from this thing, I see relatively few arguments that can be made. against it that are really sound. This is not a handout. It is not like putting money into research on a tank or an airplane that by the time it is off the drawing board it is already obsolescent. This is an investment in the young men of America. If they can by increasing their educational stature increase their services and increase their capacity to earn money, not only are they going to be of general benefit to our country but they are also going to be of financial benefit to the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. GEORGE. I certainly agree with you. It seems to me that the National Chamber of Commerce and other organizations are fighting Federal aid to education should certainly get behind something of this sort that would help in education. But it seems to me they are fighting it across the board.

Let me ask you this. Suppose the White House, the Bureau of the Budget, took an opposite position-that they thought this was a good bill and should be enacted into law. Of course, we know all the Federal agencies would be coming down here and supporting it. Do you not think the chamber of commerce would also?

Mr. SNEDEN. I can't speak for the chamber of commerce.

only a member.

Mr. GEORGE. I was just asking for your opinion.

Mr. SNEDEN. I rather imagine they would.

Mr. GEORGE. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. QUIGLEY. Do you have any questions?

Mr. MITCHELL. No questions.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Sneden. We were delighted you could be here and really sorry that Congressman Ford could not be here.

Mr. SNEDEN. I am, too.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I trust that his son is in not too bad a shape.

Mr. ŠNEDEN. On behalf of the business-school people in America, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee. Mr. QUIGLEY. You have left the statement?

Mr. SNEDEN. Yes.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, before the next witness, could I introduce the State commander of the American Legion who came in from Kansas?

Mr. QUIGLEY. You certainly may.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Leo Harris; and with him is Warren McCamish, past post commander; and my administrative aid, Harry Schwartz. Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, gentlemen. Delighted to have you here; and the American Legion, I will tell you, will present a statement on this particular bill at the hearing tomorrow.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD H. EHRLICH, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL SCHOOLS

Mr. EHRLICH. My name is Bernard H. Ehrlich. I represent the National Council of Technical Schools and I am appearing here as a substitute for Mr. Rietzke, who lives in McLean, Va., and has tried for

2 hours to get out of his house and just cannot make it because of the snow. He asked me to present his statement. Rather than take the time to read it, I would like to insert it for the record.

I recommend the statement to you and suggest it be given careful consideration, as it expresses many thoughts and ideas of tremendous importance to this committee.

(The statement follows:)

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE H. RIETZKE

I am Eugene H. Rietzke, residing in McLean, Va. I am president of the Capitol Radio Engineering Institute of Washington, D.C.; trustee and past president of the National Council of Technical Schools; member of the National Committee of the Technical Institute Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. I served for 10 years as a member of the Technical Institute Accrediting Subcommittee of Engineers' Council for Professional Development.

I believe that the best contribution I could make to this committee's work would be to present something of a case history of how Public Law 550 has operated in my own institution. First, let me say, as one who went through the chaotic operation of the earlier GI bill-Public law 346-that the Korean GI bill, Public Law 550, which was developed by this committee, has been good legislation. I am completely in accord with the philosophy by which the student is permitted to select his own school and by which payments are made by the Government to the student and not to the school. I have many close friends in the field of technical and engineering education and I have not heard a single criticism of the operation of this legislation.

My own institute is in its 33d year. We offer a 3-year full-time intensive college-level course in electronic engineering technology with current enrollment of about 450, an equivalent evening program with enrollment of about 225, and, except for the laboratory work, the same program by home study with current enrollment in the order of 20,000-about one-third of these latter students being in the armed services and all employed in some phase of electronics at the time of enrollment. All of these programs are accredited on an equivalent basis by Engineers' Council for Professional Development. By authority of the District of Columbia Board of Education, graduates of the residence school are awarded the degree of associate in applied science. In the correspondence program, to earn the diploma, the student is required to take a 2-day final examination under supervision. CREI is listed by the U.S. Office of Education as an institution of higher education. Approximately 10 percent of the full-time residence students are from foreign countries-from Turkey and Greece to Indonesia. Home study students are in almost every country in the free world. The institute operates a European Division with offices in London.

Total veteran students who have been enrolled under the current legislation are as follows:

Chart 1 will give you some indication of the success of this program from the points of view of the veteran graduates and the needs of defense industries. I have listed here the 31 veteran graduates of the full-time program for September and December 1959 with everything but names of the graduates. Listing includes legislative classification: Public Law 550 and Public Law 894; company employed by; annual starting salary; previous education beyond high school, if any; and previous electronic experience. Several things will be of interest in connection with this group. In September these students about to graduate

were interviewed at the school by more companies than there were graduates. The minimum number of job offers to any graduate was four; the top graduate received nine offers. The few listed as not employed are due to the fact that at the time I received these data they had not made up their minds what offer to accept. The average annual starting salary of those already placed was $5,280, with minimum of $4,320 and maximum of $6,340. The types of jobs were mostly in the titles of "Associate Engineer," "Junior Engineer," "Staff Associate,” etc. Many of these positions are in research and development.

It should be noted that every company employing these graduates is heavily involved in the national defense effort. With the current trend in defense industry to greater effort in research and development and, in many cases to less actual production, and in the accelerated effort in the fields of missiles, data processing, and long-range detection, these graduates will play a major part in the work. Since our institute has been in operation, we have never experienced such a demand for graduates as exists today. In our home study division, one major electronic company has enrolled more than 2,500 employees with us and the trend of this enrollment is increasing rapidly.

CHART 1.-Capital Radio Engineering Institute veteran graduates—Classes, September-December 1959

The veteran students are superior in every way. They are more mature; a substantial percentage are married and have strong incentive to make good; many have had a good deal of technical experience in the service and come to us well prepared to succeed. This committee, which originally developed the philosophy of the Korean GI legislation, should feel very proud of what it has done not only for veterans but also in the best interest of our country. There was one omission in that legislation, however, which I earnestly believe should be corrected. Through our office in London we are working very closely with the American Armed Forces in Europe. I have visited numerous bases in Europe and talked to educational officers and many career technical men. These career men are the backbone of our defense effort. Many are on isolated Air Force, SAC, and missile bases. The very nature of their duty makes it impossible for them to further their education through the conven

tional classroom schedule. In the original GI legislation, Public Law 346, such men, if entitled to veteran educational benefits, could, after discharge and subsequent reenlistment, further their education by home study. For reasons which probably were justified at the time, this provision was eliminated in the writing of Public Law 550. These career men feel that they have been discriminated against because they had the same war service as those subsequently discharged. By the time their career service ends it will be too late to take advantage of the benefits they have earned. I strongly recommend that if this legislation is extended that this omission be corrected for those men who were entitled to educational benefits during the period of the Korean war. There will not be large numbers involved and from the standpoints of both justice to these career veterans and in the interest of national defense I strongly urge that serious consideration by the Congress be given to this matter. I am speaking here only as an individual and not on behalf of the several organizations with which I am associated. However, a recent poll of the trustees of the National Council of Technical Schools indicated that a substantial majority was in favor of the extension of veteran educational benefits. I did not take any position at that time. I believe, however, that in the interest of the national welfare in the years ahead, there is going to be increased emphasis on Federal aids to education. It is my considered opinion that Public Law 550 has been by far the most beneficial educational legislation that has come forth, and, since funds are going to be allocated in some form or other, I recommend on the basis of my own experience and observation that you approve this proposed legislation.

It of course will be noted that one of my principal arguments on behalf of my recommendation is based on the need in the interest of national defense for more technical education. It has been brought to my attention that one of the arguments presented to this committee against this proposed legislation is the National Defense Education Act. I should like to point out, just as I did to officials of the U.S. Office of Education and to members of the Education and Labor Committee when that legislation was being prepared, and recently again to officials of the U.S. Office of Education, that institutions such as my own and, in fact, practically all technical institutes are prohibited from participation in the programs of the National Defense Education Act. The 31 young men included in the case history above (chart I) could not have entered my institute under that act. This was done by two ways. First is a requirement that the credits of the technical institute be accepted for full credit toward the bachelor degree. This is a completely unsound concept. The really good technical institute has a highly specialized curriculum that does not at all fit into the program of the conventional 4-year engineering college. To modify the technical institute curriculum to meet this requirement would be to make it nothing but a regular 2-year junior college with a loss of all the benefits built into the good technical institute terminal program. Further, the 4-year colleges themselves usually do not give full credit for work done at other 4-year institutions.

Second, the National Defense Education Act applies only to public and nonprofit institutions. Of the approximately 35 technical institutes having curricula accredited by Engineers' Council for Professional Development, approximately one-third operate as private proprietary corporations. And I might add that this one-third includes some of the finest specialized institutions in the country-institutions that also made major contributions to the military training programs in World War II. My own institute trained 5,000 technicians for the armed services during that period, and another 3,000 civilians for war industry. Others did much more.

Unless and until the National Defense Education Act is amended to correct this situation legislation such as that before your committee is seriously needed in the national interest.

I shall be glad to answer any questions, to the best of my ability.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to express these opinions.

Mr. EHRLICH. This school is one of the finest technical institutes in the country and if you will read carefully what has happened to men who have enrolled in this school and the job opportunities you will agree that this school is making a substantial contribution to our national defense effort. I can say that out of their graduating class they have a minimum of four job offers and a maximum of nine for

every student graduating from their institution and the minimum salary is $5,280 to their graduates.

I would like to depart from the testimony and answer quickly some of the matters which I do not believe were answered by several of the other witnesses and particularly some comments of Mr. Burgess. Some statements have been made about the obligation of serving one's country.

It must be remembered that the vast majority of men who ordinarily would be drafted under a selective service law are not drafted and over 50 percent are deferred for one reason or another. So that the obligation of serving one's country is not across the board.

As a World War II veteran, I remember that most men except for physical deferments or religious grounds served in the Armed Forces. The majority of men in the "cold war" who are eligible for the draft have been deferred because of educational training. This shows that the Defense Department and the Government is concerned about education and training.

I would like to suggest that in connection with encouraging men to leave the Armed Forces, Dr. Hannah also was an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and it is inconceivable to me that the vast majority of men who are drafted into the Armed Forces of this country do so to make a career of the Armed Forces.

I would like to reiterate what the previous witness stated that if these training programs are so attractive, why did the men want to get out of service? It should be attractive enough to remain.

In previous testimony given before this committee some question was brought up about the National Defense Education Act and why wouldn't this be extended to handle this situation.

I would like to state for the record the schools like technical institutes are not eligible under the National Defense Education Act although by the President's own committee there is a tremendous shortage of trained technicians.

For every scientist and engineer there is a minimum of 3 to 7 technicians that are needed to help, which school s lime M. Rukke's attempt to supply. But by the definitions involved in the National Defense Education Act this type of institution is excluded because of two provisions in that bill, one requires full transferability of credit and no technical institute program fits in with a college program. There is no transferability of credit although these schools are accredited by the Engineers Council for Professional Development.

In addition, many of the fine institutions in the technical school field in this country, as in the case of the private business school are proprietary institutions and they are excluded from the National Defense Education Act.

An extension of that bill will not allow these servicemen or others to secure training in needed occupations being serviced by these schools.

In connection with several other statements that have been made here concerning the role of the Department of Defense and the role of the Federal Government in opposition to these bills, I recommend that the statements that have been made by the Bradley Commission and statements that have been made from the Veterans' Administration survey in the last witnesses testimony should be carefully read.