I don't know whether I make this problem clear. It is hard to do unless you are working right with it as I do here in a community college. Let me repeat that the typical veteran student is a married man with one or more children who is anxious to educate and upgrade himself in his chosen occupation or prepare for a profession. So he is perforce a part-time student. He is not free to shop around all over the country for a college that may have the peculiar pattern of courses needed to get the 7 hours. Now this may save the Government money, but it does it by keeping veterans out of college, but if this is the idea it would be simpler just not to pass any bill at all. We have had a lot of these men who have done excellent work here. As a result many of them were encouraged to make the extreme sacrifice required to commute to Denton or Fort Worth after graduation here and continue to graduate from a senior college there. They have made accountants, teachers, and many other professions. It is a good investment for the country. So please don't let anyone minimize the value and importance of part-time evening work. I wish your committee would give serious consideration to one of the following proposals as an amendment to the portion of the bill referred to above. I believe the whole schedule should be spelled out in the statute rather than left to administrative interpretation: (a) Use 12 semester hours as full time, break down as follows: Less than 3 semester hours, nothing; 3 or more semester hours, but less than 6, tuition; 6 or more semester hours, but less than 9, half time; 9 or more semester hours, but less than 12, three-fourths time; 12 or more semester hours, full time; or (b) Use 15 semester hours as full time, break down as follows: Less than 3 semester hours, nothing; 3 or more semester hours, but less than 6, tuition; 6 or more semester hours but less than 9, two-fifths time; 9 or more semester hours but less than 12, three-fifths time; 12 or more semester hours but less than 15, four-fifths time; 15 or more semester hours, full time. The subsistence set out on page 18 would be made proportional to the formula chosen. Proposal (a) would probably be slightly more expensive than the present formula and proposal (b) probably less expensive. Either would be quite simple to administer. Summer work follows a little different pattern from long session work. The most usual is that a student is considered full time if he is taking as many semester hours work as there are hours in the term. For example 6 semester hours work are considered full time for a 6 weeks summer term. Then 3 semester hours work would be half time for such a term. Generally, accredited colleges do not permit a student to take more than two subjects for each term of a summer session. Therefore the following formula would be in keeping with accepted educational practice and simple to administer: Less than one-half semester hour for each week of summer term or session, nothing; at least onehalf but less than 1 semester hour for each week of summer term or session, half time; at least 1 semester hour for each week of summer term or session, full time. I sincerely believe that either of the formulas suggested above for the long session and the formula suggested for the summer session will be much fairer to the veteran than the current formula, which you have carried over into S. 1138. Of course, in the Korean bill it was left up to the VA to infer what constituted half time or three-fourths time and I am suggesting that it be spelled out in the statute. This business of 7 hours for half time has caused more friction between the colleges and the veterans and more irritation on part of veterans than any other other problem we have had. And I know from experience that it has kept numbers of veterans from continuing their education. WEST TEXAS STATE COLLEGE, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: Thank you for sending me a copy of bill S. 1138, and I agree with you and your colleagues that this extension of the GI bill is one of the meritorious measures to come before Congress this session. I have gone through Section 2; Education and Vocational Training, particularly provisions that would affect veterans enrolled in colleges and universities, and find them quite acceptable. Thank you again for the good job you are doing for all of us. Most sincerely yours, JAMES P. CORNETTE. SOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE, HOCKLEY COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, of Texas, DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: Your letter under date of March 12 addressed to me at Blinn College, Brenham, Tex., has just reached my desk. I had been advised of the work you are doing on S. 1138 by Dr. Price Ashton of Ranger who appeared as a witness before your committee. At a meeting of the Texas Public Junior College Association in Austin last week we discussed the merits of your proposal. There was some strong feeling in favor of your proposal. You are to hear from these men directly and may have already done so. I am in favor of the proposal with certain limitations. I think the education part of the program should be done in accredited schools. I have, through observation and study of the various types of training programs, developed a serious question as to whether value is being received from the vocational and onthe-job training programs. With kindest personal regards and wishing you success, I am, Very truly yours, THOMAS M. SPENCER, President, Texas Public Junior College Association. TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: I am tremendously interested in the GI bill for post-Korean veterans. It seems to me that since much of our military service these days has to be on foreign soil and since we continue to have forced enlistment in military service, the least we could do would be to provide the same type of educational benefits for these young people as they are released from military service which were provided for those who participated in the Korean conflict. So long as we pay the benefits directly to the veterans, I am heartily in favor of the plan. Most cordially yours, M. E. SADLER, President, Texas Christian University. Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH, Washington, D.C. LAMAR STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: Thank you for sending me the material relating to your proposal on Senate bill No. 1138. We found no objection to the Korean GI bill during the years in which it was in effect. There can be no doubt that it helped many students finance their education. I think your proposed bill is one that those who are in the Armed Forces would be pleased to see passed. It is my opinion that this is a good bill providing the economy of our country can stand the additional expense. Sincerely yours, F. L. MCDONALD. TARLETON STATE COLLEGE, Stephenville, Tex., March 17, 1959. Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: In response to your letter of March 12, 1959, I have given careful study to Senate bill 1138. At the outset let me state that I have had no experience through the years with the provisions of the GI bill or the Korean bill except that which relates to education. Therefore, my comments to you will pertain only to these features of the proposed bill, and they will represent my personal thinking. The GI bill, as we experienced it following World War II, had a good many flaws and inequities. In my opinion, these were corrected in the Korean bill. So far as I have been able to determine, the Korean bill was about as fair a bill as could have been passed by Congress. Since Senate bill 1138 is patterned so closely after the Korean bill, I feel that it is a very good one. Personally, I would like to see it approved. Being a veteran myself and having had so much experience with veterans, I think we owe the boys in the service some extra consideration. Therefore, I am happy to add my personal endorsement of this bill insofar as it pertains to education. You mentioned in your letter about the hearings that will be held in Washington March 23-25. I regret that circumstances will prevent my being in Washington for these hearings. I appreciate very much your sending to me a copy of the proposed bill together with an explanation thereof. Sincerely yours, E. J. HOWELL, President. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Baton Rouge, March 17, 1959. Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH : I note from press reports that you have introduced and are vigorously pushing legislation to authorize education and training as well as other benefits for those members of the Armed Forces who first entered the service after January 31, 1955. I further noted that a number of your colleagues in the Senate have joined in sponsorship of this legislation and that hearings will be held before your subcommittee in the near future. I wish to congratulate you and your colleagues in the Senate for your support of this needed legislation. I would sincerely appreciate receiving a copy of the bill which you have introduced and I hope that your efforts toward passage of this legislation will be successful in this session of the Congress. Thank you for your interest and cooperation in this respect. Sincerely yours, MURRAY I. JONES, Director, Veterans Education and Training. PRAIRIE VIEW AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH, The Senate, Washington, D.C. Prairie View, Tex., March 17, 1959. DEAR SIR: This letter is to express to you my kindest appreciation for your thoughtfulness in sending me a copy of Senate bill S. 1138, the Cold War Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act. I have carefully read the bill and wish to commend you and your associates for a job well done. Wishing you and Mrs. Yarborough the best of health, happiness, and prosperity while away from home, I am Sincerely yours, E. B. EVANS, President. COUNTY SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, Hon. GEORGE A. SMATHERS, February 12, 1959. Dear Senator SMATHERS: On June 16, 1958, we expressed our interest in legislation to extend education and training benefits to servicemen serving after January 31, 1955. We do not feel that peacetime veterans should be granted all benefits enjoyed by wartime veterans; nevertheless, in the light of results obtained under Public Law 550, in preparing our young people for the acceptance of responsibilities which are being thrust upon our Nation we are continuing our thinking toward the accomplishment of our national ambitions through education and training. Your continued support of legislation for post-Korean education and training is earnestly requested by this association. Most sincerely, DWIGHT L. SULLIVAN, Secretary-Treasurer. (Pertinent news articles and editorials follow :) [From the New York Times, Jan. 14, 1959] PENTAGON BIDS CONGRESS PASS DRAFT EXTENSION TO AID DEFENSE (By Jack Raymond) WASHINGTON, January 13.-The Pentagon has told Congress that the extension of the draft is absolutely imperative to the security of the Nation at this time and for the foreseeable future. The Defense Department requested a 4-year extension of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, which is due to expire June 30. The request to Congress, addressed to Speaker Sam Rayburn of the House of Representatives and signed by Neil H. McElroy, Secretary of Defense, came despite recent substantial reductions in military manpower. The Secretary of Defense warned that unless the draft were continued the Armed Forces now being trimmed to 2.500,000 might quickly drop to 2,000,000. He said that the draft law was necessary because it "stimulated" young men to volunteer for service. Congress is expected to approve. Representative Carl Vinson, head of the House Armed Services Committee, has already introduced an extension bill. The Georgia Democrat said today that his committee would begin hearings on the draft law early next month. He indicated he expected the hearings to be brief. However, there will be opposition in Congress. Representative Emanuel Celler, Democrat of New York, opened a drive last year to abolish the draft. Mr. Celler said today that he would introduce a bill to end the draft. He contended that it would save the Government $28 million a year and that enough men could be recruited through volunteer enlistments. Military leaders believe it would be impossible to maintain a standing force of more than 1.500.000 without the draft. However, draftees make up less than half the number of recruits. The draft age bracket is 18% to 26. But only 9,000 throughout the Nation have been drafted each month recently. Very few 22-year-olds or older have been drafted. In his letter to Mr. Vinson, Mr. McElroy noted that the proposed legislation would extend the Doctors' Draft Act and the dependents' assistance law as well as the basic draft. "Without such authority it would not be possible to maintain the military strength levels, Active and Reserve, deemed necessary to insure our national security." Mr. McElroy wrote. "In addition the existence of the authority has stimulated many men to volunteer for military service. Many persons enlist in the service of their choice enter ROTC or other officer programs, enter Reserve programs, in preference to being inducted." he said. The Secretary noted that "draft-inspired volunteers has been the principal source of medical and dental officers during the past several years." [From the New York Times, Jan. 27, 1959] DRAFT EXTENSION OF 4 YEARS URGED MCELROY AIDE WABNS HOUSE UNIT LAPSE IN LAW WOULD CAUSE ENLISTMENT DROP WASHINGTON, January 26.-The Defense Department told Congress today the draft law must be extended to prevent a dangerous drop in enlistments. Charles C. Finucane, Assistant Secretary, gave this argument in urging that the draft be extended for 4 years. It now is due to die on June 30. After listening to Mr. Finucane, Representative Carl Vinson, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said, "We have no choice and I hope there will be no hesitancy" in extending the draft. This was one of several indications that the committee would vote to prolong the draft. But there was no assurance it would be continued for 4 years. There have been suggestions that the extension be limited to 2 years. And before the committee acts, it appeared likely that Neil H. McElroy, Secretary of Defense, and other Armed Forces officials would have to explain further the military manpower cutbacks effected despite objections from Congress. QUERIES ON CUTS Mr. Vinson said that when the Defense Secretary testified he would be asked who ordered the Army cut to 870,000 men after Congress had provided funds for 900,000 and had made clear it wanted the Army kept at that size. The committee chairman, a Georgia Democrat, suggested Congress might be forced to "take a mandatory position on the strength of the Army." Only the Army now is using the draft, and it obtains some of its recruits through volunteering. SEES OFFICER SUPPLY AFFECTED But Mr. Finucane said that, without the draft, enlistment in all the services would fall off dangerously. At the same time, Mr. Finucane asked for extension of legislation for drafting doctors and dentists. He said "draft-inspired volunteers" made up the chief source of such officers. There has been some criticism of present policies dealing with disqualification and deferral of draft-eligible men. In this connection, Defense Department witnesses said 9 out of 10 men considered qualified enter military service before reaching the draft-proof age of 26. [From the Washington Post and Times Herald, Jan. 27, 1959] Congress was told yesterday that Pentagon chiefs are agreed that extension of the draft is absolutely essential to national security. Assistant Defense Secretary Charles C. Finucane testified in support of an administration bill to continue the draft and some allied legislation for another 4 years. The leadoff witness as the House Armed Services Committee began hearings on the measure, the Pentagon's manpower chief predicted that the Armed Forces would fall 700,000 to 800,000 short of their 2,500,000-plus strength if the draft is allowed to lapse. Chairman Carl Vinson (Democrat, Georgia) gave the measure a big boost by reading a lengthy statement declaring "we have no choice in the matter but to extend the draft." Tracing the history of selective service, he noted that it was impossible to maintain a force of 1,400,000 in the armed service 10 years ago without inductions. Vinson announced that the committee will ask House permission to hold afternoon as well as morning sessions for the rest of the week in order to hold full hearings and speed the bill to the floor. HARDY WANTS ANSWERS Representative Porter Hardy (Democrat, Virginia), however, warned Pentagon officials they would have to come up with good answers on "why we must continue the draft when the strength of the armed services is being continually cut and reenlistment rates are rising under recent incentive legislation." |