Page images

Mr. Adair. Therefore, then, just to get back to a point which you made a little while ago, you do feel that if any legislation is enacted it ought not to contain the provision relating to granting special benefits to those in the upper half, scholastically?

Mr. RILEY. No; we do not. I was hoping to make it clear that the Long amendment, which is the essence of what you are talking about there, is included in 1138 as passed.

I might say this: We have supported in the past on the Senate side in the Judiciary Committee the Smathers bill. I forget the number of it. It changes with the Congresses. It would divert $100 million from former enemy vested assets to the use of the veterans' children, 2 or 3 year groups. And originally that was for scholarships. It would come off the proceeds of the $100 million that would be invested for that purpose.

Now, that is a specialized bill. That does not get into the basic things, such as this does.

We supported that primarily because it is scholarship and fellowships. But we also said it should not be confined only to veterans, because the skills, the talents, and the ingenuity, are to be found wherever you can locate them, rather than in a restricted area.

But it did not start out as that, and we certainly would not oppose it if it were contined to that, but we did suggest that it be elaborated to include others than veterans.

But as for scholarships in this, I do not think it is part of the piece. It seems to peak up to fine points there, and I do not think that is what you are looking for, really. I think it is a reward handed out to all concerned on an equal basis.

Now, if you can use that as a premise to build and become scholars, all right. Fine and good. I do not think, though, that the Government as such, from the Treasury, wants to develop scholarships as such as this kind of legislation.

Mr. ADAIR. A basic question which must be in the minds of each of us is : Ought we to extend this type of benefit to the so-called peacetime veteran? Ought we to extend it from those who served in time of war to those who served in time of peace? · Obviously, that is probably the basic question involved, as we consider this type of legislation.

Mr. RILEY. Yes.
Mr. ADAIR. What is your thought upon that question?

Mr. Riley. Well, it is pretty much as I tried to get into earlier in the discussion. It is hard to say who is going to be peacetime when it comes out and who wartime. We do not know whether this world is going to be set on fire 5 minutes from now or 5 years from now.

You might as well try to make a line of demarcation in wartime between the man who went abroad as an expeditionary force member and the man who stayed back here. There is always that discussion that comes up, “Well, what is he getting the same for as this man got?” He did not go over and face the guns. Nobody was on standby. He was on a ready basis. He was on command to go wherever and whenever. And it is the same thing in this, as I said.

Mr. ADAIR. So that the answer to the question would be that it is your opinion and the opinion of your organization that benefits ought to be extended to peacetime veterans?

[blocks in formation]

Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAIR. I grant you that it is difficult to say from 1 minute to the next when we will be in a period of hot war as opposed to a period of cold war. But you have got a man who served his period of time. He has served it in a period of the cold war. He has not participated in a hot war. As to that man, we know what has service has been. We know that he has not had wartime service.

But it would be your thinking that he should be given benefits of this sort ?

Mr. RILEY. Because he will have discharged his obligations in the line in which the Government has laid down the premise, and whether it is picturesque or spectacular, or whatever it is, he has answered the call and come out with his discharge.

Mr. SAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield for an observation? Mr. Riley, I might say in Pennsylvania, in paying the bonus to World War II and Korean veterans, they did make a very definite distinction between the people who served overseas and the people who served in this country. They paid, if my memory serves me correctly, $10 a month for every month of service in the United States, and $15 a month for service overseas.

Mr. Riley. But if we go back to the national bonus, maybe Mrs. Rogers would be a better judge of this: Whether we separated them on that basis or the national. Then you have a premise to go on, of


Mr. ADAIR. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Haley. I might say that it is my opinion that in all of our wars we have made differences between the man who actually saw battle service and the man who did not.

Mr. Riley. I would not want to suggest that you give a certain number of months to this man and a certain number to this one. I am sure you could make your own discoveries as you go along.

Mr. ADAIR. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, there is the question of just sheer physical danger to the individual in the time of a hot war. If a man is in a combat area, he is exposed to a greater physical danger than he would be no matter where he was assigned in the time of a cold war. And that, I think, must be one of the factors in our minds, again.

Is this something you put in the scales to weigh, as you consider legislation of this kind ?

Mr. RILEY. Seeking to be on the side of right on this is going to be quite a problem, I know.

Mr. Haley. Would the gentleman yield to me just for this observation.

If what we hear from our military leaders and the leaders of the Nation is correct, probably a man in service in future wars will be in a less hazardous position than even the civilian population. So I do not know where you are going to stop in this thing, because with the engines of destruction that we have developed here in the last few years, the entire population of the world is going to be in the front lines, so to speak.

Mr. Riley. We could even go to the point of saying that only those who went to outer space and came back would be entitled to certain

emoluments, and those who stayed here had not fully performed their duties.

Mr. HALEY. Any further questions?
The gentlelady from Massachusetts.

Mrs. Rogers. Mr. Riley, I unfortunately was late in coming in, and so I did not hear all of your very valuable testimony. But I gathered that you would like to have the bill as simple as possible for the


Mr. Riley. Yes; involvement just adds regulation on regulation and red tape on red tape.

Mrs. ROGERS. If we could get away from this horrible confusion and discrimination, taking care of this person and that person and the other person, training this person to be a great scientist, when he may not have it in him

I think they all ought to have a chance. Mr. Riley. You are well known for having generous feelings. Mrs. Rogers. I agree with you 100 percent in having a simple bill. Mr. Riley. Thank you. We are with you.

Mrs. ROGERS. I would like to have the Korean war bill continued, and I wish you would give me your advice on it.

Mr. Riley. That is the crux of our statement. Well, no; we did not say the Korean war.

I joined Mr. Haley a while ago, and you now, in saying it is new thinking so far as I am concerned, but offhand it seems to me that is the simple way to approach it.

Mrs. ROGERS. You have this person over here thinking this, and this candidate over here running for Presidency thinking that, and this person running for the Presidency thinking something else. It is extremely confusing, and I think it is terribly hard for the men going into the service.

Mr. RILEY. Language gets us into trouble, I think. So the simplest is the best.

Mrs. Rogers. We are very glad to get your advice.
Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Kansas has a question.

Mr. GEORGE. I would like to ask you, Mr. Riley: You said that no needs test should be applied to the veteran. Would you carry that over into the pension field, as well! I am thinking of World War I pensions.

Mr. RILEY. That is another question in itself. You would have to give me a little time to look at that one, surely.

However, offhand, I would say no; I do not think a needs test should be applied.

In other words, I do not think the benefits, under the veterans' system, are so great that the amount that you receive—and I have had occasion lately to have some secondary experience in that field-is so important as to need to create a needs test.

Mr. GEORGE. Now, a number of committees, some of them appointed by the President, have determined that we are way behind in the field of education, probably at least a decade or more. In addition to being of benefit to the veteran individually, do you not believe that this bill would be of great importance to the country as a whole?

Mr. RILEY. It certainly would elevate the intellectual level of the country, and I think it would have a chain reaction.

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you very much.

Mrs. ROGERS. May I ask one question? Are you going to have trouble providing the schools? Mr. Riley. That is a very delicately balanced subject. I think the committee is meeting on that bill today.

I do not know. I have not had a chance to take a reading with them today, Mrs. Rogers. But there is always difficulty:

Mrs. ROGERS. It is a terrific problem, I have found.
Mr. HALEY. No more questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Riley. We were glad to have you before the committee this morning.

Mr. Riley. I hope I have contributed something worthwhile, at least.

Vr. HALEY. We are glad to have your advice and counsel. We always need counsel and advice here in the Congress.

Mr. Riley. That is very kind of you. Mr. HALEY. Is there anyone here representing the Young Farmers of Virginia !

Mr. Perrow was supposed to testify. He is not here?

We have a communication from Senator Roman L. Hruska, of Nebraska, enclosing a telegram from Governor Brooks of Nebraska. The letter and telegram will be inserted in the record at this point. (The letter and telegram follow :)


February 23, 1960.
Chairman, Veterans Affairs Committee,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JR. CHAIRMAN : In connection with the hearings which your committee is undertaking today, I am sending for appropriate reference the enclosed telegram from the Governor of Nebraska, Ralph G. Brooks, Kind regards. Sincerely,

U.S. Senator, Nebraska.

LINCOLN, NEBR., February 17, 1960. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

With reference to committee hearings held on February 16 I again urge favor. able action in the matter of extending educational benefits to our youth who entered the armed services subsequent to January 31, 19.55. Any assistance given these young men and women to iniprove their status through the medium of education and training represents an investment that will bear dividends in the continued progress and security of the Nation.


Gorernor, State of Nebraxki. Mrs. Rogers. What is the program for tomorrow?

Mr. HALEY. Tomorrow you are to have the Fleet Reserve Association, the Bureau of the Budget, the General Accounting Office, and the National Association of State Approval Agencies. That completes the agenda for the day. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to recon vene at 10 o'clock, Friday, February 26, 1960.)




Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 356, Old House Office Building, Hon. W. J. Bryan Dorn presiding.

Mr. DORN. The committee will come to order.

The chairman of the committee has received a letter dated February 26, 1960, enclosing statements by M. D. Mobley, executive secretary of the American Vocational Association; Dr. Kenneth E. Carl, director of the Williamsport Technical Institute, a division of the school district of the city of Williamsport, Pa., Ray C. Perrow, president, Young Farmers of Virginia; and John Fusaro, Jr., Veteran of World War II, trained under Public Law 346 by the school district of Philadelphia, Pa.

This letter from the American Vocational Association, Inc., also requests that a statement by Cola D. Watson, State supervisor of agricultural education, State department of education, Montpelier, Vt., be made a part of the record.

Without objection, these statements will be inserted in the record. (The statements follow:)



Washington, D.C., February 26, 1960. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.O.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE: Enclosed are statements from the American Vocational Association which we hope you will include in the hearings on the veterans' benefit bills, including S. 1138, now being considered before the House Veterans Affairs Committee. These statements include:

1. Brief statement by M. D. Mobley, executive secretary of the American Vocational Association.

2. Statement by Dr. Kenneth E. Carl, director of the Williamsport Technical Institute, a division of the school district of the city of Williasmport, Pa.

3. Statement by Ray C. Perrow, president, Young Farmers of Virginia, Route 3, Lynchburg, Va.

4. Statement by John Fusaro, Jr., Veteran of World War II, trained under Public Law 346 by the school district of Philadelphia, Pa.

We would also appreciate it if you would include the statement directly sub mitted to your committee by Mr. Cola D. Watson, State supervisor of agricultural education, State department of education, Montpelier, Vt., along with the statements we are submitting herewith. Mr. Watson is a member of the AVA and his statement is in accord with the policies of our association.

« PreviousContinue »