2. Recreara amendment to Constitution to a to takibin Communists and other lovende groupe from wing the last 41. ÉR. 4482. Representative 3. Remmende teelaze of lar dearing Commmmies and other anbresive groupe the privilege of being the United States mats for diseminatin of their neman ire and propaganda 15. H. R. 2540 by Representative Everest Dirices. £. Reppesta su verocia reacting communistic or similar subversive principles be

and

a DAY member write their Members of Congress for exples of pamplet 1.16.

HOTSING

1. Urge legidation to provide a preference in national housing the serviceconnected diabled L. 32. H. R. 3552. H. R. 4077. S. 1293, S. M. H. R. 4488. 2. Remmments amendment to housing legislation whereby compensation shall not be sobaldered as insome in appiring for a vananey in any Federal Housing L. H. R. 5615 by Mr. Mizelell, Indiana; to committee on Banking

3. Requests legislation that veterans and their families be granted the use of land properties and specially constricted living quamers in Federal, State, and milija properties to assist in solving the existing housing shortage L. 27..

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

1. Regresta legislation similar to Pille Law 149. Seventy-second Congress, for the benefit of the foreign-bor who fought in our armed forces, providing right of citizenship under certain conditions A. 7). H. R. 251 by Representative Kearney, New York. 2. Opposes entrance into this country of displaced persons A. 2 and A. 3.

RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS

1. Requests amendment to section 301, Public Law 346, Seventy-eighth Congress, as amended, to provide for review of discharge or dismissal except a discharge or dismissal by reason of sentence of general court martial (L. 7. H. R. 4019 by Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin.

2. Urges legislation which will place on the retired list certain commissioned officers of the Army who served during World War I L. 19. H. R. 2031 Representative McDonough of California.

3. Requests extension to officers, discharged or released from active service in the armed forces without going before Retiring Board, the privilege of appearing before such Board to determine entitlement to retirement benefits (L. 35). H. R. 799 by Mr. Rivers, South Carolina.

GENERAL

1. Inaugurate a Disabled American Veterans Day (A. 5 and L. 3.

The CHAIRMAN. That was a very fine statement. I would like to tell you, if you don't already know it, that there are several bills on the Consent Calendar today that we hope we will secure passage of. The hospital bill for more beds, the life-insurance bill to extend 2 years during which time veterans may apply for gratuitous insurance.

Then there is the Sarbacher bill which gives benefits to men of World War II suffering with tuberculosis, and there is the bill which makes provision for loans for construction of homes and business property.

If the Booker T. Washington bill does not come up on the floor, the Speaker informs me I will be recognized, so we may see some legislation going through today.

Mr. GOLOB. Yes, Madam Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You spoke of housing. Have you studied the Legion homestead plan? Has your organization taken any action or stand on that?

Mr. GOLOB. The organization has not taken any action as yet. About 90 percent of the members of our organization are members of the Legion and about the same percentage members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and some of our membership are also AMVETS.

We believe as individuals we have the opportunity of expressing our sentiments on matters of such nature through such channels. Otherwise, as an organization, the only request we make is that preference be shown disabled veterans in the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. That should be written in the bill.

Mr. GOLOB. I would like very much to have it written in the bill, but there is one other point, our organization would not like to see the Veterans' Administration burdened with the necessity of carrying out the provisions of the housing bill. I think they are already overloaded with many factors which have no bearing upon the care and welfare of the disabled and their dependents.

The CHAIRMAN. If it isn't administered under the GI bill of rights with a certain control with the Veterans' Administration, I see no opportunity for the veterans to secure any housing.

Mr. GOLOB. Pardon me, Madam Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. If it is not operated under the GI bill of rights. with a certain control in the Veterans' Administration, I see no opportunity for veterans to secure any housing.

I won't embarrass you by pressing that.

Mr. GOLOB. I appreciate that, Madam Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The tropical and chronic diseases bill passed the House and is before the Senate.

Will you appear before the Senate committee?

Mr. GOLOB. If I am not able to appear there in person, some of the members of our staff who are better qualified to work on that phase of the matter will be there.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. RAMEY. No questions, Madam Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman from Mississippi any questions? Mr. RANKIN. Yes, Madam Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Prooceed.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you asking any relief from the provisions of the so-called economy bill that took away from the disabled benefits in presumptive cases, their compensation; has your organization asked for any change?

Mr. GOLOB. May I ask, one of the members of our staff to answer that?

Mr. RANKIN. Certainly.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TATE, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF CLAIMS, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. TATE. Mr. Rankin, the bill that Mrs. Rogers just spoke about was reported by this committee and is on the consent calendar. It does permit service connection on a presumptive basis, but it doesn't go the extent that it was granted to World War I veterans. That is as to tropical diseases and chronic diseases, tuberculosis and so forth.. Mr. RANKIN. If you remember the "economy bill" almost destroyed the presumptive feature of legislation we passed up to that time. Mr. TATE. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And it had a very disastrous effect on the tubercular men especially, and men suffering and dying from cancer and other constitutional diseases, because they realized, if they died this cut off their widows and orphans and they would be left without a penny. I am just wondering whether any recommendation has been made for the restoration of those funds, and also returning them to 100 percent compensation.

Mr. MITCHELL. It is in here, isn't it?

Mr. TATE. Mr. Rankin, if my memory serves me correctly, when we testified on that bill, or when the program was outlined for the committee, our resolution called for a two-year presumptive clause, and at that time you brought up the fact that it did not provide as great a benefit as had been provided in the World War Veterans Act. But the bill that limits presumptive provisions is the bill which has been placed on the consent calendar. It doesn't go as far as the bills went when you presented the bill for World War I veterans, but it is certainly a real help

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, Madam Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. It is very difficult to tell a World War II man about that. I know a father and son. The father is receiving presumptive compensation under the World War I Act and the son is World War II and he cannot understand, and the Sarbacher bill may correct that.

Mr. RANKIN. My position is this. What we should have done was to restore the provisions of the presumptive legislation and make it apply to veterans of both wars. It would come nearer doing justice to veterans of both wars than attempting to zigzag our legislation.

Mr. TATE. I am in agreement with you, Mr. Rankin. The question of presumptive ratings for World War II veterans similar to World War I is only one example of the existing inequalities as to benefits for World War II veterans.

The position of our organization is that situation should be corrected. We feel the World War II veteran is entitled to the same consideration as was given to his father.

Mr. RANKIN. I agree with that 100 percent. Our first duty is to the disabled veteran. They can say all they please about housing and education and on-the-job training, and unemployment compensation, but our first duty is to the man injured in the war.

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANKIN. I went through this spat with Royall Johnson, when he was chairman of this committee. In my opinion, no class of veterans deserves more consideration at the hands of Congress than those unfortunate sufferers from the chronic diseases that are covered by the original presumptive legislation.

I think the same law should be reenacted to apply to veterans of World War II.

Mr. RAMEY (presiding). Will the gentleman yield to Mr. Mitchell? Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Rankin, this bill, H. R. 4243, to provide for a disability of 100 percent for arrested tuberculosis for the first 2 years. of arrest, then 50 percent for 5 years, with a minimum thereafter of 40 percent for those diagnosed as moderately advanced or less, that

is what you are referring to on tuberculosis? Is that the same as the World War I veterans have?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. I am not sure how far this legislation goes, but in the original act, it granted them service-connection, and I think this bill will do the same thing. It gave them a status of a service-connected disabled veteran, and when they died, their widows and orphans were taken care of. That was wiped out over my protest.

Mr. MITCHELL. Your point is you want to take care of the unremarried widows and orphans?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, and I want to take care of that class of veteran. Mr. MITCHELL, Does the Patterson bill embrace those features? Mr. RANKIN. I am not sure whether it reaches back to World War I. Does it?

Mr. TATE. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. He says it does not.

Mr. TATE. May I further answer Mr. Rankin's question?

In addition to the question of presumptive service-connection you brought out the fact under the Economy Act men who had a presumptive service-connection had a reduction of 25 percent in their compensation. Those rated 100 percent only got 75 percent.

Mr. RANKIN. Where did that 75 percent come from? We put that back on, I think. Many of these men were cut off entirely and this committee put them back on at 75 percent.

Mr. TATE. That is correct, but what we are asking is that they be restored to full 100 percent.

Mr. RANKIN. That is what I want.

Mr. TATE. We have a resolution to effect that.

Mr. RANKIN. You ought to have one law to cover World War I and World War II and you would not have any trouble about it. Mr. TATE. I agree with you.

Mr. RAMEY. In your list of bills, the first on your list is H. R. 3016. Mr. GOLOB. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAMEY. At the close of the session there was some misinformation given the committee or the subcommittee that it might open the door for everyone to get a stenographer out of the Government free of charge.

Would you give us a little information on that?

Mr. GOLOB. First and foremost we would like Congress to consider that bill because I think our position is somewhat clarified here in the statement where it states:

To furnish stenographic assistance for the use of paid, full-time representatives of organizations recognized by act of Congress, and who have been assigned office space in the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. RAMEY. Somebody had the impression that was more farreaching.

I was wondering if the chairman of the subcommittee that had that bill under consideration had anything to say about it?

Mr. BAKEWELL. Not at this time.

Mr. RAMEY. Are there any objections you wish to take up with the national commander at this time?

Some of us were disturbed about that bill. It hasn't reached the floor yet.

Mr. BAKEWELL. Action was taken by the full committee according to my recollection. Although I was chairman of the subcommittee wasn't present when the bill was considered in the full committee.

Mr. RAMEY. The bill allows nothing else than stenographic assistance for the use of paid, full-time representatives of organizations recognized by act of Congress, and who have been assigned office space in the Veterans' Administration.

The bill is sufficiently restrictive and has sufficient clarity so as to rot allow everyone to come in and say "I want a Government stenographer."

Mr. GOLOB. That is correct. We think it should be confined to full-time, paid representatives recognized by act of Congress who have been assigned office space in the Veterans' Amdinistration.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask

Mr. CROW interposing. I think you will find this bill was clarified in the committee before it was reported out limiting it to those organizations named.

Mr. ALLAN. May I ask a question at that point?

Mr. RAMET. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. I know, when we had this question up a number of times, and I was one of the conferees and the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Rankin, was present, we worked this out for the disabled American veterans at that time.

I want to find out if this bill gives the veterans organizations any authority in the matter. Does this bill give the veterans organizations authority to come in and say "I want this room or that room," or does it depend upon rooms being available.

Mr. BAKEWELL. To the best of my recollection I think the ultimate solution is with the Veterans' Administration and it also takes into consideration available space.

Mr. ALLEN. I am sure no one would want to come in and put wounded veterans out of space. Of necessity you have got to let somebody have some say.

Mr. BAKEWELL. Here is the bill:

The Administrator is further authorized, at his discretion, and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to furnish in central, branch, and regional offices, if available, necessary space

Mr. ALLEN. That is all right.

Mr. RANKIN. There is one question about H. R. 2716. You pointed out the case of a master sergeant who was drawing $269 per month, and when he was transferred to the Veterans' Administration his compensation was fixed at $138 a month.

Mr. GOLOB. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't propose to compensate a top sergeant out of proportion to what you compensate a buck private or a private first class?

Mr. GOLOB. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you make the same rule apply to both?

Mr. GOLOB. I believe that would be fair, and I believe that is what the bill provides. I would like to call your attention, sir, to the fact a buck private who was receiving $50 in the service with a wife and four children receives a minimum of $168, but when he is totally disabled that is cut down to $138 after being transferred over to the