Mr. DRIVER. I agree with you. All the veterans' organizations are participating heavily in this, and they certainly are not critical of what we are doing. I would say if you would inquire, they would support fully the fact that we are pushing this as hard as we can. If I could refer to the figures prior to 1964, the numbers of applications 499,800. The numbers who entered training, 364,000.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Now, that is pre-Tonkin Bay veterans. Mr. DRIVER. That is right, sir, back to 1955. And I think that this is a far healthier picture than we were talking about at the last hearing.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes; it is, I agree, a far healthier picture. The other your total here are not quite as high. You estimated about 820,000 entered. It will actually be

Mr. DRIVER. 692,300.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Around 700,000.

Mr. DRIVER. This is as of December 31, Senator. Of course, there have been as you know, many more that have come in since.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You have 364,000 out of that 2,900,000 have actually entered training. And then you have

Mr. DRIVER. That is pre-Tonkin Bay.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And 328,000 of the 1,600,000 post.

Mr. DRIVER. That is right. And all those figures have been supplied for the record.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Since then you have about 20 percent having entered training; and of pre-Tonkin Bay you had about 15 percent. Mr. DRIVER. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Not quite 15-122.

Mr. DRIVER. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It is logical that you would have a much higher percentage of these latter years, because many of the preTonkin Bay ones had already gone to college on their own and finished-married and had families of such size they felt they could not go back. It seems to me the figures are pretty low for the postTonkin Bay.

Mr. DRIVER. I think now we have hit the 50-percent figure, and I think it will hold and maybe improve a little. But, of course, you see, today, and for the past couple of years, we have been able to counsel with the men coming out of service about the benefits. For those that got out a little bit ahead of that, we had to rely on the information getting to them through the newspapers, radio, television, veterans' organizations, and things of this sort.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I realize that. Now that we have the accurate percentages here, I think you have done pretty well on the pre-Tonkin Bay, and not so well in this postperiod. Because this is the time, as these young men come out, before they have large families, that they ought to finish their education.

Mr. DRIVER. Yes, sir. And this is what we are pushing real hard. Senator YARBOROUGH. I do want to commend you for the VA's recommendation of this multiple children in the family, making it possible for more veterans to go to school if they have three, four, or five children. And also the other VA recommendations you made that if they had not finished high school, they go ahead and finish high school at Government expense before they use up any of their entitlement—their full entitlement for post-high-school education, whether

in college or technical school. I congratulate you on these recommendations that have been written into the law.

Mr. DRIVER. Thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I just have a final question. You have the various incentives for each month of public service. You can only accrue 3 years of training. Taking the average veteran, when he is discharged from the service, generally how much educational benefits does he have accrued?

Mr. DRIVER. Well, today it is just about the maximum.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What kind of incentive is this going to be?

Mr. DRIVER. This is an incentive to a man-for example, a World War II veteran-who used his entitlement, who is willing to this bill does this legislation that is proposed would cover a World War II veteran or Korean veteran-if he would go into a teaching situation in a deprived area, for example, he could accumulate on a monthby-month basis additional entitlement to go get another degree, a master's degree, for example.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What you are really looking to is veterans whose benefits have really expired.

Mr. DRIVER. That is right, sir.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. This would be for the most part an attempt to bring back people who have gone through and finished their educational process.

Mr. DRIVER. The World War II veteran is 48, on the average. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. How many of those do you think will participate?

Mr. DRIVER. Very few. But we think it is important that we open this to as many veterans as possible.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The Korean as well?

Mr. DRIVER. Yes, sir. I think we would get more from Korea. They are younger. And perhaps more amenable to switching.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Have you made any estimate as to how many you expect from these programs?

Mr. DRIVER. 1,200 the first year was our estimate.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Do you have a listing of the other funds that are going to come up? Taking those indicated in the President's message, do you have that detailed as well, as to where that money is going to go?

Mr. DRIVER. Yes, sir, from memory-my memory is $10 million for labor and $10 million in the Teacher Corps. I will have to submit the others.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That does not come under the veterans, that Teacher Corps figure?

Mr. DRIVER. No sir-the $232 million is the only figure for the Veterans' Administration.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Who had the authority of discretion in that breakdown? Do you?

Mr. DRIVER. No, sir; it is specified in terms of what is proposed? Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Why does the $10 million for the Teacher Corps come under the veterans in the President's message?

Mr. DRIVER. It does not. It is merely listed in the overall message the President sent up that includes the veterans in public service and these other things the total comes to $50 million.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I see.

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Administrator-as I get the picture, in addition to the regular GI benefits, if a veteran goes into this program and teaches in a deprived area, he would be entitled to up to 3 years of additional schooling, which at $50 a month would amount to up to $1,800. He would also me entitled to $80 a month the first year, $60 a month the second year. In addition, he would accumulate entitlements to go on to graduate school for up to 3 years-is that correct? Mr. DRIVER. Yes, sir; that would be the maximum.

Senator GRIFFIN. If we take the average yearly cost you have given of $900, that would be $2,700. Thus, S. 2910 would give a veteran up to $6,180 of maximum additional benefits.

I, of course, realize this figure would be the maximum. How many veterans are receiving GI benefits?

Mr. DRIVER. There are about 400,000 in training at the moment. There will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 700,000 in some form of training during the year.

Senator GRIFFIN. But you think that only 50,000 additional veterans will be interested in working in public service as defined in S. 2910.

Mr. DRIVER. The itemization you listed on cost would be spread over several years. No one can do this in any one year. Seven years would be required to get all you mentioned.

Senator GRIFFIN. But the effect would be cumulative. Presumably this enrollment would continue year after year.

Mr. DRIVER. Yes. But some would be coming in and others would be going out. It is our best estimate based on the numbers taking teacher training today, based on these incentives.

Senator GRIFFIN. The maximum exposure for each year, assuming 50,000 participants, then, would be $309,000,000. And with 26 million veterans potentially entitled to benefits under S. 2910 presently, and with 800,000 veterans discharged each year, I feel the 50,000 participant figure is sheer speculation.

Mr. DRIVER. You are accumulating 7 years of experience with 50,000 in 1 year

Senator GRIFFIN. I realize that. I am trying to get these figures into the record. For as the record will reflect, your figures are very unrealistic.

Mr. DRIVER. You think them low or high, sir?

Senator GRIFFIN. I think they are very low.

Mr. DRIVER. As I say, this is our estimate. We furnished a detailed cost estimate. It is our best estimate.

Senator GRIFFIN. Would it not be fair to say that the quid pro quo here under this bill is not for service in the military, but for teaching and performing a public service in a deprived area?

Mr. DRIVER. The quid pro quo is that if you are an honorably discharged war veteran, we are asking you to continue service to the country in a deprived area for which we will give you an additional veterans' benefit.

Senator GRIFFIN. But the benefit that you get is not because of your military service, it is for performing public service in a deprived area. Mr. DRIVER. It is both in my opinion, because you cannot get it

unless you have performed military service. If you have you can get it, if you will serve in a deprived area.

Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you very much.
Mr. DRIVER. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Our next witness is Mr. Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, Special Assistant to the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Office of Education, accompanied by Richard A. Graham, Director of the Teacher Corps.

Mr. TRACHTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Richard Graham, Director of the Teacher Corps and Mr. August Steinhilber from the Office of Legislation.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We shall be glad to hear from you now, sir.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JOEL TRACHTENBERG, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD A. GRAHAM, DIRECTOR OF THE TEACHER CORPS, AND AUGUST W. STEINHILBER, SPECIALIST FOR LEGISLATION, OFFICE OF LEGISLATION

Mr. TRACHTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege and pleasure to have this opportunity to appear before the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee in support of S. 2910, the Veterans in Public Service Act of 1968.

As you are aware, the educational component of this bill responds to the President's concern both with the nature of education in America's ghettos and with the need to afford viable professional opportunities to some of the 800,000 GI's who are expected to return to civilian life in the next year.

Each month some 70,000 men and women leave the armed services and become veterans. At the same time that they desire a rewarding civilian endeavor there is an urgent need for high quality teachers in our classrooms.

In his remarks of November 15, 1967, to the leaders of a number of veterans organizations, President Johnson said:

I want to encourage more veterans to teach *. These men and women have something rare, something unusual, and I think something wonderful to offer if they have served in our uniform. They can bring to the ghetto classrooms what few others can. They can bring there whatever children need-example, experience, integrity, honor, courage, faith, hope, and love of country *

Mr. Chairman, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders has observed, "for the children of the ghetto, the schools have failed to provide the educational experience which could overcome the effects of discrimination and deprivation."

Congress has previously responded to some of the problems of deprived communities with legislation such as the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. S. 2910 carries us another step forward. Under it veterans are offered a new front: the fight against ignorance in the ghetto.

This act acknowledges that a key to improved education is the teacher. As you know the national shortage of teachers estimated at

about 200,000 last fall-is more acute in rural and urban poverty area schools. Perhaps, this is to be expected. The laws of supply and demand, regulated by price paid for the product, affect the supply of quality school teachers as well as the supply of bread. Our wealthier suburban school districts have for some time recognized this and paid the price necessary to get most of the best teachers. However, as Dr. A. Harry Passow indicated in his recent report on conditions in the schools of the District of Columbia, it is essential if we are to make substantial improvement in our poverty area schools that we attract and train a new generation of teachers who choose the education of the disadvantaged as their career and who are prepared to do the job well.

It is against this background that the U.S. Office of Education reacted with enthusiasm when the President first announced his intention of seeking programs to speed veterans from the battlefield to public service at home.

The bill that has developed out of this effort and is now before the committee offers us an opportunity to correct in part the workings of the marketplace for teachers by making it financially more attractive to train and to serve in poverty area schools, but more importantly it makes it possible to draw into poverty teaching very important people, a group of young men and women who, as the President states, understand a good deal better than most the value of freedom and the price that must be paid to protect it, and who have a uniquely gained personal confidence and self-respect.

My statement goes on to spell out some of the benefits indicated in the bill. I think that the conversation with Mr. Driver has carried us through most of that material.

I call your attention to the 800,000 young men leaving military service each year. Of these about 17 percent have some college training.

We have with us today Mr. Richard A. Graham, the Director of the Teacher Corps. I would like to have him direct himself to the details of the Office of Education's part in this program, and to the experience of the Teacher Corps. I would like to indicate just a few words about our past efforts.

Under titles I and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, school districts all across the Nation have developed a series of programs to augment and enrich their offerings to children from poverty homes. Many of these programs involve the employment of people from the school neighborhoods as teacher aides or paraprofessionals. These jobs now existing in the schools provide an opportunity for the immediate employment of returned veterans in the schools while they are undertaking the college training for which the proposed GI bill amendments would provide extra funds. We are confident that such programs can be worked out between school districts and junior colleges and universities all across the Nation.

The Bureau of Educational Personnel Development just now being established within the Office of Education to aid States and localities in developing programs for developing education personnel, when funded, will provide a structure within which local school systems and universities can plan for the utilization of veterans entering the profession under these GI bill amendments, Mr. Graham, who has been appointed a deputy to the head of the new Bureau will have more to say about these possibilities.