Senator YARBOROUGH. And at the same time, with the millions of unemployed, aren't there lots of jobs going begging in this country

now?

Mr. GALLO. Somebody has to put a label on them.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You have mentioned this change in the technology. Do you expect the technology to continue to change rapidly in the next 10 years or so as it has in the past 10?

Mr. GALLO. Yes, I do indeed. The need for highly repetitive functions is being eliminated by automation, or automated devices, more properly.

Senator YARBOROUGH. In that connection, with your answer just given, I want to refer to a recent message of the President of the United States to the Congress, transmitted with an educational bill, where the President pointed out that 90 percent of all the scientists who have ever lived in the world are alive today. Do you think the fact that 90 percent of all the scientists the human race ever produced is alive today is an indication that that technocracy will continue to change with all this scientific attention being given to it?

Mr. GALLO. Yes. All these curves seem to bear a relationship to each other. The curve of demand for more skilled people goes up at a very rapid rate. Curiously enough, it seems to go up at the same rate as the increased speed of the airplane over the past three or four decades. They sort of run parallel.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is an interesting commentary. You mentioned the need for technicians in here. Is that need growing just as fast as the need for engineers and scientists?

Mr. GALLO. Yes. In fact, the need for technicians is somewhat greater. The industry average when I was an engineer was 11 technicians for 1 engineer.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Eleven technicians for 1 engineer?

Mr. GALLO. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And do you find that these young people coming out of service-who are mostly men, due to the kind of training they had in service-that more of them gravitate into engineering and science and radio and electronics than the nonservicemen? They have had experience, haven't they, in the armed services with radio and mechanical equipment, and that causes a higher percentage of the veterans, if they get a chance to go to school, to gravitate into industry and technological lines than the nonservicemen, isn't that true?

Mr. GALLO. Yes, I would think that would be the case. They of course have highly specialized skills which are required by the military but which are not necesarily required in the commercial marketplace.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Gallo, when you testified here in the 87th Congress you offered in evidence a letter from President Kennedy, then Senator Kennedy, to you of February 19, 1960, endorsing the GI bill of rights, and also a letter from President Kennedy to you of May 2, 1960, giving his consent for you to disclose the contents of his February 19 letter to the public and to the press.

Do you have copies of those letters?

Mr. GALLO. Yes, sir, I do.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Will you offer those for the record?

Mr. GALLO. I would like to read those into the testimony, if I may. Senator YARBOROUGH. All right.

Mr. GALLO. The letter is dated February 19, 1960. It is addressed to me, Mr. Carl Gallo, director, Lincoln School of Radio and Television, 1851 Broadway, New York, N.Y.

I was grateful to you for sending me your views on S. 1138, which would reinstate the GI bill of rights. As you know, the Senate acted on this legislation July 21 of last year. The bill as amended was adopted by a vote of 57-31.

I think that in its final version this is a reasonable bill which does serve the national interest, as well as enlarging the educational opportunities for young men who have served in the Armed Forces. I did not feel that it was altogether logical or equitable simply to reenact the type of benefits which were available to veterans of World War II and of the Korean war. Generally the period of service today is shorter and less hazardous, and in the past years there have been new sources of scholarship and loan assistance for deserving students. The stresses of readjustment are less severe, and the economy has had little difficulty in absorbing men reentering civilian life. Therefore, I voted against the bonus provision of the bill in committee.

I felt, furthermore, that a law such as this should be justified in terms of our educational ideals and needs, and not merely on the basis of public duty which a young man has performed in military service. I feel very strongly that a bill such as this one should help to raise and enrich our standards of education, not merely to enlarge the numbers of people who receive higher education. Therefore, I also supported the Long amendment, which allows only interest-free loan assistance to those students who cannot maintain themselves in the upper half of their classes. Some inequities can result in such a provision, but on the balance I feel that it is a desirable provision. The law as passed does give some special recognition to those people who have fulfilled their military obligațion of more than 6 months, but does not unduly distort these advantages. There are probably some further improvements that can be made in this legislation. At the moment the bill still rests in the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, but I hope that the House will act on the bill soon and that the President will feel disposed to sign this legislation into law. With every good wish, Sincerely yours,

JOHN F. KENNEDY.

And then I wrote President Kennedy asking if it was all right to release this information. And I received this letter dated May 2, 1960: DEAR MR. GALLO: Many thanks for your letter of April 27, regarding my support for S. 1138, the GI bill of rights. I assure you that I have no objection to your disclosing the contents of my February letter to you to the public and the press.

With every good wish,
Sincerely yours,

Senator YARBOROUGH. Any questions?
Senator KENNEDY. I have no questions.

JOHN F. KENNEDY.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The subcommittee will stand recessed until 11:30, at which time we will reconvene to hear Senator Morse. (A recess was taken.)

Senator YARBOROUGH. The subcommittee will come to order.

The next witness will be Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. Senator Morse is a man eminently qualified to speak on any subject relating to education. He is chairman of the Education Subcommittee of the Senate. His backgroud in the field of education and law speak for themselves. He was a law teacher in law school, dean of the University Law School. And through his work he is not only conversant

through experience and training with the educational processes and needs, but he is also acquainted with the military situation of the country.

Senator Morse, with the testimony you have heard on the educational needs of America, the manpower needs, and on the retraining needs, I consider you one of the best qualified men in America, in Government or out, to talk about the manpower problems and educational problems of this Nation. And it is an honor to welcome you here. This is your fifth appearance before this subcommittee in support of educational training benefits since the GI bill for Korean conflict veterans was terminated by presidential proclamation on January 31, 1955. Of course, that could have gone on if the President just hadn't lopped it off with a proclamation.

We hear the specious argument made that there has never been any educational benefits for veterans during what some are pleased to call peacetime as applied to veterans, but it is the cold war for everything else. But we did have educational benefits during one period of this cold war, and that was from the termination of the Korean Conflict in October of 1953 until the educational benefits were cut off by a presidential proclamation by President Eisenhower on January 31. 1955.

I know of no one who is more dedicated to the proposition that a stronger America will result from the passage of this cold war GI bill than you, Senator Morse. And it encourages all of us working on it, because we know that that dedication is based on your knowledge of the needs of this country.

It is a pleasure to welcome you before this subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE MORSE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the kind and gracious words that you have spoken about my work on educational matters since I have been in the Senate. I am very sorry that I couldn't be here earlier this morning, but it was simply impossible for me to be here. I am honored, however, to have this opportunity again to testify in support of an education bill for vet

erans.

I mean every word of it when I say that if we were to be limited to just one Federal aid to education bill in this session of Congress, I would say, take the Yarborough GI education bill. I consider it the most democratic of all the proposals for Federal aid to education. It will cover the most needy group. It will give us the best return for our money. It carries out a moral obligation that I shall refer to shortly in my brief testimony this morning. I think it is the best Federal aid to education bill that could be passed by this session of Congress.

It is a matter of great disappointment to me that the Veterans Administration and the Defense Establishment and the White House seem to be so oblivious to the soundness of this bill. I want the Senator from Texas to know as a member of my Subcommittee on Education, of which I have the privilege of serving as chairman, that I shall always be indebted to him for his unfailing support for the

general aid to education bill, in spite of the fact that he is very much interested and concerned over the Yarborough bill for Federal aid to veterans, known as the GI bill.

Mr. Chairman, I shall take only enough time to summarize my statement, and then I shall ask permission to insert the full text of my testimony into the record of this hearing.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Morse, just proceed in your own way. Senator MORSE. A good deal of it repeats information and material which I find has already been submitted, and I do not want to burden the subcommittee with repetition.

A main section of my testimony is in complete contradiction to the assertion by the Director of the Veterans Administration, Mr. Gleason, that S. 5 would extent benefits in the form of reward to cold war veterans, whereas the purpose of the World War II and Korean War GI bills was to aid in the readjustment of the veteran to civilian life.. That was the view Mr. Gleason expressed here on April 10.

I find that assertion by Mr. Gleason to be a semantic device that carries no meaning. It is what we lawyers call a distinction without a difference. One could say of the World War II GI bill that it rewarded veterans with help in readjusting to civilian life. Mr. Gleason tries to contend that today, selective service enables young men to go to college before drafting them and that there is therefore no readjustment problem for young men who are drafted.

But any time the Nation takes a young man from civilian life for 2 years, contrary to his own plans for his life, there is a need for readjustment when he returns. This is true even if the draftee has finished college before entering the service. What has happened to the young men who graduated with him, but who may have had families or physical disabilities? They are 2 years further ahead in their careers. That is why the loan features of S. 5 should be available to those who have had college education already, as well as to others.

The saddest element in Mr. Gleason's statement, however, is his complete disregard for the young man who was unable to attend college before being drafted. To Mr. Gleason, 2 years of compulsory Army service are not presumed to be an interruption at all in the normal life of a young man who cannot, or at least does not, attend college.

We know that if a young man's mental qualifications are really low, he will not be drafted at all. Or if he has physical limitations, he will not see military service. This leaves a rather small group of young men who must bear the brunt of selective service.

The chairman of this subcommittee knows that for some years now I have been a critic of the draft law. I was skeptical of it 4 years ago. I was in Costa Rica with the President at the time of the consideration of the draft law in this session of Congress, and I left a record that made clear that had I been present I would have voted against it. And I filed in the Senate for inclusion in the record a timely discussion of it and my reasons for disapproval of the draft. law.

The Pentagon Building simply has not kept faith with the American people in regard to the draft law. The Pentagon Building has promised to submit to the Congress some reforms in the draft law, and

it just hasn't done it. Our draft law is undemocratic. Our draft law is undemocratic because it is highly discriminatory. Our draft law places a burden on a selected few in this country and lets many escape military service. Our draft law has become about as unjust and unfair as in the Civil War period when people could buy their way out of military service. When the American people really fully comprehend the injustice and the unfair discriminatory policies of the selective service law in this country, they are going to demand that some changes be made.

I want to warn my administration that if it continues this kind of an unfair draft law, it is headed, not into a storm, but a political typhoon, when this draft law comes before the Congress of the United States again. Here is one Senator who is not going to sit by in silence and permit this kind of undemocratic, unfair selective service law to continue to be passed by the Congress without a fight.

How Mr. Gleason can conclude that today's draftees have no readjustment problem, relative to those of the same age group who did not serve, is beyond my comprehension. During World War II, when Mr. Gleason calls the program one of readjustment, the great bulk of men in the same age group spent some time in the armed services. Today, some 55 percent of young men do not serve. It seems to me the readjustment problem is therefore much more pronounced now than it was during World War II.

I am also intrigued by the publicity being given by the Air Force to a higher education program of its own, designed primarily for officers who are assigned to Minuteman missile sites. The Air Force is advertising its aid to these men in using their free time to acquire college degrees, or higher degrees if they already have a college degree. As the Air Force points out, this strengthening of their mental talents is an asset both to the Air Force and to the man who undertakes this program of study.

That is an admirable attitude for the Air Force to take. I am only sorry that the Defense Department as a whole does not have such an enlightened attitude. Its main objection to S. 5 seems to be that the prospect of postservice educational aid for enlisted men will induce many of them to leave the military service.

Mr. Chairman, it is my suspicion-and when you have been around here going on 19 years as I have, you develop a keen sense of smelland it is my suspicion, based upon my political smell, that one of the unexpressed, that is, publicly unexpressed reasons for the Pentagon Building's opposition to the Yarborough bill is that they might not be able to keep as many men in the service on continued enlistments as they would if they had an opportunity to go to college.

Isn't that shocking, if true? And I think it is true. Isn't it shocking, Mr. Chairman, that our policy is influenced to the slightest degree by the consideration that if you provide these people who are drafted and go into service with a college education when they get out, you won't get as many continued enlistments from them?

Well, I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that we can get enough voluntary enlistments if we offer the present inducements for services in the armed services without a draft law at all. That is the kind of military service we should be promoting, not this kind of discriminatory, compulsory service for a few who can't find the technicalities