the Readjustment Act, notwithstanding a formal termination of the war. May I ask Mr. Birdsall? Mr. BIRDSALL. We covered that in this report, Mr. Chairman, that very question that you raised, which concerns Public Law 190. It would be necessary to consider that question in the subcommittee, undoubtedly, as to whether or not you want to modify the present provision which is designed to encourage those enlistments. did amend that particular law which we now apply, it would affect their rights definitely. Senator MORSE. It is very clear to me from General Bradley's comments concerning changing the date that it would go into effect, after these men had enlisted, after certain representations had been held out to them, that such a change would be grossly unfair. I think we must select a date subsequent to the passage of the bill itself in fairness to the men concerned, if on no other principle than that of fair notice. I do not think we have any right to enlist these men on the representation that they will get certain benefits, and then pass a law that cuts off those benefits after they enlist. General BRADLEY. The other bill, S. 986, would permit a lawyer that has had less than 2 years active practice, exclusive of the period of their military service, to undertake on-the-job training, notwithstanding the fact that he or she is already qualified by training or experience to practice the profession of law. Existing criteria for on-the-job training contemplates that a written course of training be submitted by the training establishment, which includes the title and description of the specific job objective for which the veteran is to be trained, and the governing statutes specifically provide that no course of training will be considered bona fide if given to a veteran who is already qualified by training and experience for the job objective. Under this provision the Veterans' Administration is precluded from recognizing the enrollment of a veteran for on-the-job training for the objective "lawyer" when that veteran has already passed the State Bar requirements, and has thus become legally qualified to practice law. In those States which require a period of office practice, of clerkship, as a prerequisite to a license to practice law, a veteran may now enroll for a course of on-the-job training, provided the other statutory requirements are met. The bill would authorize the benefits of onthe-job training to any eligible lawyer if his written application discloses that the training program is one appropriate to equip him for active practice as a lawyer, either in a job or in independent private practice. It is recognized that in many instances a person embarking upon a profession often earns a low income during the initial stages of his career; that such a person becomes more proficient and his earning power increased as he engages in the activities of his profession. It was not intended, however, that the veteran's income should be augmented under the education and training provisions of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, as amended, but rather that assistance should take the form of readjustment allowances. Readjustment allowance is available under that Act to the returning lawyer. If such an eligible veteran's earnings while engaged in self-employment are less than $100 a month, he is entitled to receive the difference between $100 and his net earnings for that month. It should be borne in mind that a lawyer-veteran may also take advantage of the education provisions of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act by pursuing any course whatsoever in a law school, either full time or part time. During such period an eligible veteran may be paid subsistence allowances in addition to any salary he may be earning, if he is employed, subject only to the ceilings imposed by the Act. He may take refresher training in special classes conducted by local or State bar associations in connection with law schools or practicing law institutes. If on-the-job training were afforded the lawyers regardless of whether they were pursuing a prescribed course of training leading to a specific job objective, as proposed by the bill, it would constitute a discrimination against members of other professions, such as architects, engineers, ministers, and so forth. It should also be borne in mind that there is a sharp contrast between apprenticeship training for members of the medical and legal professions. The well-established medical internship, which consists of a definite learning and teaching program, is general throughout the United States, whereas in the legal profession it is the exception rather than the rule. The usual legal apprenticeship is unofficial, unrecognized and often haphazard. It would seem that until such time as the legal profession develops to the point of clear recognizability a training on-the-job situation within the profession, a bona fide training status should not be conferred on such unrecognized activity. We believe that if this is passed for lawyers, the pressure would be on to extend it to various other professional groups. I might bring up just one example that came to my attention, where they tried to get us to pay the graduates of a barber school down in Texas for an additional year and half after they got their journeyman's rating, because they said that during the first year and a half they didn't earn much. We might have cases like that. Certainly a lot of professional people who have a low earning period would demand or would ask for the same thing. For these reasons the Veterans' Administration does not recommend S. 986 for favorable consideration. I believe, Mr. Chairman, I have covered all of the bills that you have before you. Senator MORSE. Are there any further questions? If not, we thank you very much, General. We will read this report very carefully, and if there are any other questions involved we will either ask you to come back, or send a written communication asking for memorandum. May I say for the record that those veterans groups or other witnesses who wish to testify at these hearings should get in touch either with the Chairman or with Mr. Rodgers, Clerk of the Committee, at the very earliest date, so they can be scheduled. We want to have the fullest possible hearings on these bills, as far as witnesses who have some comments to offer to the committee are concerned; at the same time we want to proceed with the hearings without any further delay, to the end of making our report, I hope, to the full committee within the next 2 weeks. If there are no more witnesses this morning we will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30. (Whereupon, at 10:45 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 9:30 a. m., Tuesday, May 6, 1947.) EDUCATION AND ON-THE-JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1947 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a. m., in the committee room, Capitol Building, Senator Wayne Morse (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Morse, Ives, and Pepper. Senator MORSE. The hearing will come to order. Our first witness this morning was to have been Senator Pepper, who is not yet present. We will, therefore, proceed with the statement of Mr. Omar B. Ketchum, the national director of legislation for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Will you proceed, Mr. Ketchum? Mr. KETCHUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF OMAR B. KETCHUM, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS Mr. KETCHUM. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on the several bills presently being considered. The Veterans of Foreign Wars at the present time numbers approximately 2,000,000 veterans of overseas service in our Nation's wars and recognized campaigns. Approximately 85 percent of our membership is composed of overseas veterans of World War II. Because this is the first session of a Senate veterans' subcommittee created by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, I would like to state briefly the manner in which the Veterans of Foreign Wars arrives at its position with respect to veterans' legislation. It is a most pertinent explanation because several of the bills being considered at this time, although beneficial to certain special groups, are at the same time not part of our legislative program. The legislative program of the Veterans of Foreign Wars is based primarily on the resolutions adopted at each national encampment. Between encampments the national legislative committee, which meets periodically, and the national council of administration are authorized to commit the organization on any matter that comes within the broad objectives of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and at the same time is not in conflict with encampment resolutions. 13 ON-THE-JOB TRAINING The Veterans of Foreign Wars was an active cosponsor of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. Consequently, during the spring of 1946 we were greatly alarmed over the reports reaching our office that on-the-job training features of the GI bill of rights were lending themselves to abuses on the part of employers as well as employee-veterans. We received reports that veterans were qualifying for on-the-job training and drawing subsistence allowances and wages, the sums of which exceeded four or five hundred dollars per month. We recognized this as a gross distortion of the intent of Congress. We have always believed that the purpose of including on-the-job training in the GI bill of rights was to assist the mature veteran by affording him some monetary benefit while drawing the customary low apprenticeship wages. Late in the spring of 1946 the abuses in the on-the-job training program had grown to such proportion that the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs requested the Congress to enact legislation which ultimately became Public Law 679 of the Seventy-ninth Congress. This law, among other things, placed a ceiling on wages and allowances of $175 for a trainee without dependents and $200 for a trainee with dependents. When the Forty-seventh National Encampment, Veterans of Foreign Wars, convened in early September 1946, Public Law 679 had been in operation but 1 month. The law had engendered considerable opposition and confusion in the training program, and a threatened exodus from the program was an ominous one. The encampment, however, was reluctant to pass judgment on Public Law 679 until the evidence was in. Consequently, the encampment adopted a resolution calling upon the national rehabilitation service, Veterans of Foreign Wars, to conduct a Nation-wide survey on the effects of these ceilings on the training program. Each department conducted a State-wide survey which was consolidated in the report considered by the national legislative committee in November 1946. Based on the findings of this Nation-wide survey, the legislative committee directed me as director of the national legislative service to draft legislation embodying three amendments to Public Law 679. These amendments are as follows: (a) Increase the ceilings to $250 for trainees without dependents; $300 for trainees with one dependent; and $325 for trainees with two or more dependents. (b) Wages for side-line jobs, overtime, and bonuses shall not be considered in computing the total wages received by the trainee. (c) Remove the 2-year limitation on certain training programs. These points were embodied in the bill H. R. 246, which was introduced by Congressman B. W. Kearney and unanimously approved by the House Veterans Committee, with these amendments: Changing the $300 for a trainee with one dependent to $325, and the $325 for the trainee with more than one dependent to $350. This bill is now pending before the House Rules Committee. I should like to state at this time, Mr. Chairman, that only yesterday Senator Ives, who I understand is a member of this subcommittee, introduced by request a companion bill to H. R. 246, which is now identified as S. 1232. I understand the bill is not yet in print and |