people and adults in semiskilled, skilled, paraprofessional, and technical occupations, and the whole range of ancillary services required for quality education programs.

The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 require each State to set aside a minimum of 15 percent of its allotment for postsecondary vocational education, 15 percent for special programs for the disadvantaged, and 10 percent for special programs for the physically handicapped.

To maintain this program at the fiscal year 1969 level and provide the States with the minimum funds required to meet these set-asides, the total basic grant amounts should be increased $71,739,000 above the $241,377,455 carried in this budget estimate and the Smith-Hughes Act permanent appropriation of $7,161,455.

Part H of the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 extends the authority for work-study programs which provide part-time employment for vocational students who need the earnings to continue their education. Federal funds may be used to pay 80 percent of a State's expenditures for these programs. The administration budget makes no provisions for funding this program. The full authorization of $35 million is needed for fiscal year 1970.

In fiscal year 1968, the amount of $10 million was transferred from the Office of Economic Opportunity for this program. Due to the lateness in funding, most of the States were unable to provide for programs during the school year and used the funds basically to support summer programs in the large cities. Approximately 50,000 students were enrolled in these programs.

The authorization for work-study programs under the Vocational Education Act of 1963 expired June 30, 1968, and there are no provisions for funding in fiscal year 1969.

The full authorization of $35 million is needed for fiscal year 1970 to permit approximately 72,000 or 3.3 percent of the estimated 2,200,000 needy students aged 15 to 20 to continue their academic and vocational training on a full-time basis while obtaining work experience. The work-study program has demonstrated its effectiveness at the high school level where 60 percent of the young people terminate their education before or at graduation. The opportunity for students to learn about various kinds of occupations while participating in a work-study program provides employment experience and a foundation for occupational decision which would normally be denied to many disadvantaged youth.

The program operates through the established State vocational education agency and, at the local level, through schools, junior colleges, and other institutions; thereby reaching needy youth in both. urban and hard-to-reach rural areas. School administrators throughout the Nation have reported that many potential dropouts have remained in high school and successfully completed their vocational training as a direct result of the availability of work-study programs. This has been true in my own district. The programs have also been effective in encouraging needy students to enroll and complete Vocational-technical education programs at the postsecondary level in junior or community colleges and technical institutes.

The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 added section 102(b) to the Vocational Education Act of 1963 which authorizes $40 million for fiscal year 1970 for grants to States for vocational education programs for persons who have academic, socioeconomic, or other handicaps that prevent them from succeeding in regular vocational education programs. These funds are in addition to at least 15 percent of each State's allotment of funds available under section 102(a) of the act which must be used for this same purpose. Funds appropriated under section 102(b) may be used, at the discretion of the Commissioner, to pay all or part of the expenditures of the States, not to exceed the amount of their allotments, for these special programs for the disadvantaged.

No funds are provided for this program in the administration budget. An amount of $15 million is needed for fiscal year 1970 to provide special programs for 150.000 disadvantaged students.

Many disadvantaged students are left out of, or are not able to succeed in, regular vocational education programs because of poor academic background and lack of motivation. These are the students most likely to drop out of school, who do not look for employment, or who are unable to find employment because they are not trained for any kind of job. Special programs must be provided these students, beginning at an early age, to motivate them to stay in school and to acquire the academic and occupational skills needed for successful employment when they leave school.

The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 added a new part D to the Vocational Education Act of 1963 providing separate authorization for exemplary and innovative programs to stimulate new ways to create a bridge between school and earning a living for these young people. The act authorizes $57,500,000 for these programs for fiscal year 1970. Of the funds available, 3 percent is reserved for outlying areas and the remainder is allocated among the States, with a basic allocation of $200,000 to each State.

Federal funds may be used to pay all or part of the cost of planning, developing, establishing, operating, and evaluating programs or projects designed to broaden aspirations and opportunities for youths, with special emphasis given to those who have academic, socioeconomic, or other handicaps. Projects supported under this activity will explore new approaches, techniques, and methods for giving attention to the job preparation needs of youth and will serve as models for the States to be incorporated in their regular vocational education programs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. FLOOD. The committee is very fortunate to have a colleague before it who is knowledgeable on this subject which is of great importance and on which this committee has been concerned for some time. I am sure the Nation in general feels the same way. Vocational training in the field of education is very important.

Mr. MICHEL. The only point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is the process to which Mr. Foley referred in his area is one I think has

been the subject of discussion and dialog in the hearing heretofore. We have something similar in my home community. You have a very sympathetic ear from all of the members of this subcommittee on the value of this kind of program in reclaiming those dropouts and getting them into the stream of productive activity.

We are going to do the very best we can under the restraint imposed upon us.

Mr. FOLEY. I do not know anything I have seen in the education field in my community that has broader public support from every aspect of the community than these vocational programs and the community college programs.

Mr. MICHEL. That is all.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing these things to our attention and for his statement and to say that I think he has brought out some good points. Certainly they should be thoroughly considered when we mark up the bill.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Shriver?

Mr. SHRIVER. I have no questions.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Hull?

Mr. HULL. No questions.

Mr. FLOOD. Mrs. Reid?

Mrs. REID. No questions.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Casey?

Mr. CASEY. I want to commend the gentleman for his statement and it is falling on sympathetic ears. I think we agree with you the vocational education program has wide national support. Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1969.

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION ACT

WITNESS

HON. ROBERT MCCLORY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. McCLORY. We are now pleased to have with us the Honorable Robert McClory, a colleague of ours in the House of Representatives.

How do you wish to proceed?

Mr. McCLORY. I wuold like to proceed informally if I may, Mr. Chairman, because I do not have any prepared statement although I believe I am familiar with the subject and prepared to discuss it generally, and then to answer questions.

Mr. FLOOD. We will do it your way. Thank you.

Mr. McCLORY. I am here, Mr. Chairman, to express opposition to a proposed $2 million appropriation to implement the so-called International Education Act, a bill which was passed in the 89th Congress. I express my opposition not because of opposition to inter

national education, but because I feel this would, if anything, set back the subject of international education instead of advance it.

It is a program which seems to me is ill-conceived and I think that has been borne out by the previous action of the House and of this committee.

I might say that the measure itself was never the subject of debate in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. I was the only person who expressed opposition to the measure when it came up on the suspension calendar. As I figure it, it passed on the suspension calendar by a margin of one or one and a half votes, with no discussion and no organized opposition. As a matter of fact, I did not even lobby on the floor with the other Members. But it was passed, and I think that a great many of the Members who voted on this voted unknowingly as to what was implied.

The measure is a duplication of existing programs in that they are already existing programs which authorize foreign study for the benefit of our universities in other acts, including Public Law 83-480, which I believe carries out the main purpose of those that are mainly interested in this subject. It sets up a very grandiose scheme of foreign graduate study, graduate centers with authority for professorial talent to travel abroad, including travel expense and subsistence for families and for staff and for other types of activities which I think are completely inconsistent with any genuine program to educate citizens of our Nation in the language, cultures, history, social and economic aspects of foreign peoples.

The program is alleged to follow the so-called Smithsonian address made in September 1966 by President Johnson. It does not fulfill that aim at all. At that time the President spoke about helping to educate the illiterate and uneducated peoples of the rest of the world. There are about two-thirds of the world's population that is completely illiterate. This appropriation does not advance that subject at all. It provides merely for the establishment of graduate study centers, foreign study centers on American campuses and it has been emphasized over and over again by the sponsors this is not international education or foreign education. This is a duplication of things we already have on a number of our campuses in American schools, bringing foreign students here primarily to teach us about their countries and other schemes like that.

I do feel that we are in dire need of much greater knowledge about peoples of other lands, languages, their history, their culture, and other knowledge about them, but we are never going to learn very much in this way. This $2 million appropriation would be a complete waste of taxpayers' money to establish the program that was originally conceived with, I think, an authorization of some $700 million or so, and I think it would be an even worse mistake to appropriate $2 million for the purpose of planning programs which, under the act, are bad or misdirected.

I know how this law was developed. It was, of course, advanced by an organization called Education and World Affairs. As a matter of fact, one of the staff was loaned to an ad hoc committee. He did much of the work for the Education and Labor Committee in drafting this legislation, and the organization itself is made up of a lot of college presidents. I do not doubt that it would be nice to have a great

many of these things on campuses but I suspect that a number of college presidents who were recommending programs like this in 1966 are not even college presidents today, because it is an old, tired, worn-out method of trying to learn about other people. It is not innovative, it is not creative, and it just should not get the sanction of our Congress

at this time.

I might say that I was visited yesterday by two college presidents of small State colleges who themselves agreed entirely with me insofar as the subject of graduate study centers is concerned, emphasizing that all this could possibly do would be to provide education for what we might call the academic elite so that they might talk with one another. But from the standpoint of communicating knowledge and information about other people to a broad segment of our academic community, our students, it just could not possibly do that. They did say that they felt that if the planning funds were allowed that they would support having the program go in the direction of an undergraduate program and that would be far better. I would not find as much fault with that as I would with programs at the graduate level. I am not saying that this is not interesting, that is it is not a subject of appropriate academic, intellectual interest. On the other hand, it is an item of very, very low priority insofar as the order of priorities is concerned.

I do feel that I speak with some knowledge on this subject; in addition to some foreign education myself, I have had experience with my own children, my own family. I have also discussed this subject as a delegate to the Interparliamentary Union, discussing the problem of world illiteracy, problems of education, educational exchange and other activities that provide for gaining knowledge about other countries and languages and people. I just do not think that the existing legislation can be interpreted to provide a satisfactory solution of the need that we have. I think we really have to start over again. This law runs out next year. I offered an amendent at the last session which was intended to make it run out last year, which the House supported, and the House was of the impression that the law was going to expire. Unfortunately, the drafting was not correct and the law does happen to persist. There is a desperate effort being made now, I know, by a great many, particularly those who are trying to get more money for our colleges and universities, to look to this for a source of additional funds, but I think it would be most unfortunate for that to occur.

May I say that I think the impact of this legislation and a great deal of our effort to understand other peoples has been limited to studies on American campuses. I notice even with regard to educational exchange that the number of students, American students, who study abroad under existing programs, is small-too small. For instance, in the year 1967-68 there were 900 American who studied abroad in contrast to 4,800 foreign students who studied here. In the current year the estimate is 4,500 foreign students to 825 Americans. Now, we are not going to learn about other people by staying home and studying. Actually, we are not going to learn a great deal from those that come and try to each us on American campuses. We are going to get one man's point of view which will sift through to a few; but from the standpoint of learning very much about other people