ticularly is this true in the field of real estate, if appraisal is not safeguarded when he enters the market as a borrower of money. Senator JOHNSON. We thank you, Mr. Satterfield. Does Mr. Meridith have anything to add to what you have said? Senator MILLIKIN. I should like to ask Mr. Meridith a question. STATEMENT OF L. DOUGLAS MERIDITH, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF VERMONT Senator MILLIKIN. Do you have any estimate as to the difference in cost to the Government under a full guaranty of loans as distinguished from the present arrangement? Mr. MERIDITH. No, sir; I do not have that information. I have not made such an estimate. I think it would be exceedingly difficult to do so because it would depend entirely on how the program is administered. In other words, if a very extremely liberal policy is adopted, the losses might run very high. If, on the other hand, a policy of prudence were adopted, the losses would be kept at a minimum and at the same time the veterans would be helped. Senator MILLIKIN. Of course, contingent liabilities would expand enormously under such an arrangement. Mr. MERIDITH. That is true. On the other hand, the experience of the FHA demonstrates abundantly that if a man buys a house, and his monthly payments are gaged so that his monthly payment on the loan is about equal to the rent which he would have to pay in order to take care of his family, the experience to date with regard to an arrangement of that nature is excellent. The company with which I am associated has made about 30,000 FHA loans to date, and it has been obliged to complete foreclosure on only 52 or 53. Senator MILLIKIN. That is all I desire to ask. STATEMENT OF MEYER BERNSTEIN, ASSISTANT TO CLAYTON S. GOLSTEIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE CIO VETERANS' COMMITTEE Senator JOHNSON. You may state your name to the reporter, and whom you represent. Mr. BERNSTEIN. I am Meyer Bernstein, assistant to Mr. Clayton S. Goldstein, chairman of the ČIO Veterans' Committee. We represent about a million and a half members discharged from the armed services. Senator LUCAS. Allow me to ask you a question. You say that you represent 112 million members recently discharged from the armed forces? Mr. BERNSTEIN. Or about to be discharged. Senator LUCAS. I should like to know how you represent them. Mr. BERNSTEIN. Each of our affiliated CIO unions have rosters of their members who have gone into the service. When a man leaves his plant to join the service, he gets what we call an exoneration. That is, he remains a member of the union. He pays no dues while he is in the service, and he is listed at the local union and his name is sent to national headquarters. 77877-45-21 Senator LUCAS. I understand all that, but the point I am making is this: How can you represent a million and a half members and represent their viewpoints in the treatise you are now about to give? Mr. BERNSTEIN. I will explain the extent to which we represent them and their ideas as I proceed with my statement. Senator LUCAS. I merely wish to say that we receive telegrams from this organization and that organization stating that it represents a million and a half people, or 30,000 people, and so forth. It just seems to me--and I am not saying this out of any unkindnessthat you just cannot represent the viewpoints of a million and a half men in any statement which you may be prepared to make. However, that would not influence me at all with regard to your position. When you state that you represent a million and a half men who have been discharged, including men who have not been discharged, many of them may disagree with your point of view. Go ahead. Mr. BERNSTEIN. My point in raising the question is that we are concerned with the welfare of those one and one-half million men, and I believe I will be able to explain it more fully as I proceed. Senator LUCAS. Well, you cannot testify with regard to each individual viewpoint that may be entertained by those men. Mr. BERNSTEIN. No, sir; that is correct. In representing the CIO, and in testifying on behalf of our 11⁄2 million members in or recently released from the armed forces, I should like to offer for the consideration of the subcommittee the following comments and suggestions on portions of H. R. 3749, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1945. First let me say that these gallant young men who left their jobs to defend their country have retained their membership in their labor unions. CIO affiliates have waived dues and reinstatement fees for servicemen card holders. We have been in constant touch with them, and have insisted that our collective-bargaining contracts include provisions for their benefit in addition to those guaranties established by law. The succeeding paragraphs are a synthesis of their ideas on the original GI bill of rights and the proposed amendments, as expressed in letters, conversations, and meetings with various of our veteran groups. Section 104. Prosthetic appliances. First full paragraph on page 5 should be amended to include the following sentence to begin on line 10: Such prosthetic appliances shall be the best generally available, without reference to price; and repairs, refittings, and replacements shall be made as necessary on the same basis as the original issue. The present price-limitation policy on artificial limbs has made it impossible for the Veterans' Administration to provide the best or even a good prosthetic. If the average price of the most useful and desirable device is twice that now allowed by the Veterans' Administration, the total additional cost to furnish one and a spare to each disabled veteran will be less than the money cost of fighting the war for 1 or 2 hours. Surely these, next to our dead, have made the greatest sacrifices, and they are entitled to the unlimited gratitude of the Nation. Section 301. Disqualification from rights by reason of discharge by general court martial. The present bill makes no provision for an appeal of a discharge ordered by a general court martial. A serviceman so discharged loses all benefits of the act, without recourse. In many instances this may be unfair. Military justice at any time has many deficiencies, but during hostilities there is often insufficient leisure for full and impartial consideration of the evidence. Because of the exigencies of battle conditions much may not be available. Then, too, tempers are hotter and impatience greater. Petty faults may be magnified into crimes; and offenses which under happier circumstances might be expiated by extra duty, under the strain of combat frequently result in a general court martial. I have seen the very same misdeed punished in one instance by a demotion or "bust," and in another by a sentence of several years in the stockade on Guadalcanal and a dishonorable discharge. Senator MILLIKIN. We have the same situation in connection with the administration of civilian law. A man will be sentenced for 1 year for a crime which is precisely the same as one which another man committed but who has received a sentence for 10 years. Mr. BERNSTEIN. The contrast in the military law, however, is much greater. Senator MILLIKIN. Perhaps so. Mr. BERNSTEIN. However, as I was saying, I have seen the same misdeeds punished by sentences of varying degree, as, for example, by a demotion or "bust" in one instance, and in another by a sentence of several years in the stockade on Guadalcanal and a dishonorable discharge. The first has since earned back his rank; the second I never heard of again. Presumably he is still on the islands. The one was no more or less guilty than the other. We who have served throughout the war have come to accept this sort of thing; we even have an inelegant name for it. We couldn't and didn't protest because the important thing was to win the fight quickly. Now we think an erroneous judgment ought not to dog an unfortunate GI the rest of his life. We propose, therefore, that this section be amended to provide for fiveman Army and Navy boards to review cases of discharge by general court martial, with power to set aside the conviction if the facts so warrant; and further that such boards of review shall each include two civilian members of the bar, preferably judges of our circuit courts of appeal. The War Department has announced the creation of special clemency boards to review all cases of prisoners who have not yet completed their sentence. This is an excellent move, but it should be strengthened in the manner suggested above. Now that the war is over, commutation of sentences is certainly in order. We are here concerned with miscarried justice. And those who have already been discharged dishonorably deserve the same review. Senator LUCAS. Perhaps you are familiar with what the President has done in setting up a Board of Review, headed by Judge Minton, the object and purpose of which I believe is to accomplish what you have in mind. Mr. BERNSTEIN. As I understand it, sir, that is only for persons who are now serving their sentences, and the object is one of commutation. Senator LUCAS. Yes; but that will probably take care of men in at least one of the situations to which you have been referring. Mr. BERNSTEIN. That is only one example of which I know. There are many other men who deserve the same consideration. Senator LUCAS. Go ahead. Mr. BERNSTEIN. Section 400. Education of Veterans: The real weakness in the educational legislation comes in the below-college level. I am informed that only about three or four American cities have adequate programs for the returning veteran who wishes to go back to the grades or high school. The reason for this deplorable condition are present legislation does not provide appropriations which make possible the calling together with the States those responsible for working out a program. This condition particularly affects the poorer States. On the other hand, there are wealthy States, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, which actually have educational surpluses. It seemes to me that this whole problem of educating the returning veteran, particularly on the grade- and high-school level, will not be met until we develop an educational program like the one in the Denver Continuation School. There the facilities of the school are made available practically day and night, with teachers who work for the educational adult program and help those who wish to begin with fundamentals. In other words, the school is the community center. There are constant technological developments and so the problem of the returning veteran who gets a job in industry today is not only one of relearning the job to which he returns, but of keeping up with changes. That is why I think there should be created immediately within the States and the cities educational commissions representing the professional educators, labor, and the public, to make plans for the utilization of the vocational schools the clock around, if necessary. We did it as we needed technically trained men when the war began. We allocated funds for the Office of Education, we kept our technical and vocational schools open, and we trained the men to produce for Now why can't we do the same thing in peacetime? Why can't big schools like the South Shore Vocational School in Chicago and the Dayton Technical Vocational School and the Timkin School in Canton, Ohio, be kept open? One answer is aid from the Federal Government in the interest of veterans' vocational rehabilitation. war. Section 4 of Veterans Regulation No. 1, part VIII, page 14, in H. R. 3749, should be amended to provide that in addition to being approved and certified by an appropriate State agency, an apprenticeship plan to qualify under the act must meet the standards set by the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship. This will guarantee national recognition for training received in any State. Also it will prevent veterans from being hoodwinked by unscrupulous employers, whose objective it will be not to train the veteran but rather to exploit him to his loss of time and at Federal expense. If nationally approved minimum standards of training are established for veterans, then each GI can have an assurance that his time shall not have been wasted. He will really learn a trade, and will really be able to use it. And, on the contrary, if there are no such standards, the ex-serviceman may spend several years at work which offers no training for advancement. And when his subsistence allowance expires he will find himself expert on a low-paying job and qualified for nothing better, as was the experience of so many veterans after the last war. The 25-year-age limit for automatic eligibility should be eliminated. All servicemen should be deemed to have had their education or training impeded, delayed, interrupted, or interfered with. We all have to unlearn much and relearn a great deal more. It is astonishing how much one can forget in 4 years. Some of us, because of the nature of our employment, can pick up where we left off, and gather together the loose ends as we go along. Others will need more formal training. Many will desire to change their occupations. They are now dissatisfied with what they did before the war. The Army or Navy has taught them that they had new and hidden capabilities. But they need more training to direct it into civilian lines. Shall the man who enlisted at 26, or even 36, be denied the benefits of this act, while his younger buddy enjoys them? I was 27 when I joined the Army; I am in my thirty-second year now. If I did not have a job and considerate employers to return to, I should like few things better than to go back to school. And scores of my Army friends feel the same way. You know the older soldier has taken more than his share of the gaff in this war. He was drafted while he was just getting out of the initial stages of self support. He grew up in a period of economic reverses, and perhaps had to cut his training short though he intended to make it up some day. Once in uniform he found the going tough, and in many instances had to remain behind in the States doing menial jobs, while the remainder of his outfit went overseas, or he was put in a noncombat branch of the service. He was not employed to his full capacity while he was in, and he couldn't get out, even though the Selective Service had long since stopped drafting men of his age. Those over 35 are only now beginning to receive their discharges. Many of these were called up in the early days of the war, and their tours of duty probably have been longer than most GI's. The least we can do for them is to give them the same opportunities as their younger comrades. The subsistence allowance should be increased; $60 a month for a veteran without and $85 for one with dependents are not enough. Most veterans will have to start from scratch. Their mustering-out pay will scarcely last beyond new clothes and a short vacation. Except for what part-time job they may be able to find, they will have to live on the money allowed. The sums proposed are considerably less than most boys received as soldiers or sailors, and they will now have to meet expenses they never had to pay as servicemen. The Government ought to provide for its favorite sons and daughters at least the standard budgeting maintenance suggested by our institutions of learning. A more reasonable allowance would be $90 for the veteran, and $25 for each dependent, up to a maximum of three. In the case of disabled veterans, the minimum should be $115. Sections 500-502 should be amended to conform with the recommendations made by Mr. Bernard Baruch in his report to Veterans' Administrator Gen. Omar Bradley. I will not quote from his letter because it has already been referred to this morning. The question of the quality of the housing that the veteran would get for his money is definitely involved also. No standards are prescribed in the GI bill either by the law or regulation, and the |