tled to adequate hospitalization and compensation for injury, death or disability. That being so, and that not being related to the veterans' benefit, the G. I. bill, it may be desirable from a policy standpoint to sever the provisions of education from the balance of the bill.

Mr. BURKE. I am interested in the education as well as the other. Mr. MCCANDLESS. I am, too, but as between the two I think one is a highly desirable thing from the standpoint of the public welfare and he individual. The other I think is necessary.

Mr. BURKE. Yes; the others of course come first.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. If one is going to be a detriment to the other, I chink as between the choice the compensation and hospitalization beneits are far more to be accorded a green light than the other.

Mr. BURKE. I appreciate that.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Although I feel as strongly as you do, sir, that education is something we should have.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Burke has been an educator for many years and probably feels very strongly about it for that reason.

Mr. BURKE. It is spread out over 10 years, is it not?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. BURKE. $2,800,000 a year. There is definitely a handicap for men who do not have an opportunity for that. Maybe the Government cannot afford that.

Mr. LEVINE. May I pursue that strategy point again?

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes.

Mr. LEVINE. The education provision is a more difficult one. Perhaps the committee should see fit if it should act on the education to make certain modifications to help the passage of that section. I should think, however, it would be possible and even desirable to include such educational provisions as the Committee sees fit along with the same bill, and then on the floor if the indications are that that is under such serious attack, where you members can undoubtedly judge it while it is on the floor, then the committee, perhaps, can sever that from the rest of the bill in order to save the other portions. I am firmly convinced if you separate the education completely and try in another bill to get something through that the issue will be completely dead.

If the issue is that some educational provision is worth while I think you should make the effort to try to get it through in one bill.

Mr. BRADLEY. You are, of course, not taking into consideration the legislative difficulties of getting the bill through the Rules Committee. That, naturally, is one of the hurdles which confronts every bill which cannot get to the floor by unanimous consent. Of course, we would not even assume for a minute that this could get to the floor by unanimous consent. It will have to clear the Rules Committee.

The question which confronts us is whether or not we can get a rule with the bill in toto as it is, or whether or not the prospect of getting a rule and thereby getting it to the floor in parts would be very much simpler.

You must recall that last year the bill died right in that Rules Committee, like many others do. That is one of the difficulties which confronts every Committee Chairman in trying to get controversial legislation enacted.

Mr. LEVINE. Of course, we have the old maxim: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

I think if you do take up a bill which includes some educational provisions and you are turned down you are always free to come back. Last year I think the major problem was that we reported very late in the session. I am hopeful we will not face the same problem this year. The time is growing short. Being caught late in the session last year there was no way of getting around the situation.

Mr. BRADLEY. I am glad to have these ideas. I merely want you to understand that we should like to get something done and we want you to understand the difficulties that are in the way, and possibly modifications might be playing good ball to get results.

Mr. LEVINE. I think the suggestion we can cut the bill down to 10 or 11 pages and cut out most of the material which was objectionable. I think we can get down to a fairly satisfactory bill.

Mr. BRADLEY. I again ask you to remember, gentlemen, all of you, that many of the questions we have asked and may continue to ask are sometimes harsh, or seem harsh, but that we who may have charge of this bill if we get it to the floor will be subjected to most of those same questions and we have got to be able to answer them. Otherwise, they would all vote it down.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. They stimulate more acute responses.

Mr. PAUL JACKSON. Two suggestions were made with regard to the educational provisions which I think some of the members of the committee found fairly good and I think they might be considered if the educational provisions are to be combined or left in the bill. One suggestion was made that the educational rights be limited with regard to the age of the applicant; namely, say between the ages of 18 and 25, which would cut down considerably the number who might be eligible.

The second suggestion made was that the advances in tuition and allowances be in the way of a loan to be repaid to the Government, which I think also might be considered.

Mr. BRADLEY. Both of those suggestions seem good but I am one of these particularly pessimistic people who believe that they would be only the most temporary sort of measures. If enacted this year they would be stricken out the next or the year following. That would not prevent their being given every consideration, however.

Mr. PAUL JACKSON. That is true of any legislation.

Mr. BRADLEY. History of legislation was the reason for my statement.

Mr. LEVINE. Except the problem disappears as time goes along. It is disappearing rapidly now. You will find some 20-odd students. I imagine the man trying to get up his hand now is a student.

Mr. IVAN GUY LEWIS. I served at Sheepshead Bay. No reflection to the Maritime Commission, which houses many of the officers I served under, but in this bill there is no provision at all for a group of men who should fall under it but did not come into the war itself, and which could be compared to the guards of Army's unknown soldier's tomb, or some of the Navy's special services. They drew comparatively the same money as the Coast Guard plus 40 percent. Balancing up they come $4,000 shy of the GI's after they were discharged. The only benefit the administrative personnel could receive would be the educational benefits. The disability benefit, well, maybe there were 25 that were hurt through line of action which might have been

in 1941 or 1942. We may have had trouble with submarines along

our own coast.

Actually, the only provision they would get benefit under this bill would be the educational rights. If it did not go through they would not get anything out of the bill at all.

Mr. BRADLEY. Now, I am not sure that I have carefully delineated the group of people you are speaking of.

Mr. LEWIS. The administrative personnel. To be a member of it in the last 312 and 4 years they had to be militarily exempted. They could not be drafted into the Army mainly because of physical disability. They had to be exempted from the armed forces in order to be on administrative personnel staff.

Mr. BRADLEY. Where?

Mr. LEWIS. In the various maritime service training stations such as St. Petersburg, Fla., Sheepshead Bay, and so forth.

Mr. BRADLEY. You have not heard the discussion on this bill generally during which the opinion of the committee has seemed to beremembered, I said seemed to be-that all privileges for that class of people should be stricken from the bill entirely, that we have no justification for any privileges or benefits for that type of person? Mr. LEWIS. Why?

Mr. BRADLEY. Because they performed no war service at sea or in battle zones or anywhere they were in danger. Their duty was as different from that of a professor in any other university in the country. Mr. LEWIS. Does the committee realize these men could have held jobs in war plants?

Mr. BRADLEY. We are not interested in what they could have held but we are interested only in what they did. The professors at Yale could have held different jobs, too. Professors at the University of California could have held different jobs but did not.

Mr. LEWIS. These men drew wages.

Mr. BRADLEY. We are glad to hear your statement but I have told you the general feeling of the committee that that provision should be stricken from the bill entirely. I do not say it will be but I say that it seems so far to have been the opinion from what I have gathered. I do not say it will be stricken out because we have not voted on it. I shall be glad to hear any further statement you want to make. Mr. LEWIS. It seems rather inadequate for the country's appreciation of the service they rendered.

Mr. BRADLEY. This bill is not appreciation but this bill is a matter of what we consider compensation for services rendered, and we are thinking, I know, of making a certain amount of service at sea necessary to be able to qualify under its provisions. I do not say we will but I say we are thinking of it.

Mr. LEWIS. How does the committee explain the fact that these men were Government employees

Mr. BRADLEY. It is not the duty of the committee to explain its position. The committee is here to listen to your comments and to make its own decision.

Mr. LEWIS. What I was trying to get at is that these men were Government employees but yet, just as you said a few minutes ago during the other hearing, the civilian employees of the Government were very much better taken care of than the merchant seamen, which is quite true.

But these administrative personnel were likewise Government personnel. They were paid by the Government. They were Government employees who receive no benefits now from the Government.

Mr. BRADLEY. I say we went into all the details of all the Government employees. My own opinion, more or less, not completely formed until after discussion with the rest of the members of the committee, and there are 10 of them, is that there should be a definite requirement that a man must have had a certain amount of sea service in order to get any benefits under the bill at all. That is my personal feeling right now.

Mr. LEWIS. That would automatically strike out the administrative personnel.

Mr. BRADLEY. I am not interested in whom it would strike out. I say that is my thought at the present time as a matter of justice to all concerned. I may be voted down; I may not hold that opinion after discussing it with the other members. But I say that right now that is my feeling.

Mr. LEVINE. I was hopeful he would be one of the many students who came here. I wanted to say that I have been contacted by some 20 former merchant seamen going to Georgetown University and some 20 former merchant seamen going to George Washington, most of them supporting themselves in these cases as best they can.

I was suggesting that I think the load is even going to be less than people estimate on the education in view of the fact these men already have initiated their education, a large number of them, and will have gone through either 1 or 2 years by the time any provision could get through, should a provsion be enacted. I do not think they will continue beyond the 4-year period.

Mr. BRADLEY. If you wish to bring in others, we shall be glad to hear them. You appreciate that we have not declined to hear anybody on any phase of this question. We have been glad to give every person as much time as he wishes to bring out every point.

Mr. LEVINE. I would like to say this: I have been here for years and I never have heard of a committee which has been more conscientious and more sincere. I never have heard of a chairman who goes out and looks up at facts and puts them in the record even when he is wrong.

Mr. BRADLEY. We are trying to be honest.

Mr. LEVINE. I admit that.

Mr. BRADLEY. We may not be able to come forth with what you would like exactly but we are trying to be absolutely honest. I want again to say that nothing we say here is final in any way because there are 10 members on this committee.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to pursue this education business a little

more.

On page 6 of the report you have a figure at the bottom of the page that 16 and a half percent of the persons involved were under 19 years of age. I take it that age will have been established at the time of the enrollment in the service.

Mr. PAUL JACKSON. That figure was taken from a study, sample study of several thousand seamen at a particular period of time, I believe around 1944.

Mr. ALLEN. The same group, then, would be 21 now.

Mr. PAUL JACKSON. That is right.

Mr. ALLEN. One-sixth of the people would be under 21 at this time. It seems to me that in the other figures, roughly 50 percent, a little less than half of the money, was going into education which would be of benefit to a part of approximately one-sixth of the personnel involved.

It gets back once more to the matter of whether this bill would not be so much easier with the education separated out.

Mr. LEVINE. The people who benefit by the other portions of the bill are even a much smaller fraction. They are probably in the nature of one-fifth yet or one one-hundredth of the merchant seamen who benefit from the compensation provisions.

Mr. ALLEN. One percent would get half the benefits and 1611⁄2 percent would get the other half of the benefits and the other 83 percent would never be involved?

Mr. LEVINE. I should say the 1 percent need the benefits. Nobody can argue that a man injured

Mr. ALLEN. I wasn't arguing.

Mr. LEVINE. That is clear, though.

The other 16 percent I will admit that many of our members do not feet this bill is of real value because it gives them nothing. But it leaves an opportunity for many of them to take the education should they want to do so. That is really the only thing in the bill for them. Mr. MCCANDLESS. I gathered some figures that are not included in the report. Of those individuals who received training at the Maritime Commission schools of one sort or another, approximately 30 percent of those individuals were under 18 years of age. That is a striking percentage of youths whose education was either interrupted, delayed, or stopped. Then there was approximately 35 percent which made up the grouping between 19 and 26, but it was most astonishing to me to find that there was that large group of youth between 16 and 18, just those 2- and 3-year sections forming such a large portion.

There is this, too, which should be brought out: The longer the time passes before the educational benefits are made available the fewer number of persons will take advantage of it, because in the meantime they have reestablished themselves, they have gotten a job or they have felt education is not available to them, and once having established a job, there will be more and more of them who will feel unwilling then to give up gainful employment and go back to school.

Of course, those that will will be those who really, I assume, are strenuously interested.

Mr. BRADLEY. I think there is no question about the accuracy of that assumption.

Mr. PAUL JACKSON. One point, Mr. Chairman: We have heard that about 400,000 men passed in and out of the merchant-marine service during the war. I think the figure seems very large and the expense involved in accommodating all 400,000 people would seem tremendous. But our figures indicate that the number of actual eligibles under the bill as it is now written is reduced to 91,000 by virtue of the fact that many of them did not serve continually throughout the war. Mr. BRADLEY. We understand that, but may I again express my pessimistic attitude in believing that any limits ever stand anywhere in legislation. Limits undoubtedly will be modified next year and the next year possibly. I merely make that observation to show you why