The other feature of the six bills is the question of raising the subsistence allowance. It now stands at $65 per month for a man without dependents, and $90 for a man with a dependent or dependents. There is no question that the evidence shows that those amounts are insufficient to get a man through college and wholly to support him while he is in school. I believe the history further shows, however, that at the time the original act was passed in 1944 it was not intended to wholly support a man in college, but merely to give him aid. And again, we do not know just how far the Congress wants to go in any further support which they might consider. One of these bills would raise it to $100 for a veteran without a dependent and $125 for a veteran with a dependent or dependents; another one to $100 for a veteran without a dependent, and $125 for a veteran with a dependent, and $150 for a veteran with two or more dependents; another to $80 and $150, and I think the question for decision there is just how far the Congress and the country want to go toward supporting students. In places where men can get work they seem to be getting along pretty well. In other places where it is so crowded that they cannot get part-time work, it is difficult for some of them to make it. It also varies with the part of the country as to the cost of living in those particular places. I will discuss the cost under each of these bills here if I may.

That covers in general my remarks on these bills. As I stated in the beginning, you have the details of the reports printed and before

you.

At this time I might add here that it is estimated, on the basis of enrollment in the present program that the total increased cost for the upward revision of the ceiling levels as proposed by the various bills would be as follows:

For S. 326 the increase for the fiscal year 1948 would be $159,894,000 for raising the ceiling only, and $1,191,634,000 for raising the ceiling limitation and subsistence allowance; for S. 112 the increase for the same period would be $145,638,000; and for S. 914 the cost would be $664,596,000 for raising subsistence allowances and changing ceiling limitation cost that might be incurred because of the establishment of new programs made desirable because of the increase in the ceiling level. These estimates are based entirely on the programs that are now in effect, and we believe that the passage of Public 679 last year very definitely stopped the establishment of a lot of very expensive programs for high-salaried people. How many of those would come back now and be established if the ceiling were removed or raised, we have no estimate.

S. 407, one of the bills under discussion, would repeal that provision of Public Law 679 establishing a limitation of 2 years on full time training on-the-job. In the experience before last summer we found that the length of time set up for these various training programs for the same type of work varied very widely in different parts of the country, and even in the same State they varied widely. For example, they might set up a course to train a man to be a gasoline station attendant at one place for 2 months; at another place they might establish the same course for 2 years or 3 years. Courses on how to press clothes, for example, might run a year to 3 years. Some of those we thought were of very limited value as to the future vocation for the man, and that he should not use up all his entitlement

learning some of those trades, so we suggested, and the Congress approved, placing a limit on these other on-the-job training courses, because anything less than 3 months was considered not really worthy to be called a training course, and it was thought that most of those that were being set up should not take more than 2 years of a man's eligibility.

These period limitations, 3 months and 2 years, do not apply to apprenticeship courses, either those that are recognized as apprenticeship courses by the Federal Government or any of the others which could be put in that class under the State educational set-up. It was merely designed and we hold it in our regulations to apply only to those questionable ones where it does not look as if more than 2 years should be used up in a man's eligibility in learning that particular trade. This bill, S. 407, would remove that 2-year limitation, so that a training course of other on-the-job training could be set up in any of these categories for a maximum of the time a man is eligible, up to 4 years.

Three bills propose to increase the rate of subsistence allowance now being paid. Those are S. 208, S. 326, and S. 914. Any increase in subsistence allowance rates to Public Law 346 trainees is also applicable to subsistence allowance rates paid to Public Law 16 trainees as well.

S. 208 would increase the present rates from $65 for a veteran without dependents, to $100, and from $90 to $125 for a veteran with a dependent or dependents. The estimated cost of this bill for the fiscal year 1948, assuming no increase in enrollments, would be $617,631,000.

S. 914 would increase the rates from $65 to $80 for a veteran without a dependent, and from $90 to $150, where a man has dependents, and it is estimated that it would cost for the first fiscal year $664,596,000, if enacted with the ceiling limitations proposed in the same bill.

S. 326, which would increase the rate from $65 to $100 per month for a veteran without a dependent, and from $90 to $125 per month for a veteran with one dependent, and $150 per month for a veteran with two or more dependents, we estimate would cost for the fiscal year 1948, $1,191,634,000, assuming that the ceiling provisions proposed by the bill were also enacted. Again, no portion of the cost of additional programs which might be established as a result of the increased subsistence allowance is included in the estimate.

In considering an increase of the subsistence allowance we think that the question of making education a job rather than an education should be considered, because in some parts of the country if you get the subsistence allowance high enough to make it attractive as a job, a man will go to school for the money there is in it rather than because of his desire for an education, and that probably should be considered in any raise in the amount of subsistence allowance.

Senator THOMAS. That is not a problem in the well-established educational institutions, because they will take care of such a man there, but it is a problem in these on-the-job training programs.

General BRADLEY. Yes, sir. And it would be a problem in some of the lower-grade schools, and it might even be a problem in some of the higher ones, because these men could qualify, I believe, for education, many of them, and the experience that we are getting from various schools is the fact that these veterans are proving very

apt students, even though they did not have the complete preparatory education to start with, because of their experience. That applies, of course, primarily to those that really want an education. Whether or not that would apply to a man just using his training as a vocation I don't know. It might be that that would eliminate them there. But many of these schools would not be too scrupulous about it. For example, many of these veterans are going to high school. A man might well go to high school and finish high school just to get a job.

That finishes my general discussion on those six bills. If you have any further questions I will try to answer them on those six bills. Senator MORSE. I would like to ask this question: Did you in your experience find that to a certain degree there were instances in which employers work in collusion with veterans in on-the-job training program in order to supply the employer with cheaper labor, in turn for which the veteran was given certain advantages on the job? General BRADLEY. I think there is no doubt but what they use that as a means of getting labor at a cheaper rate. Just how much collusion there was along the line you speak of, I don't know. Mr. Stirling, who has charge of that program, is with me here and might be able to answer that question more specifically. We do know that veterans put a lot of pressure on some establishments to get them to put in these programs, and they almost have to in self-defense in their own community, and many of them express to us afterward great satisfaction that the ceiling was put on. It kept them from having to establish it for everyone. In any establishment every veteran could be considered as working up, trying to get the president's job in that firm. They are all working up, and from that viewpoint they are in training and could have a training program established for them, regardless of how much they are getting at the present time. Like the individual case, the exceptional case I mentioned to start with, this vice president was training for the president's job in the firm, and although he was getting $700 a month, they were setting up a training program for him to draw the $90 a month. Mr. Stirling, do you know of any specific instances where that has happened?

Mr. STIRLING. No, General. Some cases have come to our attention. I don't believe those in the Veterans' Administration could make any general charge that there was collusion between management and labor, or employer and employee.

Senator MORSE. Are there any further questions?

General BRADLEY. The other four bills-I believe S. 855 is one of those you mentioned. It has the purpose of including minor brothers and sisters who are dependent upon the veteran by reason of minority or physical or mental incapacity, to place the veteran in that class of persons who may be considered as being a dependent for the purpose of paying the $90 rate for subsistence allowance instead of $65. In other words, it would include those additional dependents, qualify him for the $90 instead of $65. In effect, it would add $25 per month to the subsistence allowance of those whose eligible dependent relatives are restricted to this class. Historically, allowances for dependents under veterans' laws have been generally confined to wives, widows, children, and dependent parents. To add the proposed new class for the purpose of determining dependency for subsistence allowance would establish a precedent for adding this class in connec

tion with other dependency benefits. In addition, the proposed amendment would discriminate in favor of those veterans of World War II who are already receiving substantial benefits which other veterans of the same war are unable to take advantage of, for one reason or another.

It is estimated that approximately 5 per centum of all veterans now pursuing educational training under the act would benefit by the enactment of S. 855. I would like to point out that this is merely an estimate, because we have no specific figures on it. For the fiscal year 1948 that number would represent approximately 62,200 veterans. Since each veteran would receive an additional $300 per year, the total cost of the legislation for the first year, 1948, would be approximately $18,660,000. We were unable to recommend favorable consideration, because it was a departure from all previous policy in considering dependents of veterans in veterans' laws.

S. 956-I believe that was another one, Senator-proposed to amend the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, so as to extend generally the benefits of the act to members of the American Field Service. The American Field Service was a volunteer civilian group organized in World War I, and reorganized in World War II for ambulance service in cooperation with the British Army. Its members not only furnished their own equipment and served without pay, but they agreed to hold no person, organization or country financially or in any other way responsible for their injury or death. I am informed that some 2,200 Americans were in the Corps during World War II. The numbers of the group were not in the active military service of the United States or of Great Britain. They were civilians. There are many other civilian groups who rendered meritorious service to the United States or its allies during periods of war. The Congress, however, has generally refused to extend to such groups benefits provided for those who have served in the active military or naval service of the United States.

The bill would not only extend benefits of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, as amended, to this group, but also the benefits of Public Law 16, Seventy-eighth Congress, March 24, 1943, as amended. That is the one for disabled men.

The cost for the first year of extending educational benefits under the two acts is estimated to be approximately $528,000. Facts are not available on which to base estimates of further expenditures for other benefits under title III of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act relating to loans for the purchase of homes, farms or business property, and title V relating to readjustment allowances, which would be required under the bill. However, in this case it is not the cost of this particular bill alone that should be considered; it is the principle involved, and should benefits be extended to this group they could not logically be denied to numerous other equally deserving volunteer civilian groups. The Veterans' Administration does not recommend the enactment of S. 596.

S. 977 would set the terminal date of March 31, 1947, for the period during which a veteran must have service to become entitled to Vocational rehabilitation under Public Law 16, and education or training, loan guaranty, and readjustment allowance benefits under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act. The present basic requirement applicable to each of these benefits is that a veteran must have served during the period from September 16, 1940, and prior to the termina

tion of the present war. The date March 31, 1947, would be substiuted for "termination of the present war," which is defined in the Readjustment Act as meaning termination of the war as declared by Presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the Congress.

The fixing of dates limiting wartime service for the purpose of conferring wartime benefits involves a question of far-reaching importance to the national policy affecting veterans.

It seems proper to suggest to the committee that whatever cut-off date may be specified might operate more fairly and practically if it is a date subsequent, rather than prior to the enactment of the bill. That is merely a suggestion.

Some persons have entered the service since March 31, 1947, with the belief that since the war was not yet officially terminated, their service would qualify them for the benefits in question. There seems to be little reason for discriminating between these persons and those who entered service just prior to March 31, 1947. From an administrative standpoint some payments made prior to the enactment of the bill, based on credit for service subsequent to March 31, might also be brought into question.

We have pointed out in some detail in our formal report on this bill that it does not specifically amend other provisions of these laws which limit the extent of the benefits granted, and the period for which they can be received, by reference to the termination of the war. For example, the bill would not expressly change the provision of title II of the servicemen's Readjustment Act, under which the amount of education which a veteran may receive is limited to 1 year, plus the period of his active service on or after September 16, 1940, and before the termination of the war. Many other provisions stating the time after termination of the war or hostilities within which the training must be initiated or received, within which the loan to be guaranteed must be made, or within which the employment must have occurred for readjustment allowances to be payable, are likewise not mentioned in the proposed amendments.

These matters require clarification, and it is believed that the same limiting date should be applicable for all these purposes. The Veterans' Administration will be glad to assist in any way which the committee may desire in revising the bill to clarify in these and other particulars which have been noted in our report. But there are several provisions in the law that are not mentioned in this particular bill which would bring up the question for decision.

Senator MORSE. I suppose the date, March 31, 1947, was probably selected because that was the end of the Selective Service Act. Is that the reason for that date?

General BRADLEY. Without doubt, yes, sir. The bill was introduced on March 25, so it must have been because of the termination of the Selective Service Act.

Senator MORSE. What effect do you suppose the date, March 31, 1947, would have on enlistments during this year if the War Department and the Navy Department, in accordance with their present enlistment programs, continued indirectly to hold out inducements under existing legislation to these men?

General BRADLEY. I would like to ask Mr. Birdsall on that, because it is a rather complicated question. I know that Public Law 190 approved October 6, 1945, provided that those who enlisted or reenlisted within the next year would be entitled to certain benefits of