Mr. BRADLEY of California. Well, war zones covered the world this last time. Is it your thought that such legislation should eventually cover any person who ever served anywhere across the Pacific, or Atlantic, or practically anywhere in the world?

Mr. PETERSON. No. At certain periods in certain zones.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do not take this as anything critical. Mr. PETERSON. I welcome that, sir. I have a high regard for the questions you asked, because if I can't convince you, then you will carry the ball, and I want you to have the answers to these questions. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Will it be the thought of the bill you are advocating, that eventually all the workmen who were at Pearl Harbor and at Wake and the Philippines, and such oversea bases, must eventually be brought under the same type of legislation? Mr. PETERSON. If they were employees of the Federal Government, they are already under the Employees' Compensation Act now.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. But they are not included in any way in these educational features?

Mr. PETERSON. No, sir. They are not included in the educational benefits.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Where can we then draw the line? Will it not be the next move to assert that they should all come into it? Mr. PETERSON. As a matter of fact, we may make it, by educating under one of these universal military training things.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You see what I am driving at?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes; and that is why I tried to limit it to war zones and war service, but the man who went as a civilian to Wake and Guam, or Hawaii, or any of those areas, or right here, if he was an employee of the Federal Government, he gets United States compensation.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. He comes under the present law for compensation.

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I appreciate that, but I am thinking of the educational feature, which is a new move.

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Are we eventually to extend that to all civilians anywhere in the world in a combat zone?

Mr. PETERSON. No, sir; I do not think we should.

Mr. BROPHY. How can you stop it?

Mr. PETERSON. The merchant marine was semimilitary. He was going in with the Navy in war zones and was being killed.

Mr. BROPHY. How about this Government employee, a civilian, who worked at Pearl Harbor?

Mr. PETERSON. Any civilian employee who was actually injured in service, I would take care of him.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. But the educational benefits here are not confined to people injured in service. They are given to everybody there.

Mr. PETERSON. That is correct.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Then would not the same thing be applicable to every civilian in the Philippines under Government employ? This is not even under Government employ. Would it not be applicable for every civilian at Wake and Pearl Harbor and Samoa?

Mr. PETERSON. We have got to draw the line somehow.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. How?

Mr. BROPHY. If you open the door, how will you draw the line? We are asking you for your opinion on it.

Mr. PETERSON. My idea was to draw the line and recognize merchant seamen were not included under the other Government benefits and recognize that we took many young men that went almost to the same area that the Navy did, and then give them that benefit.

As I said, however, the idea is an uncharted thing. It is the first time they ever did it in the GI bill and we have to finally draw the line somewhere in Congress.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is the thing we questioned here. Where and how can we ever draw the line? Now we take the next feature. If we approved this this year, do you think there is the slightest possibility that there won't be a bill next year to extend it to some other feature?

Mr. PETERSON. There might be

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Once we start it, where can we draw the line there?

Mr. PETERSON. In veterans, we have to draw the line. There is this feature. In a number of these off-shore establishments down in Newport News, you know they trained a lot of Diesel engine men and they had various training before they went over. I know an outstanding engineer who got most of his training in this.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In his technical work?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. That is right. I think it is money well spent. Mr. BROPHY. The same seaman who came off the shore and went up to the school, did he get any training before going up to these schools? Mr. PETERSON. Some of them did.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not questioning the value of the training he received before he went overseas. I am questioning whether or not the Government owes him 4 years of education in a university when he comes back, when he served as a civilian, possibly in the Philippines or Pearl Harbor. I am questioning where we will stop.

Mr. PETERSON. I do not think we can go that far.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Have you any solution as to where we can find a place to stop? I have not. I am groping for something. Mr. PETERSON. I thought we had better stop on this-war zones and wartime.

Mr. BROPHY. In other words, you start on this and not stop on this. Mr. PETERSON. We would not start on this. It would be a stopping. point.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Is there any reason in the world to assume in your own mind-there is not in mine, I am frank to sayis there any reason to assume that this will no develop into every single part of the GI bill of rights eventually?

Mr. PETERSON. I think not, because we had the other bill written, and we picked out some which were the ones at which criticism was directed.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is what you are doing now, but what will happen next year in Congress?

Mr. PETERSON. No one can tell what will happen next year.

Mr. BROPHY. I think that is a good answer.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I think you have hit the correct answer. Mr. PETERSON. We do not know what the policy will be in Congress. We do not know what they are going to do for veterans next year, or what will happen in the appropriations.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am just as sympathetic as possible. Mr. PETERSON. I know you are. It boils down to the idea that this will hinge on education. Other than education we are merely doing what any man working for the Government will get. We all realize a man getting hurt in service will get taken care of.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you think under this legislation the merchant marine wartime seamen would not have the hospitals full in 50 years from now for disability supposedly incurred during the war! Mr. PETERSON. No, sir; I do not think so. The tendency is to taper cff benefits rather than increase them.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. There is nothing in our experience so far to show any tapering off. It always shows we constantly build up from the standpoint of the veterans.

Mr. PETERSON. That is after the war came on and they gave them the benefits.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Even before the war. erans' bill will be $7,300,000,000 for the current year. any possibility of stopping?

Today the vet-
Where is there

Mr. PETERSON. That is true. Of course, Congress has to finally determine its policy.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Finally they have to stop.

Mr. PETERSON. One of my first boards was on the economy bill. It was when the pendulum swung the other way.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It is only a question of whether each of us will be paying taxes to pay benefits to himself.

Mr. PETERSON. But I do feel the merits of this bill. We can stand on it. As you say, if others come in, we have got to draw a line. We cannot take care of everybody.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Somewhere we must find a cutting-off point.

Mr. PETERSON. That is right.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Again I want you to understand we are very, very sympathetic and we are trying to find an answer to this. Mr. PETERSON. Yes, sir; and I appreciate that.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you have any more questions to ask Mr. Peterson?

Mr. PETERSON. I have taken up more time than I intended to take, but I do want to be helpful. If there are any questions in the course of this bill that develop, I would be glad to answer them.

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that after we have heard these other people, we should ask Mr. Peterson to come back, should there be any information we need.

Mr. PETERSON. I will be glad to come back. I merely wanted to hit the high spots.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Our time is at your disposal. You are a Member of Congress and you may take as much time as you wish. Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. We would appreciate it if you would come back after you think we have been well salted down with facts, and then prove or disprove the facts we have.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Gentlemen, I am sure we will have no more time for further witnesses this morning. We will take the rest of the time in working out how we are going to proceed. First, I do not want to keep anybody here in Washington paying hotel bills indefinitely, waiting for a time to testify. Therefore, I think we should very willingly take those gentlemen who are here and paying such bills. Would any gentlemen who are here and who have their names down and wish to testify under those circumstances, rise?

There are eight people standing. What are you gentlemen testifying for?

(All persons standing made the statement that they were testifying in favor of the bill.)

Mr. BRADLEY of California. There are eight of you here, and I think if we give you 15 minutes apiece that should be ample to present your actual testimony. That would be a total of 2 hours. You may take more time. If we get through in less time, that will be all right. As for the Government departments, there is no need of your coming on tomorrow. You are in Washington anyway.

Then, gentlemen, we will start in tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, giving you gentlemen who are on your feet, a chance to testify.

Mr. HAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the gentlemen on their feet should give their names.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes. Will you give your names to Mr. Coles, and he will make up the schedule. I would say, those who want to get away the worst, should be on the top, because I see little chance of getting through all eight of you tomorrow. There is little prospect of that, because of the questioning which may occur. Even if we make it 15 minutes for your own statement, the questioning may run longer than that.

Mr. BROPHY. Is it not possible for us to hear the proponents of the bill first?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. These are the proponents.

Mr. BROPHY. Yes; but there may be other proponents out there who live in Washington. For instance, Mr. Levine, who represents the Maritime Union, lives in Washington.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. He will have time after these people. They are paying hotel bills and there is nothing urgent about him. I am just trying to be fair to them. I would not want to pay hotel bills myself, if I could help it.

If you will give your name to Mr. Coles, then we will start in tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock and hope to get you out soon. With the rest we will continue the best we can.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the hearing was adjourned until the next day, May 13, 1947, at 10 a. m.)