Senator YARBOROUGH. I personnally think if we do not pass it, we are breaking faith with these young people in the grossest way. Senator MORSE. I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Texas in regard to the GI bill.

Senator CASE. I have no questions.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHOEMANN. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. I would like to call on the Senator from New Jersey for a statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your consideration. When we go into executive session, it is my purpose to propose to the committee the consideration of an amendment to the National Defense Education Act to provide assistance to the States to inventory existing college facilities, determine the need for additional units, and make plans for meeting those needs. I have introduced such bills for several years, including the current session.

The current bill is S. 1232. So there may be in the record a statement of my reason for offering this amendment when we get to executive session, I ask permission if I might insert in here a brief statement of my reasons for doing that, and also at the conclusion of the statement, a copy of S. 1232.

Senator MORSE. The statement will be inserted at this point in the record.

(The statement referred to and S. 1232 follow:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLIFFORD P. CASE (REPUBLICAN, NEW JERSEY) Within the next decade, we must, somehow, make room for almost three times our present number of college freshmen. The magnitude of the task before us is almost awesome. By 1970, we will have 14.6 million youngsters in the college age group of 18 to 21. There is no guesswork about this figure the children are already born and in the school system.

Similarly, the percentage of youngsters seeking admission to college has been steadily rising. Today, it is estimated 37 percent and by 1975, school authorities predict it will reach 50 percent.

When we see the increase in numbers of young people, added to the growing need for education beyond high school, it is clear that college officials are being realistic in expecting 10 million qualified students by 1970, compared with the 3.57 million in college today. To meet such growth, we must double our rate of expansion, both in public and private facilities.

In the National Defense Education Act, we have title V, called “Guidance, counseling, and testing; identification and encouragement of able students." I feel it is appropriate to amend this title with the provisions of my bill, S. 1232, which would help the States determine how much additional facilities they will need to accommodate the bright youngsters identified through this program. My bill would provide a 50-50 matching program for interested States in order to encourage States to make such surveys. Obviously, the surveys would stimulate the States, and the public at large, to recognize the extent of the problem we face and to begin making comprehensive plans for its solution. Wise planning will bring facilities for higher education to areas now without them and will avoid duplicating facilities in other areas of the State.

While it may not be appropriate to attach the provisions of my junior, or community, college bill to the National Defense Education Act, I do believe that many States, in surveying college needs for the future, will recognize that such institutions provide an excellent and economical way to meet varied educational needs.

These 2-year colleges cost less to build since they do not require expensive dormitories, or elaborate eating and recreational facilities. For the students they provide the economic advantages of living at home and the possibility for a part-time job in the hometown. The end result is a much smaller drain on the family pocketbook.

Such a statewide program of community colleges has recently been recommended in our State of New Jersey and I applaud the recognition there of the advantages of this form of institution.

If we are truly concerned about strengthening the Nation, we must be prepared to finance adequately our educational program. Good education is expensive, but is essential to realizing fully our national greatness and our aspirations for the dignity of the individual.

[S. 1232, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide assistance to the States in certain surveying and planning with respect to college facilities

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION, AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 1. (a) For the purposes of assisting the States to inventory existing college facilities, to survey the need for additional college facilities especially in relation to the distribution of population, to develop State plans for college expansion programs, and to study the adequacy of State and other resources available to meet college facilities requirements, there is authorized to be ap propriated the sum of $2,500,000 to remain available until expended. Sums appropriated pursuant to this section shall be used for making payments to States whose applications for funds for carrying out such purposes have been approved.

(b) Grants under the provisions of this Act shall not be deemed to commit the Congress in any way to authorize or appropriate funds for any college facilities or college expansion programs.

(c) As used in this Act

(1) the term "State" means a State, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia;

(2) the term "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;

(3) the term "school-age population" means that part of the population which is between the ages of five and seventeen, both inclusive, and the school-age population of the several States shall be determined on the basis of the most recent estimates by the Department of Commerce.

STATE APPLICATIONS

SEC. 2. The Commissioner shall approve any application for funds for carrying out the purposes of this Act if such application

(1) designates the State agency for carrying out such purposes;

(2) provides a plan, in such detail as may be required by the Commissioner, for carrying out such purposes; and

(3) provides that such State agency will make such reports, in such form, and containing such information as the Commissioner may from time to time reasonably require, and, to assure verification of such reports, give the Commissioner, upon request, access to the records upon which such information is based.

ALLOTMENTS AND PAYMENTS TO STATES

SEC. 3. (a) Amounts appropriated in accordance with section 1 of this Act shall be allotted among the several States in the same proportion as their respective school-age populations bear to the total school-age population of all the States, except that no such alloment to any State shall be less than $10,000. Within its allotment each State shall be entitled to receive an amount equal to 50 per centum of its expenditures in carrying out the purposes of this Act in accordance with its application.

(b) The Commissioner shall from time to time estimate the sum to which each State will be entitled under this section during such ensuing period as he may determine, and shall thereupon certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the amount so estimated, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any sum by which the Commissioner finds that his estimate for any prior period was greater or less than the amount to which the State was entitled for such period. The Secretary of the Treasury shall thereupon, prior to audit or settlement by the General Accounting Office, pay to the State, at the time or times fixed by the Commissioner, the amount so certified.

WITHHOLDING OF CERTIFICATION

SEC. 4. (a) Whenever the Commissioner, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearings to a State agency designated in accordance with section 2 of this Act, finds (1) that such State agency is not complying substantially with the provisions of this Act or the terms and conditions of its application approved under this Act, or (2) that any funds paid to such State agency under this Act have been diverted from the purposes for which they had been allotted or paid, the Commissioner may forthwith notify the Secretary of the Treasury and such State agency that no further certification will be made under this Act with respect to such agency until there is no longer any failure to comply or the diversion has been corrected or, if compliance or correction is impossible, until such State agency repays or arranges for the repayment of Federal moneys which have been diverted or improperly expended.

(b) The final refusal of the Commissioner to approve any application made under this Act, and the Commissioner's final action under subsection (a) of this section, shall be subject to judicial review on the record, in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the State is located, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 5. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to delegate to any officer or employee of the Office of Education any of his functions under this Act except the making of regulations.

(b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for Federal administrative expenses such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Senator MORSE. Let the record also show that the chairman of this subcommittee has always supported the position of the Senator from New Jersey on this matter. And I shall be very glad to support him again this year.

Senator CASE. I am most grateful to the chairman.

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Mr. J. A. Brownlow, president of the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO.

Mr. Brownlow has sat with me in a great many sessions on the War Labor Board, as a full member of the War Labor Board during the war.

I am very happy to welcome him to this hearing.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. BROWNLOW, PRESIDENT, METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

Mr. BROWNLOW. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is James A. Brownlow, and I am president of the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, with offices located at 815 16th Street NW., Washington, D.C.

My testimony will be brief and to the point. My remarks will deal exclusively with that portion of S. 1726 which would extend without change, title III of the Vocational Education Act of 1946 as enacted

by title VIII of the National Defense Education Act of 1958-commencing at page 19, line 24, of the bill-section 8 (b).

Our national program to stimulate, support, and further develop vocational education on a cooperative basis between the Federal and State Governments, had its start with the Smith-Hughes Act, Public Law 347 of the 64th Congress, approved February 23, 1917. This law was passed with the full sponsorship and active support of the American Federation of Labor. It is still, to this day, the basic keystone to our vocational education program.

It was followed, in chronological order, by the George-Reed Act of 1929, the George-Elizey Act of 1934, the George-Deen Act of 1936, which were successively replaced, and culminating in the GeorgeBarden Act, otherwise known as the Vocational Education Act of 1946.

Our two basic vocational education acts in effect today, therefore, are the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and the George-Barden Act (or Vocational Education Act of 1946).

In 1958 the Congress passed and the President signed into law the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Title VIII of this law established a new title III to the Vocational Education Act of 1946 (George-Barden Act).

This new title III added a new concept to this Vocational Education Act of 1946-area vocational eduaction programs.

In section 801, the "statement of findings and purpose," the Congress found that

the excellent programs of vocational education, which the States have established

* need extension to provide vocational education to residents of areas inadequately served and also to meet national defense requirements for personnel equipped to render skilled assistance in fields particularly affected by scientific and technological developments.

The Congress in section 801 of title VIII of the National Defense Education Act, went on to state that its purpose was to provideassistance to the States so that they may improve their vocational education programs

through area programs

providing vocational and related technical training and retraining for youths, adults, and older persons, including related instruction for apprentices, designed to fit them for useful employment as technicians or skilled workers in scientific or technical fields.

Unfortunately, this legislation as enacted in 1958 contained a lastminute amendment to section 303 (a) (3) of this new title III, of the Vocational Education Act, restricting the use of funds appropriatedexclusively for the training of individuals designed to fit them for useful employment as highly skilled technicians in recognized occupations requiring scientific knowledge, as determined by the State board for such State, in fields necessary for the national defense.

This limiting language is not in keeping with either the statement of findings and purpose in section 801 of this act which I have already discussed, nor is it in line with that part of the definition of "area Vocational education program" in section 307 (d) of the same act, which reads:

which is designed to fit individuals for useful employment as technicians or skilled workers in recognized occupations requiring scientific or technical knowledge.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could interpolate for just a moment here.

At the time of the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act and the GeorgeBarden Act, there was a pretty defined program as to which an apprentice in any of the skilled trades might follow.

Today, that is entirely changed. Today, we have, for instance, welding of alloys and pipe alloys that might carry 5,000 pounds pressure. I have heard it discussed about even the painting. Now, painting seemingly is a very simple proposition. But when you get into a national defense feature, the blending of colors, camouflage, and so forth, then most certainly they do need technical training far beyond that which they learn as an ordinary apprentice. And that is true in the field of electronics, which is pretty much under the control of the electrician, and many other trades that have changed as a result of our technological changes in industry.

Purely for the purposes of ease of identification, may I point out that the last-minute amendment to section 303 (a) (3) which I have just mentioned is known as the Bush amendment.

It is an admitted fact that Senator Bush introduced this amendment at the request of the previous administration and that this limiting amendment helped to assure the signing of this National Defense Education Act into law by President Eisenhower on September 2, 1958.

Unfortunately, the restrictions on the use of funds contained in the Bush amendment to section 303 (a) (3) limiting the same exclusively to "highly skilled technicians in recognized occupations requiring scientific knowledge" fail to allow for the training of skilled workers and to meet occupational requirements for technical as well as scientific knowledge, and for extension to areas inadequately served.

In these ways, the present language of section 303 (a) (3) curtails the achievement of the "purpose" as set forth in the statement of findings and purpose, section 801, and consequently the full extent of training

to meet national defense requirements for personnel equipped to render skilled assistance in fields particularly affected by scientific and technological developments

is not realized.

The terminology, "highly skilled technicians," as used in the Bush amendment to 303 (a) (3) is admittedly meaningless.

There is no standard usage in industry and both Government and non-Government sources have indicated there is no accepted definition. This contributes to a continuing and unrealistic confusion in interpretation. It hampers the effective use of the new title by the States and discourages presentation of otherwise wholly acceptable programs for the training of skilled workers under this new title.

The main objective of this legislation in 1958 as stated in its section 801, was to provide for areas inadequately served and for the training of persons requiring scientific or technical knowledge in fields necessary for the national defense, without regard to the occupational designation assigned to them.

The operation of area vocational education programs as authorized by title VIII of the National Defense Education Act should be in keeping with its statement of findings and purpose and with the