But I checked with the Legislative Division of the NEA, and they requested that I speak for our department and for, in general, the whole organization. These are the educators of the country. It is a private organization.

Mr. FLYNN. And they have offices here in Washington?

Miss CONDON. Yes. I hope you will come and see us. We have a beautiful office here in Washington.

Mr. FINO. You might add, it is a nonprofit organization.

Miss CONDON. Yes indeed. The entire program is supported by the dues of the members, which are $10 a year.

Mr. FLYNN. And you represent the rural

Miss CONDON. I particularly represent the rural department. Mr. FLYNN. Do you have any statistics or figures on whether or not there is greater aptitude or applicability by these young boys and girls going into college from the farms of the country as compared with those going from urban areas?

Miss CONDON. No, sir. That sort of statistic would be probably invalid if anyone ever put it forward, because the variation in the high schools which they attend in rural areas is so great, and the opportunities for a broader program are necessarily limited in some rural areas, just by sheer numbers, as well as money, that it is hard to compare a youngster who goes to a rural high school with one who has the opportunity to go, say, to one of the highly developed technical high schools in a big city. There is no basis for comparison. I think that studies have been attempted to show the variation between the native mental ability of these people, and there isn't much difference.

A great deal of their aptitude is based on environment, depending on what their experiences were before they started in college.

Mr. FLYNN. I was very interested in your statement that seems to recognize that the Government has a special responsibility to those who are serving in the Armed Forces, even those who are serving during peacetime because, as you point out, they are serving constantly in the shadow of personal disaster, more risky and dangerous than many of those who served in the hot war just a few years ago. You pointed out that they have been in more danger to a higher degree than the others.

You also pointed out that you have great faith in the average American, meaning the average boy and girl, even those who may not be in the upper 50 percent of the class, but who would be able to get benefit through this bill, and that it is your belief that the program has a value, not only to the student involved, but to the Nation.

I presume that you feel that the money expended by the taxpayers in this program would come back to the country as a whole?

Miss CONDON. Yes. I always prefer to say we don't spend money on education; we invest it. Because in actual dollars and cents there is a higher earning capacity for the person who receives more education, and he pays more taxes, plus all the other benefits which are more important than that.

Mr. FLYNN. And the benefits to the individual would be remarkable during this period, also.

Miss CONDON. Of course. And the benefits to the Nation. I am sure that a great many of those scientists who have worked on

our-maybe I shouldn't mention it on the missile program, I think the record would show that some of them probably got their education under the GI bill, and a great many in the medical developments that have been so beneficial to us have also had the same opportunity and would not have had it otherwise.

Mr. FLYNN. Do you believe that a boy who has put in his full stint of duty, so far as military service is concerned, who was desirous of attending one of the colleges of the country, should have that opportunity?

Miss CONDON. Yes, sir; I certainly do.

Mr. FLYNN. With the assistance of the Government?

Miss CONDON. I think it is a good investment for the Government. Mr. FLYNN. Do you believe that that boy would be of greater value to his country after receiving the educational program than he would be if he reenlisted in the military service?

Miss CONDON. Yes, I do; because I think that part of the Department of Defense's statement-and I am not familiar with it except from what I have heard discussed here seemed to imply that they didn't approve of expanding the GI bill educational benefits because this would lure people out of the service into college. I don't think that a soldier is too effective if the only reason he is staying in the military is because he just can't earn a living any other way, and that they are trapping him into staying in the service because they are denying him the opportunity that his older brothers and father had. It doesn't make sense.

Mr. FLYNN. It expands, does it not, the caste system to which you referred. He is cast into the military wthout financial ability to raise his own level.

Miss CONDON. Yes. One of the points I made in here, and probably didn't make too clearly, was the fact that these young men terminate their military service at, say, 22 or 23, and I have read recruiting posters, like others in my educational career, and have advised people about the wisdom of going into the service at various times, and I think it is a wonderful opportunity for many people.

I am well aware that the recruiting posters sometimes distort the picture. For example, I known young men stationed here in the Washington area, who are in various branches of the service, and they are told that you can enroll at the American University or George Washington, or one of these colleges, and go to school while you are serving. This sounds good, except the boy will do this and then suddenly they will transfer him to Camp David on guard duty for 3 weeks and he misses his classes. I have heard of one youngster who was pulled out 2 days before examination and sent as an enlisted man to give officers training in a certain phase. The particular service had no interest in his personal program.

The idea that you can be in the service and go to school is not quite as valid as sometimes it is purported to be.

Mr. FLYNN. And without trying to encroach on the reservoir of the military, do you feel that it would be an unreasonable requirement to expect the military, as part of their responsibility, to train annually the 45 percent of their enlistees who would leave to go to educational schools?

Miss CONDON. I am not sure I understand your question, Mr. Flynn.

Mr. FLYNN. Do you feel that we would be placing an unreasonable burden upon the military if we told them that they should be expected to retrain the 45 percent of the 100,000 enlistees who leave annually to go into college?

Miss CONDON. No, sir; I don't think this is unreasonable. I think they could perhaps better invest their money that way than some of the ways I have read in the paper they have been investing their money. Mr. FLYNN. Thank you.

Mr. HALEY. I have no questions, except to express the most sincere commendation to the gentlelady from, I may say, Montana, but here representing NEA. I would like to say that I believe the lady is not only excellent public relations for the NEA, but I think the best public relations I have ever seen for the State of Montana. So my compliments to you.

Miss CONDON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HALEY. Are there any further questions?

Mr. FINO. I want to say to Miss Condon that I appreciate_her sentiments when she said that education is a good investment. I go a little further and say it is a good and wise investment.

Does your organization believe, or feel, that a free education is something important and should be afforded to everyone who is interested in it?

Miss CONDON. Yes, sir. Every American citizen is entitled to the maximum amount of education he can profit from.

Mr. FINO. The reason I asked you that question was because last year I had occasion to visit the Russian exposition in the Coliseum in New York City, and of course I wasn't too impressed with all the exhibits, but the things that fascinated me were the placards and posters all over the Coliseum which said, "In Russia, everyone receives a free education." That sort of made me feel a little bad, that we can't say that about our American system.

Miss CONDON. We would hope, sir, as I said in my testimony, that ultimately Congress in its wisdom will inaugurate a program of scholarships for all young people who have the ability and the wish to try. But until such a day happens, we still think the GI bill should be extended for at least that group of young people to whom we have a special responsibility.

Mr. FINO. I thank you.

Mr. HALEY. We thank you very much. You are not only pretty, but efficient.

Mr. George?

Mr. GEORGE. First, I would like to say that I think your niece has a very attractive aunt.

Miss CONDON. Thank you. I will tell her that.

Mr. GEORGE. Don't you believe that if this bill should be enacted into law, that our economic growth would develop more rapidly? Now, we are behind Russia in the percentage of increase in economic growth, according to experts. That is one of the great things that we ought to do something about.

Miss CONDON. Yes, indeed.

Mr. GEORGE. Don't you think this would be important in that direction?

Miss CONDON. Our economic growth is, as you say, lagging percentagewise behind other parts of the world. This is, I think, unfor

givable in this country. I think this is a very good way of meeting, in part, that challenge which we must meet, or others are going to pass us in this area.

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you very much.

Mr. HALEY. Thank you again. Maybe I will come down and see this USO setup in Washington.

It

Miss CONDON. I think the USO would love to have the whole committee come down, and really talk to some of these men. might be enlightening.

Mr. HALEY. I understand that Mr. Peter M. Jenkins, of the Washington Emergency Committee for the post-Korean GI bill, wishes to submit a statement later, rather than testify today. Is that correct? CLERK. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. HALEY. Without objection, the committee will receive the written statement.

Mr. HALEY. The next witness is Mr. James W. Hafey, executive director, Catholic War Veterans.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. HAFEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CATHOLIC WAR VETERANS

Mr. HAFEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am James W. Hafey, executive director of the Catholic War Veterans, with offices in Washington, D.C. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to present the views of the Catholic War Veterans on the extremely important subject of benefits for peacetime ex-service men and women.

Unquestionably, one of the most pressing issues in the broad field of veterans affairs at the present time is the determination as to what benefits should be accorded the almost 3 million ex-service men and women who rendered honorable service to this country during the post-Korean period.

While we recognize that this service was not performed during a period of wartime for which various benefits have traditionally been granted by Congress, nevertheless because of the uncertain world conditions since the Korean war, it is difficult to consider military service during these years as having been rendered in times of peace in the strict sense of the word. For many individuals such service was filled with many of the dangers and uncertainties of actual wartime service.

These men serving under the Military Training and Service Act are required to leave their homes, families, jobs, and often discontinue their schooling to enter military service. No one would question that this is a disruption of their normal lives. Consequently, we feel that this group is entitled to some special benefits that will more fully compensate them for the time spent in military service and to aid them in readjusting to civilian life.

We have analyzed the several bills under consideration and determined that H.R. 2258, introduced by the distinguished chairman of this committee, merits the endorsement and support of the Catholic War Veterans. This would provide vocational rehabilitation, loan guarantee, and education and training benefits for peacetime exservicemen.

52087-60- -53

It is our firm belief that the Government has an obligation to provide to veterans injured in service such rehabilitation measures and vocational training as may be necessary to enable them to overcome occupational handicaps as the result of injuries sustained in service. Since these injuries were incurred in the service of the country, it follows that the Government should be responsible for the proper readjustment of these ex-servicemen to civilian life. This proposed legislation is sound in every respect and has our unqualified endorsement.

The Catholic War Veterans also lends its support to the education and training provisions of H.R. 2258. The money invested in such a program by the Federal Government would be a sound investment in the future security of this country. Such educational opportunities would undoubtedly increase our supply of teachers, scientists, engineers, and specialists in other skills so important in the present age. We have heard time and time again of the progress that Communist Russia has made in the field of education, especially in fields of science and other technoloical skills and we know that this country's progress in these areas does not compare with the advancement made by Russia. We are not attempting to say that our education and training program will solve this entire problem, but we do feel that it will constitute a major step in overcoming the lag that presently exists in these fields.

In analyzing the overall results of this program, enacted following World War II and Korea, there can be no question in the minds of anyone as to the tremendous benefits accruing to our Nation in terms of more teachers, scientists, engineers and, in general, a more educated citizenry, better equipped through education to fit into our increasingly complex way of life and better prepared to make a real contribution to our growth and prosperity as a nation.

The money that would be spent in the education of these ex-servicemen should not be thought of as an expenditure but rather as an investment—an investment in the growth of our Nation and certainly a long-term investment in America that will pay us greater dividends as the years pass. There is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate the benefits derived as a result of the enactment of the World War II and Korean GI bills and it is testimony to the wisdom of Congress in enacting such legislation. We urge that such legislation be enacted for peacetime ex-servicemen.

The loan guarantee feature of this bill also has the support of the Catholic War Veterans. For a relatively small investment on the part of the Federal Government, a veteran can purchase a home with a low downpayment and at an interest rate that is lower than the interest rates under FHA or conventional financing. Again, this would not only be of great benefit to the veteran but would also stimulate the economy of the country. The record amply demonstrates the success that the loan guarantee program experienced following World War II and Korea.

We would like to ask that this committee give consideration to extending benefits to those veterans who served between July 25, 1947, and June 27, 1950. While it may be true that this group of veterans may be beyond the age suitable for taking advantage of this legislation, nevertheless, we feel that such opportunity should at least be available.