The veterans readjustment assistance bills before you simply provide for an investment. The legislation is an expression of faith in America's young men and women. It is a living insurance program for the future.

I strongly support this legislation, Mr. Chairman, and urge this committee to give it a favorable report.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing today. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Elliott, for your statement.

We will next hear from Hon. William H. Meyer, Congressman at Large, State of Vermont.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. MEYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Mr. MEYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in favor of the GI bill legislation now under consideration by this committee. I am generally in accord with the principles of assistance embodied in the related bills before you. The proposed educational and job-training assistance, vocational rehabilitation help, and loan assistance to post-Korean veterans would help to remedy the inequities which exist under our present draft law and would be a constructive move toward easing the transition from Army to civilian life.

Along with many others, I have spoken before concerning the inequities of our present draft system. I do not intend to take the time here to discuss these in detail, but I do want to point out that I strongly favor adequate pay scales for inductees and men in the lower ranks of the armed services.

If such wages were comparable to those received in civilian life, we might be able to recruit on a volunteer basis for all branches of the armed services and certainly would have higher reenlistment rates. This would provide better defense for the country and possibly promote economy in the long run.

Actually, I recommend a just system that would eliminate the need for the special benefits now proposed. However, such changes have not been made and until they are and as long as the draft is continued, I believe that we have a moral responsibility to support legislation of this type. Such assistance is not a giveway to veterans; it is merely delayed payment for services rendered. It is simple justice to those who serve our country.

Only a small percentage of the young men eligible for the draft are actually called. The pool of manpower is growing, as more young men reach draft age each year.

For those who are drafted, the interruption of studies and plans for a career is a serious matter. The draftee is put at a serious disadvantage compared with those who stay on in their jobs or in schools. The salary of the draftee is so low that saving for the future must be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

In addition, it has been noted that the draft is often discriminatory against those from less well-to-do families; the boy who must drop out of school in order to earn future tuition is subject to the draft, while the more affluent are deferred through college and graduate school until past the 26-year age limit.

Enactment of legislation providing educational and loan assistance to post-Korean veterans would be a positive step toward correcting these inequities. The educational and vocational help would make additional training feasible for veterans who had no outside funds. In addition, a very real benefit resulting from such a program would be the strengthening of the educational position of our country.

I would like to take a moment to point out the importance of previous legislation of this type in Vermont. There are approximately 26,000 World War II veterans, 13,000 Korean veterans, and 3,000 veterans of both Korea and World War II in Vermont. Approximately 21,500 of these veterans have participated in the educational and vocational training programs previously authorized.

I also endorse provisions to assist veterans by direct loans and loan guarantees for buying homes, farms, and livestock and farming equip

ment.

In summation, I would say that I prefer a more comprehensive solution to peacetime GI problems but that I must support these proposals in lieu of better ones because the circumstances demand that action be taken.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Meyer.

We will now hear from Representative Melvin Price of Illinois. We are delighted, Mr. Price, to have you with us this morning. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN PRICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your courtesy in granting the privilege to me of testifying on this bill that would extend to veterans of our cold-war period some of the advantages and recompenses all of us were glad to see extended to servicemen during World War II and during the Korean conflict.

I suppose that this bill, on which the other body has acted favorably, might be labeled controversial, since anything about which human beings disagree, however reasonable their differences, may be accorded that dubious and unhappy term. It would be a great pity if we allowed the label to interfere with our analysis of the merits of the bill. These merits, in my viewpoint, are substantial and commanding.

What is it that the measure sugegsts? It is simply that those young men who are either drafted into or enlist in our Armed Forces during this period of international tension be extended certain benefits in recompense for the interruption of their normal lives to serve the needs of their country.

I do not say that it is improper for their lives to be interrupted. When the Nation and society that have guarded their upbringing need their help in return, it is entirely correct that they be called

upon.

The fact remains that service is not universal and that the call. to service, for those who are drafted and very often for those who volunteer, involves an element of compulsion. We are not dealing, in considering this bill, primarily with professionals who wish to

make a military career. We are dealing with citizen soldiers, sailors, or airmen. Our society is picking them out and making it incumbent upon them, either literally or by powerful persuasion, to leave civilian life temporarily for the country's purposes. And, as all know, this obligation does not strike with equal force on all our young men.

It seems to me no more than equitable that our Government should seek to equalize matters. Indeed, it would seem that the moral argument for equalizing things is very strong.

What does the bill offer? The same type of advantages offered those in wars-a chance of an education, of a business or farm or home-buying opportunity on somewhat more generous terms than those obtainable in the marketplace. The direct-grant element would be confined to disability and to schooling, and any veteran drawing a college grant would be compelled to maintain himself in the top half of his college class. The remainder of the program envisages primarily loans repayable advances to assist in business ventures or housing of which the principal of loans would come back 100 percent to the Treasury, along with interest-and interest items seem to be mounting these days on GI loans as well as others.

I cannot see how it can be argued that it was right for us to vote GI benefits during the wars and wrong for us to vote these generally similar benefits, although less generously, to those compelled to serve during a period of so-called peace that is really tension ridden and difficult.

It is argued that a better program would be adoption of an educational loan program applicable to veterans and nonveterans alike. This may very well be true-but does anyone believe that this Congress is about to approve such a program or that, if we did, it would survive the opposition of the Bureau of the Budget? We know that it would not; we know that no such bill is going to become law. I do not see why we should have to let this bill die merely because in a purely hypothetical sense some other unattainable system would make it unnecessary. What this bill offers veterans of the cold war is something they can use in the here and now-not pie in the sky— and it is justified to them as a matter of equity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Price.

Our last congressional witness this morning is Representative Abraham J. Multer of New York.

It is a pleasure to have you here with us this morning, Mr. Multer, and you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear in support of H.R. 4807. As you know, this bill would provide vocational rehabilitation, education and training benefits, and loan guarantees for those individuals called upon to serve during the cold war.

You are also aware, I am sure, of the many efforts made by the Congress and by the Armed Forces to attract adequate manpower into our military services. Many reasons have been advanced concerning

the inability of the services to attract and retain, on a voluntary basis, sufficient personnel to supply the manpower requirements of our current military commitments. It is still necessary to induct men into the service. The number of individuals drafted during recent months is not impressive. However, there is no record of the number of individuals who, because of the draft, elect to volunteer for service. This bill makes no distinction between those who, because of the draft, volunteer for service and those who, waiting until the final day, are actually inducted. Benefits proposed by my bill should be available, without distinction, for all who serve.

There are many arguments in opposition to this legislation.

Such arguments, in my opinion, fall within five major categories. First, there are those who oppose this legislation because of the cost. This group, not yet having fully analyzed the statistics published by the Veterans' Administration, look at the estimated $500 million annual cost of these benefits. And yet, data from the Veterans' Administration shows conclusively that veterans of World War II and the Korean conflict, as a result of educational benefits, have increased their income levels so that they now pay, in additional income taxes, over $1 billion annually into the Treasury of the Nation. At this rate the entire cost of GI benefits will be paid, by those who received them, within the next few years. Thus, the initial cost, over a few short years, will be more than paid into the Treasury.

A second group of individuals oppose this legislation because of the small number who are actually subjected to induction. This group fails to recognize that many individuals facing induction, voluntarily enlist. Others, offered choice assignments, volunteer for service. For this reason the actual number entering military service because of the draft is unknown. This group fails to consider the entire problem. They refuse to face up to our national obligation-an obligation to every individual-not merely an obligation to groups large enough to exert political pressure.

A third group opposes this legislation on the basis that such benefits will induce trained personnel, personnel who have been in the service for the required 2-year period, to leave the service and accept benefits offered by this legislation. It is true that some individuals failed to reenlist so that they could avail themselves of GI benefits. It is also true that such individuals provided, and still provide, a pool of trained manpower, better trained, in some cases, because of the higher educational level attained as a result of educational benefits. These individuals are available if needed, for the security of our country. They may be lost to the military services; but only temporarily; such loss may cause concern to the services; they may not be available on a full-time basis; but they are available for the security of this Nation and they can, and will, provide trained manpower if or when needed. A fourth group opposes this legislation because it provides benefits not heretofore provided for the peacetime soldier who faces none of the hazards of war. This group points out that such benefits have in the past been reserved for those who served during periods of war. This group maintains that the peacetime inductee can anticipate the draft and plan accordingly. They say such planning was not possible by the wartime GI.

This group points out that an individual can effectively postpone being drafted by attending school, or by enrolling for the 6 months' training program. This legislation does not seek to change the law with respect to methods which can be used to delay, and in some cases, actually thwart military service. This legislation is designed to provide benefits for those who for one reason or another do not delay or postpone their obligatory services. To be a "draft dodger or patriot" is often a dilemma of a college student. Let us not continue to penalize those who choose to be patriots.

It is true that peacetime draftees do not face the hazards of war. It is also true that of the millions of men who were called into the service during World War II and the Korean conflict only a small number were actually involved in combat. And yet the GI bill did not distinguish between those who served in actual combat and those who "also" served.

The cold war has not yet ended. Men are still being inducted into the service. They too serve and deserve the benefits provided in this bill.

Finally, a number of individuals object to this legislation because there is no clear showing of need, that educational benefits should be provided for all individuals who have the capability and desire to continue their education. I agree and will support any measure which is designed to increase the educational level of our Nation. Such legislation is a must.

But the Congress has not yet enacted legislation broad enough to provide sufficient opportunities for the educational advancement of all our younger citizens. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 was a step in the right direction. I am sure it will provide opportunities for many of our youths to attain higher education. The legislation here proposed will not conflict with the objectives of that act. It will supplement the provisions of that law. It will encourage individuals to volunteer for service so that they can pay for their education by serving our country. This legislation will clearly and unmistakably serve as notice to all our youth that their obligations to serve their country is not a one-way proposition-that those who serve in the cold war are not forgotten by a grateful nation.

There are many other arguments against this legislation and I am sure you gentlemen have already heard most of them. I will not take any more of your time to point out the invalidity of them. I am sure, in your consideration of this bill, you will clearly see that those objections are not founded on a careful analysis of the benefits derived by the Nation from the GI bill of rights. Instead, if I may, I would like to point out that many of the educators of our Nation are in favor of this bill. I would also like to point out some of the benefits derived by the Nation from benefits provided by the GI bill of rights. I feel that the same, or similar benefits, will accrue from enactment of H.R. 4807.

The most important benefit to be derived from enactment of this bill seems to me to be our keeping faith with the youth of the Nation. The current draft law and obligatory service hang as a shadow over the youth of our country. Many are called, without their consent, to serve in the cold war. To them service is real. To them 2 years displacement from their friends and jobs places them at a disadvantage