« PreviousContinue »
rolled in other institutions. The veteran enrolled in other than an institution of higher learning does not have to place in the upper half of his class to continue receiving a grant for education, while the veteran enrolled in an institution of higher learning may be placed on a loan basis if his standing in the class falls below the upper half.
The bill and present law are both in need of clarification regarding the payment of $1 for monthly reports from schools.
Section 1954, “Approval of nonaccredited courses," as in chapter 33, makes no provision for the approval of correspondence courses, If courses pursued exclusively by correspondence are to be included in the program, it is suggested that criteria for their approval be included.
Section 4 of the bill would extent to post-Korean conflict veterans the loan benefits now available to World War II and Korean conflict veterans under chapter 37 of title 38 of the code by the addition of a new section 1818 and other amendments to this chapter. The benefits would include the guarantee of home loans, farm loans, and loans to refinance certain types of delinquent indebtedness.
Under the provisions proposed each veteran obtaining a guaranteed or direct loan would be required to pay in advance to the Administrator a fee not to exceed one-half of 1 percent of the total loan amount. Within this limitation, the amount of the fee would be established by the Administrator periodically and deposited to the Treasury to the credit of a mortgage guarantee fund which would be created under the amendments.
It is indeterminable as to whether even the maximum allowable fee of one-half of 1 percent would be adequate to cover the costs of claims and other transactions related to these guaranteed loans.
In comparing the fees that would be paid on a $10,000 small home loan when guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of the bill with the fees that would be paid on a similar loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration, it appears that, regardless of the terms of the mortgage, the maximum fee payable under the bill would be $50.
On the other hand, the total fees payable on an FHA insured loan would be about $760 if the term of the mortgage was 25 years and about $895 if the term was 30 years. FHA insurance premiums are computed at the rate of one-half of 1 percent per year on the declining balance of the mortgage.
We believe that consideration should be given to amending the provisions of section 4 so as to provide that all costs related to the administration of the loan program would be borne by the guarantee fund and that such costs would be considered by the Administrator in establishing the rate of the guarantee fee to be charged.
With reference to the general purposes of the bill, it would seem that the establishment of education and loan programs for peacetime veterans as proposed by the bill would likely result in making these benefits available to a great majority of all our citizens, men and women, who may enter military service.
Under Public Laws 78–16, 78–346, and 82-550 the Congress considered it appropriate to provide such benefits to veterans who, by reason of their military service during war periods, were in need of assistance in readjusting themselves to civilian life during a period of economic instability.
The same degree of economic instability does not exist today. During wartime the normal activities of those called into service are seriously disrupted, whereas during peacetime many individuals may enter the service at an age when their college training has been or could have been completed. Also the available arrangements for military service provide so many alternatives that an individual may plan his program in such a way as to obtain his education either before entering or, in part, while in service.
If the proposed bill should become law, it seems likely there would be a tendency for young men and women to enter the service following completion of high school, rather than enter a college or other training facility, in order to gain the advantage of receiving education or training at Government expense after ther discharge from service.
There might develop, as a result of making these benefits available generally, a greater tendency, not only on the part of those entering the service, but also on the part of those who are already serving in the Armed Forces, to leave after they have served the minimum period required to earn their desired entitlement.
It seems illogical to provide assitance in the form of a gratuitous benefit which, with respect to many who may become eligible for military service, might cause them to change their normal programs for attaining their education, vocational, or professional objectives, or which might encourage those in the career service of the Armed Forces to curtail or terminate their periods of service, in order to receive financial assistance from the Government.
The element of cost is a factor in the proposed legislation. The Veterans Administration estimates the cost of the education and training program at about $3 billion for the period 1961 through 1973 and a peak annual cost of about $379 million.
Under the provisions of S. 1138, a veteran with no dependents would recive $110 per month, and a veteran with two or more dependents would receive $160 per month, while in full-time training.
Since S. 1138 provides 11,2 days of training for each day of service, a veteran can gain the 36 months of full-time training by being in service for 24 months. The total payment to a veteran without dependents would be a maximum of $3,960 and to a veteran with two or more dependents a maximum of $5,760. Converting these maximums to a monthly rate while in service indicates that the veterans without dependents could receive $165 in educational assistance for each month of service and the veteran with two or more dependents could receive $240 for each month of service.
That concludes our statement, Mr. Chairman. We will be glad to work with the committee and the staff in perfecting the legislation if
Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Nelson, thank you for testifying.
You talk about the training and discharge and incentive to leave the service. Is not one of the purposes of the draft to create a large body of organized trained men who have the training back in civilian life ready for emergencies?
Mr. NELSON. I would expect that would be one of the objectives, that you first have them in for training and in readiness for action and that as they move back into civilian life they are partly trained and as time goes on they are less and less trained, of course.
Mr. GEORGE. Of course you mentioned also that there might be an incentive for someone to enter the armed services in order to get the training.
Mr. NELSON. Yes.
Mr. GEORGE. There should not be any objection to that; should there?
Mr. NELSON. No, except this: I think there would be a tendency, Mr. Chairman, for the younger men and probably the parents to encourage them to enter service following high school, to gain the military experience and to follow it with free educational benefits provided under this bill.
I think now there is a tendency for many of the men who ar able to do so to get their education first and then move into the service. To me that would seem to be an advantage to the military services to have college graduates entering the service rather than men fresh out of high school.
Mr. GEORGE. I think there is one other question I would like to ask you.
Congressman Wayne Hays of Ohio told me the other day he introduced a bill to provide such benefits for children of veterans that did not use them. What is your opinion on that?
Mr. NELSON. Well, I believe each year there is one or more bills of that character introduced whereby the entitlement that a veteran has not used could in turn be passed on to his children. Of course if that were possible it would be rather a costly program as we could all recognize. I believe there were about 7,800,000 men who took advantage of some educational opportunity under World War II programs which would leave in the neighborhod of 10 million men who did not take advantage of it and many of the 7 million who took only partial advantage. Therefore, extending the entitlement to their children would probably be more costly than it was to extend it to the men themselves, because there is more unused entitlement available than was consumed.
Mr. GEORGE. We certainly thank you for coming.
Mr. Nelson. No, unless there are questions with respect to matters with which they are familiar.
Mr. GEORGE. If it were not for the lateness of the hour, I think we would have a lot of questions.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. GEORGE. It is my understanding that there are gentlemen from Texas that our distinguished chairman wanted to give a chance to be heard, representing the Texas Coordinators of Vocational Education.
Mr. Charles L. Still is the president of that organization.
Mr. Still, I wonder if you will identify yourself and introduce the gentlemen with you.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. STILL, PRESIDENT (ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE S. GANDY AND JAMES V. YEATES), TEXAS COORDINATORS OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
Mr. STILL. Mr. Chairman, I am Charles Still of Whitman, Tex.
I am president of the Texas Coordinators of Vocational Education Association.
I have with me on my right Mr. George Gandy from Wheeler County, Tex., and Mr. James Yeates from Jasper County, Tex.
By the way, we represent a pretty fair segment of Texas. There is some 600 miles difference in our locations.
We came here not prepared to testify but after sitting in a day or two we thought there were some remarks that we would like to make.
Mr. GEORGE. We would like to have you do so.
Mr. Srill. We represent the veterans who trained on the below college level primarily.
Of course our association is made up of administrators, county superintendents, and coordinators of individual counties who are in this veterans' training program.
We wish to go on record as being in support of legislatoin to further education to these so-called peacetime veterans.
It is our opinon or the association's opinon that the veterans that we are training and have trained would not receive any technical training in the skills and trades if it were not for or had not been for Public Law 550 or the old 346 law.
We have found in Texas that we have employment problems from boys who have been discharged from the services but invariably we have found it is the employment problems from veterans who have no skill or, in othher words, no training in a skill or profession.
We also endorse Mr. Wohlford's statements that he come forth from the National Association of State Approval Agencies.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, we were not prepared to testify but we would welcome any questions that any of the committee may have that they would like to direct to us at this time.
Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Adair, do you have any questions?
Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Still, I know you could answer any question we asked. Because of the lateness of the hour, I think we will refrain.
I know that our chairman, Mr. Teague, is very sorry he could not be hereto see you in person and I wish that we could have been.
We thank you for coming. We appreciate having your opinion in
Mr. GEORGE. The next meeting of the committee will be Tuesday, March 1, when the national commander of the American Legion will appear before the committee to present the legislative program of the Legion.
That will be in the caucus room.
(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Friday, February 26, 1960, the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday March 1, 1960.)
READJUSTMENT BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS ENTERING THE ARMED SERVICES AFTER JANUARY 31, 1955
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1960
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 356, Old House Office Building, Hon. James M. Quigley presiding.
Mr. QUIGLEY. The committee will please come to order.
Without objection a resolution adopted by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States at their regular meeting on February 8, 1960, signed by Ernie A. Carima, commander, Post 3034, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Sumter, S.C., will be made a part of the record.
(The resolution follows:)
A resolution to the Senators and Members of Congress from South Carolina to urge them to support the bill passed by the Senate in the last session extending benefits, without any loan amendments, beyond the January 31, 1955, as set by the President.
Whereas it is believed that as long as the draft is continued that all persons in the Armed Forces should be extended the educational benefits that were granted to veterans serving prior to February 1, 1955; and
Whereas it has been established by reliable statistics that the investment in education for our own American youth will be more than repaid to the Public Treasury through increased taxes, resulting from higher incomes earned by such veterans; and
Whereas many veterans will be able to further their education through the benefits of the veterans education program: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Post 3034, in regular business meeting, That we urge the delegation from South Carolina to support the extension of G.I. education benefits to all veterans who entered, or who will enter, military service from and after February 1, 1955, and that such benefits be extended as long as the provision of the draft law shall exist; be it further
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, a copy be mailed to Hon. Olin D. Johnston, Hon. Strom Thurmond, Senators for South Carolina, and House Members, Hon. Lucius Mendel Rivers, Hon. John J. Riley, Hon. William J. Bryan Dorn (vice chairman, Veterans Affairs Committee), Hon. Robert T. Ashmore, Hon. Robert W. Hemphill, and Hon. John L. McMillan.
(S) ERNIE A. CARIMA, Commander, Post 3034, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,
Sumter, s.c. Mr. QUIGLEY. Without objection we will insert in the record a letter from Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc., dated February 25, 1960.