It is a privilege to appear before you this morning and testify relative to the position of the Disabled American Veterans in regard to this important and far-reaching legislation which would extend readjustment assistance to veterans who serve in the Armed Forces between January 31, 1955, and July 1, 1963.

With respect to the first part of S. 1138, S. 270, and S. 930 to extend educational and training benefits to so-called peacetime veterans who have no service-connected disability, the DAV does not have an official mandate to endorse and support such proposed legislation. Ours is a unique organization with the membership comprising veterans who were wounded, gassed, or suffered disease while serving in or as a result of service in the Armed Forces in wartime.

At this point I desire to turn over to your subcommittee members for their information several copies of the statement as to DAV legislative policy presented by our national commander, Judge David B. Williams, upon his appearance before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on March 19, 1959. I have those copies right here, Mr. Blackwell. I do this as a matter of historical reference and do not request that the statement, which is rather lengthy and embracive of numerous subjects, be put into the record of the hearing being conducted on S. 1138.

I do request that our general policy as to legislation, which policy statement in its present phraseology was adopted by the DAV National Executive Committee on January 30, 1959, be included in the record of this hearing, inasmuch as it will explain, I believe, certain things that might not otherwise be clear. The policy statement of January 30, 1959, reads as follows:

Because the Disabled American Veterans was founded on the principle that this Nation's first obligation is to its war-disabled veterans and their dependents, the DAV believes that our Government should provide:

(1) Proper medical care and treatment of veterans for disabilities incurred in or aggravated by active service in the Armed Forces of the United States. (2) Adequate disability compensation for service-connected disabilities. (3) Vocational rehabilitation and education to restore employability of wardisabled veterans in gainful, useful employment.

(4) Adequate death benefits for the widows, minor children, and dependent parents of veterans who die as the result of service-connected disabilities and of veterans who were handicapped by service-incurred disabilities.

It therefore follows that the DAV believes that the Congress of the United States (1) should extend priority of consideration of proposed legislation which aims to provide benefits for veterans with service-incurred disabilities, and for their dependents, and (2) that the DAV will consider giving its support to proposed legislation for the benefit of other veterans and their dependents, only if convinced that its enactment will in no way jeopardize existing or proposed benefits for veterans with service-incurred disabilities and their depend

ents.

Those provisions of S. 1138 which would extend vocational rehabilitation benefits to service-connected peacetime veterans are in accord with a DAV resolution adopted at the 1958 Louisville, Ky., national convention. We heartily endorse this section of S. 1138, and urge prompt passage of this particular proposal.

The loan quaranty provisions of S. 1138 are likewise satisfactory to this organization. The remarkable history of repayment by veterans who have heretofore received the benefits of the VA loan guaranty program augurs well for an extension of the legislation to those who can otherwise qualify and whose service was, or will be,

between January 31, 1955, and the new ending date of the Universal Military Training Act, July 1, 1963. The DAV endorses and supports this section of the bill now under consideration.

There is no objection on our part to the enactment of the mustering-out-pay provisions of S. 1138, but these provisions, of course, more nearly concern the Department of Defense.

In conclusion, permit me to say that we of the DAV realize full well that the United States and various other parts of the world are living in a sort of "twilight zone" and it cannot be said that we are in a state of "war" or in a time of "peace," as that term was formerly defined. We can only see to our national defenses, maintain our rights and prestige in a world part Communist and part free and be prepared for any and all eventualities.

The young men who have answered the selective service call in the past and who will do so in the future are contributing greatly to our position of strength and security. We know and appreciate their sacrifices, and they will not fail us. We must assist them within reasonable limits of our resources, but not to the extent of considering their peacetime service on a parity in all respects with the hardship and dangers faced by those who experienced actual war service.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for your interest and courteous attention. If you have any questions, I shall do my best to answer them, if I can, Mr. Chairman, but first I have some additional comments, with your permission, that I would like to make on S. 1050.

Senator YARBOROUGH. We will be glad to hear them.

Mr. FREUDENBERGER. While I have not commented on S. 1050 in my prepared statement, this bill, which would provide educational assistance for the children of service men and women who suffer death from a service-connected disability arising out of active military service during the period beginning on February 1, 1955, and ending on June 30, 1963, does have considerable appeal.

The fact that it is of tremendous importance to the persons who would be affected cannot be denied. The DAV does not have an official mandate to support such legislation, but there is a resolution adopted by the 1958 national convention held at Louisville, Ky., mandating that this legislative department of our organization sponsor and press for the enactment of legislation that would provide educational assistance for the children of living veterans who themselves are personally and totally disabled by reason of wartime service-connected disability. In this connection I commit to your favorable consideration the DAV-drafted bill on the subject, H.R. 4582, which is now before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

This is a vital and sorely needed item of proposed legislation, and we are hopeful of its passage by both Houses of the Congress during this 1st session of the 86th Congress.

Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Freudenberger. I think your statement has very concisely covered this matter in a very minimum of space. I want to commend you for the study you have given this legislation and for your very able condensation of it. Mr. FREUDENBERGER. Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I don't believe that I have any questions at this time. I will ask counsel to the subcommittee if he has questions.

Mr. BLACKWELL. No, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you very much.

Mr. FREUDENBERGER. Thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Mr. Francis W. Stover, assistant director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS W. STOVER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY NORMAN JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE, AND EDMUND ZABEL, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Francis W. Stover. I am assistant director of the National Legislative Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I have with me this morning on my right Mr. Norman Jones, who is the assistant director of our national rehabilitation service, and, on my left, Mr. Edmund Zabel, who is our assistant legislative representative.

I appreciate the invitation and privilege to appear before this subcommittee to present the national viewpoint of the Veterans of Foreign Wars with respect to the several bills under consideration which propose or would extend readjustment benefits to peacetime veterans who have been discharged from the service since the official ending of the Korean conflict.

Before discussing the individual aspects of each bill, it appears there is a fundamental question which must be decided by this subcommittee, the Congress, and the administration before we move forward with this legislation. As we all know, both the GI bill of 1944 and the Korean GI bill of 1952 provided readjustment benefits for veterans who served during a period of war or armed conflict. The beneficiaries of the bills under consideration here today would be veterans whose periods of service were conspicuous by the absence of any hostilities or armed conflict. The question which must be answered, therefore, is whether or not our Government is obligated to provide readjustment benefits to peacetime veterans.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars answers this question in the affirmative, but with a limitation. Our legislative efforts are controlled almost entirely by the resolutions adopted at our annual national conventions. At our most recent national convention held in New York City, August 17-22, 1958, three resolutions were adopted which are pertinent to the legislation being considered. These resolutions are as follows:

1. An amendment to Public Law 634, 84th Congress, making surviving children of war veterans who died as a result (cause or contributory cause) of disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by military service and for which compensation at wartime rates or dependency and indemnity compensation is payable, eligible for education assistance benefits (Resolution 5 (b)).

2. A provision to make vocational rehabilitation a permanent program, provided that a 30-percent degree of disability shall be a minimum requirement for entitlement in peacetime cases (Resolution 5(d)).

3. A provision to extend education and training benefits to veterans who first entered service after January 31, 1955, and prior to termination of the present program of involuntary military service (Resolution 5(e)).

Of these three resolutions only one deals specifically with what has traditionally been considered to be a readjustment benefit. It is our recommendation that education and training benefits should be provided so long as the present program of involuntary service is necessary. We have no official position, therefore, with respect to a loan assistance program or mustering-out payments for peacetime veterans. In the absence of any official mandate on these two proposals, it would appear our delegates to our national convention felt that a limited education and training program was about as far as our Nation should go for peacetime veterans.

Some may wonder why the Veterans of Foreign Wars is not in favor of a complete readjustment program on the same basis and to the same extent as previous so-called GI bills. The VFW has traditionally held there is a sharp distinction between wartime and peacetime service. We believe there must be a differential maintained between benefits granted wartime veterans as opposed to similar benefits granted to peacetime veterans.

A good example in point is the present provision whereby peacetime compensation rates are 80 percent of wartime compensation rates. The question of cost also enters into consideration. Already the cost of the veteran benefit program is being attacked on many fronts and the inclusion of peacetime veterans for these benefits may jeopardize the entire program or force reduction of some fundamental benefit. With respect to S. 1138 and the similar bills which propose a Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act for peacetime veterans, the VFW officially favors educational and vocational training assistance, but in the absence of any mandate is not in favor of loan assistance and mustering-out payments. Furthermore, we recommend the educational and vocational training assistance be on a limited basis. For example, we would recommend the training allowances be 80 percent of the present allowances for veterans under the Korean GI bill or, in the alternative, the period of eligibility be determined by authorizing, for example, 1 day of training for each day of service. Either of these recommendations would maintain the differential between wartime and peacetime service.

Concerning the vocational rehabilitation training for disabled veterans, we have favored this program for several years, but have made eligibility conditioned upon the existence of a rather severe disability which assumes a vocational handicap. Our present mandate on this proposal stipulates that the veteran must have at least 30 percent or more disability before he would be eligible for this benefit."

I feel sure our delegates would not oppose vocational rehabilitation as proposed in S. 1138 or similar legislation since this provision is in keeping with the long tradition and experience of previous highly successful vocational rehabilitation and training programs.

Concerning the proposal in S. 1050, the VFW favors an amendment to the War Orphans Educational Assistance Act to provide training for the children of peacetime veterans whose parents' deaths were incurred under extrahazardous conditions for which death compensation is or would be paid at wartime rates.

Your attention is invited to the fact there are quite a few peacetime veterans whose deaths occurred either prior to World War II or between World War II and the Korean conflict. We therefore recommend that S. 1050 be amended to include the children of peacetime veterans but would limit eligibility to those whose deaths occurred under extrahazardous conditions which would warrant death compensation at wartime rates.

In conclusion may I express the deep appreciation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the privilege of appearing here this morning.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I want to commend you, Mr. Stover, for having condensed your statement and stated the position with brevity and clarity.

Mr. STOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YARBOROUGH. There are several questions I would like to ask to further illustrate one or two points.

It has been contended by some people that compulsory military obligation in this so-called cold war under today's conditions does not cause an interruption in the educational careers of the youth of today of sufficient seriousness to justify providing educational benefits; that same contention about the lack of serious interruption is also made against other provisions of the proposed legislation.

What is your view on this issue of whether or not the interruption in training or schooling under today's conditions by compulsory military service is such a serious interruption in the training of the youth as to make advisable some form of governmental educational assistance after that veteran returns from service?

Mr. STOVER. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would say that any time that you interrupt a young man's life to take 2 years away from him, so to speak, certainly there is an interruption. There may be some argument that the interruption is not the same as in wartime, inasmuch as today a trainee knows he is going to be in the service for a definite period of time.

However, there is no question that there is an interruption for those who are selected for military service. I am sure in the minds of those young men that interruption is probably just as serious as it was to many during World War II or the Korean conflict.

Mr. Jones, do you have any comment on that?

Mr. JONES. No.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That interruption, then, is the basis for the favorable resolution of the Veterans of Foreign Wars favoring extending certain educational benefits to the veterans of the cold war? Mr. STOVER. I feel certain one of the underlying reasons behind our resolution is the interruption factor.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I believe, Mr. Stover, that your statement is that Veterans of Foreign Wars has no official position with respect either to the proposed loan assistance program or the proposed mustering-out payments for cold-war veterans?

Mr. STOVER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.