portion of these accomplishments were a direct result of instruction and assistance made possible by our veterans training program. If training for veterans was important 12 years ago, it is even more important at the present time. Changes in the business of farming are taking place more rapidly than at any time in the history of our Nation. When a young man was called to serve in the Armed Forces 15 years ago, even if he served 4 years, farm practices and methods were changed very little while he was away from the farm. Now when a young man is called to serve his country, he will not even recognize many of the practices being conducted when he returns. It is no longer true that a farmer must know only how to perform a certain practice he must also know why. In other words, science as well as mechanization has completely changed the farming picture. We hear much about the increased population that this country faces. We also hear that the need for young men in farming is decreasing. This may be true, but it is only part of the story. With increased mechanization and fewer but larger farms, the need for increased education and training opportunities for these young men who remain on the farm is greater than ever before. We in Virginia and throughout this Nation are not beginning to train the number of farm operator replacements needed. We are losing the "cream of the crop" in agriculture and will eventually face an extreme shortage of young men on farms. Let me illustrate what I mean. A young man is called to serve 2 years in the Armed Forces. He has probably been out of high school 2, 3 or 4 years, where he had made a small start toward becoming established in farming. He has accumulated some assets in the farming business. When he goes into service he probably disposes of his livestock or whatever he may own as his share in the farming business. When he returns to the farm, adjustments have been made during his absence, the cost of starting to farm has advanced and new methods have been introduced. Rather than start all over again, he seeks employment elsewhere. Let's take another case. A young man completes his high school training and would really like to become a farmer. He realizes that in a short while he will be drafted into the armed services. Rather than speed that period trying to make a start in farming, he finds employment elsewhere and never returns to the farm. These examples illustrate how compulsory military service has reduced the number of outstanding young farmers continuing in the business of farming. We must maintain and increase our productive capacity in agriculture not only for our increased population but for national defense. Many specialized types of farming are coming into existence which require highly skilled and trained farm operators. We realize that it is most difficult for older farmers to adjust to change. It is, therefore, necessary that we keep our young men on the farm. We feel that making available certain educational and training benefits will induce more of our young men to stay on the farm. We realize that our country is not engaged in a military conflict and we hope it will never be. We understand that the purpose of the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944 and related legislation since that time was to aid veterans of the armed services in making the necessary adjustment to civilian life. It was not simply a means of remuneration for serving their country in time of war. If this was true in 1944 and again in 1952, it should still be true in 1960. The adjustments in farming are much more difficult today than in either of the previous periods. In view of the invaluable contributions of the veterans training program to young farmer veterans of service in World War II, and the Korean conflict, and in view of the continuation of the draft, we urge the enactment of legislation that will continue the benefits of this training for veterans of service in the Armed Forces who entered the service since January 31, 1955. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much. Does the gentleman from Georgia have any questions? Mr. MITCHELL. I have no questions, but I have a brief comment. I appreciate very much the appearance of these gentlemen and their statements and I want to say this about Dr. Mobley, that he has made a great contribution and continues to do that in the field of vocational education and I wish you every success. Dr. MOBLEY. Thank you so much. I appreciate those words very much. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Flynn? Mr. FLYNN. I have no questions. Mr. HALEY. Mr. George? Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I think both of these statements were very enlightening. Mr. Chairman, Col. James McBrayer Sellers, for many years commandant of the Wentworth Military Academy, Lexington, Mo., of which I am a graduate, desires that this committee be informed of his hope that S. 1138 be enacted into law. Colonel Sellers feels definitely that many young men and women who would not otherwise receive a good education could do so under such a law. Although such a measure would not be of any benefit to Wentworth Military Academy, Colonel Sellers is anxious that more young people be given an opportunity to obtain an education. The colonel desired that a letter be filed, Mr. Chairman, and it is requested that it be inserted at the end. of the record of hearings. If I may, I would also like consent to file a letter for the record which I received from Miss Illeane D. Littrell from my district in Kansas. Mr. HALEY. Without objection it is so ordered. (The letter referred to follows:) HON. NEWELL A. GEORGE, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANS., March 11, 1960. DEAR SIR: So the armed services attribute their reenlistments to the fact that the men whose terms are expiring is due to the fact that they are not eligible for the so-called GI education? Well, well. Maybe they should get out into the country and see how much unemployment there really is. What else can the discharged servicemen do? Mr. George, I live in a city where the unemployment is mounting daily and I came from Independence, Kans., where 55 employees were notified that they are to be terminated May 1. Just 18 miles from Independence, Kans., in Coffeyville, Kans., a can factory has gone from 3,000 employees down to 600. This factory employed residents of such surrounding towns as Cherryvale, Chanute, Parsons, Caney, Thayer, Dearing, Edna, Liberty, etc. What concerns me is-just how many areas are there like this? In talking to men who travel in the States of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma, they say the unemployment and poor financial conditions of our small towns are getting greater each year. People do not have jobs and people do not have money. Many of the draftees and enlisted men came from such communities but have no job opportunities to which to return. These men need to go to school but they are financially unable to do so. Why shouldn't they get to go on the GI bill like so many more? Their lives have been in a turmoil for years because of the draft. Much of our problems with the younger people is because they can't plan their futures. I'm not referring to the well-to-do or the socially prominent but to the down-to-earth people, those who need help and who are the background of our country. Yes, I want a new GI bill. A bill which will pay tuition, lab fees, and book costs would help the needy and those who want to apply themselves. Please do all you can to gain support of such legislation and let me know what's wrong with our representatives. Don't they realize the employment situation? Sincerely, ILLEANE D. LITTRELL. Mr. HALEY. I will also insert in the record a letter from the Thaddeus H. Caraway Post No. 2278, Veterans of Foreign Wars, of Hot Springs National Park, Ark., and a letter from Joseph A. Yakaitis, an employee of the Department of the Army now serving in Korea. (The letters referred to follow :) Hon. OLIN TEAGUE, THADDEUS H. CARAWAY POST No. 2278, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: It is the desire of this post that you be informed that the members hereof have voted unanimously to ask that Congress do not approve, the pending so-called peacetime GI bill. We are aware of the fact that the last national conventional of our organization, voted to approve congressional passage of such a bill, but we believe that in spite of this fact, a majority of the members throughout the Nation would not approve of any such legislation, would they be given an opportunity to voice their opinion. We know that the commander of this department opposed this proposed bill upon the occasion of his visit to Washington to the midwinter conference of department commanders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and this district opposes it also. We are opposed to a peacetime GI bill on two grounds. First, because the money necessary to implement such a bill, if enacted into law, would be charged to the Veterans' Administration, and not to the Armed Forces appropriations where it belongs-and such a charge, would only make it even more difficult to obtain a reasonable pension for our aged and ailing veterans, which is not provided for under existing legislation. Secondly, we oppose this bill, because we do not believe that individuals enlisting as so-called career service men and women, under the many benefits, and handsome wages, now offered by the Regular branches of the Armed Forces, can in any way be entitled to additional emoluments, when and if they leave the Armed Forces, to a degree contemplated under this bill. We believe that only men and women who served in the Armed Forces in time of war, are entitled to such benefits. Respectfully, L. H. GALLEGER, U.S. ARMY EVALUATION DETACHMENT, HOUSE VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIRS: I wish to strongly protest the passage of the peacetime veterans' education bill. Besides putting a burdensome levy upon the taxpayer's pocket, this bill implies that we U.S. citizens must "buy" the services of our peacetime Army with education benefits, etc. I am presently a Department of the Army civilian serving in Korea. The life that the peacetime GI has now in Korea cannot compare at all with the suffering that his compatriot in the Korea war went through. To provide the ordinary soldier with the same benefits that accrued to his brethren who suffered maiming and hardship years ago is an insult. I sincerely hope that before this bill has any further life, it be dismissed immediately as of no further benefit to the GI himself or of the average citizen who foots the bill. Very truly yours, JOSEPH A. YAKAITIS. Mr. HALEY. The Honorable Ralph J. Rivers, a Member of Congress from Alaska, the Honorable Leonard G. Wolf, a Member of Congress from Iowa, and the Honorable Wilbur Mills have asked that their statements concerning the legislation under consideration be placed in the record. If there is no objection they will be inserted at this point. (The statements referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS RE S. 1138, AND RELATED BILLS, TO PROVIDE READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN VETERANS Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I very much appreciate the opportunity of testifying before this committee. At the outset, I wish to say that I speak in support of the so-called peacetime GI bill generally, and particularly in support of S. 1138, which passed the Senate on July 21, 1959, and is now before this committee for consideration. I realize that the major issue in regard to this legislation is simply whether or not enactment of a peacetime GI bill would be justifiable. Those who oppose enactment of a new GI bill have undoubtedly argued that the previous GI bills were motivated by a sense of appreciation on the part of the American people for the risks taken and the dangers faced by our young service men and women during World War II and the Korean war, and that such conception does not apply to our so-called peacetime GI's. On the other hand, proponents contend that previous GI benefit programs were primarily the result of a desire of the American people, as manifested by congressional action, to compensate the men and women who served during the two World Wars for the interruption of their normal course of affairs, coupled with an attempt to help them readjust to life as civilians, and that the same consideration should be given to our young people today upon discharge from military service. Although no one will deny that the legislators who enacted the previous bills fully appreciated the men and women who courageously and capably defended our country during the two world conflicts of this century, the Congress included servicemen who never left the United States during either conflict, and those who were inducted into the service in 1954-when there was no war. It is a fact, also, that the popular concept of the program, as emphasized by the various veterans' training agencies, and institutions of higher learning, was that the GI benefits were afforded the veterans so that they might have the opportunity to better their economic and social status through education; an education they might have acquired on their own had they not been deterred from private endeavors through the advent of the two world conflicts. In short, it seems reasonable to conclude that the purpose of the previous veterans' assistance programs was to readjust the veteran upon discharge from the service via educational opportunity as well as to make up to him the schooling he missed during his time in the service. Thus the question boils down to whether there is a need to give similar consideration to the present-day peacetime veteran. I believe there is such a need, for the following reasons: 1. Statistics show that a high percentage of the men and women, who in all probability would have at least commenced pursuit of a higher education during the period of time they spent in the service, did not, upon discharge, pursue a higher education because of readiness for marriage and other adult civilian responsibilities. 2. The cost of a higher education has proved to be higher at the termination of a tour of military duty than it was at the outset of such tour. For example, it is reported that the cost of a college education has increased about 10 percent per year in recent years. 3. A high percentage of those inducted into the service marry during the course of their active duty period. Frequently childern are born prior to the discharge, meaning that upon the termination of the tour of duty, the discharged man must secure employment that he might support his family. Pursuit of an education becomes a dream without a GI bill. 4. Today, an education is a necessity. We live in a world where one should be trained in some particular field in order to compete successfully and contribute adequately to society. Since this era of continuing cold war requires a universal military training program, it is a shame that many of those who serve are denied the opportunity to seek their desired state in life because circumstances confronting them upon discharge prohibit such a pursuit. Furthermore, a peacetime GI bill would enable thousands of these men and women to attain educations which would, through the discovery of particular aptitudes and talents, lead to the graduation of many doctors, lawyers, dentists, physicists, chemists, engineers, et cetera, that our society now needs. Since Russia launched Sputnik I there has been much discussion of the need to create some type of educational assistance program which would enable us to keep abreast of our potential adversaries in the atomic and space age. Considering that the GI's proved to be serious and diligent students under previous GI bills, it seems to me that another GI assistance bill such as the American public has supported in the past, would be the best solution. STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD G. WOLF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR POST-KOREAN VETERANS Mr. Chairman, my views on the desirability of the pending legislation were presented fully last year before the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee during the course of its hearings, and my testimony was made a part of the record of hearings by that committee. Therefore, I will not at this time impose unduly on the time of the committee and on the clerical burden of the staff. I feel very strongly about the necessity of enacting this legislation, and my own bill, H.R. 6932, embodying the principles of the Yarborough bill, which has already passed the Senate, is pending before your committee. In these days of the cold war, our men in uniform are in uniform for the sole purpose of being ready to defend the country in the event of an emergency. Therefore, they are each day placed in a position of being called upon to give their life, if need be, to protect the rest of us. In my brief remarks today, I would like to point out the economic aspects of this legislation, which is merely an extension of the GI bill enacted in 1944 to benefit our World War II veterans. I think the history of the original GI bill provides sufficient reasons for its extension to post-Korean veterans. Through the GI bill, World War II and Korean veterans have become the best educated group of people in the history of United States. Because of the training which they received under this bill their incomes are much larger than they would otherwise have been and they are paying more than an extra billion dollars a year in income taxes. By 1970, World War II veterans trained under the GI bill will have paid off the entire $15 billion cost of the GI education and training programs through increased income taxes. Veterans who have taken advantage of the GI loan program have proved themselves to be among the best financial risks in the country. They have become America's largest single group of homeowners; consequently, they pay more |