and 197 of these occupations were seeking people with less than college training but with very definite skills. All of these occupations were listed with the Pennsylvania State Employment Service. Jobs are going begging in the midst of serious unemployment. But, I emphasize they are skilled jobs-jobs for which prior training or experience is a "must." The answer surely is in training our unskilled, and perhaps equally, in retraining those among our unemployed whose skills have become less important to our economy due to the swift changes that are taking place in our industries as a result of technological advancements and automation. Permit me to turn to the economic aspects of the situation. I speak only of Pennsylvania. From 1950 to 1958, a matter of 8 years, the taxpayers of this State paid almost one and a third billion dollars in unemployment compensation. During these same years a further $870 million was paid in direct relief by the department of public assistance. I could not attempt to calculate the loss to the State and the Nation by this state of affairs. An unemployed citizen pays few taxes. He takes from the pot rather than contributing to it. The skill of the worker is in a very real sense a brick in the foundation upon which the prosperity of our Nation is built. We are greatly concerned about our unemployment problem in Pennsylvania. We know the occupations we need to train for; we have surveyed the unemployed people and find that 65 percent of them are interested in learning a new occupation or further updating in their skills. We inventoried our educational facilities and the numbers that can be accommodated but we simply do not seem to be able to find the money that we need to do the job. We are hoping for some assistance from the national Congress in this problem. I believe that unless we educate our youth to their capacity, continually upgrade the skills of our present workers, and retrain those persons whose skills have become obsolete in our scientific and technical society, we will continually be faced with an ever-increasing expenditure for public welfare. We today are quite concerned with the numbers of our superior students that have been found are not continuing their education beyond the high school. Minnesota found, for example, of the 3,368 seniors in the class of 1950 whose test scores placed them in the top 15 percent of their class, more than 1,000 did not attend college. This Nation cannot afford the loss of many of our best minds by not carrying through with their training and education beyond the high school. We need them in our skilled occupations and in our technical fields. The extension of the veterans' entitlements which you are considering is one method by which this country can educate further those who served their country, whether in war or peace. Not every veteran wants or needs an educational entitlement, but there are those who do want it and do need it. We hear comments by some people that Federal aid will lead to Federal control of our schools. I have never heard such a comment concerning any veterans' education benefits. 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. STATEMENT BY RAY C. PERROW, PRESIDENT, YOUNG FARMERS OF VIRGINIA, ROUTE 3, LYNCHBURG, VA. Mr. Chairman and members of committee, my name is Ray C. Perrow. I am a farmer in 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 during 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 life's work. 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-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 on-farm 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 accomplishments 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 8,418 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 farmowners. Number breeding animals purchased (dairy, beef, swine). Number items made in school farm shop.... Number farm soil conservation plans developed. Number home orchards established_. Number acres of pasture developed.. Number tractors purchased___ Number other farm machines purchased.. Number acres of forestry improved__. Number new homes constructed__. Number homes in which running water was installed__ 614 11, 080 11, 952 638 529 7, 785 553 3,284 1,796 200 403 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 was 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 has 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 a 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 Forces. Rather than spend 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 adjustments 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. STATEMENT BY JOHN FUSARO, JR., VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II, TRAINED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 346 BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. Gentlemen, I should first like to express my appreciation for the opportunity of being able to submit a statement to this committee and contribute in any way I can to further the extension of veterans' benefits to those men entering the Armed Forces after January 31, 1955. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate the benefits of the Veterans' Readjustment Act is to become somewhat autobiographical. I feel that I was pretty much the average serviceman, and in giving my history it should present a rather fair picture. After attending the Philadelphia public schools up to and including the second year of high school, I left to go to work. During these depression years it was difficult to find employment, and not possessing any particular skills, my first job was serving newspapers. I then worked as a delivery boy for a grocery chain, after which I became a busboy at the Philadelphia Cricket Club. For the 2 years immediately prior to my entry into the service I worked as a chauffeur. I cite these incidents of floundering around in the employment field primarily to demonstrate the importance of having a trade or vocation. My 5 years in the Army were not particularly impressive. I served as technician fifth class in the field artillery with the exception of 10 months spent in the hospital due to a truck accident. The major portion of my military career was spent in the United States. During the final year I was stationed in the South Pacific. Upon my separation from the service I was again faced with the problem so common to many other veterans. I had been married in 1943, and the question of a job was most vital. Here again my lack of specific training proved to be an almost insurmountable handicap. I finally obtained work in a machine shop as a shipper and stock boy-not a very promising future for a man 27 years of age. Now that the war was over, orders at the shop were few and I was faced with numerous layoffs. It was then that I decided to avail myself of the training offered under the GI bill. I enrolled in the carpentry course given at the Edward Bok Vocational Technical School by the school district of Philadelphia. It seemed that I had at last discovered a field in which I was not only interested, but where I actually enjoyed the training. For 21⁄2 years I learned the elements of carpentry with the associated instruction such as blueprint reading, shop mathematics, and shop English. At that time the veterans' program of the school district of Philadelphia was constructing homes for paraplegics and blind veterans, and our classes were transferred to this project. These 10 homes built entirely by veterans gave me most valuable training in the construction field. After completion of the course I worked with various contractors to gain as much experience as I could. In 1952 I obtained employment with the Philadelphia Board of Public Education as a carpenter's helper, and for the next several years I advanced through the various grades until I became a full-fledged carpenter. I was then selected to work as a draftsman in the office of the building department of the school district. At the present time my work consists of drawings and specifications for new buildings. While I have long since passed the date for further training under the GI bill, realizing the value of augmenting my abilities, I have enrolled in the Temple Technical Institute where I am studying architectural design and building construction. It is my intention to remain in my present field, advancing as far as I am able. Thanks to the GI bill, the future of my wife and now two daughters looks much brighter than in the days before I entered the service. I submit this statement not only to further the interests of veterans' training, but to express my appreciation to the Government that has made all this possible for me. Hon. OLIN TEAGUE, STATE OF VERMONT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VOCATIONAL DIVISION, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, DEAR CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE: I appreciate the invitation to appear before the committee to offer testimony on veterans' education but I am sorry that it will be impossible for me to appear in person. I am very interested in this matter and I am pleased to submit herewith a a statement favoring the passage of legislation by the House of Representatives with provisions similar to those of S. 1138. I hope that your committee will see fit to recommend passage of such legislation by the House of Representatives. Sincerely yours, COLA D. WATSON, State Supervisor, Agricultural Education. STATEMENT OF FAVORING THE PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO S. 1138, BY COLA D. WATSON, STATE SUPERVISOR, AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MONTPELIER, VT. As State supervisor of agricultural education in Vermont, I have been in charge of the institutional-on-farm training program in agriculture for veterans in the State since 1946. During the period, 1950 through 1954, I also served as chairman of the committee on veterans' education in agriculture for the American Vocational Association so have had an opportunity to become familiar with the operation and results of the institutional-on-farm training programs for veterans under the provisions of Public Laws 346, 377, 16, 894, and 550 on a national basis. I appreciate the opportunity to make this statement to your Committee on Veterans' Affairs favoring the passage of legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives to provide readjustment assistance to veterans who served in the Armed Forces between January 31, 1955, and July 1, 1963, similar to that provided by S. 1138. I favor all readjustment assistance to veterans but shall, because of my experience, address my remarks more specifically to the institutional-on-farm training phase of educational and vocational training assistance. The men and women who unselfishly gave their time and energy to the defense of our Nation by serving in its Armed Forces performed whatever duties were needed and these were seldom in keeping with their plans for the future. We all recognize that their lives were interrupted; their education and training was delayed. Passage of this legislation would allow them to take up where they left off before entering the armed services. This is not a new, untried program but is an extension of programs that have proven themselves. Several comprehensive studies have been made of the results of institutional-on-farm training for veterans enrolled under the provisions of Public Laws 346, 377, and 16. The most comprehensive of these is a national study made by the AVA Committee on Research in the Education of Veterans and reported in 1952 as AVA Research Bulletin No. 5. The study covered the 2-year period from January 1, 1949, through December 31, 1950, and, on a random sampling basis, included over 5,000 veterans enrolled in the program at that time. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which veterans were becoming established in farming as a result of the training program. The results of the study show that during this period veterans' farms increased in size, rates of production of all major crops and farm animals increased considerably, labor incomes and net worth increased, and many improved agricultural practices were adopted by veterans. Similar studies in various sections of the country have shown the same results. A detailed study of the farm operations for 1949 and 1950 of 190 veterans in Vermont showed significant increases in labor incomes, net worth, productive man work units per farm, productive work units per man, and tons of milk produced per man. 1 Few comparable studies have been made of the results of institutional-onfarm training for veterans enrolled under Public Law 550, but similar results can be expected. Examples of outstandingly successful establishment in farming as a result of institutional-on-farm training under Public Law 550 can be cited in any section of the country. I shall cite one that is representative from my own State. Donald E. Lewis of Woodstock, Vt., was graduated from the 4-year vocational agriculture program at Woodstock High School during which he built up a small herd of purebred Jersey animals on the home farm. Following his release from the service, he purchased the balance of the Jersey herd, rented the 300-acre home farm, and enrolled in institutional on-farm training under Public Law 550 in December 1956. Taking full advantage of this educational opportunity, he applied many improved production and management practices on the farm. In 1957 his exhibits of grass silage, corn silage, and hay all took ribbons at the Vermont Farm Show. In 1958 he was selected as the Vermont Dairyman of the Year. The same year he was also selected as the New England Green Pastures in Winter winner. The latter is a very popular program in which most of the best farmers of New England participate. Success of the farm as a business operation was the main consiedration for both of these recognitions. There can be no doubt that institutional on-farm training has contributed largely to Mr. Lewis' establishment in farming and that he will continue to be one of the outstanding dairy farmers of the Northeast. There has been a great revolution in the agricultural field in this country in the past few years. A young man can no longer take two horses and a plow and go out to earn a living from the soil. Science and mechanization have changed the structure of farming. Farms are increasing in size and complexity of management. Even though some fewer farmers will be needed in the future to produce the food and fiber needed by our ever-increasing population, those who have this responsibility must have had sound, thorough agricultural training. The opportunity for young men in farming is excellent because of the relatively high average age of today's farmers. A majority of the young men who are established in farming today are products of institutional on-farm training in agriculture. Time is of the essence to our youth. They have been left a rich heritage, but to enter and contribute to our vast economy, they must be prepared with all of the education and training they can possibly achieve. On the other hand, our high cost of living makes it necessary for them to assume productive work as soon as possible. The youth who are first trained for the work that best suits their capabilities and interests constitute a priceless asset for America's economic and social security. Federal legislation which entitles a veteran to a period of education or training equal to 11⁄2 times the duration of his service on active duty between Janu 1 Eaton, E. O., unpublished thesis, 1952, "A Study of 190 Farm Veterans Enrolled in the Institutional-on-Farm Training Program in the State of Vermont," Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. |