Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 Pub

lic 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.

This survey, sir, in response to your question, is dated May 29, 1959, and covered men who had entered the armed forces for the first time after January 31, 1955, and had returned to civilian life by December 31, 1958.

In listening to the comments made by the previous witness it must be remembered that 80 percent of the men in the Armed Forces who are discharged have no more than a high school education. So the need of college or need of a technical training is very important.

It must be remembered that the average boy cannot plan for his military service. Many employers are not willing to hire a student or a young man who may have to serve a military obligation.

In addition, most of the first time enlistments are men between 172 and 1812 years of age. When these men get out of service they need educational assistance of this kind.

The technical school that I am speaking for and the National Council of Technical Schools are not in favor of giveaway programs. We are in favor of assistance programs which will return to the Federal Government and our national defense effort an investment 100-fold based on the statistics gathered by the Federal agencies themselves. This bill will be repaid many times over by the supplying of the broad educational needs of these men.

We would like to also suggest that this committee looks with favor upon this bill that you continue the principle of direct grants to the veteran and not to the institutions.

We are heartily in favor of the principles of the Korean GI bill which has been a bill without problems and is heartily endorsed, I believe, without fear of contradiction by almost a unanimous group of educators.

I would not like to take any more time of the committee because I know the hour is late.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich. You did an excellent job of substituting.

Any questions?

Mr. HALEY. I have several questions that I would like to ask the gentleman but I note the House is in session.

Point of order.

Mr. HALEY. Due to the circumstances I know exist here at the moment I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I thank the gentleman.

At this time I would like to call Donald Hoffman, president of the United States National Students Association.

Mr. Hoffman, I do not want to cut you off, either. I know you have a prepared statement.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I am hoping, without insisting, that you might be able to file that statement and then kind of hit the high spots of the viewpoint of your association.

STATEMENT OF DONALD A. HOFFMAN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES NATIONAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION

Mr. HOFFMAN. I will try to do it as briefly as I can.

I would like to file my statement and then I will comment on some notes that I have here in addition to the prepared statement.

(The statement follows:)

TESTIMONY CONCERNING S. 1138, VETERANS' READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1959 (Prepared by Donald A. Hoffman, president, and Curtis B. Gans, national affairs vice president, representing the United States National Student Association) The United States National Student Association is happy to have this opportunity to express its support for S. 1138, the Veterans' Readjustment Act of 1959, which provides for the reestablishment of educational benefits for those serving in our Armed Forces. The question of veterans' education has been of major concern to the national student congresses of the association; first in terms of World War II veterans, then in regard to those who served during the Korean emergency, and now in regard to the men affected by the present selective service machinery and universal service program. USNSA has consistently supported educational benefits as a proper and desirable means of minimizing the unfavorable effects of military service on the lives of individuals involved and of assuring maximum volunteering and minimum drafting and would reduce educational dislocations resulting from the draft.

USNSA is a confederation of approximately 375 college and university student bodies represented through their democratically elected student governing bodies. They include over 1,200,000 students in 46 of the 50 States and the District of Columbia comprising a majority of the undergraduates registered in accredited 4 year institutions.

Association policy is determined by the delegates of member campuses, meeting in the annual national student congress and, in the interim between congresses, by the elected regional representatives of the member student bodies, meeting as the national executive committee of the association. Policies and programs are administered by the national officers elected by and from the delegates to the national student congress. USNSA's policies and programs are constitutionally limited to those directly affecting students and formal education as such. Therefore, this testimony will confine itself to the educational benefits proposals contained in S. 1138. The 400 delegates to the 10th National Student Congress at the University of Michigan in August 1957 declared:

"A manpower policy consistent with our democratic tradition, the requirements of national defense, and the variety of needs related to the development of our society must contain the following principles: ..

"USNSA calls for the reinstatement of all benefits that contribute to an individual's education during and upon termination of military service. We would urge strict enforcement of academic standards for those who attend college under such compensation."

The basic question in regard to the bill now before this committee, as was brought out at similar hearings in 1957, is whether or not the educational benefits granted to wartime veterans should be made available to the millions of Americans who are required to serve in the peacetime Armed Forces under the Selective Service Act. This is a new question in that large peacetime Armed Forces, substantial overseas and outpost service in peacetime, and compulsory service other than in time of war are all phenomena new to the United States. A very important factor which must be considered in answering the question is the actual, as opposed to the theoretical, universality of the present selective service system. It is far harder to deny that special benefits are justified if only some rather than all individuals are actually required to serve. Senator Francis Case of South Dakota presented this very clearly in his 1957 testimony when he said:

"Under the current situation, it is obvious that a very large proportion of our young men are not providing military service. I think the average draft age in my State, the present time, is about 22 years, which means that, with the numbers required for selective service for the calls as they are, a very large number of young men do not provide any military service. And of course, those who do not serve have the opportunity to get established in business or go on to college or to earn their livelihood that will put them through college."

It is true that many who do not serve are deferred as fathers, as physically unfit for military service, or as pursuing critically needed occupations. These are all valid reasons for not requiring military service but it must be recog

nized that they tend to place the physically fit, single individuals at a definite career disadvantage.

The adoption of legislation providing educational benefits for veterans as provided in the bill would serve four important purposes.

First, it would help to offset the disadvantages and disturbances in educational and career plans necessarily involved in service in the Armed Forces, and, thereby, would tend to equalize opportunity and reduce inequality between those who do and do not serve.

Second, it would tend to increase enlistments and thereby reduce the need for use of the draft. Since, on the whole, those who will choose to enlist will be individuals likely to suffer fewer dislocations and interruptions of plans than those who would otherwise be drafted, this tendency would reduce the harmful effects of compulsory service to a minimum.

Third, it would encourage the education and completion of education of a good number of persons, preparing them to play more valuable roles as citizens. Fourth, it would help increase the brainpower of our country, our most neglected asset.

Opposition to proposals for reestablishing educational benefits seems to have centered around five contentions: that currently military service programs are not disruptive of educational plans, that increased inducements for one term recruitment are not needed, and that the educational benefits would induce many men to leave the Armed Forces; that in-service education programs are already in operation; that educational problems should not be approached in the context of veterans' assistance; and that the expense of an educational program for veterans would be exorbitant. USNSA finds all of these arguments unconvincing and seriously questions the accuracy of several.

Military service or the potential possibility of military service affects the lives of many young men below the age of 22. While the number of undergraduates drafted may not be very large, the number enlisting while 1-A is more substantial. Graduate and professional students and those working to earn funds to pursue a college education are even more severely affected.

It is true that educational benefits will encourage one term and not career recruitment. However, inducing such recruitment would tend to guarantee that those whose education and careers suffer least would serve. In addition, it should afford the increased morale and interest usually associated with volunteers.

To argue that educational benefits would induce present members to leave the Armed Forces says, in effect, that these men feel themselves currently unfitted to follow a nonmilitary career but would prefer to fit themselves for such a career were the opportunity afforded. To USNSA, it is shocking to argue against educational benefits on the grounds that present members of the Armed Forces would desire to utilize them. Surely such means are not a sound way of securing career soldiers.

In-service educational programs do offer a valuable supplement to other avenues of securing education. However, their nature requires their remaining in a supplementary, not a major role. Not only are fields of study limited, but, because of the spare time nature of the study, few men actually can secure a substantial amount of academic credit in this way. For example, Air Force testimony indicates that only 800 men per year have obtained college degrees under their programs. In any case, full-time postservice civilian educational opportunities are, in principle as well as practice, infinitely superior to parttime, in-service, military educational programs.

Admittedly, veterans' assistance is not the proper channel for attacking overall educational needs. However, the Federal Government does have a special obligation toward those who have served in the Armed Forces. In this context, it seems wholly proper to provide educational benefits to them, entirely apart from the question of general educational support legislation.

Educational benefits will entail the expenditure of substantial sums. The Veteran's Administration has estimated that the eventual annual cost would reach $800 million a year. It should be emphasized, however, that this figure would be reached only after a period of 6 to 8 years at which time the cost of the 1952 educational benefit program would have sunk to near zero. Thus, the increase above present expenditures would be very much less.

Estimates on benefits to both Korean and World War II veterans suggest that educational assistance is a good investment. World War II aid totaled approximately $15 billion, while the additional annual tax revenues secured because of their improved vocational and career abilities has been estimated

« PreviousContinue »