Page images
PDF
EPUB

but by all of the civilians on the home front and numerous civilian organizations who fought in hazardous, if not in combat, areas. Consequently we are unable to say that the Government should not afford some benefits or some protection to all people who contributed to the war effort.

Our national legislative committee met here in March of this year, on March 27 and 28, and went over this bill, realizing that, in justice to everybody we could not say that we are just opposed to H. R. 476, and mindful of the fact that this bill is considerably different from H. R. 2346 which was reported out last year. The statements I am about to make represent the decisions of our legislative committee with respect to the bill.

I will take the bill benefit by benefit and give you the opinions of our national legislative committee.

We do not have a national legislative committee resolution on this subject. Our national legislative committee could have drawn up a resolution but we didn't see fit to do so. The legislative committee was prompted by a national policy of our own with respect to veterans' benefits.

Mr. BRADLEY. May I interrupt there to say that we have no need of a resolution; that we shall be glad to hear your statement and explanations and so forth as you go through the bill, but exactly as I said to the previous witness, we shall give little weight to any mere statement unless you have some weight to back it up and to show us a foundation for it.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Very well, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY. I think you would expect us to do that.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir. I am a lawyer, sir

Mr. BRADLEY. Then you must understand our views.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. The weight attached to my statement is a province of each individual member of the committee. My statements are admissible but the weight to be given them is up to the members of the committee.

Mr. BRADLEY. Fine. As long as you understand that, we are all set. Mr. WILLIAMSON. The national legislative committee has authorized me to interpose an objection to title II of the bill, "Education and training." This is the basis for that objection: We feel that a veteran's benefit such as this which is primarily a readjustment benefit should be premised on the economic dislocation sustained by the person who will receive the benefit.

It is our position that an economic dislocation is suffered by the member of the armed services because he is subjected to the exigencies of the military processes for 24 hours a day for the duration of the war plus 6 months. When he enters the armed services there is complete severance with his past economic life. We feel that that economic dislocation is peculiar to only members of the armed services.

An economic dislocation was suffered by everybody who contributed to this war. There was a migration of labor. People left the rural areas and flocked to the industrial areas. That was an economic dislocation.

Men who were not drafted but who went into the OSS, or went into the Foreign Economic Administration, or went as civilians for the Army and Navy and various services abroad, suffered an economic

dislocation because they had to stop their progression to a financially secure life; had to stop and go into a service that they ordinarily would not go into, in order to serve the common effort.

However, we feel that that type of economic dislocation was not the type of economic dislocation sustained by the members of the armed services and that consequently the readjustment benefits of the educational features should not attach to those groups.

That is our opinion and consequently we are opposed to the extension of the educational benefits to any group other than those who are actually full-time paid members of the armed services of the United States.

Mr. HAVENNER. May I ask a question right there?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAVENNER. Is it your position that if citizens outside of the armed services suffered an economic dislocation which interrupted their education during the period of that economic dislocation, that they should not be entitled to any additional aid from the Government to make up for that?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Sir, economic dislocations are always being sus tained, but we feel that some place we must draw a line. There must be a delineation some place, and in our opinion it ought to stop with members of the armed services of the United States; because there was no option-none whatever-in the case of the members of the armed

services.

Take as an example my own case. I took the bar examination in June of 1941. It certainly is the usual thing around here for an individual to fail the bar examination the first time he takes it. But in the fall of 1941 there was a complete unequivocal disruption. I left Washington, D. C., and I would not have had an opportunity to take the bar examination again-if I had failed it the first time—until 1946. I don't think in any other group there could have been such a dislocation. There would have been some election to hold off for 6 months or another year, but you could have made preparations for the dislocation.

Mr. HAVENNER. May I pursue that a little further?

I am interested in the philosophy with respect to this whole problem. There were a large number of young men in the educational periods of their life at the time that the war broke out. If the Government said to them, "You have got to serve your country. If you don't serve in the armed services, you have got to serve, for instance, in the maritime service," that particular dislocation would take them away from the opportunity of education at the educational period of their lives.

Now, it seems to me there ought to be a little bit beyond the question of mere comparative deserts in this question. There were a lot of young men whose educations were disrupted when they went into the maritime service. They didn't have the option, as I understand it, to go back to their education. It was either go into the maritime service or go into the armed service.

There ought to be-and I think there is—a policy of this Government that education of our youth is one of our highest objectives. What are we going to do with this group whose educations were disrupted during that period?

I have not made up my own mind on the question but I just want that fundamental question to be clarified to my satisfaction, if possible.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I certainly appreciate your comments on that, sir. I would just like to reiterate, as a veteran's objection someplace along the line we must draw the line, because once we go beyond the armed forces of the United States we have the question of Federal aid to education for all groups-not only groups which were economically dislocated, but meritorious groups who perhaps should rate education as a national policy.

I would say that perhaps the problem ought to be approached for all people through the liberalization of existing law or through new legislation; but that is beyond the scope of this particular section.

We consider that title II is an extension of the same title of the GI bill of rights to a nonmilitary group and we oppose it to that

group.

Mr. HAVENNER. You may not be aware-I suppose you are-that previous witnesses here at these hearings representing the governmental agency which assisted in drafting this bill, have laid emphasis on the fact that this is not intended to be a veteran type of benefit; that it is intended to be modeled after the civilian type of benefit that the Government already extends to certain of its employees.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I think that is right, sir, with the following titles. We did consider that with respect to all the titles except title II on education.

Mr. BRADLEY. I might interrupt at this point to ask you: Do you consider that the other titles are what you would call civilian-type benefits rather than veteran-type benefits?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That is right. And I would like to develop that further.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Tollefson has a question first, if you don't mind. Mr. TOLLEFSON. I think you made a statement earlier that one of the reasons you were opposed to this type of benefit was that your organization felt it would tend to break down the structure of the benefits to the armed-service veterans.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That is right. This title in the GI bill of rights is the most costly expenditure of veterans' benefits there is.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. You feel that if this particular bill were enacted into law, it would hurt the other benefits given to the armed-service veterans under the GI bill of rights?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That other groups might seek the same benefits of this title.

Title III, "Employment rights for wartime-service seamen," I think

Mr. BRADLEY. May I interrupt at this point to say that all governmental agencies and the seamen's agencies themselves have asked that that title be stricken out from the bill as being entirely covered by other provisions of the law?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That is right. The opportunity for reemployment is already covered.

The next is part I of title IV, "Hospitalization and medical treatment, care and treatment of war-service seamen," and part 2, “Vocational rehabilitation." That again is not, in our opinion, peculiarly a

veteran benefit. I think in our complex industrial society the Congress has repeatedly manifested an opinion that hospitalization and medical treatment and vocational rehabilitation should not be limited to any particular group.

There has been a variation in the manner in which such benefits are extended, but we could certainly not say that the hospitalization of anyone who worked for the Government and who was injured in line of duty is threatening to a particular veteran benefit. We certainly would not object-nor could we object if some stenographer had a typewriter fall on her foot-if someone pushed it and it fell on her foot and she required hospitalization and was hospitalized at Government expense.

I think my example is certainly not an extreme one, because these people, although they were not Government workers, could be said to be employees of contractors of the United States. The Congress in December 1942 extended to employees of contractors of the United States the benefits of Federal workers under the United States Employees' Compensation Act.

Consequently, we feel that this type of benefit is a liberalization of existing benefits extended by the Congress or State agencies or governmental functions to people who require hospitalization and vocational rehabilitation.

Particularly this is not a great extension of the vocational-rehabilitation provisions. Vocational rehabilitation has not been limited to just veterans. All the States have programs. I understand there is a grant from the Social Security Board to States who have vocationalrehabilitation plans.

In other words, the Government has recognized that it is a great saving in both money and lives and in production to help all disabled people to be gainfully employed. We have recognized that as being basic in our social-security laws. Consequently vocational rehabilita tion for merchant seamen is just a liberalization of that, but certainly not an extension that would merit the veterans' organizations seeking to confine such benefits to veterans' organizations.

I will say that the vocational rehabilitation for the veterans is much more liberal than this would be for the seamen. We might object if Public Law 16 were to be extended to merchant seamen. I am not ready to say that now, but surely we do not object to this provision. Mr. BRADLEY. The Veterans of Foreign Wars have no general objec tion to the basic principles of this title ÏV?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No, sir.

Going into title V, this is, as I said before, related to the United States Employees' Compensation Act. The Congress in December of 1942 passed a law that brought all of the employees of contractors of the United States who were killed or captured on Wake Island and Guam within the scope of the United States Employees' Compensation Act. In my opinion the merchant seamen, if nothing else, were employees of the United States. Certainly the ship operators were under contract with the United States. At least they could not do any thing they wanted to do with the ships, and I think the employees of such ships should have the same benefits as the employees of the contractors who were brought under the 1942 act.

Recently I testified before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee with respect to a prisoner-of-war claims bill. It was enemy-property legislation. We objected to civilians having a preference in the disposition of alien property. However, in the committee's draft of the bill they are bringing all of the civilian internees under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, based on the $37.50 a week, and they all would get from $2,500 to $3,000. They are civilian internees who are being brought under the Employees' Compensation Act.

We told the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce that we would have no objection to that. If the Congress in its wisdom and generosity seeks to liberalize legislation that affects civilians and make it applicable to another civilian group, I don't think our objection to that would be proper.

By the same token the extension of the United States Employees' Compensation Act to include compensation for death to this group, again is not a type of veterans' benefits. In other words, a death benefit is not peculiarly a veterans' benefit, because we pay death benefits under the United States Employees' Compensation Act. This is just an extension of that act. It brings these people within the scope of the United States Employees' Compensation Act where actually I think they belong.

I think the employees of people who were under contract with the United States should be within the scope of the Employees' Compensation Act. I don't think there is much difference in a civilian working for the Federal Government and a merchant seaman who is working on a ship that is under contract with the United States Government.

Mr. BRADLEY. As a matter of complete fairness, then, I would put to you the same question that I put to the gentleman who preceded you and I would also say to you that you do not need to answer. You may simply say that you don't wish to answer, if you feel you cannot do so.

I would say that we find ourselves confronted with a condition in which many thousands of Americans, young and old, went to sea and were injured or were killed as a result of the war during service to the Government. Would your organization feel that there is objection, or that it is wrong to extend to the injured and to the relatives. For the dependents of those who were killed, such relief as is suggested in this bill?

The wording of my question may not be exactly the same as that I asked before, but the intent is the same. I think you understand it. Mr. WILLIAMSON. I am positive that I am voicing the decision of our national legislative committee and our organization that there would certainly be no objection to the favorable consideration of all of the benefits of this act except title II.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

Have you concluded your remarks?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. BRADLEY. Do you gentlemen wish to ask further questions? Mr. TOLLEFSON. Just enlarging on the one question I put to you before, with respect to the thought that in objecting to title II you so chiefly on the basis that it might have a bad effect on the benefits.

do

« PreviousContinue »