eration. Members of the House of Representatives have told us they receive more mail on this subject than on any other veterans issue. AMVETS position on legislation to grant certain readjustment benefits to peacetime ex-servicemen was first voiced in December 1954, when our national executive committee adopted a resolution calling for a termination of the broad wartime veterans' benefit program and at the same time the establishment of a limited benefit program to serve those who are needed by the armed services to fill our defense requirements. Each AMVET national convention thereafter has adopted strong resolutions calling for an education and training program for the post-Korean group. The most recent AMVET national convention in August 1958 adopted a resolution urging the Congress to enact legislation continuing the education and training program as now provided in Public Law 550 of the 82d Congress for as long as the military draft is in effect. We have studied the bills recently pending before this committee, and believe that S. 1138, introduced by the able chairman of the subcommittee for himself and 25 other Senators, merits the support and endorsement of AMVETS. The bill provides a program of education and training similar to that provided by the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952. It also authorizes vocational rehabilitation to overcome occupational handicaps imposed by injuries and disabilities, and excellent loan guaranty program and mustering-out payments. This package, in our judgment, represents a reasonable and balanced readjustment program for the post-Korean veteran. The need for special legislation for the serviceman of today is readily apparent. In the past, the Congress, in providing benefits for veterans, has been guided by one important consideration-whether the military service was performed during times of war or peace. Aside from the fact that the wartime serviceman was exposed to extra hazards not normally encountered in a regular tour of duty, it could be assumed that the greatest portion of the wartime force was either drafted or volunteered because of the patriotic appeal and a sense of duty to country during time of peril. In either event, it was clear that military service, in most instances, had interrupted the pursuit of a career in civilian life. Thus, it followed that special treatment, including benefits to assure their successful reintegration into civilian life, was in order for the wartime veteran. The peacetime exserviceman, on the other hand, was not exposed to the same hazards of service, nor was he motivated in the same manner in entering military service. In most cases, he voluntarily entered military service because it offered him the career of his choice. The distinction, therefore, between war and peacetime service was crystal clear and the Congress proceeded to grant different benefits to each group. The status of the group with service after January 31, 1955, is not so well defined. These men are not war veterans nor should they be placed in the straight peacetime service category. For the most part, they were drafted or entered service under the compulsion of the draft. In many instances the service was even more hazardous than that experienced by some war veterans. In spite of the fact that the normal civilian pursuits of this group were interrupted and delayed by military service, no readjustment benefits have been provided. It is the considered view of AMVETS that one of the most pressing needs of this group is a program of education and training. The results obtained from the World War II and the Korean GI bills is impressive evidence of the value to the Nation of such a program. Not only do we have a better educated citizenry, but the ability of these people to earn greater incomes has resulted in more tax income for the Federal Government. The national commander of AMVETS, Dr. Winston Burdine, in recent testimony before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the House of Representatives cited his own case as a living example of the return to the Federal Government on their investment in him. Dr. Burdine said that he had received $3,200 worth of education under the World War II GI bill and that, in the 5 years following the receipt of this education, he paid the Federal Government $30,000 more in income taxes than he had paid in the 5 years preceding it. If all of the Government's investments provided a return of this nature, balancing the budget would be no problem. Developments in science and engineering have pointed up the alarming shortage of persons educated and qualified for careers in these important fields. Statistics will reveal that more than 25 percent of those who attended colleges and universities under the World War II GI bill became scientists and engineers. There is every reason to believe that the same ratio would prevail today. Even the Bradley Commission, not particularly noted for its praise of veterans' benefits, had these kind words to say about the World War II GI bill: There is little question that the veterans education program has been a great benefit to millions of veterans and to the Nation. They went on to say: Veterans who took advantage of the educational benefits of the GI bill are more likely to be in managerial, professional, and scientific jobs, and receive higher salaries than veterans who did not use such benefits or nonveterans, when age and experience prior to service are taken into account. The veterans' education program was a major contribution to the national welfare, and the country would be weaker educationally, economically, and in terms of national defense if educators, veterans organizations, the President, and the Congress had not seen fit to embark upon this new and momentous educational enterprise. We of AMVETS are confident that a program of education and training for the post-Korean group as provided in S. 1138 would be equally productive of results. Section 3 of S. 1138 would authorize up to 4 years of vocational rehabilitation to overcome an occupational handicap created by a service-connected disability. This program is similar to the vocational rehabilitation provided for disabled World War II and Korean veterans. Its extension to the post-Korean group will recognize the fact that the Federal Government has an obligation to teach new skills to persons unable to pursue their old occupations because of injuries or disabilities incurred in service. AMVETS endorses this program. Section 4 of the bill would authorize a loan guaranty program for the purchase of homes and farm homes. This provision could well be labeled a pay-as-you-go program, because it provides for nominal guaranty fee to be collected from the veteran home buyer to be deposited in a fund to cover losses and administrative expense. In other words, there would be little, if any, cost to the Federal Government in providing this benefit. Here, again, the value to the Nation of a program of this nature cannot be dismissed. On several occasions in recent years, the lack of mortgage financing caused the VA loan guaranty program to decline. The effect upon the homebuilders and other industries and businesses dependent upon it for support was almost disastrous. In enacting section 4 of the bill, Congress can help the Nation's veterans and at the same time stimulate the Nation's economy. Section 5 of the bill would provide mustering-out pay of $100 for enlisted men and junior officers. AMVETS endorsed this provision of S. 1138. In summary, gentlemen, the enactment into law of S. 1138 would in large measure discharge the Federal Government's obligation to the post-Korean veterans and at the same time will prove to be in the Nation's best interest as well. We urge your committee to report this bill as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief comment on S. 1050. Our organization has no mandate on S. 1050 or similar legislation. However, I believe that were our organization confronted with this legislation they would without equivocation endorse the bill. Our national executive committee will meet on May 2 and 3, and it is my intention to present the bill to them at that time for their endorsement. However, I believe it is a good bill, and, should this committee act in the meantime prior to May 2 and 3, certainly it bears my personal endorsement. Senator YARBOBOUGH. Mr. Holden, if this record has not been completed by May 2 and 3, and if your committee does act upon that, you will be invited to put their action, whatever it is, in the record. Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to offer another suggestion for the committee's consideration, if I may. In considering amending the War Orphans Educational Assistance Act, the committee might give consideration to amending it to provide benefits to the children of totally disabled wartime veterans. My organization has a mandate from the last national convention on that subject. It was the feeling of our group that the theory of this legislation was to provide education to those cases where the breadwinner of the family had been taken away. It appears to us that the breadwinner in the family, while not entirely removed from his family or deceased, certainly is unable to earn a living to provide for his children's education, and we would urge this committee to give serious consideration to amending the War Orphans' Education Act in this manner. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Holden, we have a similar recommendation from the Disabled American Veterans. We are keenly aware of that problem. The subcommittee has it under study now and we have asked for a report from the Veterans' Administration on the work ing of such a program and how it would fit in with their other programs. I want to thank you for the very fine statement that you have made here today. It will be very helpful to the subcommittee, to the full committee, and, I hope, to the full Congress in consideration of this legislation. Thank you very much for the information you have included in it. Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator YARBOROUGH. That concludes the list of witnesses scheduled to testify today. These hearings will be recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, April 22. I might say in conclusion that this day, April 21, is the anniversary of a holiday in my home State. It is the anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto, in which we won our independence. The meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 1959.) EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER READJUSTMENT ASSIST ANCE FOR POST-KOREAN VETERANS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS OF THE 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 members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk, Frederick R. Blackwell, counsel to the subcommittee. Also present: Sen. J. William Fulbright, of Arkansas. 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 under certain circumstances. The first witness this morning will be Dr. Lawrence G. Derthick, Commissioner of Education, Office of Health, Education, and Welfare. Dr. Derthick, you may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE G. DERTHICK, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY RALPH C. M. PLYNT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Commissioner DERTHICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am certainly glad to be here before your committee and I have a short statement that I would like to read, with your permission. Senator YARBOROUGH. We would like to hear it. Commissioner DERTHICK. Thank you. It is my understanding that we have been requested to testify concerning S. 270, S. 930, S. 1138, and S. 1050. Although we have not been asked to testify on S. 906, I shall make brief mention of that bill also. With the exception of S. 1050, these bills are all generally similar in that they would amend or extend the provisions of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952. Insofar as the various proposals embodied in the bills referred to above relate to the comparability of benefits to veterans under the |