a right ultimately to receive educational assistance. Attempts to distinguish between a first reenlistment after the end of the Korean conflict period and later reenlistments for this purpose would be difficult at this late date. Shortly after the end of the Korean conflict the problem was somewhat different, since large groups of servicemen were being released and, in some instances, the availability of the educational benefit might have been a deterrent to reenlistment. However, it has been 4 years since that time and many persons have no doubt already reenlisted more than once since January 1955. There is involved in this question, as with proposals to extend the deadlines for other groups, such as those suffering disabilities, a very basic policy determination whether the concept of this program as a temporary one for the benefit of those seeking to adjust to civilian life directly from military service during a period of conflict shall be preserved and continued.

3. Should educational and housing loan benefits be made available to persons still in service?

This evidently is directed to situations in which the veteran has become eligible by discharge from the period of service on which the benefits are based, but has reentered service thereafter and may desire to take advantage of them while continuing in such later service. As to the loan assistance, there is no bar in the present law against obtaining the benefit under such circumstances. One basis for distinguishing this from the educational benefit in this respect is that the acquisition of a home is primarily for protection of the family, and a man who has reentered service may well have the same need for assistance in acquiring a home as one who has immediately gone back to civilian life. On the other hand, the Congress apparently chose to prohibit the educational assistance while the veteran is in service because this benefit is personal to the veteran, it is not as feasible for him to receive it while performing military service, and it was especially desired that this assistance not be afforded to those making a career of the military service.

Again, there is presented a somewhat basic policy question concerning the real nature of the educational benefit. While the World War II education program