they were not mentioned specifically in the legislation. Therefore, we did not dogmatically insist that the language of the act mention veterans. Recently upon inquiry of the Department of Labor we learned that there has been a sharp decline in the number of veterans enrolled in MDTA training.

Mr. Chairman, we feel that veterans who were prevented from enrolling in MDTA job training have been shortchanged by their Government. To help prevent a similar situation we want service to veterans specifically covered in this proposed legislation.

Resolution No. 13, adopted by our national executive committee, October 1969, copy attached, requests that the American Legion recommend certain amendments to the proposed "Manpower Training Act of 1969," to the effect that veterans will be provided the maximum of job opportunity.

In view of our current mandate, and in accordance with the traditional policy of Congress, the American Legion respectfully recommends two minor amendments to S. 2838.

1. Under Title I, Sec. 104(a), paragraph (1), page 13, lines 6-9, we suggest that subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) be redesignated as (D), (E), and (F) respectively, and that a new subparagraph be added on line 6, following the semicolon after the word, "individuals" and be designated as (C), and read as follows:

"(C) providing, as required by Title 38, U.S. Code 2001, maximum job opportunity for veterans, especially in provision of job registration, job placement and labor market information;"

2. Under Title I, Sec. 104 (a), paragraph 3, subparagraph (D), page 15, lines 5-6, we recommend the subparagraph read:

"(D) the general public, including business, labor, veterans', and social welfare organizations."

I thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to comment on this proposed legislation and we sincerely hope that our recommended amendments will be acceptable to the subcommittee, and to the Congress which will make the legislation, if enacted, more meaningful and effective for the some 80,000 Vietnam era veterans that are returning to the mainstream of civilian life each month.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE AMERICAN LEGION HELD OCTOBER 8-9, 1969, INDIANAPOLIS, IND., PROPOSING VETERANS PREFERENCE IN S. 2838 AND H.R. 13472

Resolution No. 13.

Commission: Economic.

Subject: Asking that S. 2838 and H.R. 13472, or any similar legislation proposing the establishment of a comprehensive manpower development program to assist persons in overcoming obstacles to suitable employment be amended to provide preference for war veterans.

Whereas, pending legislation in the 91st Congress, namely, S. 2838 and H.R. 13472 proposing the establishment of a Comprehensive Manpower Development Program to assist persons in overcoming obstacles to suitable employment, makes no provision for preference to veterans who are returning to civilian life at a rate of approximately one million annually-a figure which may well increase in the foreseeable future-and to other veterans; and

Whereas, veterans by Congressional action have traditionally received preference in training, counseling, testing and referral to existing job opportunities through the Public Employment Service; and

Whereas the American Legion has, since its inception, supported preference to all war veterans seeking employment both in Federal service and through the Public Employment Service: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the National Executive Committee of The American Legion in regular meeting assembled in Indianapolis, Indiana, on October 8-9, 1969, That The American Legion urge that S. 2838 and H.R. 13472, or any similar legislation, be amended so as to provide for veterans preference for all war veterans.

Senator NELSON. I haven't looked at the bill as it is before me. Would you explain what your second recommendation actually does? Mr. KERBY. Yes, sir. Ön page 13 of the bill we suggest, the first is concerning individuals, (A) and (B), and we suggest after (B) that this new section (C) be inserted which, as I quoted, would provide for this service to veterans along with the other individuals and, of course, then, since the other remaining subsections which now, if our recommendation was accepted, would be (D), (E), and (F), this would be in between the service to individuals and the particular

service.

Then the next amendment would be on page 15 and all we are inserting is the one word "veterans' " which would include making it veterans' organizations along with welfare organizations and others. Senator NELSON. Is that sentence under item 2 entitled "(D)" all new language?

Mr. KERBY. Our first proposed amendment is all new language and the second we are inserting only the word "veterans' ".

Senator NELSON. Do you have some questions?

Senator CRANSTON. I would like to say about those proposed amendments, while I have not had an opportunity to review the precise language, I agree with the objective and would seek to bring about something along those lines.

On the second page of your prepared testimony you referred to statistics that you received showing the sharp decline in the number of veterans enrolled in MDTA training. Do you have those figures with you that you could give us, or could you supply them for the record?

Mr. KERBY. Yes, I do, sir. There were 57,000 veterans enrolled in MDTA in classroom training in 1958 and then in 1969 there were only 46,000. There was a decline of 11,000 in the 1-year period.

Senator CRANSTON. Presumably there are more veterans of the age where they would be on the labor market than before.

Mr. KERBY. Of course of the older group, that is right, sir. Many times MDTA training is more advantageous to the veteran than it would be under the GI bill.

Senator CRANSTON. Do you have any explanation for that decline? Mr. KERBY. Yes, sir. It is the criteria that has been set up; 65 percent of all job openings are set aside for the disadvantaged and, as I mentioned, many veterans do not come in this category because of the fact that even compensation is counted as income.

Senator NELSON. Did I understand you to say that only 4 percent of the veterans are qualified for that definition of "disadvantaged?" Mr. KERBY. That is what the Labor Department tells us; yes, sir. Senator NELSON. It sounds like a very low percentage. I am wondering. This is a Labor Department statistic?

Mr. KERBY. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. We will ask them about that. It does sound a little low.

Senator CRANSTON. Since our figures indicate that 23 percent of those enlisted men leaving the service annually don't have high school diplomas, I wonder how the 4-percent figure is reached. That is something we should look into. I should think they would be disadvantaged without a high school diploma.

Senator NELSON. Within the definition of the manpower training

programs.

Senator CRANSTON. I would like to say one other thing. I presume that you are aware of the fact that the meat of S. 2700, which is a bill I introduced, is now before the conference on H.R. 11959. I am referring to the provisions for a veterans outreach services program to support and beef up the operation of the veterans assistance centers with mandates for assistance to veterans in finding employment and job training opportunities. We will be seeking to get that program accepted by the conference and enacted into law while pursuing in this subcommittee these additional points of yours

Mr. KERBY. I had the privilege of testifying on that. I appreciate it. Senator NELSON. Without objection, I order printed at this point in the record the letter to Senator Javits from Secretary Shultz and a letter to me from Mr. Stover of the VFW.

(The letters referred to follow :)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, November 3, 1969.

Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: As per your request of August 13 for continued infor. mation regarding the inidividuals displaced from closed Job Corps centers, I am enclosing the results of our most recent survey of these Corpsmen.

Table 1 summarizes the experience of those who were enrolled at the affected centers when the closings were announced. Table 2 presents the information relevant to non-graduate Corpsmen who chose not to transfer to another center and who accepted an on-site interview with Employment Service counselors. These data were obtained from case by case reviews made by Employment Service offices.

Thank you for your interest in manpower programs.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Secretary of Labor.

TABLE 1.-EXPERIENCE OF JOB CORPSMEN DISPLACED BY CENTER CLOSINGS (SEPT. 31, 1969)

1 Includes 194 persons who graduated from the Clinton Center which was permitted to remain open until August 1969, 2 Includes 54 persons who were transferred from Clinton to other centers, 54 persons who completed the police cadet and rentar program at Kilmer after the scheduled closing date, 222 in Koko Head which was restructured, and 447 in the Puerto Rican centers whose administration was assumed by the Commonwealth.

TABLE 2.-EXPERIENCE OF NONGRADUATE DISPLACED JOB CORPSMEN WHO WERE INTERVIEWED AT CENTER

EXPERIENCE OF CORPSMEN WHO HAVE REPORTED TO THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reference to S. 2838, the Manpower Training Act of 1969, which is under consideration by your subcommittee.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars generally confines its legislative programs to legislation which addresses itself to veterans programs, rights, and benefits. It is realized that S. 2838 is a comprehensive proposal which covers a wide range of proposals not directed specifically to veterans as a group or class who would be affected by the legislation.

Nevertheless, it has come to the attention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that there is a proposal in this bill which could have a profound negative effect on a veterans program of intense interest to the more than 1,500,000 members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I am referring to the Veterans Employment Service of the Department of Labor. The Veterans Employment Service is one of the oldest veterans programs, having been born during the dark days of the depression when the Public Employment Service was established under the Wagner-Peyser Act. The success of the Veterans Employment Service was affirmed when the GI bill of 1944 was approved by the Congress. At that time the Congress reaffirmed the principle of job counseling and assistance for war veterans when it made the Veterans Employment Service of the Department of Labor one of the readjustment rights and benefits for returning war veterans. This principle was reaffirmed in the Korean GI bill and again in the GI bill of 1966. It should be emphasized that in these three GI bills the job training and assistance contemplated is not limited to a specific war or conflict but is all inclusive and available to veterans of any war or conflict.

This philosophy and position of the Veterans of Foreign Wars is spelled out in several resolutions approved unanimously by the delegates to our Philadelphia National Convention. Copies of these resolutions are attached and are identified as No. 288 entitled "Adequate Employment Assistance to Veterans," No. 296 entitled "Preference to Veterans in Public Employment Service," No. 309 entitled "Adequate Funding For Employment Program For Veterans," and No. 311 entitled "Full-Time V.E.R. In each Local Employment Office." Please note that the principle contained in each of these resolutions is that the Veterans Employment Service is the agency veterans rely upon to provide the counseling service and assistance contemplated by the GI bills.

With these facts in mind, the Veterans of Foreign Wars is concerned that the comprehensive bill before your subcommittee contains no specific reference or consideration to the employment needs of veterans, especially the returning

Vietnam veteran. Vietnam veterans are returning to civil life at the rate of more than 70,000 a month. Increased troop withdrawals are expected to increase the discharge rate of Vietnam veterans at the rate of more than a million a year. As the GI bill of 1966 (38 U.S.C. 2001) states:

"The Congress declares as its intent and purpose that there shall be an effective job counseling and employment placement service for veterans of any war, or of service after January 31, 1955, and that, to this end, policies shall be promulgated and administered, so as to provide for them the maximum of job opportunity in the field of gainful employment."

It is the Veterans Employment Service of the Department of Labor which carries out the intent and purpose of Congress for an effective job counseling and employment placement service for veterans. As indicated in the attached V.F.W. Resolutions Nos. 296 and 311, there is a deep concern that veterans preference in job opportunities can and is being lost because of the multitude of duties and responsibilities other than for veterans being thrust upon the veterans employment representatives in the local public employment offices. The bill under consideration through its consolidation and other proposals of manpower services could serve to greatly diminish or eliminate an effective job assistance program for veterans as intended under the GI bill of 1966 and previous GI bills.

To prevent the possibility of unintentionally eliminating a veteran's right or benefit and to assure that veterans will receive the job assistance contemplated by Congress, the following amendment is offered:

On page 12 of S. 2838, it is respectfully suggested that a new subsection (C) be inserted as follows:

"(C)-providing, as required by 39 USC 2001, maximum job opportunity for veterans, especially in provision of job registration, job placement and labor market information.'

If your subcommittee favorably considers such an amendment, the present subsections (C), (D), and (E) would, of course, be redesignated (D), (E), and (F) respectively.

This amendment to add a subsection on veterans will, it is believed, carry out the position of the Veterans of Foreign Wars as reflected in the enclosed national resolutions which call for a vigorous and adequate Veterans Employment Service to provide job counseling and placement service for the hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans who are and will be returning to civil life to seek employment. With all best wishes, I am

Sincerely,

Enclosures.

FRANCIS W. STOVER, Director, National Legislative Service.

[Resolution No. 3111

FULL-TIME V.E.R. IN EACH LOCAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICE

Whereas, the President, by executive order, and the Congress, by legislation, have directed that an intensified program of employment services and training opportunities be provided recently separated veterans; and

Whereas, the Congress, on many occasions, has enacted legislation providing preference to war veterans seeking employment assistance through the Public Employment Service and the Veterans Employment Service; and

Whereas, the Congress has provided for the positions of State and local Veterans Employment Representatives, whose duties are to assist all veterans through outreach and employment services, in depth, by creating training opportunities and meaningful and rewarding employment; and

Whereas, veterans now constitute nearly one-half of all males seeking employment and supportive services; and

Whereas, the President has directed that intensive employment services be extended to each returning veteran beyond the confines of the employment service office in order to assure for them the greatest help possible in obtaining suitable and meaningful employment and training opportunities; and

Whereas, this service cannot be made available without additional staff personnel and time; and

Whereas, it has been the traditional policy of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States to promote and support a maximum employment assistance program for all veterans; now, therefore, be it