Page images

million new workers will be needed in our labor force in the 1960's and that the need for unskilled people will further decrease. It therefore adds up, does it not, that we will need all of the highly trained people we can get during these years.

It certainly seems a shame that we should have high unemployment in certain areas because many of our people are unskilled and not educated to their capacities. Others have skills that are outdated or as in the case of some of our post-Korean war veterans, have skills developed in the armed services that are not transferrable to civilian life, and at the same time we have thousands of job openings that cannot be filled in business and industry for lack of people with adequate education and vocational training.

In conclusion, the extension of the veterans educational entitlement which you are considering will make it possible for thousands of young men and women to obtain further education and training. This Nation cannot afford not to give these young people who have served their country well the opportunity to secure the education which will assure their entry into the economic life and prosperity of their country.

In addition, may I say that the national defense education funds are not available to students below college level classes such as we operate and many of the students, of course, would like to get such loans, but they are not available.

Thank you very much.
Mr. HALEY. Are there any questions, Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. MITCHELL. No questions.
Mr. HALEY. Mr. George?
Mr. GEORGE. No questions.
Mr. HALEY. Mr. Flynn!
Mr. Flynn. No questions.
Mr. Haley. Thank you very much.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Mobley if he would just briefly state their position on the proposed bill.

Dr. MOBLEY. Yes. The American Vocational Association, which is the largest educational organization in the country, is on record by resolution in support of this measure, S. 1138. We think that the enactment of this law would be a great benefit, not only to the veterans who will be served, but to the country also.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say we have one other witness.
Mr. HALEY. Yes, Mr. Perrow, you may proceed.

First, Mr. Perrow, I understand you were supposed to appear before the committee some time back but you had a little snow out in Virginia.

Mr. PERROW. Yes, that is right. We had quite a bit.

Mr. Haley. Well, we had quite a bit of snow here, too, so that many members of the committee did not even get down to the Hill and I can understand you were certainly unavoidably detained.

Mr. PERROW. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ray C. Perrow. I am a farmer of the Concord community near Lynchburg, Va., and a former president of the Young Farmers of Virginia, an organization of young farmers enrolled in vocational agriculture classes in the high schools.

I am a veteran of World War II and, as one of some 20,000 Virginia veterans who received institutional on-farm training offered veterans of service in the Armed Forces in the past 12 years, I am happy to relate my experiences as a young farmer and to tell you how this type of training has benefited me. I am sure my story is no different from that of thousands of young farmers throughout our State and the Nation.

Unlike most young farmers, I was born and spent my early years in the city. Although my family moved to the country when I was a young man, my father did very little farming. He is a carpenter and is still engaged in this type of work. Upon completing high school, I enlisted in the U.S. Navy.

After 3 years in the Armed Forces, I returned to the farm. With my limited farm experience, but with a desire to live and work on a farm, I realized I would need training in this field. I enrolled in the institutional on-farm training program for veterans at my local high school. While in this program, I determined more than ever to make farming my lifework. I also found out how much one has to learn to be successful in the business of farming.

With the instruction received in this program and with the advice and guidance of my teacher of vocational agriculture, I have been able to establish a grade A dairy farm. In 1952 I purchased a one

a half interest in the home farm and in 1958 the other half. I now own 153 acres and have a 36-cow herd. Ours is solely a family farm operation. I have continued to keep up to date in farming methods and latest improved practices by attending Young Farmer classes regularly.

Members of these classes are affiliated with the Young Farmers of Virginia, of which I served as president last year. Although this organization has no direct relationship to on-farm training for veterans, it is an outgrowth and one result of that program. A majority of our Young Farmer class members are veterans who received onfarm training under either Public Law 346 or 550. Without the training and benefits received from the veterans farm training program, I could not be farming today. I can name many others in this

, same category.

I would like to give you a summary of acomplishments of veterans enrolled in institutional on-farm training in Virginia during 1953–54. Enrollment for this period was 1,469, which was many times smaller than the peak enrollment of 8,469, for 1949-50. I use figures for 1953-54 because during that year about half of the enrollment was made up of veterans training under Public Law 550 and the remainder under other GI training provisions.

Significant accomplishments of the 1,469 veterans in on-farm training classes in Virginia in 1953-54 are: Number who were farm owners.

614 Number, breeding animals purchased (dairy, beef, swine)

11, 080 Number items made in school farm shop--

11, 952 Number farm soil conservation plans developed.. Number home orchards established.. Number acres of pasture developed..

7, 785 Number of tractors purchased.-Number of other farm machines purchased.

3, 284 Number of acres of forestry improved.

1, 796 Number of new homes constructed.

200 Number of homes in which running water was installed.

Of course, some of the above would have been done if no training had been available; however, I know from experience that a major





portion of these accomplishments were a direct result of instruction and assistance made possible by our veterans training program.

If training for veterans was important 12 years ago, it is even more important at the present time. Changes in the business of farming are taking place more rapidly than at any time in the history of our Nation.

When a young man was called to serve in the Armed Forces 15 years ago, even if he served 4 years, farm practices and methods were changed very little while he was away from the farm. Now when a young man is called to serve his country, he will not even recognize many of the practices being conducted when he returns.

It is no longer true that a farmer must know only how to perform a certain practice-he must also know why. In other words, science as well as mechanization has completely changed the farming picture. We hear much about the increased population that this country faces. We also hear that the need for young men in farming is decreasing. This may be true, but it is only part of the story.

With increased mechanization and fewer but larger farms, the need for increased education and training opportunities for these young men who remain on the farm is greater than ever before.

We in Virginia and throughout this Nation are not beginning to train the number of farm operator replacements needed.

We are losing the “cream of the crop" in agriculture and will eventually face an extreme shortage of young men on farms. Let me illustrate what I mean.

A young man is called to serve 2 years in the Armed Forces. He has probably been out of high school 2, 3 or 4 years, where he had made a small start toward becoming established in farming. He has accumulated some assets in the farming business. When he goes into service he probably disposes of his livestock or whatever he may own as his share in the farming business. When he returns to the farm, adjustments have been made during his absence, the cost of starting to farm has advanced and new methods have been introduced. Rather than start all over again, he seeks employment elsewhere.

Let's take another case. A young man completes his high school training and would really like to become a farmer. He realizes that in a short while he will be drafted into the armed services. Rather than speed that period trying to make a start in farming, he finds employment elsewhere and never returns to the farm. These examples illustrate how compulsory military service has reduced the number of outstanding young farmers continuing in the business of farming.

We must maintain and increase our productive capacity in agriculture not only for our increased population but for national defense. Many specialized types of farming are coming into existence which require highly skilled and trained farm operators. We realize that it is most difficult for older farmers to adjust to change. It is, therefore, necessary that we keep our young men on the farm. We feel that making available certain educational and training benefits will induce more of our young men to stay on the farm.

We realize that our country is not engaged in a military conflict and we hope it will never be. We understand that the purpose of the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944 and related legislation since that time was to aid veterans of the armed services in making the necessary adjustment to civilian life.

It was not simply a means of remuneration for serving their country in time of war. If this was true in 1944 and again in 1952, it should still be true in 1960. The adjustments in farming are much more difficult today than in either of the previous periods.

In view of the invaluable contributions of the veterans training program to young farmer veterans of service in World War II, and the Korean conflict, and in view of the continuation of the draft, we urge the enactment of legislation that will continue the benefits of this training for veterans of service in the Armed Forces who entered the service since January 31, 1955.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much.
Does the gentleman from Georgia have any questions?
Mr. MITCHELL. I have no questions, but I have a brief comment.

I appreciate very much the appearance of these gentlemen and their statements and I want to say this about Dr. Mobley, that he has made a great contribution and continues to do that in the field of vocational education and I wish you every success.

Dr. MOBLEY. Thank you so much. I appreciate those words very much.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Flynn?
Mr. Flynn. I have no questions.
Mr. Haley. Mr. George!

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I think both of these statements were very enlightening.

Mr. Chairman, Col. James McBrayer Sellers, for many years commandant of the Wentworth Military Academy, Lexington, Mo., of which I am a graduate, desires that this committee be informed of his hope that S. 1138 be enacted into law. Colonel Sellers feels definitely that many young men and women who would not otherwise receive à good education could do so under such a law. Although such a measure would not be of any benefit to Wentworth Military Academy, Colonel Sellers is anxious that more young people be given an opportunity to obtain an education. The colonel desired that a letter be filed, Mr. Chairman, and it is requested that it be inserted at the end of the record of hearings.

If I may, I would also like consent to file a letter for the record which I received from Miss Illeane D. Littrell from my district in Kansas.

Mr. HALEY. Without objection it is so ordered. (The letter referred to follows:)

PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANS., March 11, 1960. Hon. NEWELL A. GEORGE, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: So the armed services attribute their reenlistments to the fact that the men whose terms are expiring is due to the fact that they are not eligible for the so-called GI education?

Well, well. Maybe they should get out into the country and see how much unemployment there really is.

What else can the discharged servicemen do?

Mr. George, I live in a city where the unemployment is mounting daily and I came from Independence, Kans., where 55 employees were notified that they are to be terminated May 1. Just 18 miles from Independence, Kans., in Coffeyville, Kans., a can factory has gone from 3,000 employees down to 600. This factory employed residents of such surrounding towns as Cherryvale, Chanute, Parsons, Caney, Thayer, Dearing, Edna, Liberty, etc.

What concerns me is—just how many areas are there like this? In talking to men who travel in the States of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma, they say the unemployment and poor financial conditions of our small towns are getting greater each year. People do not have jobs and people do not have money.

Many of the draftees and enlisted men came from such communities but have no job opportunities to which to return.

These men need to go to school but they are financially unable to do so. Why shouldn't they get to go on the GI bill like so many more? Their lives have been in a turmoil for years because of the draft. Much of our problems with the younger people is because they can't plan their futures. I'm not referring to the well-to-do or the socially prominent but to the down-to-earth people, those who need help and who are the background of our country.

Yes, I want a new GI bill. A bill which will pay tuition, lab fees, and book costs would help the needy and those who want to apply themselves.

Please do all you can to gain support of such legislation and let me know what's wrong with our representatives. Don't they realize the employment situation? Sincerely,

ILLEANE D. LITTRELL. Mr. HALEY. I will also insert in the record a letter from the Thaddeus H. Caraway Post No. 2278, Veterans of Foreign Wars, of Hot Springs National Park, Ark., and a letter from Joseph A. Yakaitis, an employee of the Department of the Army now serving in Korea. (The letters referred to follow :)


Hot Springs National Park, Ark., Jarch 8, 1960.
Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: It is the desire of this post that you be informed that the members hereof have voted unanimously to ask that Congress do not approve, the pending so-called peacetime GI bill.

We are aware of the fact that the last national conventional of our organization, voted to approve congressional passage of such a bill, but we believe that in spite of this fact, a majority of the members throughout the Nation would not approve of any such legislation, would they be given an opportunity to voice their opinion. We know that the commander of this department opposed this proposed bill upon the occasion of his visit to Washington to the midwinter conference of department commanders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and this district opposes it also.

We are opposed to a peacetime GI bill on two grounds. First, because the money necessary to implement such a bill, if enacted into law, would be charged to the Veterans Administration, and not to the Armed Forces appropriations where it belongs—and such a charge, would only make it even more difficult to obtain a reasonable pension for our aged and ailing veterans, which is not provided for under existing legislation. Secondly, we oppose this bill, because we do not believe that individuals enlisting as so-called career service men and women, under the many benefits, and handsome wages, now offered by the Regular branches of the Armed Forces, can in any way be entitled to additional emoluments, when and if they leave the Armed Forces, to a degree contemplated under this bill. We believe that only men and women who served in the Armed Forces in time of war, are entitled to such benefits. Respectfully,

Legislative Officer,

« PreviousContinue »