are called upon to serve in these days, and it is most essential if we are not to lose something in the productive value of the manpower of our country in civilian pursuits.

I think it is in that phase that we have just as tough a fight as we have in any phase of the cold war, to increase the productivity of this Nation.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Weitzer. The absence of other members of the subcommittee does not indicate a lack of interest. One of the members of this subcommittee is Senator Lister Hill, who is chairman of the full Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and has multitudinous duties that keep him away.

Another member of this subcommittee is Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. He is author of the Kennedy-Ervin bill. The Senate will convene at 11 o'clock today for debate on that bill, which requires his presence on the Senate floor.

Mr. WEITZER. I hope I made perfectly clear my knowledge that they were busy in other important tasks. I was not saying that in any way by sense of criticism, but was emphasizing your own particular interest, especially in the form of the bill which you prepared which deals with many other subjects than I have authority to speak on by virtue of the resolution passed at our convention.

Senator YARBOROUGH. S. 1138 is cosponsored by a majority of this subcommittee and a majority of the full committee. I want to commend you for this very excellent statement. We have heard a good many times about the financial benefit to the Government-just considering it from the financial end alone-which has resulted from the increased earnings of the veterans of World War II and the Korean conflict who received this training.

You have given us actual statistical evidence of that and have put the figures in the record. I want to thank you for your research and your work on that. Of course, your statement, Mr. Weitzer, will be printed and will be here for the benefit of all the committee and the Senate as a whole when this bill is considered.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WEITZER. Thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Mr. William J. Gill, executive director, Catholic War Veterans of the United States. Mr. Gill.

SATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. GILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ACCOMPANIED BY E. DESGRES, NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICER, CATHOLIC WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William J. Gill. I am the immediate past national commander of the Catholic War Veterans of the United States. At the present time, I am serving in the capacity of executive director at our national headquarters here in Washington. This morning I am accompanied by Mr. E. Desgres, who is our national service officer.

On behalf of the Catholic War Veterans, may we extend our thanks for your gracious invitation to appear before your subcommittee to express our views on proposals to amend the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 or to enact a Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1959.

Having been given a convention mandate by our membership, we appear to entreat your most earnest consideration for approval and adoption of legislation which would continue and extend provisions of the Veterans' Act of 1952 until the termination of compulsory military service. The Military Training and Service Act has been extended to July 1, 1963, by this 86th Congress.

The disruption of the lives of our young men by compulsory service is a physical sacrifice and hardship. It can also be measured in terms of the loss of time and opportunity. Assistance on the part of their Government could go a long way toward mitigation of those hardships and time lost. The basis for eligibility in the act of 1944 and the act of 1952 was the time spent in service. No attempt was made then to determine the degree of sacrifice and hardship of the individual serviceman. How, then, can opponents of these measures use the relative degree of hardship to separate the wartime sacrifice from the peacetime sacrifice?

The cutoff date of January 31, 1955, by the Presidential Proclamation No. 3080 of the act of 1952 was an arbitrary termination. How do you explain to a serviceman inducted February 1, 1955, that his hardship and sacrifice are not that of a buddy who was inducted the day before?

The acts of 1944 and 1952 have admittedly been a tremendous boon to the Nation. It is interesting to note the fields of study undertaken by the veteran students. Out of every 100, 33 aimed at highly skilled trades and industrial jobs; 10 pursued scientific studies, including engineering and medicine; 10 took scientific farming; 6 studied humanities; 5 took sales and clerical courses; 3 took courses preparing them to teach; and the remainder, or 23 percent, prepared for a wide variety of occupations. The veterans training under these programs have given us an educated citizenry, a most precious national resource in a republic.

The number of veterans who took advantage of this unprecedented federally financed educational and training program under the act of 1944 was over 7,800,000, or just over half, 51 percent, of the 15,400,000 World War II veterans. Of the 7,800,000 who took advantage of the provisions of the act, 29 percent, or not quite one-third, attended college or university; 3.5 million, or approximately 45 percent, attended institutions below the collegiate or university level; and the remainder, or slightly over 2 million, or about one-fourth, took on-thejob training. About 700,000 of these more than 2 million took on-thefarm training.

What evidence is there that this program was worthwhile or that the veterans really benefited from this federally financed training and education in return for their service?

In a recent talk given by Dr. Roland R. Renne, president of Montana State College, he stated that

the median income of veterans during the past 6 years is up 51 percent compared with only 19-percent rise for nonveteran males in the same group. The average veteran's educational level is better than 4 years of high school, while the level of nonveteran males of the same age group is about 2 years of high school. Thus we have a very high direct correlation between the extent of education and training and the average income earned.

This brings to mind the case of an illustrious national commander of a fellow veteran group. The commander reported to the House

T

Veterans Affairs' Committee that he had received $3,200 worth of education under the act of 1944. In the 5 years following his education, he paid $30,000 more in income tax than he had paid in the 5 preceding years. This is a pretty fair return on any investment. We have repeatedly heard comments to the effect that such increased tax revenues alone would themselves liquidate the cost of these programs. The Catholic War Veterans have classified the renewal of the educational and training program as top priority. We do not wish to detract from the importance of the other provisions being considered because they, too, merit consideration and adoption.

Home loan provisions should be continued and the present direct loan law should be extended beyond July 25, 1960. Veterans as a group have shown that they are a good risk to the banking world.

The loan guarantee program from 1944 to 1958 shows the VA had guaranteed or insured nearly 5.5 million home, farm, and business loans totaling $44 billion. About 95 percent of the loans were for the purchase or improvement of homes; 4 percent were business loans; and the remaining 1 percent were farm loans. By the end of the 1958 fiscal year, nearly one of every four home loans guaranteed or insured since 1944 had been repaid in full.

There is a need for additional funds to extend direct loans to all veterans and not only those located in small cities or rural areas. Private mortgage funds are just not available in many cities. The proposed increase in interest rates to 54 percent may alleviate this problem, but we doubt it. The program needs a shot in the arm by increasing direct loan funds.

Our legislative committee has reviewed the various proposals before the Senate concerning a post-GI Korean Act or Veterans' Readjustment Act of 1959. We feel that S. 1138, by the chairman of this committee, includes many of the specific recommendations of the Catholic War Veterans.

However, we ask that consideration be given to those whose service was between July 25, 1947, and June 27, 1950; that is, between the termination of World War II and the Korean conflict. It is our feeling that any legislation recommended by this committee should include the group that served during those years.

Again, our thanks for your attention and courtesy.

Mr. Senator, I would like to relay the sentiments of our legislative committee in regard to S. 1050, which deals with the orphans bill. Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes; we would like to have that, Mr. Gill. Mr. GILL. Our organization, and I speak mainly of our legislative group, has gone or record as favoring this legislation, inasmuch as dating back into 1946 our group took a stand at that time on World War II orphans to insure them of educational benefits. Congress at a later date saw fit to enact this law and we, in turn, would like to see S. 1050 adopted by the Congress.

I thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I want to thank you, Mr. Gill, for this statement and for the analysis you have given us of the benefits of the World War II and the Korean conflict education bills. This committee is aware of the problem that you have raised in the concluding portion of your statement; namely, that there should be consideration of those whose service began between July 25, 1947, the date taken

as the end of World War II, and June 27, 1950, the beginning of the Korean conflict.

We have asked the Veterans' Administration to make a study of the situation of that group of veterans to see whether they would attend college or attend any kind of training institution at this time. I think it is timely that you have raised the question. Yours is a very beneficial statement, and the actual workings of the prior law have been set out in it.

I thank you for your statement.

Mr. GILL. Thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Irvin Lechliter, executive director of the American Veterans Committee.

STATEMENT OF IRVIN LECHLITER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE

Mr. LECHLITER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my statement will be very brief. I am Irvin Lechliter, national executive director of the American Veterans Committee. AVC is grateful for an opportunity to present briefly its views on S. 1138 to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

Experience with the World War II GI bill of rights has given ample evidence of the value, in increased productivity to the Nation and in increased taxes to the Government-and two preceding witnesses have gone into this in considerably more detail of that law's education and training provisions.

We believe that peacetime draftees and volunteers who have been on extended active duty have made and will continue to make a real contribution toward enabling our country to maintain peace and toward meeting its commitments and responsibilities to our allies. They are entitled to basic readjustment benefits which will enable them to return without distress to civilian life and become useful and productive members of their communities at the end of their service.

AVC is mindful of the concern of the Bradley Commission with the enactment of too liberal postservice benefits which may serve as inducements to men to leave the armed service and discourage enlistments for longer periods of time. Nonetheless, for the reasons stated, we believe that these so-called peacetime veterans are entitled to at least some of the opportunities lost by compulsory military service, particularly educational opportunities.

At its 1958 convention, AVC adopted a resolution calling for the enactment of a peacetime GI bill of rights. We asked that such legislation establish the ratio of education credits earned for months in service at the ratio of 3 months' training for 4 months of service. Thus, a peacetime ex-serviceman enrolling in a typical institution for a school year of 9 months could obtain 4 years of training and education only by serving a minimum of 48 months. It will be noted that this provision of our 1958 platform is virtually identical with the provision of S. 1138, except that I believe S. 1138 does limit the benefits to a period of 3 years.

Our 1958 platform would prohibit the accrual of these benefits to 6-month trainees or to anyone serving less than 12 months, unless separated at an earlier period for a service-connected disability. AVČ is

therefore not in accord with this provision of S. 1138 as presently drafted, since that bill extends eligibility to peacetime veterans who have served actively for only 90 days and have been discharged under conditions other than dishonorable.

In all other respects, however, S. 1138 has AVC's endorsement. Our national board at its last quarterly meeting held here in Washington on February 21-22, 1959, considered this bill specifically and, except for length of service as a condition precedent to eligibility, unanimously approved its other provisions.

In conclusion, I should like to express AVC's thanks to this distinguished committee for the opportunity to record our endorsement of S. 1138.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Lechliter, for your condensed and thorough statement on S. 1138.

Does counsel have any questions?

Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Chairman. I do not have any questions, but I would like to point out a fact to Mr. Lechliter concerning AVC's 1958 platform which would preclude 6-month trainees from eligibility for educational benefits.

Mr. LECHLITER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLACKWELL. I believe Mr. Lechliter, for the benefit of his organization, would like to know that 6-month trainees would not be included under the provision of S. 1138. While on the first reading of the bill they do appear to be included, they are not, in fact, because of the distinction between the terms "active duty" or "active service” which are used in the bill and the term "active duty for training" used in laws authorizing the 6-month training program.

I believe you will find that under the Armed Forces statutes the 6-month trainees are on active duty for training, which is not active duty for the purposes of this bill. So with these facts in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the bill is in accord with the point in the 1958 platform.

Mr. LECHLITER. I am grateful for that clarification. Thank you very much, Mr. Blackwell.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any further questions?

Mr. BLACKWELL. No, sir.

Seantor YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

Mr. LECHLITER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Mr. John R. Holden, national legislative director of American Veterans of World War II.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. HOLDEN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF AMVETS

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am John R. Holden, the legislative director of AMVETS, with offices in Washington, D.C.

We of AMVETS appreciate this opportunity to present our views on one of the most pressing matters facing the Congress today. We are grateful to the committee for scheduling hearings on the important subject of benefits for persons who served after January 31, 1955. No subject in the field of veterans affairs, in our judgment, is more deserving of attention at this time than the legislation under consid