wartime service, for whatever benefits are payable for any other wartime period of service. We particularly have gone to bat to try to bring wartime service for the persons who served in the Moro Province, and others as well who have had campaign service. Then I would like to comment on this loan provision, Mr. Chairman. For about 11 years I was director of the State Approving Agency of Kansas on both of the programs and became rather well acquainted with the administration of these programs. In the first place, I think it is unfair to give a veteran benefit or give veterans benefits and say while they all meet the minimum requirements of the schools, yours is going to be a loan and yours is going to be a grant, just because there is a slight difference in the grades over the past period. A second thing I would say about that it would be placing on those least likely to be able to repay, that is, the lower group, the obligation of repayment. And the third thing is that I think it would create some administrative problems which would be almost insurmountable. I know some educators disagree on that, but I think it would be very difficult to determine just who is below the halfway mark and who is above the halfway mark. So I think we are in complete agreement with the other witness that from the staff point of view, we are completely against the loan provision of S. 1138. Mr. HALEY. Does that complete your statement? Thank you very much, Mr. Stover, for your presentation here this morning. The Jewish War Veterans have been invited to testify here this morning. It is my information that they wish to present a statement. May I inquire if that statement is available? COUNSEL. Not yet, sir. Mr. HALEY. Without prejudice, the statement, when presented by the Jewish War Veterans, will be made a part of the record at this point in the proceedings. (The statement referred to follows:) JEWISH WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Veterans' Affairs Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C., March 2, 1960. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Due to unforeseen circumstances, I am unable to appear, in person, before your committee on March 4 as previously arranged. I am enclosing a statement on the legislation which you are considering regarding educational benefits for GI's. I shall greatly appreciate your including this statement in the record of your committee hearings. Cordially, BERNARD WEITZER, National Legislative Director. STATEMENT BY BERNARD WEITZER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, JEWISH WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On behalf of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to present to your committee, our approval of and views on the education and benefits provisions of S. 1138. For several years, the views of our organization-the oldest active war veterans organization in the country-have been expressed by a resolution on this subject passed at our annual national conventions. The most recent resolution was passed at our 64th Annual National Convention assembled in New York. A copy of the resolution is attached. It is clear from the tenor of this resolution that our organization is strongly in favor of educational benefits and the views I express on the legislation you are considering are limited to that subject. Our organization, as some of the members of your committee know, has, for 40 years, advocated and supported universal military training. We have also supported selective service, the Reserve Forces Act of 1955 and career incentive legislation for maintaining and strengthening our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, we do not have universal military training and the numbers of men called upon to serve through the Selective Service System are only a small proportion of the youths who fall within the age limits set by the Selective Service Act. Those few who are called upon and are inducted, are handicapped to some degree in following through with their normal life program when compared with the men who are not called to service by their Selective Service Boards. At the same time, large numbers of this age group are enlisting in our armed services rather than await call and induction by the draft because thereby they can choose the branch of the Armed Forces in which they desire to serve. For all such men, the educational priviliges which the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America recommends in its resolution should serve as an opportunity to offset any handicap which should come to them through their service in the Armed Forces. Although the educational provisions of S. 1138 are not exactly in accord with Public Law 550, I am confident that it will substantially carry out the purposes of our resolution. The added requirements in S. 1138 in regard to length of service and to standards of scholarship will be a stimulus to the peacetime servicemen. Nevertheless, these requirements do not create a too difficult barrier for those who are in earnest about getting the full benefits of the educational program. The greater the benefits which these men get from the educational program, the greater will be the benefits to the Nation. In figures prepared by the Bureau of the Census, there is material proof of the advantage to the men themselves, and to our Nation, which accrued from this opportunity to enter upon an educational program. The figures show that of the World War II veterans, 7,800,000 proceeded with an educational program under the GI bill of rights. That is practically one out of every two men who served in World War II. Among veterans of Korea fighting, more than 1 million went to college through the educational benefits provided for them and another 1 million took other types of training in schools below college level— on the job and on the farm. The Bureau of the Census figures show that between 1947 and 1957, World War II veterans just about doubled their annual income from a median of $2,401 in 1947 to $4,985 in 1957. That is an increase of 108 percent. For nonveteran population in the same age group, the census figures show a median annual income of $2,585 in 1947, and in 1957, the nonveteran figures show an annual median income of $4,279. That is an increase of 66 percent. To put it a little differently, World War II veterans, man for man, had surpassed by 1957 their nonveteran fellow citizens in the same age group by a $700 per annum higher income. Taking into consideration only the World War II veterans' group and including all of them-15,600,000 veterans-both those who participated in the educational benefits and those who did not, they earned $10,920 million more per year than the nonveteran citizens of the similar age group. The Veterans' Administration spent for these educational benefits a total of $14,500 million. I believe that this ranks as one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable Government investment ever made. Not only is this a significant addition to the productive power of our Nation, but on the basis of the additional income taxes which our Government collects on this added earning power, the $14,500 million cost is paying better returns than any of the better securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Further, those added income-tax payments will continue and probably will increase over the years. Your committee which included in the original GI bill educational benefits and in 1952, through Public Law 550, greatly improved upon the original bill, deserves great credit for the benefits which millions of war veterans enjoyed through your action. The benefits to our country have been greater than we can measure by figures alone. Those benefits will continue through this generation and the next. In S. 1138, you have the means to continue such benefits. I hope you will not permit the negative views of the Defense Department and the Veterans' Administration to prevent the men who have served in the Armed Forces since Public Law 550 has been inapplicable, from having the opportunities which the educational benefits furnish, provided the men have the will and the capacity to benefit. As long as we are operating under the Selective Service Act, those individuals who serve in the Armed Forces should not be disadvantaged solely by the period of their service. EXTEND EDUCATION BENEFITS DURING PERIOD OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT Whereas the 82d Congress passed the Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, Public Law 550, which among other benefits, provided that persons serving in the Armed Forces of the United States were eligible for the educational benefits theretofore provided under the GI bill; and Whereas the President of the United States, by proclamation, did terminate the benefits of the aforesaid Public Law 550, said termination date being January 31, 1955, and thereby, the educational benefits to the men of our Armed Forces have been terminated; and Whereas the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America believe that the educational benefits provisions of Public Law 550, while in the nature of reward to the members of the Armed Forces for their services, were of value to this country in the following particulars: 1. By providing assistance to the members of the Armed Forces in procuring an education which would equip them to make a lving, provide homes for their families, and, in general, raise the living standards of this great Nation; 2. By providing equal educational opportunities for the members of the armed services with those, who for one reason or another, were not inducted into the services; Whereas failure to provide educational benefits to those who entered service after January 31, 1955 1. Discriminates amongst servicemen based strictly on the date of entry into service and not different duty requirements; 2. Abandons concept of providing an opportunity for higher education and for training which has been allowed since the GI bill on the premise of assistance to those whose lives were interrupted by service based on draft: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America in 64th annual national convention assembled in New York City, August 5-9, 1959, favor the extension of the educational benefits of the Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, Public Law 550, during the period of time that selective service is effective, and that the eligibility to these benefits be made retroactive so as to cover those members of armed services whose service was started or terminated subsequent to January 31, 1955. Mr. HALEY. Now, the Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A., Inc., asked and were given permission to testify before this committee this morning. It is my information, furnished me by the staff of the committee, that they say they do not wish to appear. That completes the witnesses listed on the agenda this morning, and the committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Friday, March 4, 1960, the committee was adjourned.) READJUSTMENT BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS ENTERING THE ARMED SERVICES AFTER JANUARY 31, 1955 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1960 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 356, Old House Office Building, Hon. James A. Haley presiding. Mr. HALEY. The committee will be in order. The first witness to appear before the Veterans' Affairs Committee is Hon. Ed Edmondson, of Oklahoma. Mr. Edmondson, will you come around? We are very glad to have you here with us. The distinguished gentleman is not only a very able Member of the Congress, he is my colleague on another committee. When he is not looking after the affairs of Indians and maybe they are people from Oklahoma, I don't know-he is always interested in veterans' affairs. Mr. Edmondson, we are very happy to have you here this morning. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. ED EDMONDSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT, STATE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to appear before this distinguished committee. I think it is a wonderful committee and does a great work. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in support of S. 1138, which has been described by Mr. Hughes, of the Bureau of the Budget, as a bill "for peacetime ex-servicemen." While some may regard this bill as a peacetime GI bill, I believe it would be more accurate to call it the cold-war GI bill. Although we are not engaged in actual shooting war, the conditions under which our servicemen are serving today can hardly be described as "peaceful." The worldwide development of our forces has assuredly introduced elements of hazard into the service of thousands in our Armed Forces which were not present before the cold war began. Can anyone question the danger, for example, of the American servicemen who are now on guard along the demilitarized zone in Korea, in occupied Berlin, or in Formosa? Anyone who has witnessed operations aboard a modern aircraft carrier, on a SAC base during an alert, or at a missile firing, will |