may have married within the past few years and may have been at home raising a family before and while the husband was in military service should not, in my opinion, prevent her being given educational advantages to enable her to compete with those having more recent training. Also, I believe, if for any reason, a husband becomes disqualified for certification by Civil Service Commission, the wife should become eligible for the preference.

The attitude of life-insurance companies toward the covering of disabled veterans would indicate their life expectancy is considerable less than the average. Therefore, every encouragement should be given the wife to fit herself to assume the responsibility of supporting the family if and when it should become necessary.

I am well aware of the great advantage to those left with the responsibility of support and education of children that a necessary basic training provides. By being fortunate enough to have that advantage following World War I, I was able to provide for and educate three children through college. In addition, my business was such that I was able to offer positions to thousands of veterans and dependents. In many cases, the wives or widows had no former business experience, but with proper personnel selection and training they became worthy competitors, from an earning standpoint, with the average able-bodied man.

I am confident those individuals and organizations seriously concerned wtih delinquency will agree that the better morale and home environment engendered by higher educational standards and increased income are worthy of careful consideration in this issue. From personal experience and the application of the principles outlined have developed the highest type citizens-mothers, father, officers, and men and women-who have served their country with credit and distinction in World War II.

It would also be greatly to the advantage and increased morale of returning servicemen if they could, where warranted, demand an accounting from the person whom they entrusted with the power of attorney, usually at the suggestion of their commanding officer and without realizing in all cases precisely what it meant. Many return to find assets dissipated they assumed were being held for them. Senator JOHNSON. I want to place in the record a letter submitted by Senator Saltonstall.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Senator LEVERETT SALTONSTALL,

DEPARTMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS,

Senate Building, Washington, D. C.

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, Boston, Mass., September 20, 1945.

DEAR SENATOR SALTONSTALL: There is now pending before Congress H. R. 3749, which bill is to provide for a readjustment allowance for all veterans of World War II. The action that you and the Congress take in the proposed amendment will affect the lives of several million men and women under title 2, chapter 4, Education of veterans.

I am particularly interested in the amendment offered in title 2 for the following reasons:

1. The present program offers little incentive for a veteran to continue his education.

2. Only recognized accredited schools or educational institutions shall provide for the veterans' education.

3. That the present $50 and proposed $60 a month allowance for living expense is wholly inadequate for the veteran to live on and offers no incentive for him to continue his education.

4. That the age limit of 25 restricts and limits the number of veterans interested in continuing an education. The veteran should be permitted to continue his education even if he entered the service at the age of 30 years.

5. A veteran with dependents now receiving $75 a month is inadequate and the proposed $85 a month is also inadequate, and this sum should be increased to not less than $150 a month for a period of 10 months which covers the educational year.

6. The allowance of $500 to cover tuition, textbooks, etc., should be increased to a sum not exceeding $1,000. Many schools have already and many are planning, to raise their tuition fees, which will prohibit veterans from attending the better schools.

7. In spite of the controls to be placed on living costs there will be some inflation and the allowance for living costs as provided in this bill, as well as the allowance for tuition can be adqusted as such costs rise and drop in the future. 8. Any incentive or encouragement given the veteran to continue or take up education, will not only be of benefit to that veteran but will enable him to secure employment upon the completion of his education.

With the ever-increasing number of veterans being discharged and with conversion rapidly taking place there will be many jobs open to the nonveteran and the veteran, but there will also be a number of unemployed veterans in spite of every attempt made to give full employment to everyone.

If 750,000 or 1,000,000 of the returning veterans will take advantage of the education bill as provided in Public Law 346 and with the amendments in H. R, 3749, provided such amendments are an incentive to the veteran, then there will be that less to compete with at least for the present time in the field of -occupancy.

I believe the GI bill started out with the best of intentions for the veteran, but. when it was put into practice, it fell short of accomplishing to the fullest the program to help the veteran. Under the GI bill, section 1505, which may provide for adjusted compensation, the veteran feels that any allowance or moneys advanced for education may be taken out of the bonus, if he should ever receive such, and for this reason he is reluctant to continue his education.

I appreciate the effort that you are putting into this program, Mr. Senator, and the sincerity of your efforts in trying to correct the GI bill of rights for the benefit of the veteran and of the many other problems that face you during these trying times. Possibly some suggestions offered in this letter may have some merit, and if they do I hope they can be incorporated in the amended bill.

I have written to several other Senators and hope that when the bill is completed, the veteran will be satisfied and we will feel that the job has been well done.

With kindest regards.
Sincerely,

JULIUS MELTZER, Chairman, Junior Activities, Department of Massachusetts.

Senator JOHNSON. The committee will adjourn at this time to meet at 10 o'clock in the morning and continue the hearing.

(Whereupon, at 5:20 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10° o'clock tomorrow morning, Wednesday, October 10, 1945.)

(The following letters were later received for the record:)

The Honorable ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE,

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN,
Madison, October 10, 1945.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR LA FOLLETTE: According to information received from the American Council on Education, the Senate Finance Committee, of which I understand you are a member, is conducting hearings this week on H. R. 3749, the new GI bill passed by the House of Representatives.

I understand the new legislation includes the following changes in the GI bill: 1. The limiting clause now effective for veterans who entered the armed forces prior to their twenty-fifth birthday is eliminated.

2. Maintenance payments are increased $10 per month.

3. Provision is made not to deduct certain payments to educational institutions from any subsequent adjusted compensation payable to the veteran.

There may be other amendments, but the above three are of particular importance to the University of Wisconsin. I am, therefore, taking the liberty of asking that these changes be given favorable consideration by the Senate Finance Committee.

Under the rules adopted by the Veterans' Administration pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 346, the GI bill, the University of Wisconsin is collecting from the Veterans' Administration the equivalent of the nonresident tuition for all veterans admitted under Public Law 346, whether or not they are residents of Wisconsin. This policy was discussed with the State superintendent of public instruction, representatives of the State teachers' colleges, and the Governor before it was officially adopted by the regents. It was the consensus of those who participated in these discussions that the cost of the educational benefits made available to veterans by Congress should be a Federal expense and not charged to the several States. This seems to be particularly appropriate because the privately endowed universities and colleges will receive the full amount of their higher tuition fees and it would seem to be unfair to ask the several States which maintain State-supported universities and colleges to carry the cost of veterans enrolled at the State-supported schools and also the cost of their pro rata share for veterans enrolled in privately endowed schools.

The objections that have been raised to the present procedure come from the veterans who think they will be charged for the payments made to universities and colleges by having reductions made in subsequent adjusted compensation. These objections could be eliminated completely if Congress would agree not to reduce subsequently adjusted compensation payments for the payments made to educational institutions.

Kind regards and all good wishes.
Yours sincerely,

E. B. FRED.

Hon. ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, Jr.,

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

CENTRAL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE,
Stevens Point, October 9, 1945.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR LA FOLLETTE: It has come to my attention that some modifications are being proposed to the so-called GI bill of rights. There are some that I think should be made. In the light of our experience here I feel that the married veterans do not receive enough subsistence allowance. There will be a proposal, as I understand it, to pay married veterans $85 with an additional allowance of $10 for each child. I would be for that. The single veterans are better off under the present bill than the married ones but I would also support an addition of $10 for them. I also believe it would be well to remove the clause which limits the education for those who were inducted after their twenty-fifth birthday. I believe there are many young fellows who may not be suffering any service-connected disability in the sense that they could be paid a pension for it but whose exposure and hardship during the war will ultimately affect their earning capacity much earlier in life than would otherwise be the case and who should be given the opportunity now to prepare for some type of work which may not be so strenuous physically.

There are also good reason for setting up some pretty good screen so that hastily organized correspondence schools or other fly-by-night types of organizations will not be able to exploit the veterans under the GI bill of rights. Those three amendments especially I am interested in.

I am pleased that Congress is so ably standing off the requests of the War Department and the veterans' organizations for peacetime conscription. I would have a feeling that we have lost the war if it is to result in peacetime compulsory military training in this country.

Sincerely yours,

WM. C. HANSEN, President.

AMENDMENTS1 TO THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT

ACT OF 1944

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1945

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' LEGISLATION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 312, Senate Office Building, Senator Edwin C. Johnson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Johnson (chairman of the subcommittee), George (chairman of the full committee), Lucas, La Follette, Butler, and Millikin.

Senator JOHNSON. The subcommittee will be in order.

Is Mr. Ketchum here?

(No response.)

Corporal Ahrend, did you want to make a brief statement, sir? Corporal AHREND. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. You may proceed in your own way, Corporal.

STATEMENT OF CORP. JOHN J. AHREND

Corporal AHREND. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the GI's, we have more or less a tentative organization.

We are, of course, willing to aline ourselves with any veteran organization that we think will be to the advantage not only of ourselves but our Nation as well.

We started our organization after the first GI bill of rights came to our attention as being rather inadequate.

Senator LUCAS. What is the name of your organization, Corporal? Corporal AHREND. We have none, sir. It is just a group of soldiers. Senator LUCAS. Good enough.

Corporal AHREND. We first began talking about the GI bill of rights in our battalion and we more or less decided upon a definite program.

We, of course, in our educational program were interested in postwar problems, and it worked in very nicely there. And after we had decided on this program, the boys began talking with other units about and it got to be pretty well known throughout France in about 6 months' time.

I was the first one of the group to get back to the United States. I landed about the 21st of September.

1 H. R. 3749, S. 742, S. 866, S. 487, S. 781, S. 826, S. 850, S. 974, S. 1031, S. 1324, S. 738, S. 795, S. 1202, S. 291, and S. 1176.

Between here and New York and Fort Dix and visiting a dentist, I haven't had time to work out a systematized program, but I do have some things I would like to say.

First of all, the boys feel that they should be heard and understood. We have learned to be men of action and we are interested in helping in national affairs.

We know that the end of the war came suddenly and feel that America was not prepared for it, so we are willing to do our share to take care of the situation.

We have also learned, through seeing, that world-wide peace depends on America. We are, in a sense, you might say, the shining example for the rest of the world that we saw. That is Europe. And this can only be accomplished through individual effort on everyone's part. Not only the soldiers, but the rest of the United States as well.

We won one fight, but I think the biggest one is confronting us. We have a three-fold program. That is, education, rehabilitation, and last, but not least, working for peace.

To accomplish that there are a few things that must be done. First, and immediately, battle-weary and mentally injured soldiers will have to be assured of security. You would be surprised at the number of men that can walk around and carry on a conversation and apparently, as far as you can see, nothing is wrong with them, when in reality there is.

I happen to work with psychoneurotic boys, rehabilitating them, in our battalion, which ran up over 50 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your outfit, corporal?

Corporal AHREND. I was with the medical attachment. First we had a regiment, the Three Hundred and First Ordnance Regiment. Then, after we got overseas, it was divided into two battalions. We were stationed in France, and as far as I know, the boys are still there. I wouldn't say that 75 percent of the boys are mental cases. That would be exaggerating it. But in order to avoid making mental cases of them, we must do something to assure them of their security. That is the one thing that will turn the picture.

Senator LUCAS. Corporal, you are talking about the boys that were in battle and came back?

Corporal AHREND. I am talking about all of them, sir.

I happened to be back of the lines. A lot of our men were sent to the front. But by the time everything was said and done, the boys that stayed back of the lines were mentally hurt as much as the ones that went to the front, unless there was a physical injury.

Senator JOHNSON. Corporal, the men you came in contact with were men sent to your battalion for treatment; were they not?

Corporal AHREND. No, sir; they were back there to work, sir. They were men who were hospitalized and in many cases, as we used to say, shell-shocked.

Senator JOHNSON. Shell-shocked troops?

Corporal AHREND. That is right.

Of course, some of them were injured physically, part of a hand, or had shrapnel wounds. Of course, that is a physical injury.

But I found there was a mental injury as well.

Senator MILLIKIN. Corporal, I want to get straight how many there were.