standing that I will have the opportunity to do so at a subsequent hearing.

On the whole title I of Public 346, is excellent law.

Chapter II, section 200, ought to be amended, somewhat, however, as indicated by the previous witness, Mr. Ketchum, so as to provide that the privilege of being accredited representatives of veteran organizations, to go into veteran Army and Navy hospitals, should be extended only to those full-time accredited representatives who receive their salaries from the veteran organization through which they receive recognition, and to that end I would recommend that the language at the top of page 6 of H. R. 3749 be amended by striking out the word "paid" and inserting in line 2, after the word "of" the following:

and the full salaries of whom are paid by, one,

so it would read:

That upon certification to the Secretary of War, or Secretary of the Navy by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs of the full-time accredited representatives of, and the full salaries of whom are paid by, one of the veterans' organizations specified in section 200

and so forth.

*

Now, in connection with the section which deals with the matter of privileges of accredited representatives, I would like to call attention to a situation that is now very, very serious.

Recently, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs issued a service letter which provides that no space may be released by any facility manager or regional manager of the Veterans' Administration or branch manager for the purpose of providing space for any service or veteran organization for its accredited representative. That is going to mean there will be a very tough proposition very shortly because there are several of the combination facilities that are being split up into regional offices and hospitals so that the combined facilities are being moved into new buildings and under this service letter, the regional manager may not lease space that can be used for the representatives of the veteran organizations.

Justification for that service letter, I understand, is that it is felt that no legislative authority provides for such space.

Therefore, if H. R. 3749 is scheduled to go on through quickly, it ought to be further amended by providing at the end of section 200 (a) the language that now appears in H. R. 4134, which, however, needs further amendment, so as to read as follows:

That section 200, title II, of Public Law No. 84, Seventy-ninth Congress, approved June 29, 1945, as amended, is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof, the following:

"The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is further authorized, in his discretion, and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to furnish, at the expense of the Veterans' Administration, necessary space, suitable office facilities, and stenographic assistance, for the use of the paid full-time representatives of such organizations."

May I call attention to the fact that the Veterans' Administration has cooperated on the whole very splendidly with the veterans' organizations in furnishing space in the past. That has not been universally true. In some offices there are exceptions where this situation has been very tight and very unpleasant, where the representatives of the veterans' organizations couldn't obtain any suitable space, and

couldn't obtain any space at all, except possibly in a hallway, and they will be up against the proposition of not being able to obtain this space in the future.

Thirty of our full-time national service officers are furnished with stenographic facilities by the regional offices of the Veterans' Administration, which is a very fine thing for them to do, and we think it is highly justifiable, in view of the fact that the national service officers of the veterans' organizations can save a great deal of time for the officials of the Veterans' Administration.

I would say that each national service officer saves the equipment of from 3 to 10 employees of the Veterans' Administration.

Why do I say that? Well, a disabled veteran who receives information from a governmental official isn't always quite sure that he is getting the right answer, but if a veteran organization representative tells him that he is not entitled to a certain thing, he is going to believe it, ordinarily.

So a great deal of corresponding and a great deal of time and trouble is saved to the regional office by reason of the fact that we have competent experienced national service officers of the various veterans organizations that help to act as a liaison between the veterans and the Administration.

So we feel that Congress would be highly justified in enacting this provision of law.

I grant you that there might be some resistance on the part of the Veterans' Administration to furnishing stenographic assistance. That would be pretty important to our organization, because they are now furnishing stenographic assistance to about 30 of our men. If we had to furnish that stenographic service, it would be a very material expenditure and one which has been taken care of by the Veterans' Administration in past years.

Therefore, we feel justified in that.

The degree to which stenographic assistance is furnished to the other veteran organizations and to the Red Cross, I don't know, but they all have had some in the past and some of them have office facilities.

We feel that is fully justifiable.

We would like to see the committee report out this bill as a single bill, so that it could receive immediate action and would like to have it done before the time of our national convention because that is going to be a troublesome question which the Administrator is going to be confronted with.

H. R. 4134 would so provide. I am in a position to give much more detailed information relative to those office facilities in the event the committee feels it necessary to have it, but I don't want to burden you with too many technicalities, as the principle would remain the same. However, if it is to be incorporated in this bill, it would seem to me that it ought to be incorporated in chapter 2, title I.

Now, the Veterans' Administration has indicated that there should be amendment to section 302 (a) so as to authorize the Army and Navy Officers' Disability Retirement Board to review the findings that were made while the officers were in military service to determine whether or not they might be entitled to officers' disability retirement benefits. Until recently, the War Department would not permit any officer to

take an appeal and have the claim considered unless he had appeared before a retirement board while in military service.

He would have gotten out by reason of a disability because he went before a disposing board in the Army or before a medical board, a board of medical survey in the Navy.

We presented that matter to the War Department, and showed where it was very unfair and they have changed the rule so as to provide where that has happened, they will still permit them to go before the boards. But the technicality still exists. If he didn't go before the board during his service, then he would have no right to a review.

That is because of the language that says that the Board of Review may review the findings and decisions of such retiring boards.

We suggest that we put in "or board of medical survey." It ought to cover any kind of board that has arranged for the discharge or the release from active duty of any officer so that he isn't deprived of a review by the review board.

There have been some outstanding cases of injustice because of this technical consideration by the Navy Department and the Veterans' Administration.

I emphasize the fact that the words "disposition board" ought to be incorporated in section 302 (a) together with a "Retiring Board" or "Board of Medical Survey."

That same language should also be provided-well, there should also be the same kind of language in Section 302 (b) so as to provide:

No request for review under this section shall be valid unless filed within 15 years after the date of retirement for disability, or after the effective date of this act, whichever is the later.

It was reported in the column of Lieutenant Commander Krum, that they would not consider any discharge that had been effected prior to the enactment of this act. On the following day he apologized, stating that it would be considered.

So that there might not be any possibility of misinterpretation, it would appear that that additional language should be in the section so there couldn't be any refusal of the Board to consider a discharge prior to the enactment of the act.

Now, if title II, the educational provisions, are to be retained, then we would agree with the Veterans' Administration and with the American Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars that any requirement as to eligibility that a man's education must be interrupted, should be eliminated.

Therefore, the language beginning on line 22, page 11, of H. R. 3749, should be deleted "and whose education or training was impeded, delayed, interrupted, or interfered with by reason of his entrance into the service, or who desires a refresher or retraining course and," and at the end this language should be deleted:

That any such person who was not over 25 years of age at the time he entered the service shall be deemed to have had his education or training impeded, delayed, interrupted, or interfered with.

I was mistaken. I don't believe the Veterans' Administration recommended that, but I believe the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, did, and we concur.

Also as to the extension of the period of eligibility, we concur with the recommendation of the Veterans' Administration, and the other organizations, that there should be permissible legislation to provide for intensive short courses and correspondence courses, and permission to arrange for the tuition accordingly.

That really ought to be provided for retroactively because there are some that took up short courses.

For example, I had a veteran in the office who took up a short course in aviation, flying, in order to get his license. It was subsequently found, after he had gotten more than half through that the Veterans' Administration could not reimburse him for the tuition. That is all the education he wanted.

Therefore, I think that particular provision ought to be made retroactive so that where there was a transaction in good faith, it should be possible for the Veterans' Administration to pay it, or the particular institution should sustain the loss.

And such a provision would probably have to be in title II, part 8, subparagraph 3 (b).

In subparagraph 7, we have the proposition that would arrange for the veteran who was entitled to training under either part 7 or part 8 to take an option, and we believe that should be deleted, and that it should be read:

Any such veteran eligible for the benefits of this part, who is also eligible for the benefit of part 7, may elect which benefit he desires during any particular period, but shall be eligible to receive either or both such benefits successively.

I have already advanced the reasons why we believe that to be desirable.

Now, then, if the provisions of S. 1031 are not to be separately reported out, and this bill, H. R. 3749 is destined to go through shortly, then we believe the proper place of insertion would be at the end of title II, on page 20, after line 18, as an additional section 403.

I have already stated why we believe that to be the case.

We agree with the Veterans' Administration recommendation relative to certification of eligibility and so forth on loans, although, as we pointed out, we believe that the entire responsibility should be referred to other agencies.

Relative to the matter of a normal value as to property, we suggest that that all might be much simplified if we were to use the word "reasonable marketable" wherever "normal value" appears—“reasonalle normal value."

We don't know for sure whether or not we are going to have a continued increase in prices, and if we prevent the disabled veteran from getting a house or farm at the present prices, we might be doing him an injustice. He has to view his future on the basis of what the situation now is. We don't want him to pay more than a reasonable market value, but he ought to have that privilege.

I point out, however, that if he were given the privilege of getting benefits on an "earned merit" basis through a readjustment insurance policy he himself could make the decision because it would be money that he earned.

We also agree with the recommendations made by the Veterans' Administration for an additional section at the end of title III if that provision is to be retained in the law.

As to the title IV of the bill, pertaining to employment service in section 601, in line 11, where it says that the employment representative shall be a veteran of the wars of the United States, we think that there ought to be a demonstration that disabled veterans are employable. Ninety percent of the veterans are rated as less than totally disabled and therefore need employment, and if properly placed, are just as serviceable and just as productive as other employables.

I think it is appropriate to call attention to that, in view of the fact that this is "National Employment of the Physically Handicapped Week." This is the first time that "National Employment of the Physically Handicapped Week" will be observed in this country. The purpose of it is to point out to employers the desirability of employing handicapped citizens and handicapped veterans, and to point out the advantage of doing so on the ground of their relatively greater productivity, and serviceability, generally speaking.

A person already handicapped recognizes the difficulty of obtaining a job, and is fearful of obtaining additional disability and therefore, ordinarily speaking is inclined to be careful and cautious not to incur an additional disability and consequently will have less accidents, generally speaking, less absenteeism from the job, than is true of other employees.

Moreover, wanting to obtain a job, he generally is apt to be more productive and serviceable, more apt to be loyal, more resourceful than is true of other employees.

That is not always so, but is generally true if he is placed in accordance with his abilities and aptitudes.

Therefore we believe that the Federal Government should set an example of giving preference of opportunity to disabled veterans.

Since there are going to be so many of them, we believe it would be appropriate that every veteran's employment representative should himself be a disabled veteran. We urge that preceding the word "veteran" in line 11, page 28, the words "service-disabled" be incorporated, so that all of such veterans' employment representatives would be service-disabled veterans.

Then, on section 602, page 29, we would, beginning in line 20, take out the words "preferably veterans" and substitute the words "who shall be service-disabled," so that all of those who are assigned to the job of being veterans' employment representatives on the State level and on the local level shall themselves be service-disabled veterans, and therefore understand the problems of service-disabled veter

ans.

Section 1504, in the event the committee favorably regards the suggestion that we should not provide readjustment insurance policies, then we believe that such a provision should be attached as title VII to Public, 346, and to that end we recommend that the language now in H. R. 3537 be incorporated as an additional amendment, to the so-called Gi bill of rights, as title VII.

In the event that that is done, then section 1505 ought to be amended to read as follows, on page 45 beginning with line 22:

In the event there shall be hereafter authorized any allowance in the nature of adjusted compensation any monetary benefits received by any veteran under this act shall be charged against and deducted from such adjusted compensation