puter or the man who fixes your washing machine may both be called technicians, and both perform extremely useful functions. The point is, however, that their preparation differs greatly.

In order to define what we meant by the term, "semiprofessional technician," we turned from titles and descriptions of duties to the education which prepares a semiprofessional technician for employment. In this connection, we found very helpful the accreditation standards established by the Engineers Council for Professional Development.

The kind of education which the panelists recommended for technicians requires college level programs of at least 2 years of full-time attendance, including rigorous courses in mathematics and the physical sciences. For the most part existing programs for engineering technicians of this level, to cite only one type, are now to be found in technical institutes or in the technician courses operated by some, not all, university schools of engineering.

Let me now address myself to some of the evidence in support of Federal legis lation to supply more semiprofessional technicians.

Some of the most useful information in this regard was developed during the brief hearings which were conducted by a House Education and Labor subcommittee last year on the Technical Education Act of 1962, which was introduced by all five members of our group in February of last year.

The list of nongovernmental organizations which testified in support of the technical education bill last year is, I think, a most impressive one. It includes the American Council on Education, the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Association of Land Grant Colleges and State Universities, the American Association of Junior Colleges, and the American Personnel and Guidance Association.

SECRETARY WIRTZ' TESTIMONY

Let me first cite some of the testimony of the then Under Secretary of Labor, the Honorable W. Willard Wirtz, on this bill last year.

"We must," said Mr. Wirtz, "do some drastic rethinking about manpower in this country * ** time is running out, we can no longer afford the luxury of waiting for the supply of trained personnel to catch up with the demand. Our particular need is for semiprofessional personnel who can assist engineers, scientists, and other professional workers."

"The manufacture of missiles and spacecraft has not only created an increasing demand for scientists and engineers, but it has also stimulated a tremendous need for supporting personnel * * Congress will make a major contribution to this Nation's manpower posture in the space field when adequate legislation is enacted to enable this country to produce these highly trained supporting personnel."

"The workers who would be training under the bills being considered today," Mr. Wirtz continued, "constitute a group of relatively new semiprofessional occupations which have come about because of industry's concentration on research and development, the increasing complexity of industrial production methods and products, the accelerating application of scientific inventions and discoveries to manufacturing processes, and our emphasis upon missile and spacecraft work. These workers are trained to assist engineers, scientists, and doctors through the application of basic knowledge in engineering, mathematics, or the physical and biological sciences."

"Our studies show that these subprofessional engineering and scientific occupations have been among the fastest growing occupational fields in recent decades and that at the present we do not have enough persons with the requisite education. There is every indication that these occupations will continue to grow rapidly in the years ahead and that if future requirements in this field are to be met, a considerable increase in the number of persons who receive the necessary education will be necessary."

I think Mr. Wirtz' analysis of the impact of our space program on the supply of semiprofessional personnel is particularly significant.

Here is what he told us :

EFFECT ON SPACE PROGRAM

"The requirements of this Nation's accelerated space program alone will substantially increase the demand for scientists, engineers, and semiprofessional supporting personnel. Some of the published estimates of the costs involved in carrying out the proposed manned lunar landing and other space programs

show expenditures reaching a level of $5 to $6 billion a year by 1970. Translated roughly into requirements for technical personnel, an increase of $4.7 billion could mean an increase of nearly 100,000 engineers and scientists and possibly 70,000 semiprofessional supporting personnel between now and 1970 for this program alone. Most projections show expenditures for the space program building up sharply through the late 1960's and then leveling off. If this occurs it would mean that a large part of the increase in technical manpower must occur within the next 3 to 5 years."

I want to emphasize here Mr. Wirtz' conclusion that we need to produce a "large part of the increase in technical manpower" within "the next 3 to 5 years." "Studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics," Mr. Wirtz reported "show a projected increase between 1960 and 1970 of over 75 percent for those occupations which support engineers and scientists, and about 20 percent for those supporting physicians and other doctors. Altogether, this means that we will need over 1,450,000 of these workers by 1970, an increase of over 600,000 more than were employed in 1960, or an average annual increase of about 60,000 over the decade. Add to this an estimated need for about 17,500 persons a year to replace those who die, retire, or transfer out of the field, and the average annual need could be about 78,000."

SPOKESMAN FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS TESTIFIES

Another extremely valuable statement on this legislation was made by Paul H. Robbins, executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers. Making reference to a number of surveys concerning the utilization of technicians, Mr. Robbins told us that these surveys generally conclude that for the maximum utilization of our professional engineering and scientific manpower, we should have 400 to 500 technicians for every 100 professional personnel. "Today," he said, "the overall industry ratio is 73 technicians for every 100 engineers and scientists."

"There is," concluded Mr. Robbins, "virtually unanimity of agreement among manpower specialists both in and out of Government that the shortage is extensive. Unless there is an immediate and significant expansion of technical institute programs, we may well be underutilizing our professional engineering manpower by anywhere from 50 to 75 percent."

"In the interests of national defense and security," warned Mr. Robbins, "we do not believe the Government can afford to adopt a passive and complacent attitude in face of these facts. Nor do we believe a token effort or gesture toward correcting this situation constitutes an adequate discharge of the Federal Government's responsibility for the national security and defense."

You will be interested to know that the then U.S. Commissioner of Education, Dr. Sterling McMurrin, speaking for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, first addressed himself during the hearings to the finding of our advisory group that we need to train greatly increased numbers of engineering and other semiprofessional technicians.

Commissioner McMurrin told our subcommittee: "Let me make clear at the outset that the Office of Education is in complete agreement with this finding of the advisory group. We are also in complete agreement that additional Federal action is required to increase the number of semiprofessional technicians being prepared and in particular that it would be necessary to expand programs in technical institutes and junior colleges."

PSAC CONCERNED

I know, also, Mr. Chairman, of the concern of the members of the President's Science Advisory Committee for an effective Federal program to encourage the raining of more technicians.

In the first report of PSAC, published on December 12, 1962, and addressed -pecifically to the problem of graduate training in engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences, the President's Committee called for a concentration of efforts in three ways for the production of more scientific and technical manpower. One of these ways was, in the words of the committee report, to "increase the number of qualified technicians and use them more effectively. Technicians and subprofessional assistants in all fields of science and technology can conserve proessional skills and thus enhance total manpower resources."

Very soon a task force of PSAC charged with the responsibility of considering echnical education programs is expected to issue a report with some specific 98-466-63-vol. 321

suggestions for achieving this goal, with particular emphasis on the role of technicians who work with scientists and engineers.

I should like to call the attention of this subcommittee to certain relevan passages from an unpublished interim report of the PSAC on "Scientific and Technical Manpower," which passages were included in the report on graduate training in EMP.

Said the interim report: "Without an adequate supply of technicians, employ ers frequently use bachelor-level personnel on semiprofessional tasks that lessen their full potential. Thus, an increase in production of technicians would no only foster the improved utilization of engineers and scientists to help immediate technical manpower requirements, but would also upgrade the entire manpower resource to meet needs over the long run. Equally important, increased acces to technician training would tend to alleviate some of the problems of techn logical unemployment, which are especially pronounced in that sector of our population lacking in special skills or training.

14,400 GRADUATES EXPECTED

"Although exact numerical requirements for technicians are difficult to for cast, a substantial increase is necessary. Nevertheless, the Panel finds that on`s about 11,000 graduates from full-time studies and 3,400 from part time may i» expected this academic year from formal engineering programs. Evaluated the light of an estimated graduation this June of 35,000 B.S.-level engineers, tnew technician supply will be less than half that of the too small supply of eng neers themselves. Physical scientists also draw on this same limited supply f technician graduates.

"Consequently, the Panel believes that the problem of educating qualif technicians in sufficient numbers is critical enough to warrant Federal attention and Federal legislation especially to assist and otherwise stimulate the grow of educational facilities.

"Such a program would have the important quality of rapid pay off, th meeting partially, even within the next 2 to 3 years, urgent national require ments such as these represented by our space effort for more technical personne. Emphasis on the importance of this educational channel would elevate the stattof technicians and, in turn, attract to this occupational category many com tent youngsters who would otherwise either not begin or fail to complete train... beyond high school. Programs offering 2 years of collegiate-level training won. not only support the Nation's effort in science and engineering, but would als allow the many persons drawn from lower income groups of depressed areas to realize a much greater share of their potential

Only a few days ago, I was reading an article in, if the chairman of the sub committee will forgive me, the New York Herald Tribune, dated May 19, 193, and entitled "U.S. Lags in Training Technicians."

MAJOR COOPER'S FLIGHT

On reading this article, I thought again how Maj. Gordon Cooper's super flight into space dramatizes the importance of maintaining American superiori in science and technology. To keep advancing in space and other fields ess tial to our national security, we must have highly trained manpower. Th technical education measure we are here discussing will help fill one seriou manpower gap, the semiprofessional technicians who help our scientists an engineers.

The article, by Joseph Michalak, describes the shortage of technicians as tentially the greatest headache of all for this country" and goes on to report "Based on a recent survey of technical institutes, total full-time enrollment in 1961-62 were about 40,000, and graduates totaled 16,000-no better than 1957 when the enrollments were 27 percent smaller."

During 1961, the article said, the Russians were turning out 226,000 enginee ing technicians-15 times as many as the United States. I think an essentia point to get across here is that we are now faced with a very serious shorts of professional engineers in the United States. A recent study by the Bureau Labor Statistics indicated our total supply of engineers between 1960 and 19 will be 451,000, compared with a projected demand of 690,000. In other word a shortage of very roughly a quarter million engineers is predicted for 1970 unle adjustments are made.

INTENSIFIED SOVIET CHALLENGE

The Engineering Manpower Commission of the Engineer's Joint Council has noted that some experts believe that the best ratio is four technicians for every engineer but even a conservative evaluation calls for at least two technicians working with the engineer. Right now, however, the ratio is precisely the opposite: one technician for every two engineers.

I might here note that the Soviet Union is now producing two to three times as many engineers as we are in the United States. If this trend continues over the long run-and apparently no drastic change in the next 5 to 10 years is likely because engineering college enrollments have been decreasing at the rate of 2 or 3 percent per year of the last 6 years--we must face the prospect of an intensified Soviet technological challenge.

This then is another reason it is important to get as much out of our professional engineers as possible by enabling them to have the assistance of the qualified engineering technicians.

Let me here quote from the excellent and extremely useful Manpower Report of the President which was issued in March 1963 by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Says the Manpower Report: "The extremely rapid growth in technician occupations is another noteworthy trend, which is expected to continue. Although shortages of engineers and scientists-and the consequent need to relieve these professional workers of the tasks which can be performed by less highly trained persons—have helped to increase employment of technicians in the past two decades, the growth of these occupations has a more fundamental cause. It is due basically to the increasing complexity of modern technology, which has created a need for workers who have some basic knowledge and also specialized training in some aspect of technology.

"In 1950" (the Manpower Report continues), "the number of technicians working with engineers and scientists was about 775,000, according to a rough estinate. It is estimated that during the next 10 to 15 years, demand will increase at least as fast in these occupations as in engineering and the sciences, leading possibly to a doubling in requirements by 1975."

A SPECIFIC REVIEW

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to review somewhat more specifically some of the reasons we need to educate far more semiprofessional technicians than we are today producing.

1. Research and development.—The greatly enhanced role of research and deelopment in the American economy has caused increased demands, not only for sentists and engineers, but for technicians as well. Earlier this month, the National Science Foundation publication entitled, "Federal Funds for Science XI," notes that "the fiscal year 1963 Federal estimates for research and development and R. & D. plant represent the largest outlays for any 1 year of the Na's history. These expenditures were expected to more than triple the R. & D. outlays made by the Government during the entire 5 years of World War II." For 1963, the Federal Government is expected to obligate over $14.4 billion for search and development and R. & D. plant, and to expand $12.3 billion. The conclusion should be obvious: More R. & D. means more technicians. 2. Defense. I think no great array of statistics is necessary to prove the argument that our vast defense efforts mean we have a far greater demand for cientific and technical skills in this area, both for direct military activity as ell as for supporting and related civilian activity. Defense, too, means we need more technicians.

GOALS IN SPACE

3. Space.—I have already recited to you Secretary Wirtz' warning that for the hievement of our ambitious goals in space, we shall need a substantial increase 1 technical manpower.

Congress has appropriated vast funds for these new space programs, but the uthorization and appropriation of dollars are no guarantee at all that the rained manpower necessary to perform these programs will automatically be rthcoming. We are going to have to start thinking in manpower budgets as ell as dollar budgets.

Our project to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth, our proposal for accelerating the development of the Rover nuclear rocket, our plans to increase the use of space satellites for worldwide communications and to develop worldwide weather observation satellites all mean a broadened array and increased depth of new demands upon our limited supply of scientific and technical talent.

I confess that is came as a surprise to me to learn that NASA, in its own laboratories, right now employes more than 5,000 engineering technicians. And the significance of technicians in our space program may become even more obvious when I tell you that approximately 85 percent of NASA funds are allocated to contractors.

The conclusion should be clear. We need more technicians as well as scientists and engineers if we are going to achieve the great goals in space which the Nation has set for itself through the actions of the President and Congress.

4. Civilian industry. The requirements of civilian industry and technology are another reason for the increased demand for technicians.

As I indicated earlier, the Federal Government is today the main source of financial support for research and development in the United States. As President Kennedy has noted, the defense, space, and atomic energy activities of the country now absorb about two-thirds of the trained people available for exploring our scientific and technical frontiers. Certainly their brilliance and talent has paid off handsomely in these areas, but the fact is that we have paid a price for these results by sharply limiting the amount of our scarce scientific and engineering resources which might otherwise be available to the civilan see tor of the American economy.

Today, the number of scientists and engineers engaged in civilian-oriented technology in Western Europe and England combined is greater than that in the United States. This is at least one of the reasons the rate of increase of our gross national product per worker is substantially less than the rate of increase of almost all other industrialized nations in the world.

To enable our critically short supply of engineers and scientists to make a greater contribution to the civilan economy, we must back up our professionals with more semiprofessional technicians.

HIGHER OR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION?

There is another question with respect to technical education about which I should like to make a comment. Should the education of semiprofessional technicians be administered and operated as part of higher education, or can such technicians be adequately trained in adequate numbers through programs of Vocational-technical education?

Members of our advisory group emphatically and unanmously agree and President Kennedy's education proposal also embodies that conclusion-that the education of the kind of high level, semiprofessional technicians the Nation needs, the kind of technician I have here been discussing, must be provided by collegelevel programs.

Why do we need to establish new programs of technical education?

In the first place, as Mr. Wirtz said, "We cannot depend upon existing limited training programs to contribute enough semiprofessional workers to meet our requirement. In the past, we have been able to get by with workers who get their skills informally. Today, only a small portion of them receive formal training for jobs in educational institutions which have programs designed for these types of positions. * However, as the tasks these persons are called up on to perform become more complex and require more mathematics and technical theory, formal training will increasingly be necessary."

DUPONT ENGINEER TESTIFIES

Let me tell you what I heard from the assistant chief engineer of the Du Pont Co., in Wilmington, Del. He wrote:

"Professional engineers simply cannot contribute their maximum in talent and skill to our increasingly complex technology unless their efforts are sup ported by the necessary engineering technicians who are graduates of at least 2 years college-level training in curriculums accredited by the Engineers' Counci for Professional Developmet or an equivalent agency."