In the last sentence of section 4 of the bill, it might be well to indicate whether it is intended to give the Veterans' Administration the authority to withdraw approval from the institution which has been approved by a State agency. In other words, there is no antecedent to the words "if it is found" to indicate by whom the finding may be made. This could refer to either the Administrator or the State approving agency or both, and that ought to be cleared.

Now in regard to the institutional on-the-farm courses, the report indicates that the Veterans' Administration should possibly be given the same authority as is now granted with regard to the short intensive postgraduate courses, namely, the right to contract with approved institutions for such courses where the Administrator finds that the agreed cost is reasonable and fair, and it is suggested that the bill be amended to grant the authority. That is purely a suggestion to the committee.

There is one more, and that is in connection with Senator Lodge's proposed amendment. The very point as to form was raised by Congressman Wheeler as is raised in this report in that the regional office may be abolished at any time, and probably the committee would rather, if they are going to retain the sense of the amendment, designate the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

Senator MORSE. It is an amendment that has the effect of throwing the act out of the window. Am I correct on that?

it.

Mr. WHEELER. Yes.

Senator IVES. Mr. Chairman, I have a question now, if I may insert

Senator MORSE. Yes.

Senator IVES. I wasn't here during most of the Congressman's testimony, and this may have been covered during his testimony, but I am just curious to know what this State authority is or this State agency. Who determines it? It is mentioned here, but I don't find any definition of it anywhere. Who is going to decide on this business here that has to be adhered to?

Mr. STIRLING. Senator, the approving agency of the State referred to in the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, title II, is that agency that is designated by the Governor to approve as qualified and equipped training establishments and training institutions.

Senator IVES. In agriculture?

Mr. STIRLING. Yes, sir; in any course.

Senator IVES. What types of courses does this State agency embrace?

Mr. STIRLING. Agricultural establishments, Senator, industrial establishments, colleges and university training courses. Most of the States have approved the boards of education as the training agency to give these courses known as institutional on-the-farm courses. We have over 130,000.

Senator IVES. Veterans' agricultural courses?

Mr. STIRLING. Yes, sir; known as institutional and on-the-farm

courses.

Senator IVES. In what way do they differ from what you propose

here?

Mr. STIRLING. The issue, as I pointed out, Senator, so far as the Veterans' Administration is concerned, is not the quality of training,

but it has to do with what subsistence allowance we will pay the boy while he is in training on his own farm and how much tuition we will pay the institution which is giving the course. Those are the only questions so far as the Veterans' Administration is concerned.

Senator IVES. How much do they get out of that ordinarily? I mean what is the amount of money entailed there? How much does the ordinary veteran get?

Mr. STIRLING. At the present time, the veterans are receiving full subsistence allowance because the Administrator canceled his decision in August at the request of responsible people, and we have authority to determine whether this is a full-time or part-time course under paragraph 6 of part VIII of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a) which part was added to the regulation by title II of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act.

In August, the Administrator decided that it was a part-time course and the veteran would only receive one-fourth of the $65 or $90 a month while he was pursuing this course and we would pay the educational institutions on the basis of the number of hours of instruction which they gave. This bill which is before the committee now, if passed, would require us to pay to the boy in training on his own farm full subsistence allowance subject to the limitations of $175 and $200 and to pay the educational institution their customary charges, whatever they may be, because we have no authority to go behind the customary charges which are set by the institutions.

Senator IVES. In other words, this is supposed to make up the lack of the others. Is that it?

Mr. STIRLING. That is right.

Senator IVES. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness is Harry V. Hayden who is the national legislation representative for the American Legion.

STATEMENT OF CECIL MUNSON, HEAD, VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION, THE AMERICAN LEGION, ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY V. HAYDEN, NATIONAL LEGISLATION REPRESENTATIVE, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. HAYDEN. I am from the American Legion. We endorse H. R. 2181. I want to present as the witness for the American Legion Mr. Cecil Munson who is head of our vocational training and education.

Mr. MUNSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I think you have before you the briefs that were prepared for this hearing.

Senator MORSE. The Chair will rule that the prepared statement will be incorporated in the record at the conclusion of your testimony. Mr. MUNSON. With the passing of Public Law 679, we felt that the institutional on-the-job training program was progressing very satisfactorily. The contracts that were being issued at that time were quite in line with the standards set up in this present bill, H. R. 2181.

In August, Public Law 679 was passed, and then, on August 27, instruction 8 came out, and in section 3, paragraph (b) (6), the restrictive interpretation which brought the self-proprietor down to subsistence on a clock-hour basis of instruction appeared in instruction 8.

Now so far as we could ascertain there was no particular reason for it in Public Law 679, and from all the information we could gather, there seemed to be some controversy over whether or not the self-proprietor should get full subsistence previous to the passing of this law, and when the law was passed and instruction 8 came into the picture it was a fine opportunity to get into this picture the restrictive interpretations as to the number of amount of subsistence being based upon the number of clock hours of classroom instruction.

Well, immediately, as has been said here previously, objection was raised all over the country not only in regard to this restrictive interpretation, but in regard to the ceiling law plus the 2-year limitation for on-the-job training. And in September the thing became so hot that on September 25, just 29 days after the publication date of instruction 8, the Administrator sent out a message rescinding this action, which was the first sentence of this paragraph.

Now that restriction read this way:

Pending consideration by the Congress of the question of institutional onfarm training under Public Law 346, the first sentence of paragraph 6 of paragraph D of section III, instruction 8, August 27, is hereby rescinded. Continue practices in effect prior to issuance of this instruction subject to income limitation authorized under Public Law 679.

Otherwise, then, the program proceeded as it had been operating previous to the passage of Public Law 679. Now our interest is that it stay on that same basis.

The American Legion is interested in a good training program. We don't object to bringing into this picture training standards such as are in Public Law 679 and as are in H. R. 2181. We think the mandates for setting up a good training program are desirable and we approve of that and we are for it. We think that that is a good thing to have in the law. But to us, the self-proprietor section or the selfproprietor training is the heart of this whole farm-training program, and it is unfair to restrict a boy who has leased some land or is farming his father's property or has been able to take over some neighbor's property to absolute clock hours of classroom instruction.

So far as his subsistence is concerned, it is unfair to assume that a self-proprietor or a boy who has leased property is a fully trained farmer. I think it is unfair to assume that he is on the same basis as a doctor seeking a refresher course or a lawyer seeking a refresher

course.

These boys get the major part of their training by having projects of their own; that is, over a long period of training under the SmithHughes Act. That has been the very background and the basic principle of training. They own their own hog or they own their own calf or they have their father set aside a certain piece of land for the growing of grain, et cetera.

All of these boys anticipate that at some time they will have their own farm, and, therefore, the self-proprietorship training in the onthe-farm training program to us is the heart of it. And it is for that reason that we oppose the insertion of the restrictive interpretation in Public Law 679 which works against the self-proprietor, and it is interesting to note the growth of the program immediately following the rescision.

Before the rescision not only were objections coming in from all the vocational agricultural instructors all over the country, but the

Veterans' Administration agricultural training officers themselves, who have had their basic training in Smith-Hughes vocational agricultural work, objected very seriously to the restriction placed upon the self-proprietors, and we feel that this law, H. R. 2181, takes care of the situation in a very satisfactory manner.

Now we became interested in training to find some remedy to this situation. As soon as this restrictive interpretation came into the picture, we turned to vocational agricultural instructors and their organization under the American Vocational Association for some plan whereby there could be a uniform interpretation in terms of practices followed in the years past. It might be worked into this law to stabilize it and make it impossible to bring into it any further restrictive legislation, and in December, I believe it was-I don't remember that date; I thought Mr. Dennis might be here-but at a meeting of the national convention of the American Vocational Association, they passed a resolution which is embodied in H. R. 2181. Further, this whole subject was discussed at the veterans' council, which is part of the National Education Association, in Detroit. At their meeting in Detroit, they again approved the principles embodied in this H. R. 2181.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact of what the Veterans' Administration has stated, that the administrator himself has stated, pending consideration by Congress of this question, we believe it is imperative that H. R. 2181 become law so as to forestall any further restrictive interpretation on the institutional on-the-farm training program. We believe it will stabilize it and make the training very worth while. Senator MORSE. Do you have any comments to make on any of the proposed amendments?

Mr. MUNSON. I didn't quite get all of the proposed amendments. Senator MORSE. Possibly we may leave it this way, that you take a copy of the Veterans' Administration report on the bill, and if you have any comments to make on any of their proposed amendments, you will do so by way of a memorandum and we will incorporate it. Mr. MUNSON. I will be very happy to do so.

Senator MORSE. Are there any questions?

Senator IVES. No.

Senator PEPPER. NO.

Senator MORSE. All right, thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. John C. Williamson, assistant legislative representative of Veterans of Foreign Wars.

(Mr. Munson submitted the brief of the American Legion as follows:)

STATEMENT BY C. H. MUNSON, CHIEF OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION, THE AMERICAN LEGION, ON LEGISLATION RELATING TO INSTITUTIONAL ON-FARM TRAINING FOR VETERANS

The American Legion supports H. R. 2181, an act relating to institutional onfarm training for veterans. We believe this act will stabilize the program by eliminating the possibility of further restrictive interpretation in the payment of subsistence allowances and by providing ample standards for worth-while training.

The American Legion became actively interested in the farm training program during the summer of 1946. The majority of our posts in the rural areas are located in towns of less than 2,500 population, and our members, as well as all other veterans, are either active farmers or directly dependent upon the welfare 63780-47- 4

of farmers. We were particularly interested in a well-planned training program for self-proprietors.

During the early stages of development there were many understandable problems which were gradually and carefully being solved. The success of these stabilization processes were measured by the growing interest in initiating and developing the program. The program was following much the same pattern found in the Smith-Hughes vocational agriculture program which had been successful over a period of years.

Many States were retarded in developing the farm training program because they lacked finances for supervision. In approving those sections of Public Law 679, Seventy-ninth Congress, which provided financial aid and set up desirable criteria for on-the-job training, the American Legion believed the way was cleared for continued growth and improvement. However, it did not plan on or approve those sections of Public Law 679 which set ceilings at $175 and $200 for veterans without and with dependents, or the 2-year limitation for on-the-job training.

In addition to the above restrictions embodied in Public Law 679, Seventy-ninth Congress there appeared in instruction No. 8, August 27, 1946, section 3, paragraph (D) (6), the following:

"For veterans pursuing courses of instruction requiring as a part of such course the instructor to come to the veteran's own establishment, or farm (as institutional on-farm course), the number of clock hours of instruction which the trainee receives per week will determine the extent of the part-time course for the purpose of payment of subsistence allowance and tuition."

In addition to restrictive legislation affecting subsistence allowance this restrictive interpretation threw every well-organized program into a tail spin and brought all newly initiated programs to a standstill. All the prospects for future development already in operation were snapped out like a light. This meant that the amount of subsistence allowance allotted to self-proprietors was to be based on the number of clock hours of classroom instructions and at best trainees could only get in approximately 6 hours per week and thereby entitled to only one-fourth subsistence which amounted to $22.50 if married.

To make such a ruling more surprising, no one could find anything in Public Law 679 that required or even suggested such an interpretation and no agricultural training officer in the Veterans' Administration would ever admit that they had recommended it.

As a result of this interpretation an immediate flood of criticism poured into the offices of the Veterans' Administration, the American Legion, and Congressmen. Veterans' Administration agricultural training officers in the field immediately questioned the wisdom of such a decision.

On September 25, 1946, 29 days after the publication date of instruction No. 8, and just previous to the national convention of the American Legion in San Francisco, the Administrator sent out the following message which rescinded this action:

"Pending consideration by the Congress of the question of institutional on-farm training under Public Law 346, the first sentence of paragraph 6 of paragraph D of section III, instruction No. 8, August 27, is hereby rescinded. Continue practices in effect prior to issuance of this instruction subject to income limitation authorized under Public Law 679."

This rescission put the program back on the same basis of operation, with the exception of wage ceilings and the 2-year limitation of on-the-job training, as existed prior to the issuance of instruction 8, August 27, 1946. Immediately all agencies interested in the program formulated resolutions and recommendations to forestall any attempt to interpret the program at some future date in terms of section III, paragraph. (D) (6). An interpretation of the Administrator's telegram led us to believe that he would recommend to the Congress that such a policy be enacted into law. Many States were hesitating to develop a full program until the issue was definitely settled.

Self-proprietorship training is the heart of the entire farm program. While many trainees may start as hired hands all are looking forward to farming their own land as soon as possible. This is the consensus of educators trained in agriculture and with many years of experience in training institutions.

The American Legion believes that a strong farm-training program is essential to the future welfare of our country, and is asking that it be permanently stabilized. We have turned to the American Vocational Association for recommendations, believing that such an organization, including the outstanding agricultural Vocational educators of the United States, should be able to make a real con