authority and reserving the right to judicial review in all instances not specifically covered by the act.

Senate bill 1940 can be properly considered as a substantial extension of the present educational training program; however, a number of major modifications are proposed.

Section 1 proposes to restrict eligibility for training to any person who had passed his twenty-third birthday on June 27, 1950, or the date he entered service, whichever is later. Such a person would be eligible for 1 year of training. Persons under 23 years on June 27, 1950, or the date they entered service would be allowed eligibility for training up to 48 months. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 originally contained a similar provision; however, in that case the age limitation was set at 25 years.

The administrative complexities which grew out of this proviso caused the Congress to remove the restriction and authorize eligibility for training without regard to age limitation. Such a proviso becomes an administrative difficulty, since it is impossible to establish definite criteria by which to determine whether a person did actually interrupt his education or training to enter the Armed Forces. Obviously a person who was taken from college could prove that he interrupted his training. It might be more difficult for a young man who delayed entering college because he knew he would be required to serve in the Armed Forces to prove that his education was impeded by service in the Armed Forces.

The veteran who planned no formal education, but who was attempting to learn a business on the job would probably never be able to convince the Veterans' Administration that he was in a training stage as a beginner on his job. I do not believe that such an age limitation should appear in the law. I believe that any new program should provide for some educational assistance, which together with a reasonable contribution on the veteran's part would allow the veteran to undertake education or training. I believe that a modest program making aid available to any veteran who wishes to help himself is more desirable than a more expensive program limited to a relatively small number of veterans whom the Veterans' Administration would administratively determine to be eligible for unlimited benefits.

For example, Senator, if you finished your law school and went into the service and spent a number of years it seems to me that when you come back your education and all would have been more interrupted than in the case of a man who was in the middle of his college year.

I think that this program proves that the men who came back and went back to school, actually they did better in school. Every college president I have talked to, and I have talked to many, has been very high in his praise of the veterans who came back and went to school.

Senator HILL. That seems to be the universal opinion.
Representative TEAGUE. That is right.

Section 4, page 7, lines 17 through 22, provides that wherever there are established State apprenticeship agencies expressly charged by State laws to administer apprenticeship training, whenever possible the Administrator shall utilize such existing facilities and service

in training on the job when such training is of a year's duration or more. The requirement that apprenticeship agreements be utilized if training exceeds 1 year is a new criteria for determining whether the program should be an apprentice training program or an on-thejob program. This requirement will have the effect of disqualifying on-the-job training programs in excess of 1 year which are not otherwise covered by apprenticeship agreements and will disturb the balance between organized apprentice training and other training on the job as it now exists.

Section 4, page 8, prohibits enrollment of a veteran in a profit school which has less than 25 equivalent full-time students or onethird of the equivalent full-time students enrolled (whichever is larger) paying all of their own tuition. This proviso in effect precludes enrollment of a veteran in any school which has less than 25 students. I agree with the apparent intent of the provision to require that veterans enroll in schools which have a substantial number of nonveterans; however, the wording of the paragraph excludes all small schools. Before World War II, a majority of the Nation's small privately owned schools, such as barbering schools, cosmetology schools, music and arts schools, and small-business schools were 1- and 2-teacher schools with 25 students or less. This proviso creates an artificial and unfair barrier to the small private school.

Section 5 requires that the veteran pay one-half of his tuition and requires that the Administrator pay the remaining half, not to exceed $300. It is the apparent purpose of this provision to require the veteran to pay part of his tuition out of funds paid him for subsistence purposes in order that the veteran will have some interest in the quality and price of training which he receives.

Senator, I believe that to make this program effective it must be self-policing. I think the intent of this is that a veteran contributes something and is the first big step toward making the program selfpolicing so that the veteran will demand that he get what he is paying for.

This objective is very desirable and should be one of the fundamental objectives of the new bill. I do not believe that this requirement will achieve its purpose in its entirety, since the amount which the veteran pays will be relatively small. The school and the Veterans' Administration will not be relieved of the administrative difficulties of preparing and processing vouchers, keeping records pertaining to the one-half paid by the Veterans' Administration. The educational institution will be faced with the additional problem of maintaining a separate account for the individual veteran, as well as the Veterans' Administration account. This additional obligation will represent a sizable burden in institutions of higher learning with thousands of veteran trainees.

I expect my committee to advocate a plan whereby a total payment is made to the veteran at the end of a month of training and the veteran makes direct payments to the school for tuition, books, fees, and other charges. Such a plan will eliminate the necessity for a contract and the necessity for the vouchering procedure and will make the veteran responsible for conduct of his own affairs. At the same time it will create an incentive for the veteran to secure training at a reasonable price, since he will keep any funds which remain after his training bills have been paid.

Senator, I was not going to read that because we have gone to a number of the departments, we have the Treasury Department working on it, and we have the General Accounting Office doing some work on it, but, for example, in my office I have a young man who went through all the combat of this last war.

That boy came home, got married, has a couple of small children and a dependent mother. It was never possible for him to obtain any benefits under the GI bill. There is no way in my mind that I can agree that is fair that that boy should get nothing.

Yet, many other boys that I know that did not contribute one iota that he did should get a $3,000 or $4,000. This plan that we are working on is a plan whereby it would be more of a scholarship program where we would encourage the veteran to go to school because he could get more, and if he did not go to school he would not get any advantages, he would get a small cash payment, which would be considered smaller than if he had gotten an education.

Senator HILL. Let me ask you, Congressman, when do you think your bill will be ready?

Representative TEAGUE. That is rather difficult, Senator. I hope by the first of the year that it will be ready, but I do not think we can do it sooner.

Senator HILL. In other words, you do not have hopes of doing it during this session?

Representative TEAGUE. No, sir. I do not intend to rush it. Whatever we do now is what will guide our country for a long time to come, and every group should have an opportunity to come in and state their side of it, and we should be sure just exactly where we are going.

Senator HILL. Have you pretty well concluded your hearings? Representative TEAGUE. Yes, sir; we have. We are having demands all over the country for hearings, but we feel we have seen enough to see the general pattern of what has happened in the Veterans' Administration, in the colleges and other schools, and in the State approval agencies, and there is no reason to continue spending money on investigations.

We are now in the process of writing up a report, and we are working this bill through the different departments and getting their comments and later hope to have hearings on it.

Senator HILL. You hope to get the opinions of the different departments now on what you tentatively propose?

Representative TEAGUE. Correct. We hope, Senator, in this to do away with much of the administrative problems that the Veterans' Administration has had. I doubt that any of us can conceive of the administrative problems that they have had. We think the plan that we have will do away with 90 percent of those.

The proviso of section 6, page 12, beginning at line 7, which requires that the veteran make a report of income for 12 months when he enters training and for each 12 months thereafter is not clear. The law does not indicate whether a total report of estimated earnings will be made, whether an average monthly report of estimated earnings will be made, or whether an estimate of each month's estimated earnings will be made. It appears that the Veterans' Administration will pay subsistence to a veteran enrolled in on-the-job training based

on a 4 months' adjustment plan so long as the total of estimated earnings and subsistence do not exceed the ceilings specified on page 12. Under the present program the veteran submits reports of actual earnings each 4 months and a projected estimate of the next 4 months' earnings at the same time. If, by examining the report of earnings, the Veterans' Administration determines that he received too much subsistence, a recovery is made by the Veterans' Administration. Apparently this section of the bill contemplates the payment of subsistence based on a projection of earnings and no effort will be made to later determine what the actual earnings were and make adjustments in case of an overpayment of subsistence.

It appears that such a plan is merely legalizing overpayments rather than establishing the administrative machinery necessary to cope with them. We have witnessed the action of the Veterans' Administration to legalize overpayments developed in connection with leave of absence in schools, and it now appears that overpayments in on-the-job training would be legalized rather than collected if this proviso is to take effect.

Paragraph (b), page 12, line 22, establishes full-time training in a trade or technical course at 36 hours per week. The Congress has previously established full-time training in trades or technical courses at 30 hours a week, and I have no reason to believe that 30 hours a week is incorrect. There is no educational precedent upon which to base 36 hours per week training in trades and technical courses, and I do not understand why the Veterans' Administration persists in suggesting 36 hours per week.

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 was silent with regard to defining full-time training, and the Veterans' Administration administratively determined full-time training in trades and technical courses to be not less than 25 clock hours per week. This definition remained in force for approximately 5 years and could have been changed at any time by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. However, in 1950 he recommended to the President, who in turn recommended to the Congress, that full-time training be established at 36 hours per week. The matter was considered at that time and was settled at 30 hours a week. For some unknown reason it again appears in this bill.

S. 1940 continues the requirements for agricultural training established by Public Law 377, Eightieth Congress. While Public Law 377 made provision for a trainee who performs his course as the employee of another, this part of the law has not been placed into effect except in a few States. In those States the program proved to be unsatisfactory and turned out to be a labor subsidy program for large farm and plantation owners and was in no way satisfactory. It is the general consensus of opinion among the State departments of education that this plan is not workable; therefore it should be removed from the law.

Senator AIKEN. I wonder if I might ask a question there?
Senator HILL. Certainly.

Senator AIKEN. You point out what is undoubtedly a fact, that in some cases this program was used as a labor subsidy program for large farm and plantation owners. However, was it not used just as much as a subsidy for other lines of industry as well?

Representative TEAGUE. Yes, sir. I think that is true, Senator. Senator AIKEN. For clerks and in banks.

Representative TEAGUE. I think we corrected a lot of that. Senator AIKEN. Garages, repair shops, and so forth, and you would not advocate striking it out for agriculture employees alone?

Representative TEAGUE. No, sir, Senator, I would not. Public Law 679-for a time on-the-job training appeared to me that it was going to become a national scandal. We passed Public Law 679, which gave us the money for inspection service, and I think since then there has been little complaint and little fault found with on-the-job training, but what you say is true with respect to industry.

Senator AIKEN. As I recall it, the bill originally provided for onthe-job training for certain types of commercial and industrial enterprises.

Representative TEAGUE. Right.

Senator AIKEN. Then it appeared to many that it might be used as a labor subsidy, might be used improperly, but if it was going to be used improperly in certain lines of business actually the boys who left the farms in large numbers would be entitled to the same right that the others had.

Representative TEAGUE. Senator, I would not want to leave the impression for a moment along that line with reference to farm boys. I happen to represent a farm district, and I know and am familiar with that, and personally I think our farm boys contributed more than their share.

Senator AIKEN. I know the armed services like to get them, and it was harder to get a boy released from the service in that category than any other.

Representative TEAGUE. We have a case that has just been finished in a county in a nearby State where a boy was the mayor of the town and a lawyer. He hired somebody to work his farm, and he was on the farm program. The abuse in this county was almost unbelievable; everybody was involved. The teachers, the Veterans' Administration representative, the veterans themselves were all involved.

Senator AIKEN. I do not doubt it.

Representative TEAGUE. We have not worked that particular problem out, but we have found that weakness in the present law. We think that to improve the farm program you have to do what we did with 679, have stronger criteria and a stronger inspection service.

Paragraph (d), line 4, page 22, proposes to apply certain criteria to any school operated for profit. I believe that the basis of application for these criteria should be whether the school and the course is part of an accredited public-school system or is recognized by an established accrediting association.

Senator HILL. Let me ask you this: I suppose they have an accrediting association for every type of school, whether it is a barber school or a cosmetic school or what have you?

Representative TEAGUE. No, sir, Senator.

Senator HILL. What would you do about it?

Representative TEAGUE. We do not believe the school should be approved unless the State does set up an accrediting system. If the school or course is not accredited, it should be required to conform with these criteria regardless of whether it is public or private,