prevailing opinion seems to be that Congress, in failing to lay them down, intended that any type of house would do. This may mean to the veteran, of course, high upkeep costs, speedy obsolescence, and speedier foreclosure. This in turn will mean that we are letting ourselves in for the possibility of a pretty shabby-looking America, and the tragedy is that this time it is to be at the veterans' expense. The postwar period presents us with the greatest opportunity for the redevelopment of our cities. With no planing, however, and no standards for the houses to be built, we are simply holding the housing clock back.

If the homes are well built and part of a soundly planned neighborhood, they will be a safer investment in the long run. If interest rates are cut, amortization period extended, and building geared to the availability of material, buildings costs, and civilian demand, annual charges will be considerably lower. Amortization for a good house could then be extended to 32 years instead of 20.

Senator MILLIKIN. If an ex-serviceman wanted to live in a neighborhood which was not soundly balanced, would you deny him the opportunity of doing so?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. No, sir; I would not. I would suggest, however, that the Federal Housing Administration point out to the man the deficiencies of the neighborhood.

Senator MILLIKIN. I believe that you recognize there should be no control of the veteran.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. No; not complete control. There should be some supervision, however, which I will discuss later.

Another necessary safeguard is a Government-operated appraisal system. GI's do not like supervision, but sometimes it serves a wellrecognized purpose. For example, when a restaurant or bar is placed "off limits" to all military personnel, there is generally a good reason for this infringement of our liberties. It may be unsanitary, or the prices too high, or it may be a "clip joint." At any event we steer clear. We'd have the same confidence in a Housing Administration independent appraisal of property. After all, most of us have been out of touch with things too long. I lived for 2 years in tents or thatched huts in the jungle. I am certainly not qualified now to judge whether I am getting my money's worth out of a home. I want some help I can trust.

The need for adequate housing is something every GI understands. All of us do not desire to go back to school or to open a small business. But we all must have a place to live. And, frankly, gentlemen, we are, for the most part, not satisfied with the prospects. Those of us who were fortunate enough to see some of the housing developments abroad are at a loss to explain our own inadequacies in America. My own outfit-the Seventieth Bombardment Squadron-was billeted in private homes in Australia in early 1942. And my buddies still talk with amazement at how, with so low an income level, the Australians could afford so excellent a home. The same is reported by my lucky comrades who visited New Zealand. We can and should do better here, and the veteran should be the first to benefit from a comprehensive American housing program.

We believe that loans for business should also be made directly by the Government to the veteran. If the Federal Government can ad

vance money for the construction of plants for big business, it can surely do the same for its fighting men. Loans for small business are difficult to obtain. Many, if not most, of the veterans who desire to open their own businesses will be putting to use the new skills and aptitudes they developed or discovered in the service. The armed forces have spent vast sums for this training; it will require only a small portion of this amount to protect, as it were, the original investment. In peace we do not demobilize all our weapons for war. Nor should we permit all our skills to deteriorate.

Finally, the dead-line date for application should be extended to 10 years after discharge for all servicemen; and some such arrangement as the variable payment plan under the Bankhead-Jones farm-tenancy law ought to be employed to decrease foreclosures.

Section 601. Veterans' Employment Representative: In the list of his duties the bill now provides that he shall

maintain contact with employers and veterans' organizations with a view to keeping employers advised of veterans available for employment and veterans advised of opportunities for employment.

This should be amended to include labor organizations. Most unions have veterans' bureaus or departments, and they will be in a position to offer considerable assistance to the veterans' employment representative. Some sort of informal cooperation will necessarily develop anyway, and it will be better for all concerned to strengthen it by law. The veterans' employment representative ought also to maintain contact with the community veterans' centers, when such exist.

Section 900. Unemployment Compensation: The weekly allowance should be raised from $20 to $25, with $5 additional for each dependent to a maximum of three. I have already discussed the argument for increased educational subsistence benefits, and the same reasoning applies here. Furthermore, the ex-GI ought to be entitled to at least the highest rate permitted by any State to civilian employees. Otherwise we might find carried over to the postwar period a form of seeming discrimination, or should I say unfortunate contrast? What I have in mind is something like this: Civilian skilled workers are frequently employed side by side with soldiers at air bases and other military installations in the United States. In many instances the civilian receives a good deal more pay than his partner in uniform, even if such benefits as free clothing and shelter are considered. Suppose in demobilization the soldier and the civilian are discharged at the same time and, suppose further, that neither can find a job. It would be unfair for the veteran to draw less unemployment compensation than the civilian. The former servicemen's allowance ought to be increased.

Mr. Chairman, it is less than 5 weeks since I got out of uniform, and I find myself still acting and thinking more like a GI than a civilian. And I should like to close by pointing out that though this legislation is desirable, it is by no means a bill of rights. Certainly many of us need to be rehabilitated, some require training or education, others hospital care or a loan. But what we all want is a fair share in a prosperous America. We have come back from the wars with a pretty high confidence in these United States. We feel there is practically nothing this country cannot do if it puts its mind

and brawn to it. Don't let us get disillusioned as our fathers were after the last war. Yes; pass special legislation to repay the veteran for his special sacrifice; but do not forget his greatest self-respect comes from self-support. The best thing the Congress can do for the veteran in the aggregate is to formulate a comprehensive program for the country as a whole. And if this is done most of the problems of the veteran will disappear.

Senator JOHNSON. Are there any questions? Senator George, do you wish to ask any questions?

Senator GEORGE. No; I have no questions.

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Connally?

Senator CONNALLY. No.

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Millikin?

Senator MILLIKIN. No.

Senator JOHNSON. If there are no further questions to be asked, that will be all, Mr. Bernstein. We thank you very much.

Is Mr. Tom Neill in the room?

Mr. NEILL. I am Tom Neill, and I am present.

STATEMENT OF TOM NEILL, DIRECTOR OF VETERANS' ACTIVITIES FOR THE UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

Senator JOHNSON. You may state your name and state with whom you are associated, or whom you represent.

Mr. NEILL. My name is Tom Neill. I am director of veterans' activities for the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO.

Senator JOHNSON. You may proceed and make your statement, Mr. Neill.

Mr. NEILL. It is not only because the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, has 200 000 of its members in service and has lost on the battlefield some 3,500 more that our union has a most keen interest in the welfare of servicemen and veterans.

The UE-CIO understands that the welfare of our Nation will be safeguarded to the degree to which we guarantee jobs and security for veterans, workers, and farmers alike.

Our union contributed to the campaign for the passage of the GI bill of rights. We believe that this legislation is an important step toward recognizing the need for aiding the veteran in his special problems and in helping him to establish himself again as a civilian.

However, the fact that only a small percentage of veterans have to date taken advantage of the provisions of the GI bill shows that the bill is greatly in need of strengthening. Our union, in common with the CIO as a whole, has certain suggestions to make for the strengthening of the bill which will make it more meaningful for the average

veteran.

It is important to note that, in the opinion of our union, improving the GI bill of rights, while an urgent necessity, is not considered the solution of all problems of the servicemen and veterans. We know that the solution of jobs for all people lies in the passage of such legislation as the full employment bill. We know that making decent

wages available for the veterans hinges largely upon passage of such legislation as the Pepper bill to provide 65 cents per hour minimum wage. We know that the defeat of all legislation to weaken the labor movement now engaged in fighting to raise standards of living for veteran and civilian workers alike is essential.

The added benefits under the GI bill of rights which we propose are necessary to give the veteran the assistance he richly deserves in establishing himself in his rightful place in his community and in the Nation.

The changes will, to a great extent, help maintain our standard of living; they will help maintain our level of education; they will help restore the veteran to full health and protect the health of all veterans.

It is for these reasons that the UE-CIO urges the adoption of the following changes in the GI bill of rights.

Let us first consider title II. The educational provisions of the bill should be amended to provide for

(a) Allowances of $90 per month for single veterans, with $25 additional for each dependent.

(b) Removal of the 25-year age limit for automatic qualification for educational benefits. The veteran of any age should be entitled to education, whether or not his education was interrupted by service (c) Provisions for full tuition payment for short-term courses should be made.

(d) Veterans qualified to take professional or pre-professional training should be entitled to the full 7 years of study needed for most professions.

(e) Funds should be appropriated to provide adult education, since the veterans who have not finished elementary or high school cannot be properly served by the public schools. The States would be able to provide special adult courses with these funds.

Under title II we feel that a veterans' fair practices committee should be established to safeguard the veteran against discrimination by any schools which discriminate against citizens because of race, color, or creed. Measures should be taken to deny to these schools funds from the Federal Government because of their practice of discrimination.

The time limit for application for all benefits under the GI bill of rights should be extended to 10 years after the discharge of the serviceman.

Under title III, the loan section, we feel that to remove all safeguards will be to make the veteran a victim of inflated values and sharp practices. We feel that the main problem with regard to the question of obtaining loans for homes is not that of securing the loans, but finding a properly evaluated property, and for that reason funds should be appropriated under the bill for emergency housing for veterans. It should be housing which would be purchased by the veteran under the terms of the bill.

Senator MILLIKIN. By the term "emergency housing" do you mean a house of an emergent nature?

Mr. NEILL. No; I mean that it is an emergency in that properly constructed houses should be built as soon as possible by the Federal Government.

Under title V of the bill, the readjustment allowances provided should be increased to $25 per week, with $5 per week additional for each dependent.

Section 1505 should be deleted from the bill. This section acts as a deterrent upon veteran's taking advantage of other provisions of the bill. Readjustment allowances in particular should not be deducted from any future compensation.

Mr. Chairman, we feel that one of the most important problems facing the veteran is the maintenance of his health for a period immediately following his discharge. At the present time out-patient treatment for non-service-connected disabilities is not provided for by the Veterans' Administration. If a veteran has a disability not incurred in service, the only way by which he can secure treatment for his disability is to enter a Veterans' administration facility. Because of this, we feel that free medical care should be provided for all veterans for a period of 5 years after discharge. At the present time there are a limited number of presumptive disabilities, that is, disabilities which may appear within a period of 1 year after discharge, and for such disability a veteran may receive credit for a service-incurred disability. Such disabilities as decaying teeth, and many other minor ailments which could be considered as a direct result of many months of dietary deficiency occurring in the Army, as well as many months of living at the front on K rations or C rations, result after discharge in many disabilities for which the veteran may not receive treatment from the Veterans' Administration unless he enters the hospital as a pauper patient.

Senator LUCAS. What would you have the veteran do? Would you have him merely go to any doctor than he happened to want to go to?

Mr. NEILL. We advocate that free medical care be provided by city hospitals and clinics in city hospitals, so that there will be control over the medical treatment which the veteran receives.

Senator LUCAS. Suppose there is no city hospital. I live in a small town of approximately 4,000 people, and we do not have any hospital. The nearest hospital is perhaps 25 miles away. What would you do for a man with the aches and pains about which you talk if he were in such a community as the one to which I have referred?

Mr. NEILL. In cases of that nature the Veterans' Administration should make contracts with local physicians.

Let me cite my own experience. I was discharged for a disability. Since then I have incurred expenses exceeding $100 for medical care in connection with disabilities that were not service-incurred. In many cases involving out-patient treatment for service-incurred disabilities, a greater loss of time on the job would be incurred in order to go to the facilities provided by the Veterans' Administration than to go to a physician of the veteran's own selection. This, fortunately, is being corrected by the Veterans' Administration by constructing facilities in the former congested areas close to the large cities.

Senator CONNALLY. Did you leave the service on a physical discharge?

Mr. NEILL. Yes.

Senator CONNALLY. Was the disability service-connected or nonservice-connected?