THE AMERICAN LEGION, REHABILITATION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1960. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR MR. TEAGUE: It is understood that your committee is currently conducting hearings on S. 1138, a bill to provide readjustment assistance to veterans who served in the Armed Forces between January 31, 1955, and July 1, 1963. For your information and that of the other members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 28 adopted by the American Legion National Executive Committee at its meeting of October 7-9, 1959. This resolution is to the effect that the American Legion does not support S. 1138 or other legislation seeking to provide readjustment assistance to veterans of peacetime service. The national executive committee's action was based upon a recommendation approved jointly by four standing commissions of the American Legion; namely, the rehabilitation, economic, child welfare, and legislative. Membership in the American Legion is restricted to veterans of honorable service during the hostility periods of World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict. It is the sense of resolution No. 28 that the organization's legislative efforts relative to benefits based on service are and should be confined to matters of direct interest to veterans of these qualifying periods and to their dependents and beneficiaries. Sincerely, JOHN J. CORCORAN, Director. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, HELD OCTOBER 7-9, 1959 Resolution No. 28. Committee: Rehabilitation Commission. Subject: Readjustment benefits for peacetime service. Whereas the American Legion has traditionally sponsored and supported legislation pertaining to veterans of the periods of hostilities in World War I (April 6, 1917, to November 11, 1918), World War II (December 7, 1941 to September 2, 1945), and the Korean conflict (June 25, 1950, to July 27, 1953), and surviving dependents of such war veterans; and Whereas there is legislation pending in Congress extending certain GI bill benefits to peacetime veterans; and Whereas as individuals our members might approve such legislation, our efforts as an organization are devoted exclusively to the welfare of war veterans and dependents in the field of veterans affairs, in full accord with the charter granted by the Congress: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Executive Committee of the American Legion, in regular meeting assembled in Indianapolis, Ind., October 7-9, 1959, declare that it is inconsistent for our organization to support legislation providing readjustment benefits based upon peacetime service; and further be it Resolved, That in the event the Congress should enact legislation of the nature herein considered, that the administration of such a law will not be assigned to the Veterans' Administration; and be it further Resolved, That the American Legion is firmly of the opinion that such legislation should not be charged to the field of veterans' benefits. Mr. HALEY. The next witness is the representative of the Disabled American Veterans, Mr. Elmer Freudenberger. You may come forward, sir. You have a prepared statement, I see. Just for the benefit of the record, would you state your name, your address, and who you are representing, other than yourself; and may proceed, sir. you STATEMENT OF ELMER M. FREUDENBERGER, ACTING NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS Mr. FREUDENBERGER. Mr. Chairman and members; as legislative representative of the Disabled American Veterans I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you and to outline the position of our unique group, an organization of the wartime disabled, with respect to S. 1138, titled "Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1959." Mr. Chester A. Cash, acting national director of claims, DAV, was to appear with me this morning, but he lives away out in Maryland, and I think he was snowbound. Mr. HALEY. I can well understand how Mr. Cash could not be with you today, much as he might want to be. I understand that this 9 or 10 inches of snow has somewhat tied up the transportation system, especially on the outskirts of the cities, and probably in the cities, where you do not have a main arterial highway. So we thoroughly understand that and know that he would have been here if he could have been. Mr. FREUDENBERGER. That is right. The bill in question, as it passed the Senate, has the general purpose of providing readjustment assistance to veterans whose service was, or is, between January 31, 1955, the official termination of the Korean conflict, and July 1, 1963, the presently established end of the compulsory draft law. There is one section of S. 1138 that the DAV, and presumably everyone else, endorses and supports as worthy, sound, and humane legislation. I refer to the provisions of this bill that would grant vocational rehabilitation training to the post-Korea veterans with 30 percent or more service-connected disability, or, if rated less than 30 percent, who are shown to have an employment handicap resulting from service-connected disability. And we strongly concur in the provision of the bill that would include under this section those veterans who first entered military service between the end of World War II and the opening date of the Korean conflict. We also favor the provision adopting this section of S. 1138 as permanent policy with no delimiting date for eligibility. The Disabled American Veterans discerns considerable merit in that section of S. 1138 relative to guarantee and direct loan assistance for the peacetime veterans within the definitions of the bill. The remarkable history of repayment by those veterans who heretofore have participated in the VA loan programs would indicate that the losses to the Government under the extension of the programs contemplated by this proposed legislation would be very minor if, indeed, any ultimate losses resulted. There is, however, a very costly section of S. 1138 which we of the DAV view with grave concern. I refer, of course, to that portion of the bill that would throw open educational and training benefits at vast Government expense to peacetime veterans with no disability, or at least none due to military service. In previous appearances before your committee and other committees of the Congress attention was invited to the long established policy of the Disabled American Veterans, as follows: Because the Disabled American Veterans was founded on the principle that this Nation's first obligation is to its war disabled veterans, and their dependents, the DAV believes that our Government should provide: (1) Proper medical care and treatment of veterans for disabilities incurred in or aggravated by active service in the Armed Forces of the United States. (2) Adequate disability compensation for service-connected disabilities. (3) Vocational rehabilitation and education to restore employability of war-disabled veterans in gainful, useful employment; and (4) Adequate death benefits for the widows, minor children and dependent parents of veterans who die as the result of service-connected disabilities and of veterans who were handicapped by service-incurred disabilities. It therefore follows that the DAV believes that the Congress of the United States (1) should extend priority of consideration of proposed legislation which aims to provide benefits for veterans, with service-connected disabilities, and for their dependents, and (2) that the DAV will consider giving its support to proposed legislation for the benefit of other veterans and their dependents, only if convinced that its enactment will in no way jeopardize existing or proposed benefits for veterans with service-incurred disabilities, and their dependents. We feel in all sincerity that the enactment of the section in question will jeopardize at least some of our most important pending bills for the relief of the wartime disabled, their widows, and dependents. There is such a thing as going too far in breaking down the line of demarcation between wartime and peacetime service for no matter what arguments are presented to the contrary there are and will continue to be recognizable differences in the service rendered in time of war and that performed in time of peace. In his appearance before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, when S. 1138 was under consideration there, a Government witness pointed out Selective service policies now promote reasonable integration of schooling with military service. In addition, peacetime military service offers wide opportunities for off-duty education and training. The demand for skilled personnel in the Armed Forces also has increased the scope of on-duty training, and many of the skills thus developed are highly transferable to civilian occupations. In other testimony given to the Senate subcommittee it was pointed out that proposals of the nature under consideration have a very definite effect on the ability of the Armed Forces to retain qualified personnel. One witness emphasized that Despite all of the best efforts of the Armed Forces themselves and despite the enactment by the Congress of legislation designed to increase the attractiveness of a career in the Armed Forces, retention of personnel remains one of our (Defense Department) most crucial problems. This official cautioned against compromising the effectiveness of the efforts being directed toward personnel retention. Does not this make sense? We think it does. And we are convinced by past experience and through the exercise of practical commonsense that the more big bills that are passed by the Congress for the benefit of peacetime and other veterans not based upon service-connected disease or injury, with such bills involving the expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars, the more the wartime disabled veterans will have to take "back seats" in the field of veterans' legislation. Instead of being relegated to a subordinate role in this connection the wartime disabled should constitute, in fact, the group entitled to No. 1 priority. In conclusion, please allow me to quote from my statement made on April 21, 1959, at the hearing on this bill before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: The young men who have answered the selective service call in the past and who will do so in the future are contributing greatly to our position of strength and security. We know and appreciate their sacrifices, and they will not fail We must assist them within reasonable limits of our resources, but not to the extent of considering their peacetime service on a parity in all respects with the hardships and dangers faced by those who experienced actual war service. us. The Disabled American Veterans has an educational bill pending before your committee which we believe should be reported out, passed by both Houses and enacted into law this session, without fail. That bill is H.R. 4582, and it would provide educational opportunities for the children of permanently and totally service-connected veterans who, by reason of their war disabilities, have been unable to take advantage of the educational provisions of the readjustment law in their own rights. To us, this is a logical and humane extension of the War Orphans' Educational Assistance Act (ch. 35, title 38, U.S.C.) which declares eligible the child of a person who died of a service-connected disability arising out of active military, naval, or air service during World War I, World War II, or the Korean conflict. We beseech your committee to accord favorable consideration to H.R. 4582, and at an early date, so that there may still be time for it to clear both Houses of Congress prior to adjournment. Thank you very much for your courtesy and attention. If there are any questions, I shall do my best to answer them or to see that they are answered. Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much for your statement, and I might say that I think it is a very good statement. While of course we do not have H.R. 4582 before this committee at the present time, I judge that the prime objective of that bill is to give to the children of permanently disabled veterans benefits that, if the father had not been disabled, he probably would have been able to supply himself; and therefore you think that the child of this veteran is entitled to some consideration from the Government. Mr. FREUDENBERGER. Permanently and totally disabled veterans, Congressman. Mr. HALEY. Yes. A member of the professional staff of the committee has informed me of a bill that did pass this committee, which, with a little broadening, as I understand it, probably would accomplish what your organiza tion has in mind. Would you explain, very briefly, the benefits of that bill and what might be needed? COUNSEL. Mr. Chairman, the committee in the latter part of the first session, reported H.R. 4306 sponsored by Mr. Thornberry, which provided for an amendment to the War Orphans' Educational Act to give education to the children of men who lost their lives on extra haz ardous missions, as in the case of the plane that went down over Afghanistan. I understand that there is some thought in the Senate committee of broadening that proposal to perhaps take in all those who are permanently and totally disabled, or at least broadening the category in some regard. Mr. HALEY. I might explain to the witness: On the other side of the house, they can broaden bills considerably, as you well know. They can do a lot of things that apparently we cannot do. Let me ask you just this one question. I should know this, but I am sorry to admit I do not. Does your organization admit to membership peacetime veterans who have been disabled in the line of duty during peacetime? Mr. FREUDENBERGER. Our organization is essentially one of the wartime disabled. We did leave the eligibility date open for quite a while. Now it has been closed by an amendment to our constitution, as of January 31, 1955, but those who were disabled in service and were accepted for membership when the delimiting date was open will still continue to be members. But essentially it is a group of the wartime disabled. Mr. HALEY. I am pretty much in accord with your statement. I think it is a very good one. You say here that some consideration should be given to veterans, regardless of when the disability occurred. If it occurred, say, in peacetime, and as a result of his service to the country, I think that that veteran ought to receive some consideration. Don't you? Mr. FREUDENBERGER. Yes. We are in favor of that section of S. 1138 that would bring in the service-connected veteran. Mr. HALEY. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. DORN. I think you have made a very excellent statement on behalf of your great organization. I think you are right, too, about this bill to extend coverage to the children of totally disabled men. That would take care partially of the inequities mentioned by the national commander, here, a day or two ago about the service-connected disabled veterans getting less income than they would have gotten had they not been disabled during this inflationary time. I think that is a very worthwhile piece of legislation. Mr. FREUDENBERGER. We feel this, Congressman: that in the case of the permanently and totally service-connected veteran who has a family, the family suffers by reason of the fact that he has been unable, by reason of war injuries or disease, to take advantage of the educational provisions of the law. And, as a result, his family has much less income, much less advantage, and we feel this bill of ours, or the amendment of a pending bill along similar lines, is very much indicated. Mr. DORN. I had a bill a couple of years ago, you know, to use some of the war assets of Germany and Japan to fill this purpose, educate the children of totally disabled veterans, totally disabled by German and Japan. And, oh, you have no idea of the power of this great lobby here in the United States, desperately, for some mysterious reason, wanting to turn this money back over to Germany and Japan on the false pretense of seizing private property, when Germany was |