We do feel that this extension to the armed services schools does not go quite far enough. It covers approximately 130,000 children of Americans overseas who do go to the military dependent schools, which are mostly on military, Army, Navy, and Air Force bases. It does not, however, cover the approximately 13,000 children of American Government personnel who attend other schools overseas because they are not located within a reasonable distance of one of the military schools. This group of 13,000 includes over 8,000 children of our Armed Forces people who are stationed abroad. Those are the children of our military, naval, and air attachés, and members of our military assistance and advisory groups, such as those at Taipei, Teheran, and Athens.

The Taipei American School, one of the schools we are talking about, has in its enrollment 1,089 children of Armed Forces personnel. The American school in Teheran has 256. Also in Teheran it has 49 from our Embassies, 145 from the International Cooperation Administration, and 13 from USIA.

The American community schools of Athens have 535 military children in their classes.

This is a matter, therefore, not only of the children of military personnel stationed overseas, but also of the children of those parents who belong to other U.S. governmental and nongovernmental activities abroad.

The governmental children who do not attend the military schools ordinarily are provided for, the education is provided for by tuition allowances of the U.S. Government. In the case of the military children who attend these nonmilitary, nonofficial schools, the individual services, Army, Navy, and Air Force, ordinarily make contracts. with the schools for this education.

We have put in here a table which shows the connection and numbers of the children who attend this type of school. There are 2,500 from the Army, 3,350 from the Navy, 2,430 from the Air Force, 1,720from the Foreign Service, 3,030 from ICA, 700 from USIA, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,500 or 8,000 who are representatives of business, foundations, universities, and so forth.

We think there are some special reasons why these children should not be overlooked in the National Defense Education Act. The fact that they are going to school in foreign countries makes them a potential future resource which could be of extraordinary value to the United States in its worldwide relationships.

Furthermore, the children of parents who are already in the serviceof Government are more likely than the average to make their skills and abilities directly available in the national defense.

We have ventured to suggest the way in which three clauses, three sections of the act might possibly be amended so as to bring the children who attend these nonofficial oversea schools within the scope of the act. If the chairman wishes me to read this, I should be glad to do so.

Senator MORSE. It is not necessary. It will not be necessary for you to read your proposed amendments, because I am about to make my second term paper assignment to the representatives of the U.S. Department of Education. So you will not need to read the amendment.

Mr. DUNNE. All right, sir.

With your permission, then, I will pass up the suggested amend

ments.

We do not pretend to be able to write the Nation's laws. These are merely suggestions, of course.

As you will see, they have to do with extending the loan cancellation clauses in the stipends for counseling and guidance persons in these schools to attend institutes to improve their skills.

Our third proposal, which is much less well formed at the present time, is that we believe it would be advantageous if, in some way, the loans to private schools provisions for laboratory-for science and language laboratory equipment-could be made available to this same group of schools.

As for the number of schools in question, we have a list, as I have said, of nearly 100 in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

The Inter-American School Service, which is a branch of the American Council on Education, does a similar job to what we do, but in Latin America. They list over 350 American-sponsored schools in that part of the world.

We do feel, however, that it probably would not be practicable to try to extend the act to all schools which happen to have Americans in them, because some schools have only a very small number.

We feel that perhaps the committee would wish to set some limits, possibly as we have suggested here, limited to schools which have at least 50 percent of Americans in their enrollment, or at least 50 American children in any case, so as to be sure that the improved teaching does reach American who are going to be part of our whole national educational resource.

The committee, as we are aware, is also interested in distinctions between public and private schools. The American-sponsored schools to which we refer, although technically private schools in the sense that they are not tax supported, and are not operated by State or county or city school boards, nevertheless have the distinct characteristic of public schools. The principal one is that in many foreign cities these are the only schools capable of providing an American-style education. They are there for a real substitute for public schools as far as the Americans living and working in those localities are concerned.

We believe that these schools are essential to the success of all the many kinds of U.S. official programs around the world. We are certain it is in the national interest to make the education they provide as good as possible. We believe the committee will agree with us that the National Defense Education Act should not overlook them.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity accorded to us of presenting our testimony today.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Dunne, thank you, sir. The committee thanks you for this contribution.

I want to say I have traveled abroad from time to time in behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee. I never fail to inspect the school facilities available to American personnel abroad in any area which I visit. When I was in Bogotá, Colombia, last September, I spent some time in studying the school system of Bogotá, because we all know that in Latin America one of our greatest opportunities is to be of assistance to them in meeting the educational problems of all Latin America.

In Bogotá I think I probably visited one of the best of the so-called American-type schools abroad. But it was the old story of inadequate financing and need for improved facilities.

With that background of interest, I now ask the staff representatives of the U.S. Office of Education to cooperate with this committee, to take Mr. Dunne's statement and prepare us a memorandum on two points. First, I would like a memorandum on behalf of the U.S. Commissioner on Education concerning the policy questions raised by Mr. Dunne. Second, I would like to have the Department give us a perfected amendment for consideration in executive session, if the majority of the committee decide to extend the act so as to provide for some assistance to the so-called American-style schools abroad. It would be very helpful to us in performing that assignment.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have only one question that is personal and not official.

Mr. Dunne, are you related to that most informed American political commentator, the creator of Mr. Dooley!

Mr. DUNNE. I am very proud to be his son.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Congratulations on your family's contribution to America's understanding of their own political institutions. Mr. DUNNE. Thank you, sir.

Senator MORSE. I want to join in the compliment. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunne.

Our next witness will be Mr. Timothy Jenkins, national affairs vice president, U.S. National Students Association.

Mr. Jenkins, we are glad to have you with us. You may proceed in your own way, within the limitations of time.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. RETTIG, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES NATIONAL STUDENTS ASSOCIATION

Mr. RETTIG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate that Mr. Jenkins was not able to come today. I am Richard Rettig, and I am president of the National Students Association.

Senator MORSE. The record will show Mr. Richard A. Rettig, president of the United States National Students Association will testify in behalf of himself and Mr. Jenkins.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Rettig follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. RETTIG, PRESIDENT, AND TIMOTHY L. JENKINS, NATIONAL AFFAIRS VICE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION

The United States National Student Association is happy to present testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the National Defense Education Act. The USNSA is a confederation of democratically elected student governing groups representing the student bodies of 390 colleges and universities, with an enrollment in excess of 1,200,000 students in 46 States, and the District of Columbia. Association policy is determined by delegates of member campuses meeting at the annual National Student Congress and, in the interim between congresses, by the elected regional representatives of the campuses, meeting as the National Executive Committee. Officers elected by the National Student Congress carry out the policies during the year.

Included with this testimony are copies of the two resolutions adopted by the 13th National Student Congress of 1960 regarding the National Defense Education Act. The first indicates the specific provisions of the NDEA which we hope will be modified. The second indicates our objection to the loyalty oath and disclaimer affidavit provision of section 1001 (f) of the act.

Title II is of special concern to the association. Under the provisions of this title many students have been able to finance their higher education with far less difficulty than possible from private sources. USNSA can therefore only support enthusiastically the proposal to make the loan program a permanent feature of Government support to higher education.

Other legislation before the Congress-S. 1241 and H.R. 5266-would amend title II by the addition of a scholarship program. Though this legislation is not now being considered by this subcommittee, it is important for us to draw to your attention the support of USNSA for expanding title II in this manner also. It is further hoped that the subcommittee will remove the present limitations upon recipients of loans under title II, which are based upon the fields of study of applicants for loans. This discriminatory requirement is undue exercise of the role of the Federal Government in the encouragement of certain fields of study as opposed to other equally important fields of study.

Finally, with respect to title II, USNSA encourages the extension of the "forgiveness" feature to teachers in private elementary and secondary schools, and to teachers in public and private institutions of higher learning, provided that such extension shall not violate the principle of the separation of church and state.

In December 1958, the National Executive Committee of USNSA greeted the passage of the NDEA with approval. The NEC, however, noted with great concern the inclusion of the section 1001 (f) requiring the oath of allegiance and a disclaimer of political belief. The resolution stated:

1. It is procedurally ineffective and administratively cumbersome. A subversive individual would not hesitate to sign the disclaimer or take the oath; 2. It places an unpalatable obligation on institutions of higher education, subjecting them to very real Federal control;

3. It is terminologically unclear (e.g., sec. 1001 (f−2)) is subject to varying interpretations, some of them inhibiting support of lawful change;

4. It raises serious constitutional and freedom-of-inquiry questions in the section requiring denial of belief.

Furthermore, the resolution went on:

"We do not oppose positive affirmation of loyalty to the United States. Neither do we believe that Federal funds should be granted to those who-in violation of the law-seek overthrow of the Government of the United States or the nullification of its Constitution and laws. However, section 1001 (f) fails to offer a clear and unobjectionable affirmation of loyalty, places restrictions on thought as well as action, will fail to eliminate those working toward the overthrow of the Government, but may work hardships on innocent individuals. "We therefore urge the immediate repeal of section 1001 (f).”

Since that time, the 12th National Student Congress in 1959 and the 13th National Student Congress in 1960 have upheld this action and have modified it according to recent developments. The resolution of the 13th National Student Congress, appended to this testimony, declared USNSA's continued opposition to the loyalty oath and disclaimer affidavit in addition to stating disapproval of the Prouty amendment included in S. 2929 of the 86th Congress.

Included in the appended material is a list of member and non-member schools that have informed the USNSA of positions taken by their student governing bodies regarding the provisions of section 1001 (f). To the list of those opposing the section should be added the Student Government Association of Pembroke College and the Joint Student Legislature of Syracuse University. The Student Government of Barat College of the Sacred Heart has indicated their support for these provisions.

Numerous educational organizations have previously indicated in testimony before this subcommittee their opposition to section 1001 (f). These include the

American Council on Education, the Association for Higher Education, the National Education Association, the American Association of University Professors, the Association of American Colleges.

It is clear from testimony that widespread opposition to this section exists within the academic community.

Opposition to the Prouty amendment was based upon the following two

reasons:

(1) No standard is included in the legislation of S. 2929 which defines the meaning of "the Communist Party or any other organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the seizure or overthrow of the Government of the United States"; and

(2) Without such standard, extremely severe restrictions are placed upon an individual's right to association at a very early age, in such a manner as to effectively discourage the freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression.

Finally, the USNSA is compelled to indicate its displeasure with the title of the National Defense Education Act and the section 101, Findings and Declaration of Policy of title I, General Provisions.

The highest purposes of higher education have always been to develop the creative and critical abilities of students in order that they may employ these abilities in a manner consistent with their individual responsibilites and their responsibilities to the society of freemen.

It is not inconsistent with our national experience to have the Federal Government support higher education. It is inconsistent with our national experience and our tradition of liberal education to have the Federal Government support higher education for the purpose of national defense.

This is in no way intended to mean that national security is unimportant. The launching of Sputnik I, which set the stage for this legislation 3 years ago, and the recent Soviet achievement in orbiting a man around the world, persuades us of the critical situation which today confronts us.

Nevertheless, the end of higher education has not been military defense. The purpose of higher education has been instead to develop individuals dedicated to the pursuit of truth within a free society in order that their own lives may be enhanced by the intellectual experience and that they may serve well the community of free men in our society.

It is hoped that the title of this act will someday be the National Education Act or the National Higher Education Act.

RESOLUTION-NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT

Fact: The National Defense Education Act of 1958 authorizes over $1 billion in Federal aid to education. Since the act is to be reviewed by the 87th Congress, several recommendations by leading members of the academic community have been made for revising sections of the act. These suggested revisions concern the defense nature of the act, the extension of the "forgiveness" clause of title 11, and the enlargement of the program to include scholarships.

Principle: USNSA believes and endorses the following principles:

1. That education is the keystone of a free and democratic society;

2. That since private and State aid are inadequate to meet present financial needs, the Federal Government must use its full resources to meet the crisis in American education;

3. That a program of Federal scholarships to students would aid greatly in overcoming financial barriers to higher education:

4. That such a program of Federal aid to education should be justified by benefits given to society in general;

5. That, while realizing the importance of defense to the Nation and the relation of our defense to education, these needs will best be met by aid to education unrestricted except by considerations of intellectual ability and financial need. Special legislation to stimulate education in areas essential to the national defense is often necessary but only as an addition to a sound program in all academic areas.

Declaration: The USNSA urges the revision of the National Defense Education Act to:

1. Enlarge the program by supplementing the loan provisions with scholarship provisions;

2. Remove discrimination on the basis of fields of study in awarding loans and scholarships;

3. Eliminate those provisions of the act that justify Federal aid to education solely on the basis of national defense:

4. Extend the "forgiveness" feature of tile 11 to teachers in private elementary and secondary schools, and to teachers in public and private institutions of higher learning, while providing that such assistance shall not be in violation of the principle of separation of church and State.

Action: The national affairs vice president is hereby directed to communicate the substance of this resolution to Members of the U.S. Congress and other appropriate Government officials.