As you remarked, the bill is quite similar to that for Korean GI's. I feel that this present bill, following those lines, will be advantageous for eligible veterans, and therefore give my approval. From No. 1942, (a) to (c), I am led to understand that schools now operating under the Korean bill will be able to accept students under the cold war bill without having to secure a new approval from the State agency. Securing an approval involves a large amount of work. If I have interpreted this section correctly, it will be a great advantage for the institutions involved. In No. 1932 (a) I notice that the per capita increase of allowance to a veteran stops with two dependents ("if he has more than one dependent.") Since our institution is a seminary, we are not immediately connected with the problem. Perhaps most veterans have none or only one dependent, or at least no more than two. However, if the facts of the case warrant, I would favor a further gradation of allowance (e.g., $185 if he has three dependents, etc.), because in a sense the family and the citizens in general are a Nation's greatest material asset. Thank you for the opportunity of expressing my views. I hope they may be of some help. Sincerely yours, Very Rev. JOHN A. HAKEY, O.M.I., Rector. ST. EDWARD'S UNIVERSITY, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: Thank you for your letter of March 12 and the copy of bill S. 1138. I would like to take this opportunity to express my grave concern over the mushrooming participation of the Federal Government in social welfare and education. Coupled with this concern is the problem of balancing the Federal budget. I firmly believe that Federal expenditures must be made to balance Federal income, and that the Federal Government should refrain from participating in activities that can be adequately handled by the States or that cannot be justified by either the Federal or State Governments. With respect to bill S. 1138, I am in favor of the provisions for vocational rehabilitation and mustering-out pay, but I do not feel that the educational assistance provision and the home loan guarantees are justified. Thanking you for keeping me posted on these matters, I am, Sincerely, BROTHER RAYMOND FLECK, C.S.C., President. Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. SAM HOUSTON STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE, DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: I appreciate the invitation to appear before your subcommittee on March 23-25 in behalf of Senate bill 1138. It is needless for me to tell you that I heartily approve your bill. However, I have a board meeting on March 24, which makes it impossible for me to be there at that time. I hope to come to Washington some time in April. I am sending a copy of your letter to the president of the College Veterans Club. You might like to write to him directly. His name is Harry Krhovjak, 1528 Avenue K, Huntsville, Tex. Sincerely yours, HARMON LOWMAN, President. Hon, RALPH YARBOROUGH, STATE OF IOWA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Des Moines, March 20, 1959. Chairman, Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: According to a recent issue of the Army Times 25 members have joined you in sponsoring a proposal to extend most GI bill benefits to "cold war" veterans. The National Association of State Approval Agencies, of which the Iowa State Department of Public Instruction is a member, is an organization comprised of State agencies that have the designated authority to approve and supervise courses of training for veterans under the provisions of the Federal laws. This association has continuously endorsed the principle of extension of education training benefits similar to the benefits provided by Public Law 550, 82d Congress, to all veterans who serve in active military service during any period in which the compulsory draft law is in effect. To us it has always seemed manifestly unfair to deny benefits to this group when those individuals who first entered service as late as January 1955, are granted such benefits. There was little or no difference between the actual war status on January 31, 1955, and subsequent months including the present period of considerable world unrest. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that education and training programs for World War II and Korean veterans have proved to be of far greater value than the total cost thereof in terms of professional and vocational skills gained and increased income taxes being paid to the Federal Government by the recipients of these benefits. There is no return whatsoever on most of our other aid programs. I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for introducing S. 1138, and I urge continued efforts on your behalf to see that the proposal is enacted by Congress. Your efforts in this respect will certainly be appreciated not only by us but by the thousands of veterans who are vitally concerned in this matter. Sincerely yours, AUTHUR ROBERTS, Director, Veterans Education and Training Division, Past President, National Association of State Approval Agencies. TEXAS TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE, Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH, Chairman, Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: I appreciate the opportunity you have given me in your letter of March 12 to evaluate the Cold War Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act, S. 1138. Thank you also for the invitation to appear before the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs in Washington on March 23-25. The board of directors of Texas Technological College will be meeting in Austin on March 24. I shall, therefore, be in Austin. I have reviewed, particularly the educational sections of the bill, and find the provisions in keeping with good standards and showing the incorporation of features gained by experience from the original GI bill and the Korean veterans extension of that bill. Only one reservation emerges. Do its provisions run counter to the portion of the National Defense Education Act which authorizes student loans? I note that my statement will be filed as an appendix to the hearings in case I can not attend. It may be, in view of the questions outlined below which cause me considerable concern, you will wish not to include the comment. My concern rests in the area of increasing dependence of our citizens upon the Federal Government for financial assistance in various forms. Associated with this concern is the very disturbing continuous addition to the public debt. The value of the U.S. dollar is slipping as our debt mounts. Should there not be, and can there not be, at least a slowing of that trend, if not a reversal? I have every sympathy with a young man who is called upon to expose himself to the dangers of combat. I was, therefore, in full sympathy with the GI bill and the Korean extension of it. Although those who enter the Armed Forces during the cold war period may potentially be exposed to combat danger, I cannot completely relax and adopt a full belief that the country owes them the same consideration as the World War II GI's and the Korean veterans unless and until a hot war should break out. Therefore, in summary, I feel that the educational features of bill S. 1138 are very good. I am not clear at this time as to whether we should continue drawing upon the Federal Treasury for those whose military service does not include the dangers of hot war combat. Again, may I express my deep appreciation for the privilege of reviewing your well prepared proposed legislation. Yours sincerely, E. N. JONES, President. UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Chairman, Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: This will acknowledge your letter of March 12 requesting my comments on bill S. 1138, the Cold War Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act. Aside from its rather definitely inflationary aspects, the proposed act raises a basic question: Does a veteran with 90 days' peacetime service merit all the special consideration written into the proposal? Obviously, the answer would be affirmative in the case of veterans with service-connected disabilities. However, the answer is not quite so clear in the case of short-term peacetime veterans, many of whom are serving terms designed not for military proficiency but only to please parents. I would feel that the answer would be, "No." As presently written a mere 90-day stint in the Army would give a young man the right to 2 semesters of college. (As the GI bill operates now, if a veteran's expiration date occurs 1 day over the halfway mark of the semester, he is entitled to the rest of the term; hence 135 training days earned by 90 days in the Army, where most college semesters are 16 weeks or 80 days, would put him right over the line for the 2 semesters.) It seems to me that even those who might be willing to accept the ideological theses implied in the act would agree that it is imperative that the qualifying clauses be toughened considerably so that a giveaway program does not result. With all good wishes. Cordially yours, Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. F. KENNETH BRASTED, President. INCARNATE WORD COLLEGE, DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: Thank you very much for your letter of March 12 and the copy of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act introduced by you and other Senators. You are to be congratulated on this extension of the GI bill. I agree with you that this is one of the most meritorious measures that will come before Congress this season. Sincerely, SISTER M. COLUMKILLE, President. Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. TEXAS WESTERN COLLEGE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: I have conferred with Dean A. H. Berkman and others of my colleagues concerning bill S. 1138 which you have introduced. We concur that this bill is meritorious and that its passage will mark a significant forward step. Having long been concerned with higher education, and incidentally having benefited from the GI bill following my duty in the armed services during World War II, I can think of no more important contribution of our National Government to the cause of education than its extension of benefits under the several veterans' bills. I applaud you and your fellow Senators for your foresight and thoughtfulness in your determination to continue the program of educational benefits. With all good wishes for your continued success and with kindest personal regards, Faithfully yours, Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH, J. R. SMILEY, President. HARDIN-SIMMONS UNIVERSITY, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I appreciate your letter of March 12 inviting comments on Senate bill 1138, the Cold War Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, introduced by you and other Senators. In general I have not been sympathetic with increased spending by the Federal Government, believing that a balanced economy is of more value to the citizenry of our country than the services to be obtained by such means. Very frankly I have felt that way even of the National Defense Education Act in which we are of course interested. I feel much the same way about many of the benefits offered to veterans, although the services of those actually engaged in war is beyond any measure of pay by this country. To those who fought for us, I feel that substantially all the benefits of the GI bill were well deserved. For the extension of such benefits entirely or in large part to those who have not served in armed conflict I have some misgivings. I am thinking of the country's ability to pay, the fact that universal military service is very nearly a fact, and the net result of excessive spending will actually fall upon these young men when they undertake their obligations in civilian life. Having said all of this, however, through the years of my observation and experience with the GI bill, I must say that the educational investment of the United States in that GI bill has been one of the greatest investments our country has ever made. Therefore, an extension of educational advantages and assistance together with vocational rehabilitation and home-loan guarantees, if all of these benefits are kept at a reasonable level as your bill seems to indicate, would meet with my sincere and considered endorsement. An investment in the education of those who have actually served their country, not particularly at their own choosing, is a net investment in the future of America. I appreciate the privilege of expressing to you this judgment at your invitation. Cordially yours, EVAN ALLARD REIFF. PANOLA COLLEGE, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Carthage, Tex., March 19, 1959. DEAR SENATOR YARBOBOUGH: Thank you for your letter of March 12 and the material relative to the GI bill for post-Korean veterans. We most heartily favor the passage of such a bill, and after examination we endorse the provisions of S. 1138. There is no doubt but that military service often interrupts or delays the educational program of many young men. This program will help compensate for such interruption or delay. Also, research has repeatedly proved that money spent on education is an investment in people which repays itself in many ways other than dollars and cents. Again, thank you. Sincerely yours, 40408-59-26 M. P. BAKER, President. Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH, WEATHERFORD COLLEGE, Weatherford, Tex., March 18, 1959. DEAR RALPH: It was nice to hear from you. Of course, it always reminds me of the days when we fought the war of Southwest Texas Junior College. You, and David White, and I. Incidentally that little college is coming along very nicely from what I hear and practically all of the opposition has disappeared. I appreciate the opportunity of examining your bill S. 1138. I have felt all along that this is the best and most direct way in which the United States Government can render aid to education without getting too mixed up in the operation of the schools and colleges. We had lots of troubles in the early days of old Public Law 346, I believe it was, World War II GI bill. Many of the bugs were eliminated in the Korean bill, but I believe there are still one or two that could be at least reduced. I have tried to outline my thinking and that of a number of other people who have had much experience in administering the Korean bill from the public junior college angle. Since we are community colleges we catch a lot of these veterans and, as I pointed out in the attached material, most of them are perforce part-time students. Since the bill was never designed, nor is yours, to give a complete subsidy, the typical veteran, who is a married man, has to work at least part time and go to college part time, usually in the evenings. But they have done a splendid job for the most part and I admire them a great deal. Regardless of how good a bill you may write and get passed, it will still require honest administration on the part of the colleges and schools involved as well as the Veterans' Administration. I would particularly hope that the VA would do all it legitimately could to encourage colleges to report unsatisfactory work on part of veteran students receiving aid under the act and that it would take action upon such reports. No money should be wasted on any veteran who is obviously enrolled just to get the assistance. The only application of the bill that I have had much direct experience with is the academic and preprofessional work in colleges. I would not attempt to comment on the other sections. I appreciate your invitation to appear before your committee, but it will not be possible. I hope that you can come out with a good bill and get it passed. Sincerely yours, VERNON D. PARROTT, President. STATEMENT OF Vernon D. PARROTT, PRESIDENT, WEATHERFORD COLLEGE, WEATHERFORD, TEX., RE S. 1138 The following statement concerns the subject of what constitutes full time, three-fourths time, half time, etc., in collegiate institutions of education. You are referred to page 23, lines 17-22 of the bill. The use of 14 semester hours as the standard for full-time work is subject to serious question. I know that it is a carry over from the current bill, and it has dealt us a great deal of misery in administering that bill in the case of parttime students. The trouble is that the values of courses commonly offered in college just do not add up to 14 except in quite exceptional cases. The common definitions of full-time work everywhere except in the current veterans readjustmnt act are either 12 semester hours or 15 semester hours. Most of the accrediting associations to which the bill refers as qualified to give a basis of approval by State agencies use either 12 or 15. None that I know of use 14. The use of 14 for full time naturally implies 7 as half time. The typical veteran student is a part-time student taking about two courses and working the rest of the time to support himself and his family, because he could not live on the subsistence if he were going full time. He needs at least half-time subsistence because he usually has to take a job that does not give full-time employment in order to go at all to college. This means that if he is to get half-time subsistence he has got to find two courses that add up to 7 semester hours. This just cannot always be done. What they normally add up to is 6 semester hours. He cannot take three subjects and work as much as he must work, so he either does not go to college at all or he gets no assistance other than tuition for his 6 hours. |