Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Congress of the United States expressed the will of the citizenry of these United States by enacting Public Law 346, 78th Congress and Public Law 550, 82d Congress, thus recognizing the justice, equity and general value of a sound education and training program for the veterans of this country who had to leave off training because of military service.

The purpose of the veterans' training program was to restore lost educational opportunities to those who, because of selective service had lost such opportunities. However, notwithstanding the continuing involuntary military service required, Public La No. 7, 84th Congress, denies training benefits to those enlisted in service since January 31, 1955, which we believe to be grossly inequitable.

WAYCROSS, Ga., February 10, 1960. Mr. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN TEAGUE: This post organization has been notified by Mr. Pete Wheeler, State director of veterans' service, 125 State Capitol, Atlanta, Ga., also Mr. R. L. Barton, manager, Waycross district office, Waycross, Ga., that the Veterans Affairs Committee was considering legislation for the purpose of giving peactime veterans educational benefits.

Mr. Teague, the information that I had on this proposal was brought up at our regular meeting of February 9, 1960, and after careful consideration there was a motion made on the floor for the post to go on record as favoring such legislation. There was a second and it was carried unanimously. Enclosed you will find a resolution in suport of this legislation. Sincerely yours,

JACK PARKER, Commander, American Legion Post No. 10.

RESOLUTION

Whereas millions of veterans of World War II and of the Korean conflict have been afforded educational benefits under the provisions of the veterans' education program established by the Federal Government; and

Whereas the education of millions of veterans has substantially contributed to an increase in the educational level of this country and has produced a major asset which has contributed to the economy of this country; and

Whereas statistics have proved that increased income to veterans arising out of their higher educational or vocational training will more than offset the entire cost of the GI training program by 1970; and

Whereas the President of the United States, by Executive order, stopped educational benefits for persons serving in the Armed Forces after February 1, 19.5; and

Whereas we believe that it is only fair and equitable to continue educational training to veterans who have served their country since February 1, 1955: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That American Legion Post No. 10, Waycross, Ga., at the regular meeting on February 9, 1960, does hereby go on record as approving the extension of educational benefits to veterans who served in the Armed Forces after February 1, 1955, and for so long as the draft laws remain in effect; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be furnished to Members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives from Georgia and to the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

JACK PARKER, Post Commander.

FOOTHILL COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Mountain View, Calif., February 4, 1960. Subject: Extension of Public Law 550. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Subcommittee for Education and Training, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE TEAGUE: As your committee considers the extension of Public Law 550, would you please call their attention to the following points :

1. The law as originally conceived was to assist veterans whose education was interrupted because of required military training. The laws seems to have served this purpose well, but conditions have now changed.

2. With the requirement of universal military service, young men in high school and college can now plan to meet the military service requirement without interruption of their educational programs, unless they so desire; thereforehardships can be avoided by careful planning.

3. Many veterans do not need the financial assistance which the law provides. Would it not be better to create scholarships for veterans whose financial status would prevent college attendance unless the scholarship and subsistence were granted? The reaction of your committee to these suggestions will be appreciated. Sincerely yours,

H. H. SEMANS, Dean of Instruction.

RESOLUTION Whereas millions of veterans of World War II and of the Korean conflict have been afforded educational benefits under the provisions of the veterans' education program established by the Federal Government; and

Whereas the education of million of veterans has substantially contributed to an increase in the educational level of this country and has produced a major asset which has contributed to the economy of this country; and

Whereas statistics have proved that increased income to veterans arising out of their higher educational or vocational training will more than offset the entire cost of the GI training program by 1970; and

Whereas the President of the United States, by Executive order, stopped educational benefits for persons serving in the Armed Forces after February 1, 1955; and

Whereas we believe that it is only fair and equitable to continue educational training to veterans who have served their country since February 1, 1955: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Ladies Auxiliary, Standford Ellington Post 6447, Thomaston, Ga., at a regular meeting on January 28, 1960, does hereby go on record as approving the extension of educational benefits to veterans who served in the Armed Forces after February 1, 1955, and for so long as the draft laws remain in effect; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be furnished to Members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives from Georgia and to the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Mrs. CARRIE JENKINS,

President. NAOMI CHAPMAN,

Secretary. Mrs. HELEN LEE, Jr.,

Vice President,

Mrs. WILLIE CASTEEL, Secretary, Ladies Auxiliary to Post 6447, VFW.

[blocks in formation]

OMAHA, NEBR., February 17, 1960. Congressman OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives: I urge support for Yarborough bill proposing extension of Public Law 550.

CARL M. REINERT, S.J., President, the Creighton University.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CLARA,

February 18, 1960. Hon. CHARLES S. GUBSER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.:

Recommend extension Federal veterans educational benefits as provided Senate bill 1138 as introduced by Senator Ralph Yarborough. Do not favor proposed amendment of loan type program which would change payment of educational and training allowance to veterans. Provisions Public Law 550, 82d Congress most satisfactory and should be extended.

PATRICK A. DONOHOE, S.J.,

President.

Chico STATE COLLEGE,

Chico, Calif., February 19, 1960. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. TEAGUE: As your Committee on Veterans Affairs considers extension of title 38 (Public Law 550) and as long as the Federal Government has selective service we would like for you to know that a tremendous and overwhelming number of college administrators feel this should be done and is highly desirable. No one needs to make the point today that all people with capacity and ambition to have a college education should be encouraged in every way, including financial, to get that educational opportunity.

I have just returned from traveling in a number of States, recruiting staff members for our college. It is almost disheartening to find that the supply is not adequate for the job and I know, of course, this is not limited to college teachers; it is in every major field.

Many young people cannot go to college because of lack of funds. For everyone of these who does go through the cost is more than repaid through the individual's increased earning and productive power.

We sincerely hope that your committee will find it possible to extend this bill for as long as the draft law continues. Sincerely,

GLENN KENDALL, President of the College.

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,

Denver, Colo., February 16, 1960. Hon. OLIN TEAGUE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. TEAGUE: It does not appear likely that I shall have the opportunity to be in Washington during the hearings which your committee is conducting on S. 1138-—the so-called peacetime GI bill. I regret this very much because I would so much enjoy the opportunity for renewal of a valued personal acquaintance as well as the chance to speak in behalf of this bill. I hope, therefore, that you will permit me to make my thoughts known to you via this letter and know that I shall be pleased to be of any other assistance possible should you wish to call upon me.

At the outset I should like to make it clear that my comments do not reflect in any way an official position of the University of Denver. By the same token, I do not speak as president-elect of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. There are certain items, as I shall point out, on which I believe I can quite safely predict that the vast majority of the 10,000 members of the American Personnel und Guidance Association would find themselves in quite complete agreement.

The essential provisions of S. 1138 reflect the careful study of the entire program of veterans' educational benefits which you have made. In this respect I believe the bill is well-designed to prevent some of the abuses which crept into the operation of earlier veterans legislation.

Having been intimately associated with higher education, and with special interest in the education of veterans since 1946, it is my personal belief that our country would be well-served by the passage of a bill of this type. There have been several studies which have clearly brought out the fact that many veterans after World War II would not have pursued specialized training or higher education had it not been for the assistance afforded them under the laws enacted by the Congress. For most of these veterans the benefits created the possibility of attaining an educational level that had seemed a hopelessly unattainable goal before their war service.

I am sure it has never been necessary to argue the values of a well-educated citizenry. This has been a keystone of American democracy. With the everincreasing demands of world participation, as well as our breathtaking strides in technological development, the need for the highest possible level of education in all fields is self-evident. From all sides we continue to hear the demand for young men and women with specialized skills and higher education in all lines of human endeavor.

It has been said that our most precious natural resource is to be found in the educated intelligence of our citizens. Certainly unless this natural resource is developed as widely as possible, we cannot hope to exploit fully the potential of our physical resources. By the same token, we cannot continue our position of world leadership without a citizenry which is conscious of its human responsibilities and knowledgeable in the pursuit of international understanding and amity.

Although we refer to S. 1138 as a peacetime bill, in actuality we must never lose sight of the fact that the men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces are participants in a cold war which has had at times all the features of a shooting war. And with the universal uncertainties and anxieties caused by the unwillingness of certain countries to avow by act as well as word their peaceful intentions, there has never been a moment of guarantee that the cold war would not give way to a hot war. In this light, it seems to me that a national obligation to those who have served and are serving through this period is just as real as it may have been in 1945.

It is considerations such as I have suggested above that lead me to suggest to you that the passage of a bill such as S. 1138 would be a proper recognition both of the service to our country and the benefit to our country that would result from the uses of the bill by the men and women affected.

With your permission I should like to comment a bit more extensively upon section 1962 of subchapter VII of the bill, dealing with educational and vocational counseling. Here, though I am not authorized to do so, I believe I speak the minds of the vast majority of professionally qualified persons in urging that the present bill be modified so as to include provisions for counseling similar to those set forth in Public Law 634, the War Orphans Educational Assistance Act. In Public Law 634 the provision is that counseling will be required but that the orphan and the parent or guardian are not required to follow the counselor's recommendation. It seems to me that in this provision Congress achieved an admirable and wholly desirable solution of the problem which I know was one of your earlier concern; namely, the fear that the requirement of counseling might appear to be a limitation of personal rights.

As the provision for counseling has operated in Public Law 634, no restriction of individual rights has been placed. Rather, the important object has been the exposure of the individual seeking training to a learning experience in which he is able, with competent professional assistance, to evaluate his own potentialities and limitations, the various educational and vocational opportunities open to him, and in the final analysis, to make his own choices. In ths light, counseling may extend rather than limit personal rights insofar as the veteran would be acting on more complete information about himself and his opportunities than he would otherwise have. There would be the further assurance that veterans would be given complete advice as to their benefits available. This would be particularly true relative to cutoff dates and other benefits to which they might be entitled under the law.

Even under current legislation we are still observing considerable of the exploratory experiences which proved wasteful of the veteran's eligibility. I know from our conversations that you have been greatly concerned with the amount of such energy and dollar waste that resulted under earlier forms of legislation. At least, with the provision of counseling, some insurance would be provided that the best possible effort on the behalf of the Veterans' Administration would have been made for the veteran.

A simple translation of this in dollar terms can be seen in the case of a single veteran without dependents who could receive $110 per month for 36 months under the provisions of S. 1138. This represents a total of $3,960. The cost of counseling such a veteran might average about $75. There is ample evidence to show that objectives selected with the assistance of counseling are far more apt to remain permanent objectives, and that the educational achievement of counseled students is significantly superior to that of uncounseled students. The investment in counseling, at a cost of about 2 percent of the cost of tbe investment in the veterans education, is a small insurance premium indeed when evaluated in the light of the potential cost of the entire program, should this bill pass.

In the final analysis, the veteran still would have the right to decide whether or not to accept the counselor's recommendation under the provicion such as I have proposed. It would actually protect the veteran's interests in giving him ! assurance that he will not waste the substance of the benefits provided him in chasing educational and vocational will-o'-the-wisps which will not, in the long run, provide him with constructive lifetime satisfactions.

I am reliably informed that counseling service available in a community has frequently served as a deterrent to the creation of phony or submarginal types of schools. It is generally the practice of counselors to visit such facilities and inspect them at firsthand in order to determine whether their program will meet a particular kind of need. The school which is not operating at a fully legitimate level does not welcome such visitation and in this sense the counseling require ment could serve as additional protection of the veterans' educational opportunities.

Although I can document this final statement only on the basis of many conversations with veterans who benefited from the original GI bill and the Korean bill, I believe that the enactment of S. 1138 would do much to enhance the longer period of military service, and hence the value of the program in the national interest. I would predict that many young men would willingly extend their service to the full 2-year period or longer with the knoweldge that upon discharge they would have the benefits of an assured educational program. Rather than being an unwelcome interruption of normal lifetime pursuits, the necessary and required military service would become a means for opening educational opportunity to many who now see it as unattainable.

I am deeply grateful to you for giving me this chance to voice these views to you and hope that I have been of some assistance. If I can help in any other way, I hope you will call upon me. With all good wishes, I remain, Very sincerely yours,

DANIEL D. FEDER, Dean of Students. The CHAIRMAN. Our first witness will be Senator Ralph Yarborough, who is the author of the Senate bill, and certainly I want to commend him for the work he did on the Senate bill. I do not think, Ralph, we would be holding these hearings over here if it had not been for the work you did.

Mr. SMITH. Good or bad.
The CHAIRMAN. Good or bad, he is responsible for it.
With that, Ralph, we will be glad to hear from you.

« PreviousContinue »