must have at least a 30 percent or more disability to be entitled to vocational rehabilitation. It is noted that S. 1138 calls for a pronounced physical handicap before eligibility is established for training under that program.

I am sure this committee has been provided innumerable statistics about the favorable results to the Nation because of the enactment of the GI bills of 1944 and 1952. Unquestionably these two education and training programs have swelled the ranks of our society with thousands of doctors, lawyers, dentists, scientists and other highly trained individuals whose contribution to our community is immeasurable. Perhaps this is another reason why the delegates to our 60th annual convention endorsed not only the proposition of readjustment benefits generally for peacetime veterans but specifically approved of the piece of legislation which was then the furtherest advanced in the Congress, the Senate approved S. 1138.

The VFW strongly urges this committee and the Congress to enact legislation granting readjustment benefits to those citizens who are helping to preserve and maintain the peace around the world by their service in our peacetime Armed Forces.

May I again express the deep appreciation for the privilege of appearing here this morning in behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Stover, for your presentation, representing your great organization.

Is there any question?

Mr. Adair?

Mr. ADAIR. Yes. Mr. Stover, there is an interesting point which you make here, which I would like to pursue with you a little further. That is the attitude of your organization with respect to peacetime benefits.

Am I correct in saying that heretofore it has been very definitely the attitude of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that there should be a distinction between peacetime and wartime service?

Mr. STOVER. That is right.

Mr. ADAIR. And the benefits arising therefrom?

Mr. STOVER. Yes.

Mr. ADAIR. Now, in this case, you are advocating peacetime benefits. You point out that there are some little distinctions here. That is, the 180 days, instead of 90 days; things of that sort.

Does this represent a general change in attitude on the part of the VFW toward this program of peacetime as opposed to wartime. service?

Mr. STOVER. Well, generally speaking, I would say that it is not a sudden departure from previous positions. In other words, we have favored from time to time legislation granting peacetime benefits. However, we have always felt that the wartime service is by its very nature so very different from peacetime service that any benefits granted to wartime veterans should be higher or better or larger than comparable benefits for peacetime service.

Mr. ADAIR. And yet you are here saying that as to this educational thing, that is not true?

Mr. STOVER. It is true to this extent: that this bill here, by requiring 6 months, will eliminate or prevent thousands from qualifying.

Or let us put it this way. If the GI bill of 1944 had required 6 months or more service, I assume it would have eliminated quite a few veterans from being eligible for training under that bill. I do not know how many, offhand.

Mr. ADAIR. If a man had 180 days of service in peacetime, that is, since January 31, 1955, and had a service-connected disability arising during that period, then would it be the attitude of your organization that he ought to have the 100 percent compensation, rather than 80 percent compensation?

Mr. STOVER. You are talking about compensation for the disability incurred during peacetime?

Mr. ADAIR. Yes.

Mr. STOVER. Well, our organization has always held that he should have 80 percent unless the disability was incurred under conditions simulating war.

Mr. ADAIR. We do make a distinction there. I believe that is right, is it not?

Mr. STOVER. Yes.

Mr. ADAIR. Then you are making a distinction between your attitude with respect to compensation and your attitude with respect to educational benefits?

Mr. STOVER. The resolution I think is probably the best explanation I can give as to any official thinking of our organization.

In other words, like the Congress, we do not have any reports or any other résumés of the thinking why legislation was adopted, unless there is some debate on the floor of the convention. My understanding is that this passed without any debate.

Mr. ADAIR. No debate on it at all?

Mr. STOVER. It passed unanimously without any debate. Therefore the only thing I have to go on is what is in the resolution. That is one of the main reasons I read it into the record.

Mr. ADAIR. Well, I want to come back to this other point. Do you feel now that this does represent a definite turning point in the attitude of your organization, and that there is a blurring of the lines between peacetime and wartime service?

Heretofore, representatives of the VFW have come before this committee and have said that we think wartime service ought to have a specific consideration, a consideration greater than peacetime service. Now, here, generally, it seems to me that you are departing, to a considerable degree, from that point of view. And I just want your answer. Do you regard this as a departure from your traditional position in that respect?

Mr. STOVER. I would say that it is a slight departure only to this extent: We have had a general resolution since 1955, which has called for readjustment benefits for peacetime veterans, so long as there is compulsory military service. In other words, this is not a departure from a previous position, because since the official ending of the Korean conflict the VFW to the best of my knowledge has been on record as favoring some kind of readjustment assistance for these veterans who have been inducted into the service since that time. And I think the biggest reason for that--maybe "primary" reason is a better word-is because of the fact that the draft act or the draft provisions of the Universal Military Training Act have required

these persons to leave their homes in a similar manner as during wartime. And in some cases, those men are subjected to severe types of training or service. And we all know if one goes down to his death in an airplane over Pakistan, it is probably quite similar to a man going down in an airplane somewhere else, at another time say during World War II.

Mr. SAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield?

If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Stover, your organization came into existence following the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War lasted from 1898 to 1902, and we had American troops in the Philippines until 1914. After World War I, 1917 and 1918, we had occupation forces in Germany until 1923. World War II was in 1941 to 1945, and we had occupation forces in Japan and Germany until 1950, when the Korean conflict started. Of course, the Korean conflict was from 1950 to 1955, and we have had occupation forces now until 1960 in certain parts of the world.

Now, that rather belies your statement that peacetime service today is different from peacetime service prior to December 1941, because your organization said heretofore that anybody who served from 1902 to 1914, or from 1918 to 1923 just did not qualify.

Mr. STOVER. Well, there is a vast difference, though, between a man who was graduating from high school in 1914 and one today. The boy today has to look forward to going into the service unless he finds one of these escape hatches or loopholes, through which he can escape service. But a man in 1914, as I understand it, was strictly a volunteer operation. He chose that as a sort of a career.

Now, it so happens that many of them did have the service that you have described.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, if that is the case, would you make a difference between the enlistee and the draftee under any legislation which we pass now?

Mr. STOVER. No, sir, I would not; because it is impossible to actually-legislatively speaking, it is impossible to determine just when a person enlisted who otherwise might have felt that he was ultimately being drafted or would have been drafted.

The same as in World War II. Many enlisted just ahead of the draft. I think that may still be going on, in some cases.

Mr. ADAIR. Then you are basically tying this to the Selective Service Act?

Mr. STOVER. Absolutely.

Mr. ADAIR. You would say that if the Selective Service Act were not in existence, then there should not be benefits of the type that you are recommending?

Mr. STOVER. That is right, sir.

Mr. ADAIR. And you recognize the fact that you are, as an organization, uring the adoption of legislation which has benefits for socalled peacetime ex-servicemen. This is a deliberate doctrine upon your part at this point?

Mr. STOVER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAIR. Now, in here, at one place in the resolution, it says:

Be it further resolved, That our national legislative service be given discretion to oppose the loan feature of the educational program of S. 1138and so forth.

What is your attitude on that?

Mr. STOVER. Well, again, this is just my own thinking, and the thinking of the staff. The loan feature only applies, as I understand it, to those persons who would be attending a college or university. Mr. ADAIR. And who are in the lower half of the class.

Mr. STOVER. Who are in the lower half of the class. They would then not be eligible to remain under the program.

As I understand it, no other training program, under this bill, would suffer from that type of what I would call discrimination. In other words, if you are on the job training somewhere, and it is possible to determine it, and you fell below the halfway mark, you would still continue to receive all the benefits. But if you are going to college, under this feature, you would, as I understand it, automatically be taken out from under the grant in the program and have to go under the loan feature of the program, and ultimately repay it. Mr. ADAIR. Unless you subsequently improved your grade. Mr. STOVER. That is right.

Mr. ADAIR. Well, what is your attitude? What is the attitude of the VFW on that? That that provision should be in, or should not be in?

Mr. STOVER. That that provision should not be in; should be struck out.

Mr. ADAIR. That is a definite attitude?

Mr. STOVER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAIR. Now, it is no longer speculative, as indicated at the top of page 3?

Mr. STOVER. That is right; we are opposed to that feature of the bill.

Mr. ADAIR. Now, suppose that there was a man taken into the service after January 31, 1955. Suppose he has a service-connected disability. Is it now the position of the VFW that he should get 80 percent compensation, or 100 percent compensation?

Mr. STOVER. It is now the position of the VFW that he should be provided the compensation at the rate now provided by the law, which is generally 80 percent. There are conditions under which he could be injured or receive his disability, which would warrant 100 percent. For example, as I understand it, if he were handling some instrumentality of war, and it blew up, he would get 100 percent. But if he was driving in an automobile between bases in the United States, I think he would, as I understand it, only be eligible for 80 percent.

Mr. ADAIR. If we adopt and enact into law this legislation here proposed, or something like it, granting peacetime educational benefits, then would you think that VFW might come in and say, "We have extended educational benefits to peacetime veterans; now let's bring the compensation benefits to peacetime veterans up on a par, and instead of 80 percent give 100 percent"?

Or do you think your organization is going to make a distinction between compensation and educational benefits?

Mr. STOVER. Whatever I say would be strictly a guess. I have no way of answering that question. I was trying to think of some other resolutions or positions we have taken, but I cannot recall any right

now.

Mr. ADAIR. Does it seem to you, Mr. Stover, that it is a little bit inconsistent to urge full peacetime benefits on one basis, that is educational, and not on the other, to wit, compensation?

Mr. STOVER. I will direct your attention, first, before answering that, to the fact that we have the Survivors Benefit Act, which you know provide survivors' benefits for veterans on the same basis for the survivors regardless of whether the service was wartime or peacetime.

For example, these sailors who were all killed over Rio de Janeirotheir survivors will get the same benefits as if they were killed on the battlefront during World War II. And our organization, so far as I recall, supported that bill. I do not recall whether the VFW supported it in its entirety or not.

But I think that the system under which veterans' benefits are granted, the laws under which they are now granting benefits, are already what we call a patch-quilt or a patch-work operation.

In other words, we have a case where a man can die in the service, and his survivors will get full benefits. But if he lives and receives compensation, he only gets 80 percent.

I think this type of legislation is not going to make it uniform. And I agree with you that there are some inconsistencies. I think there are some already. And if you do enact legislation along this line, I do not think it means that the VFW is going to come in tomorrow and ask that other legislation be brought up to date, so to speak, so that all peacetime veterans get the same benefits as wartime veterans. I seriously doubt if that will ever happen.

But we are for this bill only for the fact that it is tied up with the Universal Military Training Draft Act.

Mr. ADAIR. You think with respect to matters of compensation, then, the VFW is likely to adhere to its traditional position?

Mr. STOVER. That would be my guess at this time, yes, sir. Mr. ADAIR. But you feel that if the Congress at this time enacts benefits for peacetime veterans, they should include educational, home loan, and vocational rehabilitation?

Mr. STOVER. At this time, yes, sir. That would be the extent, as included in this resolution, of our position.

Mr. JONES. I would like to take a minute or two because I attended the convention committee meeting that discussed this resolution.

Although this is a slight departure from the VFW's previous stand, I think it is more of a recognition in the minds of the members of the committee and the delegates to the convention of the difference between what they call peacetime service after 1955 and the long period between the two World Wars, and also the recognition that this is a temporary benefit, a readjustment benefit, deemed merited, because the bulk of the young men are being required to enter service, and their plans and hopes are disturbed. We recognize, of course, some enlist voluntarily, but many who enlist voluntarily do so because of the compulsion of pending inductment involuntarily.

Mr. Saylor mentioned our stand on these campaigns in the Moro Province, and whether we should be for peacetime benefits for this period after 1955, and not for those people who served during those various periods. VFW very consistently has taken a stand that these campaign periods particularly should be recognized as