directors of the national chamber twice endorsed recommendations to oppose such legislation. The recommendations and decisions were made only after careful and extensive study by chamber committees on education, national defense and Government operations and expenditures. THE QUESTIONABLE NEED Giving peacetime veterans the same benefits as those who served during times of war is a radical departure from the concept of providing war veterans with readjustment benefits upon return to civilian life. The peacetime veteran is not subject to the same disruption as the wartime veteran. Neither is his return to civilian life the same as that of a wartime veteran who faces an abnormal period immediately following the end of a conflict. His return to civilian life and resumption of his education or employment take place in a relatively calm atmosphere. He is not part of a mass demobilization, with hundreds of thousands of veterans simultaneously seeking employment or seeking entrance into schools which are already operating near their normal capacity. In addition, the peacetime veteran has the advantage of knowing far in advance when he will be discharged from the military service. Thus, he can plan his additional schooling, or his work, in an orderly fashion, with relatively little disruption to self or family. The proposal for educational assistance for peacetime veterans does not give adequate consideration to many other already existing programs assisting qualified students, including ex-servicemen. One Federal program alone, under the National Defense Education Act, is expected to make over 100,000 educational loans, totaling about $40 million, during the current fiscal year. Assistance from private, State, and Federal sources already exists in very large amounts, and has been steadily increasing. Student loans have increased fivefold in the last 5 years and are expected to finance half of the anticipated 6.4 million college students enrolled in 1970. DANGER TO ACADEMIC STANDARDS This proposed program to grant special educational benefits to peacetime veterans would jeopardize the present efforts of colleges and universities to maintain their high standards of academic proficiency. Increased demands would further overburden classroom facilities and overtax the present faculty strength. College enrollment has more than doubled since 1946. After World War II, when men began returning to the campuses (and the greatest majority of them were veterans) the Nation's college enrollment was 1,676,851. In the fall of 1959, the Office of Education enrollment figures show 3,402,297. Of this number only a small proporation were either World War II or Korean GI bill students. During the intervening years, costs of every kind have risen. Revenues received by institutions of higher learning have also increased. Nevertheless, there is a substantial gap between tuition income and operating expenses of colleges and universities. With most colleges and universities all over the country slipping further into debt in order to maintain their normally increasing student enrollments, artificial boosting of student population would destroy the precarious financial balance of many colleges. THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROGRAM While of itself the cost of a program such as envisioned in S. 1138 and similar legislation may not be the determining factor, it is certainly a point worthy of serious consideration. The Veterans' Administration has estimated that the cost of providing the type of educational assistance proposed in S. 1138 would average approximately $300 million a year for the next 10 years-a total of about $3 billion. This huge amount of Federal expenditures would hardly avoid having an inflationary impact on the economy. To the extent that it would further inflate costs related to education, it could be considered selfdefeating. A program which would use as the yardstick for Federal assistance only the requirement of military service during the time peace, has implicit within it an ironical consequence. We know that veterans and their families and dependents comprise about half our national population. Veterans pay taxes as everyone else does. The money for a huge program such as this must be borne in large part by the veteran segment of the population. PEACETIME EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS AS A PRECEDENT Whatever might be said regarding the potential merits of programs such as envisaged in S. 1138 and related bills, one thought, I believe, should remain clear. We are not dealing with a temporary measure. If the Congress adopts the concept that a peacetime veteran is entitled to pretty much the same educational benefits that are available to veterans who serve during wars, it is extremely unlikely that such benefits would ever be terminated. The historical trend of veterans' benefits and services has been in exactly the opposite direction. In addition, it would undoubtedly be argued that to terminate peacetime veterans' educational benefits, once having been established, would discriminate unfairly against future peacetime servicemen. At present, expenditures for veterans' benefits and services constitute the fourth-ranking spending program of the Federal Government. To add another highly expensive and permanent program to those already in existence, particularly when the need is far from proven, is unwarranted. We are conscious of the fact that this Nation must maintain the integrity of its system of higher education. We are confident that this very same integrity provides an assurance that qualified students-including peacetime veterans will not be denied an opportunity to study at the Nation's colleges. We believe additional proposals for veterans' educational benefits are unnecessary, and in fact, will impede needed improvements in the quality of higher education-for those people who would normally matriculate, as well as for those whom these proposals purport to assist. The national chamber will continue to urge business leadership and cooperation in actions to support higher education and thus increase the economic and cultural well-being which will accompany a continuing rise in the educational levels of the American people. By so doing, business shares in any benefits directly as an integral part of the whole community. In view of the reasons outlined by Mr. Burgess and myself, the National Chamber of Commerce strongly urges that this committee disapprove S. 1138 and similar proposed legislation. Mr. QUIGLEY. I gather there is not a separate statement from Mr. Ballantyne? Mr. BURGESS. I don't believe so. There is no separate statement, sir. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Teague of California? Mr. TEAGUE of California. Yes, very briefly. Mr. Burgess, while I always do my best to keep an open mind on all pending legislation, I have no hesitancy in saying that I am very much persuaded by what seems to me to be very sound arguments that you have presented in this matter. I would like to ask you a question. Do you happen to recall about what it costs in dollars per year to train a draftee or an enlistee? Mr. BURGESS. Congressman Teague, I cannot give you that exact figure, but it is up in the thousands of dollars. Mr. TEAGUE of California. I have in mind some figure like $7,000 a year. Mr. BURGESS. I don't think you will be far wrong. When you count, sir, the time of the men that have to be given that training away from the regular job of maintaining the readiness or going force or learning about missiles, you probably have a figure that is far in excess of $7,000. Mr. TEAGUE of California. Thank you very much. Certainly with your experience in this field your testimony should be of great interest and weight to this committee. Thank you. Mr. BURGESS. Congressman Teague, thank you, and that is the reason I wanted to come here and testify on this particular piece of legislation. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. George. Mr. GEORGE. I believe you said, sir, that "education benefits for purely peacetime military service." Do you consider this purely peacetime? Mr. BURGESS. All things being equal, I would say we are all in it together, Mr. Congressman, and I would not say purely peacetime in the sense of desirable peacetime but it is peacetime as it relates to all of us. Mr. GEORGE. By virtue of the act ending the Korean war? Mr. GEORGE. Yes. You realize and I think your committee found that our education scheme is far behind. We need to advance our education, is that right? Mr. BURGESS. Yes, sir. If I might, Mr. Congressman, just say there, I think that rather than needing more people educated, we need people educated better. I think the man that wants to be educated better has that motivation anyway. I don't think you can impose it on him or give it to him. I think the motivation has to be one of opportunity and most importantly, of desire. Just putting it out there does not achieve a result in my experience. Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Burgess if that is true does not that sort of go against the argument you made that these people will leave the military service because of the fact that they can have educational benefits. Mr. BURGESS. No, sir, I do not quite see that point, Mr. Congressman. My answer to this situation is that I feel that a young man who either volunteers or is inducted into the military service comes out in my book generally a finer physical man, a finer mental man, and financially better off. If he stays in by virtue of the fact that certain educational benefits and continuing motivational opportunities are available to him-and those things, of course, are put into certain obligation arrangements-that if he stays, say, 20 years in the military and he comes out with the retirement that is available to him at that time, he starts a second career in our life. I think, and I know without any question, that if we can retain these people in the military service the good ones, the men that the military want and the men that want to stay-we will have a career force that will give us much addititional strength. Mr. TEAGUE of California. Will you yield, Mr. George? Mr. GEORGE. I yield. Mr. TEAGUE of California. Just on that same point, isn't it true that under present conditions these young men who really want to get an education can get it before they enter the military service? Mr. BURGESS. Congressman Teague, there are 30 or more choices available to a young man. Quite apart from his God-given obligation to serve this country, if the young man and his family will plan his life a little bit, he can plot his education and his training either before or after his military service. Those choices are designed to cater to those situations. With the jobs that are being done at the State level and with the wider range of scholarships that are being provided all across this country, I think we have the necessary framework for this young man to get his education even if he doesn't decide to be a career man in the military. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Burgess, isn't one of the purposes of the draft to work up a pool or reserve of trained men ready to come when it is necessary, if it should become necessary? Mr. BURGESS. I believe so, sir. Mr. GEORGE. So if these men become trained, then leave the service, that makes space for more men to become trained, does it not? Mr. BURGESS. That is right, sir. Mr. GEORGE. I can't see the harm for the man coming in for the training and then getting out because he is prepared to come back in case of emergency. Then if he can go and resume his education, which is difficult to take up after a year or two or three out, I think this bill will benefit if it should become law. Mr. BURGESS. I, frankly, Mr. Congressman, cannot see the need in these times to provide this type of benefit because I think you and I must agree and I yield to nobody in my support of the reserve concept in this country-but I think Mr. GEORGE. I am glad to hear you say that, sir. Mr. BURGESS (continuing). The trend of military service is changing. There has to be a hard core of experienced personnel for missiles, electronic requirements and so forth now, as never before in the country; and it is getting more severe each day. So I say that there will probably be less-as I have said in the statement-there are going to be fewer young men passing through the military service. I think you are going to have equal vulnerability on all able-bodied young men in this country-they may not have to serve-but they still have the equivalent of vulnerability which is, I think, as close as we come to the universal concept in this country, and I think it is a fair concept. I just say to the extent that this Congress can build up the concept of voluntary service and provide enough internal attractions to keep young men in the military, we will have a much stronger military force in this country. Now, a young man can go in on the 6-month route or he can go in on a bevy of other choices and still help build up this Reserve need that you talk about. I don't see why the Congress would want in any way to pull away unnecessarily from this volunteer retention career force that is so essential to the cause today. Mr. GEORGE. Is it your feeling, then, that someone who would otherwise make a career of the armed services might not do so because of the educational opportunities by virtue of the passage of this bill? Mr. BURGESS. Yes, sir, I don't think there is any question about it. I think if a man can see that he can get a free education by serving a minimum period of time in the military he is going to pass through that military force as illustrated in those figures that I gave you earlier in my statement. I think that is the wrong approach. I think the attraction should be inside the military, not outside the military. That is the way I feel about it. Mr. GEORGE. The figures you gave were for January. That was the heavy month, after Christmas holidays. That is natural. They delay until after the holidays. Mr. BURGESS. I gave you figures for a year before and for a month after. You compare the vast difference in enlistment of 35,000 in January 1954 and 68,000 in January 1955, followed by 24,000 in February 1955. Of course if I may add to my comment, Mr. Congressman, the thing that bothers me, also, and I have been in the education field recently, I served at the University of South Carolina in 1953 and 1954, when this Korean bill was very much alive, the thing that bothers me about this $300 million is the additional administration that is going to have to be set up within this Government and at the colleges and at the State level to administer a program of this kind. You have all kinds of administrative needs to keep track of this type of thing when you set it up as a Government benefit. The $300 million is just a starter in my book. Mr. GEORGE. Was not that set up for Korean and World War II GI's? Mr. BURGESS. Sure, but you had a huge displacement of young manpower at that time. You were taking men of all ages, Mr. Congressman, and keeping them on for a completely indefinite period. When I was overseas in 1942, and 1943, and 1944 I seem to remember the size of the force as being something like 10 million. You had a huge displacement under a very indeterminate situation-of all age groups and all types of people--and you had to provide some emergency short term transitional opportunities for them. We are going along at a pretty normal pace, now, under the extreme conditions that we have, but I say they are extreme conditions for all of us. Mr. HALEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE. Certainly. Mr. HALEY. I would just like to say to the witness I am sorry I made that statement, if you set up this program that we will have to set up a great agency or bureau to administer it. I might say to the witness that is the very thing that these boys up here, many of them in the Congress, will go for. They want that big administrative agency down there clawing at our Treasury and consuming our tax dollar. That is no deterrent, Mr. Witness, up here now. If you had said this wouldn't have put a man to work I think this bill would have been dead. Mr. BURGESS. If I might answer the Congressman, I would like to say I like to be as frank as you are, sir. Your candidness here, I think, is exactly what I was trying to get at. I don't believe in unnecessary Government, Mr. Congressman, and I think these types of bills create that type of situation. Mr. HALEY. I might say to the witness, Mr. Chairman, that we need today, I think, more than ever before, a little frankness from the people outside of Government, but we need it very badly a little frankness from the Members of both of these Houses here to let the American people know what is really behind these programs. It is not so much the benefit, I think, that is going to accrue to the young man that is in the service, because I thoroughly agree with you that if he has any ambition today he has all kinds of avenues of acquiring that education. If he is not interested enough to do it under the programs and projects that we have now, there is no need of letting |