H. R. 5101 defines in no mistaking language what constitutes a "veteran" as follows:

The term "veteran" shall be held to mean a person who has served in any branch of the armed forces of the United States, during any war, campaign, or expedition for which a campaign badge has been or may be authorized and who has been honorably discharged from such service or resigned therefrom under honorable conditions.

The dictionary gives a better definition of the word "veteran,' defining the word as one having had long experience or practice; old in service; one long trained or exercised in any service; said especially of a soldier or sailor.

I submit that the enlisted man who renders faithful and honorable service in the Army or Navy, either in time of war or peace, is properly classified under existing law as a veteran, and I see no occasion to change his status which this bill will do, if enacted into law. Today he is a peacetime veteran; tomorrow, with the unsettled world conditions as they are, he might be a war veteran. Whether he be a peacetime veteran or a war veteran, he is still a good soldier or sailor, and stands ready to sacrifice his life in the service of the United States of America.

Let's have no class distinction between peacetime and wartime veterans. They are all buddies and shipmates. The war veteran knows that this Nation should have an adequate defense. Contentment of personnel plays an important part in national defense. It is not conducive to the morale of the enlisted men for one group of peacetime veterans who may have earned a campaign medal to receive consideration above the other group who was not fortunate enough to have participated in such a campaign. They should be all on the same basis as they are under existing law. Peacetime veterans with campaign badges should not be pitted against peacetime veterans without campaign badges. Likewise, wartime veterans should not be pitted against the peacetime veterans.

So much for that. Veterans preference goes back many years. The Congress, as far back as 1865 prescribed:

In grateful recognition of the services, sacrifices, and sufferings of persons honorably discharged from the military and naval service of the country, by reason of wounds, disease, or the expiration of terms of enlistment, it is respectfully recommended to bankers, merchants, manufacturers, mechanics, farmers, and persons engaged in industrial pursuits, to give them the preference for appointments to remunerative situations and employments (sec. 1755, Rev. Stat.).

The award of an honorable discharge to the peacetime veteran is a testimonial of fidelity and obedience. Character "honorable" is a notation that must be made in person by commanding officers on the day of the man's discharge, after a personal review of his record for the full period of enlistment. Throughout that period the peacetime veteran has been tested in the military or naval service to a degree far greater than in any other walk of life. He has cheerfully lived up to his oath of allegiance:

I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Navy.

149713-39-6

At the time of his enlistment the peacetime veteran was told by the recruiting officer that if he should receive an honorable discharge at expiration of enlistment, he would be entitled to preference for appointment in the Federal civil service. Throughout his enlistment his superior officers continually pointed out to him that if he maintained a clear record and received an honorable discharge this preference would be granted should he decide not to reenlist.

And now, despite these virtual promises which have existed for many years, the Congress proposes to differentiate between the peacetime veteran and give preference for appointment only to those who participated in a campaign or expedition. In other words, faith is being broken with the enlisted man, and an honorable discharge from the Army and Navy will be but a scrap of paper.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I just say that one of the finest things a young man can do is to give the best years of his life in the service of his country, either in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard. The Nation cherishes the sacrifices these young men make in entering the service at a tender age, and at relatively low pay. History is replete with their deeds of heroism in time of war and in peace. Loyalty has been their watchword throughout their service. They have gained valuable experience in their particular specialty, which should eminently fit them for positions in the public service. Should they choose to reenter civil life, these men, above all others, have demonstrated their 100-percent Americanism, and will not be found among those groups advocating the overthrow of the present form of American Government, nor will they stoop to sabotage or espionage against their Government.

The Fleet Reserve Association believes that existing laws, regulations, and Executive orders governing veteran preference fully protect the American public, and are ample for the protection of the veteran, if fully observed. It urges this committee to reject H. R. 5101 unless amended by adding the following proviso to section 2, subparagraph (a):

Provided, That for all purposes of this Act, the term "veteran" shall include a person who has served in any branch of the armed force of the United States in time of peace, and who was separated from his last period of service under honorable conditions.

Now I would like to say this in addition: A small group of enlisted men who served honorably in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, having accepted Government employment, with this five-point preference—it was contingent not on the basis of their service as a war veteran, but as the basis of their honorable discharge from the Army or Navy. There are certain laws on the statute books which grant certain privileges not to war veterans but to honorably discharged soldiers and sailors when it comes to a reduction in force.

The bills under consideration propose to change that; they abolish completely the right to a five-point preference for employment based on honorable service in the Army and Navy and put it strictly on a basis of service as a war veteran or a member of a campaign or expedition.

Realizing that the proposals which have been discussed here this morning will considerably change the benefits that have been held forth to these men for years and years and after listening to the testimony of the representatives of the American Legion on H. R. 5101

and the representatives of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on H. R. 5147, I would be disposed to recommend that this committee chuck both of those bills out of the window and tell the representatives of those organizations that until they can get together and present a compromised bill that the Committee on Civil Service will not pass legislation that does not have the wholehearted support of the two major veteran organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lofgren.

The next witness will be Mary A. Williams, of the Regular Veterans Woman's Association.

STATEMENT OF MARY A. WILLIAMS, LEGISLATIVE OFFICER, REGULAR VETERANS WOMAN'S ASSOCIATION

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Mary A. Williams, legislative officer, Regular Veterans Woman's Association, companion group to Regular Veterans Association. Our national headquarters are located at 5182 Fulton Street NW., Washington, D. C.

One of the mandates of our 1937 national convention was protection of civil-service preference rights for veterans. No distinction was made in this mandate as we have always and shall continue to interpret the word "veteran" as one who has served his country unselfishly, wholeheartedly, and voluntarily in the armed forces giving his health, limbs, or even his life when the service demanded it.

Mr. Nieman, Regular Veterans Association, has ably presented the reactions of the R. V. A. to the bill now before this committee for consideration, and my organization composed of the wives, widows, mothers, and adult daughters and sisters of Regulars unreservedly endorses every word he has said.

The American principles of justice demand that there be no longer any discrimination between our war and Regular veterans, and certainly it cannot be within the wishes or aspiration of any American to really want such discrimination.

Gentlemen, R. V. W. A. adds their plea to the opposition to the bill under consideration. If the committee should report out a bill when our prayer is that there be no discrimination whatsoever practiced or sought against our Regulars and his dependents for the Regular has never, and will never, let us down.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Williams.
The next witness will be Mr. Crim.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CRIM, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, ARMY AND NAVY UNION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. CRIM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John J. Crim and I am legislative chairman of the Army and Navy Union with offices at 1330 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.

Mr. Rice, the representative of Veterans of Foreign Wars, gave a complete detailed statement of the stand that our organization takes in regard to the two bills. If there is any preference between the two bills, we are solely behind H. R. 5147. It is a more comprehensive study of the problem facing veterans as a whole; far more than H. R.

5100. We would recommend, too, that provisions be taken from H. R. 5101 and provisions also be taken from H. R. 5047, if this committee see fit to draft new legislation or a new bill, that they can take good potent factors as outlined here this morning or the good features of these two bills and combine them in a bill reported out by this committee.

I want in conclusion to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you and express our appreciation. I might add in conclusion that the Army and Navy Union comprises thousands of men who have served from the Civil War to the present date and you can appreciate that our stand naturally would be for H. R. 5147 as compared to H. R. 5001. Our organization now comprises 598,510 life members and paying members bring it up to over 600,000 members. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY THOMAS KIRBY, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. Chairman, the position of the Disabled American Veterans on pending proposals on veterans' preferences may be briefly stated.

The legislative program adopted at our national convention last summer carries two civil-service items. One asks that through Executive orders or legislation the Disabled American Veterans urge stricter enforcement of the present preferences under the United States Civil Service Commission, while the second proposes that in all cases where a disabled veteran is to be skipped on the civilservice register and a nonveteran or a nondisabled veteran selected, the serviceconnected veteran shall be furnished with written reasons why he was not selected and be afforded an opportunity to rebut before final appointment is made.

We are thoroughly convinced that the Federal appointing officers are not now administering the preferences in the spirit in which the preferences were adopted. We realize, as has been brought out in the present and past hearings that annually there become of age about 2,000,000 boys and girls making an aggregate since the Armistice of about 40,000,000 and, some of these who were minors during the war are now approaching 40 years of age, are married, have dependents and are seeking employment. We further understand that over the years about 20 percent of all civil-service appointments have been to veterans and there is not the slightest doubt that many of these appointments have been traceable to conscientious application of the preferences.

Nevertheless, we feel that the Federal Government has an enduring obligation to the men-particularly the wartime disabled men-who served faithfully in the national emergency when the continuance of American institutions was imperiled. That we are not alone in this belief is shown by the actions of successive Congresses and successive Presidents—regardless of party-in endeavoring to have the former service men in a preferred class so far as opportunities for employment by the Government they served in time of war are concerned.

Proceding from this premise, we fail to see that this problem is going to be solved merely by enacting provision after provision intended to be liberalizing when we know that the orders and laws now on the books are not being adhered to. Therefore, our interest at the moment is in legislation calculated to hold appointing officers to strict accountability for the employment of veterans in the spirit upon which the preferences are based.

Our experience has shown that on the matter of educational and experienced examinations the problem is relatively easy as compared to actually getting the men on the job when they have qualified through tests. To state this differently, most of the grief and disappointment and disgust in the present situation is in getting from the register to the position, rather than getting on the register.

The thought has been advanced in these hearings that if the 5- and 10-point preferences on examinations for veterans should be eliminated the existing preferences would be less vulnerable to attack for it would then be properly contended that the organized veterans were not asking for these jobs for anyone who has not passed the regular examination to prove fitness for appointment, without any concessions that do not go to the whole group of applicants.

Conceding the soundness of this contention, the Disabled American Veterans desires to record itself most emphatically against the loss of these extra points

unless and until the Congress grants at least the equal in the way of improving the chances of appointment of veterans who have passed the standard tests. Merely to explain, if the disabled veteran is to lose his present 10 points and advancement to the very top of the register regardless of his passing mark, we earnestly urge that there be modifications looking toward enhancing his chances of appointment. This might be done, if the same entrance requirements must be met by all, to add 30 or 40 points to the actual earned rating, in order that the veteran may be within reach for appointment.

For several years the Disabled American Veterans has been pounding against the utterly unfair and even un-American system now permitting the skipping of veterans with the appointing officers giving merely a highly confidential reason or excuse to which the veteran does not even have access. In other words, it would be comparable to arresting, indicting, trying, and sentencing a man without even permitting him to know the offense with which he was charged. We, therefore, again propose that when a disabled veteran is skipped, he shall be furnished with written reasons why he was not selected and be afforded an opportunity to rebut before final appointment is made. If the personnel chiefs are really in need of the employees asked, they are not likely to hold up the work of their office during the period required for rebuttal by the veteran merely through a desire to prevent the veteran getting the job. But, aside from that feature, it is believed that if these written reasons are revealed to the veteran and he has a chance to answer, the psychological effect upon the appointing officer is likely to go far toward improving the present highly unsatisfactory conditions.

To summarize, the Disabled American Veterans believes the immediate need is enforcement of the preferences through a spirit of administration to carry out their real intent. Therefore, it would seem this committee is at the fork of three roads. One would be to do nothing; the second to add further preferences to the statutes, and the third would be to provide for real enforcement of the present preferences.

It is conceded that the situation is unsatisfactory, so it is sincerely hoped this committee will act shortly to improve the conditions. Convinced that the preferences now existing are not being carried out, we fail utterly to see the logic in the expectation that there mere adding of other preferences would be enforced, so our plea is for enforcement legislation. This having been done and having had the advantage of experience in observance of the workings we may later return to propose other provisions. But, in the present crisis, our cry is for legislation guaranteeing administrative compliance with the obvious intent of the Congress.

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS,

Washington, D. C., May 4, 1939. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS IN OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL PREFERENCE FOR WAR VETERANS IN CIVIL SERVICE LEGISLATION

On the occasion of the consideration by your committee of bills relating to the appointment of veterans to positions in the civil service the National League of Women Voters would like to reiterate its position on veterans preference. We have been working over a long period of years in behalf of the establishment and effective operation of merit systems in the civil service. We have learned that no true merit system is possible when factors other than those relating to the ability of applicants are considered in connection with appointment to positions in the public service. Furthermore, only when appointments are made solely on the basis of merit and qualifications will it be possible to attract to Government employment the best qualified young people in the country, and upon the quality of the public service depends the effective functioning of democratic government. We recognize that the service of veterans during time of war entitles them to full consideration and assistance in readjusting to peace time conditions. In our opinion, however, indiscriminate preference in connection with appointments to Government positions is not the best means of meeting this problem. If the public service is to justify its name and give full return to the citizens of the country deviations from the merit principle on behalf of special groups cannot be accepted.

LOUISE G. BALDWIN,

Mrs. HARRIS T. BALDWIN,

First Vice President, National League of Women Voters.