The second point on which I would like to comment is my great concern about adequate education at the elementary and secondary level. I hope the 88th Congress will explore every possibility of expanding every existing education statute to find new ways of providing Federal assistance to elementary and secondary education. With the Higher Education Facilities Act, we are helping to provide facilities for the tremendous increase in college enrollments. But we must make sure that every one of our millions of children in the elementary schools has an equal opportunity to receive an adequate education.

The elementary and secondary schools are the very foundation of our whole education structure.

The Senate and House conferees are now working on the vocational education bill which this House approved overwhelmingly. This is urgent legislation and will be of great help at the secondary level. I hope that this vocational education conference report will be brought back to the House next week. But today—and at this time-we have the opportunity to take affirmative action to assist the institutions of higher education.

I urge the House to accept this conference report because it will help meet today's urgent needs. This legislation is good legislation for all of the colleges and universities in our country, and it is fair to say that it is demonstrably clear, in this case, that what is good for higher education is good for the country.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN].

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, as the discussion has already indicated, there is solid agreement among the House conferees on this report. All of us urge its adoption by the House.

In my opinion this is significant legislation. It is legislation which might well have been enacted some time ago. The facilities which will be built with Federal funds are needed now, and it will take time to get them ready for use for this generation of college students.

There are significant differences between the bill as approved by the House last August and this conference report, but none which detract from the position that the House took when it passed the bill. One provision in the bill as it passed the Senate that has not been mentioned is worthy of comment. I refer to the provision allowing judicial review by means of a taxpayer's suit in reference to the constitutionality of the assistance made available in this legislation. It was at the insistence of the House conferees that the Senate conferees, somewhat reluctantly, agreed to drop this provision altogether. There is no question that a challenge may be made on some aspect of this and other programs which provide aid to our nonpublic institutions of higher education. However, I feel strongly that language which would facilitate a suit, or which would try to establish a controversy where perhaps there would otherwise be none, should not have been incorporated into this legislation. I am glad it has been dropped.

I personally regret that we are approving the principle of categories for granting assistance, because I do not think that the categorical approach makes much sense. As you can see, we are providing aid only if construction is limited to structures or portions thereof especially designed for instruction or research in certain areas. We are providing, in other words, assistance if the building is to be used or designed for the use of instruction in French or modern Greek, but it presumably cannot be financed with Federal money if it is designed for instruction in English or in history or in economics.

If it were not for the fact that the limitation is not an absolute one, I would think this approach of categories would be undesirable. However, as has already been indicated, we did strike the Senate language which would have said that these buildings should be used only for certain purposes. In other words, they must be designed for certain purposes, but there is leeway with respect to subsequent use, so long as it does not fall within the prohibitions with respect to religious practices. This is a significant modification of the language as it passed the Senate.

cannot say that the teaching of political science is less important than chemistry, the teaching of history less important than mathematics, or that ancient Greek is not as important as modern Greek, or social science is not as important as engineering. I think as we look into this we will see how unwise categorical aids are. But now when we are about to accept this legislation, let us point out that the facilities that are permitted to be constructed are the most expensive, that we took away the prohibition from teaching any discipline that would be natural for the institutions to teach in the facilities that are constructed. We took out that prohibition. So at least we have, to my knowledge, the most acceptable version we could possibly come up with and still provide for categorical grants.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODELL. Would the gentleman agree that it was the intent of the conferees that the only restriction on use of these facilities after they are constructed is the restriction contained in section 401(a) (2) where we define "academic facilities." That section provides that the facilities are not to be used for athletic or recreational events or for sectarian instruction or places of religious worship, or divinity schools, or finally so it would not overlap with the medical school bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for his clarification of the point I was trying to make.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. QUIE].

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I think we came to a successful compromise in the conference report on this bill. I am pleased and happy about the fact that we have come so close to across-theboard grants to higher education institutions. The Senate agreed prior to tutions. The Senate agreed prior to going to conference that in graduate schools there would be no categorical grants, it would be across the board. We made additional headway in public community colleges and technical institutions, in which we removed the limitations of categorical grants. The Senators were adamant against removing the categorical grants from 4-year institutions. We could never tell why they were adamant but they were, so the House finally had to back down if we were to get any legislation at all. The idea of grants for higher education institutions limited to academic facilities of limited categories is indefensible. This being the case, it should not be difficult to amend the law in future years to make the grants "across the board." I think this is important because we

Mr. QUIE. That is correct. Mr. GOODELL. This contradictory situation caused the House conferees to press the Senate conferees at some length to explain their justification for such a constitutional distinction between graduate and undergraduate facilities. I think we can say flatly, we got no substantive justification on the merits at all for that line of distinction.

Mr. QUIE. That is correct. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GRIFFIN. As one of the conferees, I should like to add my voice to those of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who served on the conference committee in urging the House to adopt this conference report. Any Member who voted for the bill earlier, as it went through the House, can certainly give his wholehearted approval to this conference report. report. I should like to emphasize and call attention to one aspect of this legislation. As agreed upon in conference, the bill gives special emphasis to the need for, and desirability of, further development and expansion of community and junior colleges in this country. Not only have we specifically earmarked 22 percent of the grant funds for this purpose, but another provision will be very significant so far as junior colleges are concerned. I refer to the fact that with respect to junior college construction, the Federal grant can amount to 40 percent of the cost.

Presumably, the other 60 percent of the cost, in most cases, will come, 30 percent from State and 30 percent from local sources.

So far as other institutions of higher learning are concerned, Federal grant

This legislation indicates, in my opinion, the launching of a new and a sound national policy, for at least the next 3 years-a policy which encourages the development and expansion of community and junior colleges-a policy which looks toward the day when every high school graduate in this country will be able to attend a college, for at least 2 years, close to his home where it will be inexpensive and where he can try his wings, so to speak. I think that the policy which the Congress is now embarking upon is a sound and a wise one for these times.

Mr. QUIE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I might point out to those of you who might be wondering if the Senate caused us to give in to them on the amount of money, the Senate completely gave in to us on the amount of money. There is no additional money in this bill from what was reported when the House passed the bill originally. It is a 3-year program for which we authorize the money. It automatically comes up for consideration not only before the Committee on Appropriations but by the authorizing committee. And if this is an acceptable program earmarking funds for the junior colleges it is going to last for that length of time and I think, therefore, this is the kind of bill that anybody who voted for it before, as the gentleman from Michigan said, ought to be wholeheartedly in favor of it now. I would say to many of those who opposed it for some reason that they ought also to consider seriously supporting it now.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. GOODELL. I would like to emphasize that there is a change in the Senate legislation as far as the money authorization is concerned. We have indicated we believe a 5-year program is going to be necessary, and we have adopted a 5-year program, but we have authorized appropriations for only a period of 3 years, it being our considered judgment on the part of the House of Representatives that we could not anticipate the need for money in the fourth and fifth years at this stage. The legisThe legislative committee should review this matter before we authorize funds for a fourth and fifth year to see where those funds should be allocated. We have, therefore, authorized funds for only a 3-year period, in accordance with the House version. Mr. QUIE. That is correct.

aisle. I think our colleagues have done a remarkable job and achieved excellent results. This is a very effective bill, lent results. This is a very effective bill, and when enacted into law, it will constitute the greatest piece of legislation in the field of higher education that has ever been passed by any Congress in the past.

I know the many intricate questions involved. We of the House can indeed involved. We of the House can indeed be proud of the admirable leadership and be proud of the admirable leadership and the excellent manner in which the House conferees performed their duties in adjusting the differences that existed bejusting the differences that existed between both branches. I congratulate I congratulate them. I know they served with the full dignity and strength of the House.

This is a bill that is essentially along the lines of the bill as it originally passed the House of Representatives. It is going to be of inestimable value in the field of higher education.

I am pleased to take special note of the action in reference to public comthe action in reference to public community colleges. The unrestricted aid munity colleges. The unrestricted aid provided these colleges will contribute to the advancement and appreciation of the liberal arts and will thus serve to the intellectual vitality of enhance the intellectual vitality of

America.

The results that will flow from this

bill will be of tremendous value in the life of our Nation.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cali1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. HANNA].

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would like to bring to the attention of the Members from California one very important part of this bill as far as Caliof you know, California has a tremenfornia is concerned. As perhaps some dous system of junior colleges. While I

Under

was serving as chairman of the Committee on Education of the House in California, we passed what was called the master plan for higher education. the master plan for higher education. Under that plan we anticipated that the college enrollment in California would double between 1960 and 1975. the master plan it was provided that 70 percent of the new enrolling freshmen would go into junior colleges, which in California are supported by local tax dollars. This bill will do a great deal toward encouraging those people who carry such a heavy burden of higher education in the State of California. I think we Californians owe a special expression of indebtedness to this fine committee for indebtedness to this fine committee for the conference report they are bringing the conference report they are bringing to the floor this morning.

Mr. KING of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the splendid remarks of my fellow Cali

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. STAGGERS). The gentleman from New Jersey, who is in control of the time, yields back 3 minutes.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK], such time as he may require.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the House confer

HANNA, who has so well stated the importance of this bill and its particular impact on public community colleges. Community colleges are flourishing in California and have long since proven a tremendously valuable adjunct to our State's progressive educational system. It is satisfying for me to realize that today the House will approve a bill which does so much to insure the continued progress of these important institutions.

Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Speaker, the bill that has been agreed on by the House that has been agreed on by the House

and Senate conferees could do much to relieve the shortage of college facilities that exists today. that exists today. A shortage that is bound to get worse unless congressional action is taken.

By 1965, college enrollments will be 50 percent greater than they were in 1960. If we are to accommodate the projected college enrollment of 7 million students by 1970, which is a doubling in enrollment, during this decade, $23 billion worth of college facilities will need to be built. This means that just to put a roof over the head of the generation beating a path to our college doors will require more structures built on college campuses in this decade than all the facilities built from the American Revolution until 1960. To make this problem more critical, the greatest increases in college enrollment are expected in the next 2 years.

The practical effect of inaction on this problem would be to deny an opportunity for further education to thousands of qualified young men and women simply because there is not enough room for them in our existing colleges.

Also a lack of facilities would make college costs higher, thus requiring parents to take out larger and more burdensome loans to finance their sons' and daughters' education. It would mean more mothers going to work so they can put their children through college and finally it would mean too many students struggling through school with both a heavy academic load and outside work commitments that could combine to en

danger their college careers.

The bill agreed upon by the House and Senate conferees, if signed into law, would be the first general college aid program in our Nation's history. Basically the program provides for: first, $230 million in matching grants to States in each of 3 successive years. The Federal grant would pay one-third of the costs of constructing, rehabilitating, or improving undergraduate facilities. The 3-year total authorized is $690 million with over $50 million earmarked each year for junior colleges and technical schoolsthe fastest growing segment in higher education picture.

Second, $25 million in 1964 and $60 million in both 1965 and 1966 for Federal grants for the establishment or improvement of graduate schools or cooperative graduate schools-those maintained by two or more institutions. The Federal grants will cover one-third of the project costs and will help supply the M.A.'s and Ph. D.'s this country needs.

Third, $120 million in Federal loans to colleges is authorized in each of the next 3 years for construction, rehabilitation, or improvement of facilities.

Under the first portion of this program that I discussed, Maryland institutions of higher education would receive about $32 million a year in grants in each of the next 3 years. This money will be used to build needed college facilities here for our young people. It is estimated that across the Nation about 2,100 colleges-both public and privatewould be eligible to benefit from the higher education bill.

We may need to take other steps to keep college costs from rising too high.

As you know, intelligence is not related to family income or the ability to pay the cost of going to college, but college enrollment is. At the present time, onehalf of the top one-third of our highschool students fail to go on to college mainly because they lack the financial means. Although scholarships are increasing, a University of Wisconsin's study has found that, of an average student income of $1,619, scholarships only provided $82 of this figure.

Various programs, such as the National Defense Education Act, provide loans to needy, talented students. However, in the future, it may be necessary to take additional action to bridge the gap between the financial resources of our talented young people and the cost of a college education. We cannot afford to waste the talents of these young people by failing to invest in their and, indeed, our Nation's own future.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of the conference report on H.R. 6143, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. I think the report is excellent, and I commend the conferees of both the House and Senate for their fine work. I hope their efforts will be rewarded this afternoon by overwhelming approval by the House of this conference report.

As a cosponsor of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, my bill being H.R. 7988, which passed the House on August 14, I am pleased to see that the key important features of this first-rate higher education bill have been retained by the conferees.

The approval of this report, based on a reconciling of the House and Senate version of the bill will be a great step forward in the effort to meet the evergrowing educational needs of our Nation. It has been my privilege many times to speak on this floor in behalf of the educational needs of our country, because I strongly believe there are few problems facing us which are more serious, more demanding of immediate attention, or which offer a more rewarding benefit to our Nation if we provide an adequate solution to the problem.

I believe the American public has convincingly demonstrated that it supports the right to a better education for our youth. Yet, our House committee report on H.R. 6143 informs us that by 1970 the number of students seeking higher education will be almost twice that of the enrollment in 1960. To meet this tremendous need, to affirm this Nation's commitment to the education of its youth, we must take action to see that the facilities of our institutions of higher education are able to support the new demands on them. We must do this at the Federal level, because the situation is crucial and the problem has become too great to be handled solely by the learning institutions and by the State and local governments, although they have risen valiantly to the task.

The time to act is now, before the crisis deepens. It is time for us to heed the mood of the American people, a mood which, I am confident wholeheartedly supports legislation to improve our higher education facilities, and to help

The program proposed in the conference report is commendable. It is basically the same program approved earlier by this body. It provides matching grants for construction of undergraduate and graduate academic facilities as well as loans for such construction. It is a $1.1 billion 5-year program, calling for new authorization of appropriations and congressional review after 3 years. In no situation will the Federal share of a project exceed one-third of the total cost, thus State and local incentive and initiative is stimulated, not destroyed. This is exactly the type of balanced, reasonable program this country needs, and for that reason I sincerely urge my colleagues to approve this report.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOLAND] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the conference report on H.R. 6143, the "Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963." The acceptance of this legislation will result in a giant step forward for higher education in America, because herein Congress establishes a policy that the security and welfare of the United States require that the present and future generations of American youth be assured ample opportunity for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities, and that this opportunity will be jeopardized unless the Nation's colleges and universities are encouraged and assisted in their efforts to accommodate rapidly growing numbers of youth who aspire to a higher education.

Also, Congress further finds and declares that these needs are so great and these steps so urgent that it is incumbent upon the Nation to take positive and immediate action to meet these needs through assistance to institutions of higher education, including graduate and undergraduate institutions, junior and community colleges, and technical institutes, in providing certain academic facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the House position with respect to general aid, rather than categorical aid, sustained. However, I realize that the conferees were dedicated to the proposition of getting the best possible compromise out of conference, so that we can get this bill through the Senate and House, and enacted into law this year. I am pleased that the conferees did broaden the categorical aid to go beyond engineering, mathematics, and library facilities, and included facilities for modern foreign languages, and the natural and physical sciences. I am also glad that the bill also contains allotments to States for public community colleges and public technical institutes.

As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it means we are looking forward. It cares for the whole spectrum of higher education, public and

advance in the development of junior colleges and technical schools. Now is the time to act favorably in behalf of the next generation of leaders in America. They will be assuming the burdens of private and public affairs as we slip into retirement, and we want these future leaders to be equal to tasks they will face, and the crucial decisions they will make for America in the latter part of this century.

Mr. REIFEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MORSE] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from

South Dakota?

There was no objection.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. Although the bill is not as strong as the one for which I voted in August, I feel that it will make an important contribution to the strength of our higher educational system. I would like to call the attention of the House particularly to the provisions regarding community colleges and public technical institutes. These institutions can play a vital role in providing posthigh school opportunities for our Nation's young people. Junior college enrollments were up 13.7 percent in 1962 over 1961, compared with an 8.1 percent increase for all higher education institutions. Statistics show us that a student has a 50 percent greater chance of receiving higher education if he lives within 20 to 25 miles of a college; the reduction in living costs for college students is obvious.

This bill recognizes the importance of this trend. It reserves 22 percent of the funds provided for construction in title I to public community colleges and public technical institutes. In addition the State commissions which are to administer the plans must include representatives of junior colleges and technical institutes.

The crisis in American higher education today is broadly based; it is a crisis of costs, of personnel, and of quality. We must attack the problem of expanding technology, expanding population, and shrinking resources on many fronts. I think that we have neglected the importance of our community colleges and institutes for too long and I am happy to see that this legislation marks a significant departure from this practice.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note the difference between original House legislation and the conference report. I opposed H.R. 6143, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, and shall always oppose, as I now see it, Federal aid to education.

I do not want Federal encroachment on localities in educational facilities, even so-called brick-and-mortar construction bills.

However, a conference report, as a procedural matter, must be voted up or down, as I see it, based on whether there was a maintenance of House position or acceding to the other body. So a vote on a conference report is a Member's ap

proval or disapproval of the House conferees compromising the differences between bills. If well done, the vote is "aye," if not, the vote is "no."

So I voted "aye" on this conference report because I believed the House conferees did a good job considering the two alternatives confronting them. No additional cost or regulations were added.

However, I still oppose aid to education and shall so vote at every appropriate opportunity.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. POWELL], and the members of the House education conference which concluded in recordbreaking time last Friday their session with conferees from the other body. Remembering the great roadblocks of last year's education bill, this was a magnificent gesture on the part of both sides to work out a meaningful compromise. The fact that the bill, which emerged from the conference, was a remarkably good bill is even more amazing, and all concerned deserve the credit of the full House of Representatives.

The fact that 2,100 colleges and universities in the Nation will be eligible for loans under the compromise bill approved is a most heartening fact. Since the 3-year program will authorize $230 million a year in grants and $120 million a year in loans, it will prove beneficial throughout the entire land. One of the most pleasing facts to me is that 22 percent of the grants or roughly $50 million will be reserved for public community colleges and technical institutes. I am immensely gratified that the conferees have agreed to these provisions of the aid bill.

As I suggested in a speech on the floor of the House recently, the growth of community colleges in the United States will be phenomenal and the passage of this bill will mark the first great turning point in the development of these colleges throughout the land, particularly in my State of Massachusetts which already has established a strong community college program. This additional aid will prove to be a much needed shot in the arm and is a welcome sign.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND

Clark Cleveland Cohelan

Corman

Cramer

Curtin Daniels Dawson

Halleck

Halpern

Hanna
Hansen
Harding

Harris

Harrison

Harvey, Ind.

Harvey, Mich. Hawkins

Murphy, N.Y.

Avery

O'Brien, N.Y. O'Hara, Ill. O'Hara, Mich. O'Konski Olsen, Mont. Olson, Minn.

O'Neill

Osmers

Ostertag

Patman

Pelly

Pepper

Perkins Philbin

Pike

Dague

Davis, Ga.

Davis, Tenn.

Denton

Dowdy

Martin, Nebr.

Wilson, Ind.

NOT VOTING-83

Hosmer Jennings Kilburn Kyl

Landrum

Martin, Mass.

May

Miller, Calif. Miller, N.Y.

Moorhead

Mosher

O'Brien, Ill.

Rhodes, Ariz.
Riehlman
Rivers, S.C.
Roberts, Tex.
Rodino
St. Onge
Schenck
Scott
Shelley
Siler

Smith, Iowa
Stephens

Stubblefield

Talcott

Thompson, N.J. Thornberry

Tuten Watts

Weaver

Westland Wharton

Baring

Bass

Bates

Berry

Burkhalter

Burton Celler

Leggett

Lesinski

Daddario

Michel

Passman

Foreman

Patten

Quie Randall Reid, N.Y.

Holland Horan Horton

Ichord

Jarman

Joelson

Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Wis.
Jones, Ala.
Karsten
Karth

Kastenmeier

Kee

Keith

Kelly

Keogh
King, Calif.
King, N.Y.
Kirwan
Kluczynski
Knox
Kunkel

Langen
Lankford
Latta

Libonati
Long, La.
Long, Md.

McDade
McDowell
McFall

McIntire
Macdonald

White

Whitten

Widnall

Williams

Winstead

Wyman

So the conference report was agreed

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On this vote:

Mr. Rodino for, with Mr. Scott against. Mr. Holifield for, with Mr. Colmer against. Mr. Widnall for, with Mr. Quillen against. Mr. Rhodes of Arizona for, with Mr. Siler against.

Mrs. May for, with Mr. Findley against. Mr. Lindsay for, with Mr. Kilburn against. Mr. Jennings for, with Mr. Roberts of Texas against.

Mr. Celler for, with Mr. Rivers of South Carolina against.

Mr. Daddario for, with Mr. Passman against.

Mr. Moorhead for, with Mr. Baring against. Mr. Feighan for, with Mr. Forrester against. Mr. Denton for, with Mr. Fuqua against. Mr. Thompson of New Jersey for, with Mr. Dowdy against.

CIX-1331

Until further notice:

Mr. Stubblefield with Mr. Schenck.
Mr. Arends with Mr. Westland.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Bates.

Mr. Rains with Mr. Avery.

Mr. Patten with Mr. Dague. Mr. Pucinski with Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Hardy with Mr. Wyman.

Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Talcott. Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Weaver. Mr. Lesinski with Mr. Michel.

Mr. White with Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Burkhalter with Mr. Chamberlain.
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Wharton.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Harsha.

Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Mailliard.
Mr. Watts with Mr. Pirnie.

Mr. Stephens with Mr. Foreman.

Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Berry of South Dakota.

Mr. Williams with Mr. Mosher.

Mr. Whitten with Mr. Kyl.

Mr. Everett with Mr. Hosmer.
Mr. Shelley with Mr. Gubser.

Mr. Smith of Iowa with Mr. Miller of New York.

Mr. Pilcher with Mr. Burton.
Mr. Tuten with Mr. Riehlman.

Mr. Leggett with Mr. Martin of Massachusetts.

Mr. Hays with Mr. Arends.

Mr. DOWNING changed his vote from "yea" to "nay".

Mr. FLYNT changed his vote from "yea" to "nay".

Mr. COLLIER changed his vote from "yea" to "nay".

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The doors were opened.

Act, or at any time during the year immediately preceding the effective date of this Act has resided in the District of Columbia and been actively engaged in caring for the sick in the Washington metropolitan area;"; and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(b) In the case of any application made by an applicant for a license pursuant to this section which, solely because of noncompliance with clause (4) of subsection (a) of this section, was disapproved prior to the effective date of this subsection shall, at the written request of such applicant made within the ninety-day period immediately following such date, be reconsidered in accordance with such clause, as amended, without additional charge to such applicant other than the repayment to the District of Columbia of any fee or portion thereof which may have been refunded to the applicant by

reason of the denial of a license for which

application was made, and such applicant may submit, without charge, such additional information in support of such application as she may desire.

"(c) Any person who failed to make application for a license under this section on or before July 30, 1962, may make application for such a license under this section, as amended, at any time during the ninetyday period immediately following the effective date of this subsection."

SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect fifteen days after its approval.

cases in the suburbs during a substantial portion of the year ending July 29, 1961, and thus could not qualify for District of Columbia licensure without examination

in view of this controversial restriction. Appeals were made by the above-named association and by many individual nurses as well, for an amendment to the act which would alleviate this problem. A bill was introduced in the Senate last late to receive consideration in the 87th year for this purpose (S. 3639), but too Congress.

After consultation with the Practical Nurses' Licensing Board and with the attorney for the Association of Undergraduate and Practical Nurses of the District of Columbia, on March 25, 1963, I introduced H.R. 5097, which was the same in substance as S. 933 as reported by the Senate District Committee on August 19, 1963. This bill sought to resolve this inequity by the following provisions:

1. Define "Washington Metropolitan Area" in the usual context for purposes of this Act;

2. In section 10, change the controversial paragraph (4) by causing it to read: "has been actively engaged in caring for the sick in the District of Columbia for the year immediately preceding the effective date of

1. Page 2, line 7, strike out "at any time" and substitute in lieu thereof "for at least six months".

2. Page 2, line 8, strike out "at any time” and substitute in lieu thereof "for at least

AMEND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRACTICAL NURSES' LICENSING

АСТ

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, I call up the bill (S. 933) to amend the District of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous

consent that the bill be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section

2 of the District of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act (74 Stat. 803; sec. 2421, D.C. Code, 1961 edition) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

subsection:

"(e) The term 'Washington metropolitan area' means that area comprising the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland, the counties of Arlington and Fairfax, Virginia, and the

cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax, Virginia."

SEC. 2. Section 10 of the District of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act (sec. 2429, D.C. Code, 1961 edition) is amended (1) by inserting the subsection designation "(a)" immediately before the first word of

such section; (2) by amending clause (4) to read as follows: "(4) has been actively engaged in caring for the sick in the District of Columbia at any time during the year immediately preceding the effective date of this

The committee amendments were agreed to.

Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?

There was no objection.

Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in the 86th Congress, I introduced legislation to authorize licensing of practical nurses in the District of Columbia. This bill was enacted into law on September 6, 1960, as Public Law 86-708, and became effective as of July 29, 1961.

Section 10 of this act provided for the licensing of a practical nurse in the District, without written examination, who applied for such license within 1 year after the effective date of the act that is, prior to July 29, 1962-and who also, together with certain other qualifications, "has been actively engaged in caring for the sick in the District of Columbia for the year immediately preceding the effective date of this Act."

Even though the Practical Nurses' Licensing Board decided that it would be reasonable to accept 9 months of practice in the District of Columbia during the prescribed year as satisfying this requirement for "grandfather clause" licensing, this provision caused a great licensing, this provision caused a great deal of protest because of the large num

ber of practical nurses, many of them

residents of the District and members of the Association of Undergraduate and Practical Nurses of the District of Columbia, who had happened to accept

ceding the effective date of this Act has resided in the District of Columbia and been actively engaged in the care of the sick in the Washington Metropolitan Area."

3. Provide for a period of 90 days after the date of enactment of these amendments, during which a practical nurse may apply for a license under Section 10 as amended; 4. Provide that an applicant who previously was rejected solely because of the more restrictive present language of paragraph (4) of section 10, and who applies again within the 90-day period under the more liberal language of the amendment, may not be charged a fee for reconsideration of her application except as repayment of any part of the original application fee which may have been refunded to her.

S. 933 was amended on the floor of the Senate, however, so as to provide licensing as a practical nurse without written examination to an applicant who resided and practiced in the District of Columbia at any time during the year ending July 31, 1961.

I concur with the opinion expressed by the president of the Practical Nurses' Licensing Board, that this provision in S. 933, as passed by the Senate, would be disastrous, as it would force the Board to grant practical nurses' licenses without written examination to a great number of persons without proper consideration of their professional competence.

In view of this picture, I feel that the amendment which the House District Committee adopted, which would require at least 6 months of residence and practice in the District during the year prior

to the effective date of the Practical Nurses' Licensing Act as a prerequisite for a practical nurse's license without written examination, to be a fair and reasonable compromise.

For these reasons, I endorse S. 933 as

reported to the House.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.