definition of such program and should not be circumscribed by the technical limitations imposed by the present language of section 303 (a) (3) otherwise known as the Bush amendment.

This committee should be made aware of the fact that President John F. Kennedy, when a candidate for that office, in a letter under date of October 24, 1960, recognized the need for a correction of this technical imperfection in title VIII when he said:

The Bush amendment to title VIII of the National Defense Education Act, which severely limits the use of funds for vocational education under that title, was offered at the request of the present administration. I favor the repeal of the Bush amendment so that funds for "area vocational educational programs" may be used for all phases of vocational education.

Might I add, also, Mr. Chairman-I am sure I am not betraying any confidence-a committee, of which Mr. Schoemann was a member, along with President Freeman of the Electricians and several others, called on Secretary Ribicoff and also Assistant Secretary Wilbur Cohn the other day, and talked to them about this proposed amendment, which we were supporting, and we certainly, to say the least, did not receive any opposition to the amendment from the Department ment of Health, Education, and Welfare in any degree.

And they may say, some of the staff people may say:

"Well, we have pretty much corrected the evils that you folks see in this Bush amendment by administrative action." That might be all right.

But, at the same time, just so long as the Bush amendment exists, then with changes of administration and of personnel or individuals, we are not so sure that the incoming group might agree to the changes which we have worked out with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for over a year and a half.

We realize that since becoming President, John F. Kennedy in his message on American education on February 20, 1961, indicated that he desires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to convene an advisory body to be charged with the responsibility of reviewing and evaluating the current National Vocational Education Act and make recommendations for improving and redirecting the program.

The Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, on behalf of its affiliated international unions, and in accordance with its last convention action and with the last convention action of the AFL-CIO itself, respectfully urges that in approving the extension of title VIII as provided in S. 1726, the subcommittee recommend the suggested correction of the technical deficiency in section 303 (a) (3).

This is not only the position of the Metal Trades Department and its affiliated international unions, but also is concurred in by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO and its affiliated international unions, by the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for the Electrical Industry, by the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., the National Association of Plumbing Contractors, Inc., by the Mechanical Contractors' Association of America, Inc., the National Electrical Contractors' Association, Inc., and by the American Vocational Association, Inc.

With this correction to section 303 (a) (3), made as we have proposed, we can join in endorsing the extension of title VIII of the National Defense Education Act as provided in S. 1726.

I thank the committee for its kindness in allowing us the time to bring this vital matter to its attention.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Brownlow follows:)

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

Chairman Morse 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 George-Barden 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-Garden 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 education 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 provide "assistance 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 last-minute amendment to section 303 (a) (3) of this new title III, of the Vocational Education Act, restricting the use of funds appropriated "exclusively 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".

Purely for purposes of ease of identification, may I point out that the lastminute 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 definition of such program and should not be circumscribed by the technical limitations imposed by the present language of section 303(a) (3) otherwise known as the Bush amendment.

This committee should be made aware of the fact that President John F. Kennedy, when a candidate for that office, in a letter under date of October 24, 1960, recognized the need for a correction of this technical imperfection in title VIII when he said:

"The Bush amendment to title VIII of the National Defense Education Act, which severely limits the use of funds for vocational education under that title, was offered at the request of the present administration. I favor the repeal of the Bush amendment so that funds for 'area vocational education programs' may be used for all phases of vocational education."

We realize that since becoming President, John F. Kennedy in his message on American education on February 20, 1961, indicated that he desires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to convene an advisory body to be charged with the responsibility of reviewing and evaluating the current National Vocational Education Act and make recommendations for improving and redirecting the program.

In our opinion, this in no way deters or changes his clearcut commitment of October 24, 1960, when as a candidate he recognized the Bush amendment as a technical imperfection of the National Defense Education Act which should be corrected.

This committee might also take note of the fact that even the consultants to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Commissioner of Education, on areas related to the National Defense Education Act of 1958 as reporting on January 4, 1961, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, recommended regarding title VIII that "Congress authorize a broader definition of technician occupations necessary to national defense" and that "the effect of title VIII be to supplement and strengthen existing vocational education, apprenticeship training, and retraining programs."

The clear-cut commitment of President Kennedy, given when a candidate on October 24, 1960, and the recommendation of the consultants to President Eisenhower's Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, can both be realized simply by correcting the technical defect in title VIII caused by the Bush amendment to section 303 (a) (3).

This section 303(a)(3) can quite easily be modified so as to be in accord with the other provisions of this title and not circumscribe its effective operation. It is therefore proposed that a new subsection (c), under section 8 (pp. 19 and 20) of S. 1726, be added to read as follows:

"(c) Section 303 (a)(3) of the Vocational Education Act of 1946 is amended by striking out "highly skilled"; inserting "or skilled workers" after "tech

nicians"; inserting "or technical" after "scientific"; and striking the period and adding "or economic well-being."

so that section 303 (a) (3) would read as follows:

"SEC. 303 (a) (3). That funds appropriated under section 301 of this title shall be used exclusively for the training of individuals designed to fit them for useful employment as technicians or skilled workers in recognized occupations requiring scientific or technical knowledge, as determined by the State board for such State, in fields necessary for national defense or economic well-being." This proposal is in no way in conflict with the President's April 26 letter suggesting that title VIII be extended pending the recommendations of his Advisory Committee suggested in his message of February 20, 1961, to review and reevaluate our Vocational Education Acts.

This proposal is needed now to correct a technical deficiency in the law. President Kennedy recognized this technical deficiency last October when he pledged himself to its correction. This was long before any overall study of vocational education was suggested by him.

The Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, on behalf of its affiliated international unions, and in accordance with its last convention action and with the last convention action of the AFL-CIO itself, respectfully urges that in approving the extension of title VIII as provided in S. 1726, the subcommittee recommend the suggested correction of the technical deficiency in section 303(a)(3).

This is not only the position of the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and its affiliated international unions but also is concurred in by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and its affiliated international unions, by the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for the Electrical Industry, by the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., the National Association of Plumbing Contractors, Inc., by the Mechanical Contractors' Association of America, Inc., the National Electrical Contractors' Association, Inc., and by the American Vocational Association, Inc.

With this correction to section 303(a)(3) made as we have proposed, we can join in endorsing the extension of title VIII of the National Defense Education Act as provided in S. 1726.

I think the committee for its kindness in allowing us the time to bring this vital matter to its attention.

Senator MORSE. I want to thank you, Mr. Brownlow. I want to make this one very brief statement which you did not make. I understand why you did not make it, because it might be looked upon as immodest on your part.

But I have always been at a loss to understand the failure of so many to appreciate the fact that when organized labor, as you are doing in this statement, is urging really an expansion of support for our vocational education program, you thereby make perfectly clear to the public that you are perfectly willing for a liberalization of this whole program in this country.

And you gentlemen are constantly being subjected to a great deal of criticism to the effect that you are trying to restrict your supply of skilled technicians in this country for the selfish benefit of labor. Whereas, to the contrary, you recognize the importance of enlarging the supply of skilled workers in the interests of national defense, as well as as you point out-the economic well-being of the Nation. I just wanted to put that observation in, which I thought would come from me in a much more impartial position than you from the witness chair.

Then I want to add very quickly that I think we have been giving an unfortunate deal, so to speak, to the vocational schools of this country in this whole program. I happen to believe that one of our jobs in the educational processes is to train to the maximum extent of their potentialities people in accordance with their skills.

And we have a great body of young men and women in this country that have these particular skills. And the development of those skills is essential to giving us a supply of technicians that will meet the defense needs of this country in case of a dark hour of crisis.

Therefore, I again say that I think the burden of proof is on those that want to continue the Bush amendment. The chairman of the full committee, shares my point of view, as I have already indicated, that we ought to give favorable consideration to its elimination. And I shall at least be inclined to do so.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Thank you so much, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. No questions.

Senator CASE. No questions.

Senator MORSE. I want the record to show Mr. Brownlow has associated with him Paul Hutchins, his assistant.

Our next witness will be Dr. William B. Logan, president and professor of distributive education, Ohio State University, accompanied by Dr. M. W. Mobley, executive secretary.

We are delighted to have both of you gentlemen present. Proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. LOGAN, PH. D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AND PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION AND DIRECTOR OF DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION INSTITUTES AT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OHIO; ACCOMPANIED BY M. D. MOBLEY, PH. D., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Mr. LOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William B. Logan. I am professor of education and director of distributive education institutes at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. As president of the American Vocational Association, I represent 30,000 vocational teachers, officials, school board members, and others who are interested in the development and improvement of practical education in this country.

Dr. M. D. Mobley is the executive secretary of the association. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to report on the effectiveness of the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the preceding testimony, if it is agreeable with the chairman, I would like to submit this testimony for its appearance in the record and make just a few statements in deference to time?

Senator MORSE. You may do so. The full statement will be inserted in the record.

The witness may proceed in his own way to summarize it or supplement it.

Mr. LOGAN. Thank you, sir.

It would seem redundant to give this full testimony, in view of the statements made by the preceding people who have appeared before this subcommittee, and in view of the statement made by the chairman himself in regard to the Bush amendment and the other statements in the act that we are including in the statement.