the engineering technician. In this connection, we have either sponsored or participated in numerous conferences, meetings and programs dealing with the overall subject of the training and utilization of engineering technicians. We know from first hand experience that improved efficiency in the utilization of our country's engineers can be aided by the expanded use of trained engineering technicians to relieve the engineer from many of his routine, repetitive tasks. By the judicious use of technical personnel, such as engineering aides or assistants, the professional engineer can consequently be given the opportunity to devote more of his time, effort and abilities toward those activities which are nearer the highest level of his competence.

Since present and future factors indicate highly qualified engineering talent to be at a premium, the role played by the engineering technician in our economy will become increasingly important.

Thus, the National Society of Professional Engineers endorses the proposed 3-year extension of title VIII, Area Vocational Education Programs. It is our opinion, however, that the program needs revision and broadening in certain respects in order to strengthen the Federal Government's role in this direction. In this connection, we suggest that consideration be given to the following:

A. Recognize the clear distinction between technical educational and vocational training. Vocational education is generally understood to relate primarily to manual dexterity or skilled craftsmanship, whereas an engineering technician is an individual who combines both a degree of manual dexterity with a basic understanding and background in engineering and scientific fundamentals.

B. Technical education assistance programs should be classified as a proper function of higher education, and not confined to less-than-college-grade courses as presently conceived.

C. Expanded Federal assistance to promote technical education could well take the approach as proposed in a pending House bill by Representative Van Zandt, H.R. 4361. This measure would provide Federal funds to assist in the establishment of 2-year branch colleges and 2-year associate degree programs at existing institutions to train additional numbers of engineering and scientific technicians.

It is our understanding that consideration of possible amendments to title VIII, aside from a 3-year extension, are being deferred pending the findings of a study group requested by President Kennedy to review and evaluate the current National Vocational Education Acts and to make recommendations for improving and redirecting the program. Although the President has not specifically mentioned technician training, we would hope that this increasingly important educational field will be covered by the proposed review and evaluation, particularly since the President has cited the need for modernization because of rapid technological changes.

In any event, we strongly urge that the matter of Federal assistance to technician education be given priority attention as soon as the study is completed.

We appreciate the opportunity of appearing here today and stand ready to assist the subcommittee further in any manner possible.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Robbins, I have no questions, for the very reason that I find nothing in your statement with which I find myself in disagreement. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROBBINS. Fine. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Francis W. Stover, director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

Mr. Stover, you are free to proceed in your own way, within the time limitation.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS W. STOVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. STOVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The prepared statement of Mr. Stover follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANCIS W. STOVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear here this date to present the views of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States with respect to this most important legislation. For the record, my name is Francis W. Stover. I am the national legislative director of the VFW. The Veterans of Foreign Wars has a membership of 1,300,000 veterans who served overseas and in hostile waters during wartime. The defense and security of this Nation, therefore, has always been accorded the highest priority by the VFW.

Back in 1957, the Veterans of Foreign Wars was deeply concerned when the first sputnik was launched by the Russians. Like most Americans, our members were greviously shocked to learn that the Russians had gained an advantage in this most important field of endeavor and that the United States was lagging behind the U.S.S.R. It was a psychological blow to the prestige of millions of American veterans, from which we have yet to fully recover, as witnessed by recent continuing achievements of the Russian Government in the space field. When the National Defense Education Act was under consideration during the next session of the 85th Congress the VFW lent its full support and assistance to the passage of this law as a partial remedy to help overcome some of the deficiencies in the missile and satellite fields. In our opinion the National Defense Education Act has proved to be quite successful in providing substantial assistance in various forms to individuals and to States for the purpose of providing trained manpower of sufficient quantity and quality to help meet the national defense needs of this Nation. Nevertheless, the United States is, as I understand it, still lagging behind in some areas and, accordingly, the VFW urges favorable consideration of this legislation designed to help this Nation overtake the Communists in this space age.

The VFW does not address itself to any of the particular sections and specific proposals in this bill, save one. The VFW views are concerned with the intent and purpose of the bill, rather than any of the specifics contained therein. The one exception, however, to this pertains to section 10, which would remove the disclaimer-affidavit requirement that individual recipients of payments or loans must execute an affidavit disclaiming subversive beliefs and affiliations before obtaining a loan.

At the last national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which was held in Detroit, Mich., August 21-26, 1960, a resolution identified as No. 247 was unanimously adopted. This resolution reads as follows:

"Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States opposed elimination of the disclaimer clause in Senate bill 2929, which permits students seeking Government education loans to receive such loans without declaring their previous support or interest in questionable or subversive groups; and

"Whereas the VFW believes that both the loyalty oath or affirmation and the disclaimer statement should be integral parts of the education fund bill: Now therefore be it

"Resolved by the 61st National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That we go on record as supporting legislation which would make it mandatory for students to take both the loyalty oath or affirmation and also declare their past or current status with regard to questionable organizations; and be it further

"Resolved, That this convention applaud and commend those colleges and institutions, boards of managers, etc., who have unqualifiedly backed this declaration as part of their admission requirements."

It can be readily discerned that the VFW position concerning the retention of this requirement is an unequivocal one. The VFW supported the inclusion of this requirement in the original act passed by the 85th Congress and lent its most vigorous support to the defeat of S. 819 and S. 2929 of the 86th Congress, both of which failed to receive the approval of that Congress. The VFW is extremely hopeful that section 10 will receive the same fate as S. 2929, 86th Congress, and previous attempts to eliminate what the VFW believes should be a part of an act designed to improve the defense of this Nation. The VFW holds it does not strengthen the national security of this Nation to provide money to subversives for their further education. The disclaimer requirement helps prevent this from occurring.

In conclusion, therefore, the Veterans of Foreign Wars lent its full support to the passage of the original National Defense Education Act, which contained the disclaimer requirement. Our position has not changed. However, attempts to amend the National Defense Education Act by eliminating the disclaimer-affidavit requirement have always been opposed by the VFW, and it is respectfully requested that this section of the bill be recommended for deletion by your subcommittee.

Again, may I extend my deep appreciation and thanks in behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the opportunity to present our views concerning this legislation.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear this date to present the views of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States with respect to this most important legislation. For the record, my name is Francis W. Stover. I am the national legislative director of the VFW. The Veterans of Foreign Wars has a membership of 1,300,000 veterans who served overseas and in hostile waters during wartime. The defense and security of this Nation, therefore, has always been accorded the highest priority by the VFW.

Back in 1957, the Veterans of Foreign wars was deeply concerned when the first sputnik was launched by the Russians. Like most Americans, our members were grievously shocked to learn that the Russians had gained an advantage in this most important field of endeavor and that the United States was lagging behind the U.S.S.R. It was a psychological blow to the prestige of millions of American veterans, from which we have yet to fully recover, as witnessed by recent continuing achievements of the Russian Government in the space field.

When the National Defense Education Act was under consideration during the next session of the 85th Congress the VFW lent its full support and assistance to the passage of this law as a partial remedy to help overcome some of the deficiencies in the missile and satellite fields. In our opinion, the National Defense Education Act has proved to be quite successful in providing substantial assistance in various forms to individuals and to States for the purpose of providing training manpower of sufficient quantity and quality to help meet the national defense needs of this Nation.

Nevertheless, the United States is, as I understand it, still lagging behind in some areas and, accordingly, the VFW urges favorable consideration of this legislation designed to help this Nation overtake the Communists in this space age.

The VFW does not address itself to any of the particular sections and specific proposals in this bill, save one. The VFW views are

concerned with the intent and purpose of the bill, rather than any o the specifics contained therein. The one exception, however, to this pertains to section 10, which would remove the disclaimer-affidavit requirement that individual recipients of payments or loans must ex ecute an affidavit disclaiming subversive beliefs and affiliations before obtaining a loan.

At the last national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars which was held in Detroit, Mich., August 21-26, 1960, a resolution identified as No. 247 was unanimously adopted. This resolution reads as follows:

Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States opposed elimination of the disclaimer clause in Senate bill 2929, which permits students seeking Government education loans to receive such loans without declaring their previous support or interest in questionable or subversive groups; and

Whereas the VFW believes that both the loyalty oath or affirmation and the disclaimer statement should be integral parts of the education fund bill: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the 61st National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That we go on record as supporting legislation which would make it mandatory for students to take both the loyalty oath or affirmation and also declare their past or current status with regard to questionable organizations; and be it further

Resolved, That this convention applaud and commend those colleges and institutions, boards of managers, etc., who have unqualifiedly backed this declaration as part of their admission requirements.

It can be readily discerned that the VFW position concerning the retention of this requirement is an unequivocal one. The VFW supported the inclusion of this requirement in the original act passed by the 85th Congress and lent its most vigorous support to the defeat of S. 819 and S. 2929 of the 86th Congress, both of which failed to receive the approval of that Congress. The VFW is extremely hopeful that section 10 will receive the same fate as S. 2929, 86th Congress, and previous attempts to eliminate what the VFW believes should be a part of an act designed to improve the defense of this Nation. The VFW holds it does not strengthen the national security of this Nation to provide money to subversives for their further education. The disclaimer requirement helps prevent this from occurring.

In conclusion, therefore, the Veterans of Foreign Wars lent its full support to the passage of the original National Defense Education Act, which contained the disclaimer requirement. Our position has not changed. However, attempts to amend the National Defense Education Act by eliminating the disclaimer-affidavit requirement have always been opposed by the VFW and it is respectfully requested that this section of the bill be recommended for deletion by your subcommittee.

Again, may I extend my deep appreciation and thanks in behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the opportunity to present our views concerning this legislation.

Senator MORSE. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Stover, for your testimony. Of course, I think, as you know, I do not agree with the position of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in regard to the affidavit. I think that the oath of allegiance to our country, which all of us take when we come into the Senate, is adequate, and I happen to be one of the coauthors, as you know, of the law now on the books which makes membership in any organization that is subversive or

seeks to overthrow the Government by force to be illegal. I respectfully suggest that the Department of Justice ought to get busy and see to it that law is enforced, because when you come to set out a separate group just because they happen to be students seeking to borrow money under an act such as this, and require them to take an oath which you do not generally require, you lose me. But I have a great deal of respect for your point of view. I understand the point of view. I am not saying that there is no merit in it. It just becomes a matter of judgment.

I happen to believe that the oath of allegiance to our Government is all that is necessary. I believe putting this affidavit in stirs up a terrific amount of dissension in the academic world, because they are very sensitive to charges that are frequently made that they deal in an academic atmosphere, where their jobs follow where the facts lead. They are always subject to one attack or another.

I do not think you strengthen the act by keeping the affidavit in it, but it is the old story that the majority rules and, if a majority of the Senate disagrees with my point of view, your point of view will prevail.

I yield to no one in your organization or any other in my insistence that we have got to be on guard against subversive activities in this country. But I just think that the oath is a matter of form, not of substance. I do not think it is nearly as effective as members of your organization believe. But, nevertheless, in this democracy of ours, if your point of view prevails, you are going to find the senior Senator from Oregon insisting upon its enforcement if it becomes the law. I regret that the law that is already on the books is not being enforced the way it ought to be enforced. I need not tell you that the liberal forces in this country have been very critical of the senior Senator from Oregon because he was one of the coauthors of the antisubversive legislation. I would be a coauthor of it today. I make this statement because I am fully aware of the fact that the position I publicly announced this morning will be seized upon by those-I do not mean your organization at all that are going to read into my opposition to this affidavit motivations that have no basis in fact. I thought you were entitled to have this frank statement from me while you were still on the witness stand.

On most of the legislative programs, the senior Senator from Oregon is an ally and works with you. But after all, honest differences of opinion are also characteristic of our right to freedom, and on this matter we have this honest difference of opinion. But you may be sure that as chairman of this subcommittee I shall see to it and guarantee to you that this point of view receives thorough consideration in our executive hearings of this committee, and we will debate it up and down and cast the final vote.

Now, having said this, I am not a chairman who then denies to a witness the opportunity to reply. You have the floor.

Mr. STOVER. Well, thank you very much for the lucid and honest explanation of your opinion. I might add that, originally, the effort was made to not only eliminate the disclaimer-affidavit requirement, but also the lovalty oath. I think that we of the VFW were successful in bringing this to the attention of the Senate, which at that time