was available to those who reentered the service, the exclusion of such cases by the Korean GI bill clearly was a determination by Congress that this benefit should be restricted as nearly as possible to those for whom it was directly intended. In any event, if this provision were modified it would be necessary to change the amount of the education and training allowance payable to the man in service in order to prevent a duplication and limit the payment to an amount covering tuition and fees as distinguished from subsistence allowance. At present, the payment to the Korean conflict veteran engaged in education or training is ordinarily a lump sum from which the veteran derives a variable amount for subsistence depending on what portion he must use for tuition and fees.

4. Comment on the effect of eliminating correspondence courses and flight training from the proposed educational program.

Although correspondence courses and flight training have been part of the readjustment educational program for both World War II and Korean conflict veterans from the beginning, the committee will recall that in the late 1940's certain difficulties and abuses arose in connection with flight training under the World War II GI bill with which both the Congress and the VA were forced to deal. Under the current program, a program of education and training must be directed toward an educational, professional, or vocational objective, and avocational and recreational courses are strictly prohibited. Moreover, there are special provisions for the computation of the education and training allowances both in respect to correspondence and flight training.

Slightly more than 3 percent of the Korean veterans who have trained under Public Law 550 have trained by correspondence only. At this rate, the elimination of correspondence training from the proposed bill might effect a saving of only one-tenth of 1 percent in the project cost of peacetime readjustment training. This is because of the very low cost of this type of training.

Approximately 2 percent of the Korean veterans have enrolled in flight training. We do not have precise data upon which to base estimates of cost for this group. However, if it be assumed that these veterans expended all of their entitlement on flight training and that the post-Korean veterans would train in a like manner, elimination of flight training might effect a savings of between 1 and 2 percent of the projected cost.

5. Comment on effect of reducing the veterans percentage requirement respecting approval of proprietary institutions below the college level.

It appears that this inquiry is directed to the proposed section 1923 (c) which would be added to title 38 by section 2 of S. 1138. The proposed section 1923 (c) is a restatement applicable to the new program for post-Korean veterans of the present section 1623 (c) of title 38 which provides that the Administrator shall not approve enrollment of any eligible veteran not already enrolled in certain nonaccredited courses for any period in which the Administrator finds that more than 85 percent of the students are having their tuition and fees or other charges paid by the educational institution or the VA. The existing provision was an outgrowth of the recommendations of the House Select Committee To Investigate the GI Bill (the Teague committee) which operated in the 82d Congress. The 85-15 ratio was a compromise figure adopted in conference to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill which became the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act. The House would have required a 25-percent nonveteran enrollment while the Senate would have lowered the nonveteran requirement to 10 percent.

VA has no precise data upon which to base an evaluation of this proposed change. However, it is probable that relatively few schools are limited by the 85-15 ratio at the present time. For those schools which might be limited by the 85-15 ratio, a change to 75-25 would force a reduction of 47 percent in their enrollment. However, we assume that the probable effect of such a change on the total cost of the program would be negligible for the reason that veterans restrained from entering these schools probably would enter some other school.

EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR POST-KOREAN VETERANS

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1959

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

WASHINGTON, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Ralph W. Yarborough, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senator Yarborough (presiding).

Committee staff member present: Frederick R. Blackwell, counsel to the subcommittee.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs now resumes hearings on S. 1138, to provide educational and other readjustment assistance benefits for post-Korean veterans; S. 270 and S. 930, to provide educational benefits for post-Korean veterans; and S. 1050, to provide educational assistance for orphans of post-Korean veterans.

Today's hearing will be devoted exclusively to receiving testimony from national representatives of the following veterans organizations: Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Jewish War Veterans of the United States, Catholic War Veterans of the United States, American Veterans Committee, and American Veterans of World War II.

Mr. Elmer M. Freudenberger, acting national director of legislation, Disabled American Veterans, will be the first witness. Mr. Freudenberger, will you now proceed in your own way?

STATEMENT OF ELMER M. FREUDENBERGER, ACTING NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. BURRIS, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS, AND CHESTER A. CASH, ACTING NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF CLAIMS

Mr. FREUDENBERGER. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Veterans' Subcommittee, my name is Elmer M. Freudenberger and I am acting national director of legislation of the Disabled American Veterans, and I wish to say that I have with me Mr. John W. Burris, national director of employment relations, and Mr. Chester A. Cash, acting national director of claims.