Mr. HALEY. The next witnesses are from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, headed by Dr. Lawrence G. Derthick.

We are glad to have you before the committee this morning, and of course you have some of your colleagues with you. If you will identify yourself and your colleagues for the record, then you may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE G. DERTHICK, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WEL FARE (ACCOMPANIED BY RALPH C. M. FLYNT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATIVE AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; J. HAROLD GOLDTHORPE, DIVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, OFFICE OF EDUCATION; AND CHARLES W. RADCLIFFE, LEGISLATIVE REPORTS AND REFERENCE SECTION, OFFICE OF EDUCATION)

Dr. DERTHICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Lawrence G. Derthick, and I am the U.S. Commissioner of Education, in the Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and I have with me Ralph C. M. Flynt, who is the Assistant Commissioner for Legislative and Program Development, J. Harold Goldthorpe, of the Division of Higher Education in the Office of Education, and Charles W. Radcliffe, of the Legislative Reports and Reference Section of the Office of Education.

We just had your chief State school officer, Dr. Bailey, helping us in the last couple of days.

Mr. HALEY. We think very highly of him down in my part of the

country.

Dr. DERTHICK. We do, also.

Certainly I am very glad to appear before you today, Mr. Chairman, and I have a brief prepared statement. I would like to read it, and then after that my associates and I will endeavor to answer any questions that you or the members of the committee may have.

It is my understanding that we have been requested to testify concerning S. 1138 (in the House), a bill "To provide readjustment assistance to veterans who serve in the Armed Forces between January 31, 1955, and July 1, 1963." Essentially, this bill would extend, with certain modifications, the education and training provisions of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952. The bill passed the Senate on July 21, 1959.

S. 1138 would provide education and training benefits for those who served in the Armed Forces between January 31, 1955, and July 1, 1963. These provisions are substantially identical to those of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, except in the two following particulars: (1) An eligible veteran would be required to serve at least 180 days in the Armed Forces to qualify for educational benefits; and (2) educational benefit payments would be made in the form or a grant during the first year of the ex-serviceman's enrollment. in an institution of higher education, thereafter in order to continue to receive the grant the veteran would be required to maintain a

scholastic average sufficient to place him in the upper half of his class.

Should an ex-serviceman fail to maintain such standing he would not be eligible for a similar grant in the following year. He would be authorized, however, to receive such allowance on a loan basis, if he so elects. In the event that the veteran improved his scholastic average and placed in the upper half of his class, the Veterans' Administration, upon application would be required to cancel the amount of his loan and to pay him the difference, if any, between the amount of the loan and the amount of the grant he might otherwise have received. The allowances for an academic year range from $990 for a single veteran to $1,440 for veterans with more than one dependent. Insofar as the provisions of this bill relate to the comparability of benefits to veterans under the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 and other related and similar acts and the maintenance of an adequate supply of military manpower by the Defense Department, they do not fall within the purview of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We desire, therefore, to defer to the Department of Defense and to the Veterans' Administration_in connection with such relationships.

Section 3, subchapter VII, of S. 1138 (in the House) would extend the provisions of existing vocational rehabilitation programs on the same basis as the provisions heretofore provided for veterans of World War II and the Korean conflict. The President, in his budget message of January 18, 1960, has endorsed the principle of extending vocational rehabilitation services to the group of veterans of peacetime services as a permanent program to go hand-in-hand with disability compensation. The Department, therefore, is prepared to concur in the recommendation of the President.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, except in relation to section 3 of S. 1138 (in the House) referred to above, is unable to recommend favorably concerning the extension of the educational benefits for veterans as proposed in S. 1138 (in the House). The purpose of the educational benefits provided under the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 was to provide for— Vocational readjustment and restoring lost educational opportunities to those service men and women whose educational or vocational ambitions have been interrupted or impeded by reason of active service in the Armed Forces during a period of national emergency.

It is our understanding that at the present time young men are not being inducted into the Armed Forces below the age of 22 years. This age is at or just above the average age of those graduating from United States' colleges. Furthermore, the regulations of the selective service permit the deferment of military obligations on the part of college students. These regulations permit the deferment of military obligations at least until graduation and in some instances permit. continued deferment for graduate or professional work.

Moreover, the Department of Defense states that under the Reserve Forces Act of 1955 there are more than 30 ways whereby a young man may choose to fulfill his military service obligations. Many of the options thus provided under the Reserve Forces Act make it possible for the individual student to complete his educational program prior to rendering military service.

52087 0-60- 16

It appears to us, therefore, that the present selective service regulations and the Reserve Forces Act of 1955 contain provisions which are adequate to permit a young man to synchronize his military service with his educational or vocational plans without serious detriment to the latter.

While we have not made a detailed study of the impact of the foregoing provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act and of the Reserve Forces Act, we do not have available information which indicates that the educational or vocational plans of young men are at this time being unduly interrupted or impeded by reason of their required service in the Armed Forces. Certainly we would question whether the proposed legislation would fulfill the principles quoted above which were basic in the mind of Congress in passing the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952.

It is our judgment that the educational and vocational needs of young men subject to military service during peacetime should be considered as a part of the immediate and broader problem which involves the educational needs of all our young men and women. We would, of course, make a distinction in the case of men whose service was for the duration of war or a period of hostilities. Such men could not control either their time of induction or their length of service as can be done under present laws and regulations issued thereunder.

It is particularly important during this period when we are undergoing a shortage of young manpower that we consider the educational needs of the entire group of youth, including young women. It is of interest to note that we have several hundred thousand fewer young people aged 18 to 21 in 1960 than we had in 1940 when our population was only 132 million. Our population is now more than 175 million. We shall not again return to the same level of population in the 18to 21-year-old group which obtained in 1940 until the end of 1960.

In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw your attention and that of your colleagues to recommendation No. 54(b) of the final report of the President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, which states in part:

Educational benefits for ex-servicemen should not be used, on a long-term basis, as a means for meeting national educational needs. The broader national interest in adequate education, particularly at the higher levels, should be considered on a general basis which will take into account the abilities and needs of all young people, including ex-servicemen.

These broader needs have been given intensive consideration during the past several years by the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School and by the President's Committee for the Development of Scientists and Engineers. Moreover, many States and private associations and organizations have conducted surveys and studies in these areas of concern.

The most important consideration which has taken place in the development of a program for the fullest utilization of our young manpower on a broad basis is contained in the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

The National Defense Education Act is based upon the premise that the Federal Government, in the national interest, must assist State and local educational agencies and private and public institutions of higher learning to remedy certain educational deficiencies detrimental to the

national security. Thus, this act is concerned with the broader national interest in improved education. It is concerned with the need to recognize and develop the abilities of our students without regard to whether or not they have had military service.

We are strongly convinced that this broad approach-rather than the singling out for benefits of those who have had military service— is in the best interest of education, and best serves all our young men and women whose abilities are needed by the Nation.

Under the student loan program authorized by title II of the National Defense Education Act, loans with very liberal terms are authorized for needy students, including veterans. A recent estimate of the 1,365 participating institutions indicates that approximately 100,000 needy students will be aided by this program in the current fiscal year.

There is also available from other sources, including the States, corporations and business firms, and voluntary agencies, as well as the colleges themselves, a substantial volume of both scholarship and loan assistance for college students. Since 1956, four States California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island-have enacted substantial State scholarship programs for needy superior students. In a similar fashion seven States Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wyoming-have adopted legislation for student loan guarantee programs. In the oldest of these guarantee programs, that of Massachusetts, bank loans totaling $2.5 million have been approved and guaranteed for approximately 4,800 college students, a third of whom were veterans. The New York guarantee program has approved loans totaling $5.5 million to 9,000 college students.

There are indications that there will be substantial increases in student loan and scholarship funds in the coming decade to meet the needs of deserving students. It is our earnest hope that with the experience of another year or two with the national defense student loan program we shall have more complete data concerning how effectively this need is being met.

Another National Defense Education Act program relevant to this inquiry is the area vocational educational program authorized by title VIII of the act. The act authorizes the appropriation by the Federal Government of $60 million, to be matched dollar for dollar by the States, over a 4-year period to assist in the development of area vocational education programs designed to provide training and retraining for youths and adults of a technical or scientific character. These programs are, of course, available to ex-servicemen.

It is our judgment that, during periods of peacetime, consideration should be given by the Federal Government to assisting in the development of the broadest possible pool of trained manpower. We consider the National Defense Education Act an important contribution to this principle and believe that future programs should be developed on this basis.

For these reasons, we are opposed in principle to a further extension of the period of eligibility for veterans' education and training benefits beyond January 31, 1955. There are, moreover, additional objections to the particular bill before the committee. In our judgment, the partial loan, partial grant, feature of this bill-based upon aca

demic standing-is neither sound in philosophy nor equitable in application.

If academic standing is to determine whether an ex-serviceman is to receive a grant (I refer here to the requirement that the student be in the upper half of his class after the first year in order to receive a grant), this bill is a scholarship bill. We reiterate our belief— stated many times before the Congress that any Federal program of undergraduate scholarships should provide (1) that the assistance be based upon financial need, (2) that scholarships should be available on a competitive basis to all high school graduates, and (3) that such a program should be administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare through the Office of Education.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like also to point out that the requirement of academic standing in order to receive a grant would apply only to college students and would not be required of ex-servicemen who pursue courses of training below the college level or who undertook on-the-job or on-the-farm training. This also represents unequal treatment of those who would be eligible to receive benefits under S. 1138.

A purely technical, but very important, objection to the grant-loan feature of S. 1138 (in the House) is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to treat ex-servicemen equitably in the matter of class standing. For example, three sophomores in a university might be pursuing, respectively, their courses of study in liberal arts, engineering, and agriculture. Under the terms of this bill, the engineering student might be in the upper half as compared to other engineering students but still not be in the "upper half of his class." He would be denied a grant. Nor would equity be achieved by determining class standing only with respect to a particular course of study because the same amount of effort and ability exerted in one college within a university might result in a different class standing when applied in another college in the same university. This kind of unequal treatment among ex-servicemen would be even more pronounced at the professional and graduate school levels, where nearly all the students enrolled would come from the upper half, or even upper third, or their undergraduate classes. Yet half of the graduate and professional school ex-servicemen would be denied a grant despite a caliber of performance superior to many undergraduate students who are receiving the grant.

We would not wish it to be thought that we are in any way oblivious to the effect of a period of military service which young people are called upon to render to our country. However, I have already pointed out that under Selective Service regulations and under the Reserve Forces Act young men are essentially able to complete their program of education prior to entering the military service. Moreover, American higher education today is faced with some very difficult problems due to the ever-increasing pressure of enrollments. These problems must be solved if the Nation is to have the highly educated men and women it requires for its very survival. The graduate fellowship program of the National Defense Education Act is aimed at increasing the number of fully qualified teachers available to our colleges. The President has also recommended legislation to provide Federal grant assistance for the construction of all types of