Слике страница

described above would provide for making allotments under section 103 available under certain conditions for the benefit of institutions for which provision is made under section 104 of the act, flexibility should, conversely, be provided to make allotments under section 104 available for the benefit of institutions for which section 103 provides. This additional flexibility is especially needed for American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands since these territories have no institutions of higher education other than public community colleges and public technical institutions. Guam and the Virgin Islands each has only one institution at the present time, in both cases a public community college, and in these cases there is a greater need, and it is more economical, to improve the existing institutions than to establish new ones. The fiscal year 1965 allotments for Guam and the Virgin Islands are comparatively small and are heavily weighted in favor of a kind of institution which does not exist and is not needed, thus:

Section 103 ___________________ __ $19,049
Section 104 ___________________ __ 50,215
Virgin Islands:
Section 103 ___________________ __ 8,724
Section 104 ___________________ __ 14, 669


Under title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act there is a variable matching requirement for Federal grants with respect to construction of facilities in 4-year institutions. That is, the State commission fixes the amount of the Federal share, which cannot exceed one-third of the cost of a project. However, in the case of public community colleges and public technical institutes the Federal share must equal 40 percent of the cost of a project.

The committee has observed that this inflexible provision has resulted in a use of Federal grants which is inconsistent with the objectives of the act. In order to insure that situations do not arise in which an entire State's allotment is obligated to just one project, and to provide for greater flexibility of grant funds for public community colleges and public technical institutes, the committee has recommended that the provision requiring a flat 40 percent be revised along the lines of the variable matching requirement provision for the 4-year institution segment of the program. Thus, the State commission will be provided with the flexibility to fix the amount of the Federal share which cannot exceed 40 percent for projects involving the construction of the public community college and public technical institutes.


Section 201 of the Higher Education Facilities Act would be amended so that funds appropriated under this section shall remain available for reservation in fiscal years succeeding the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. At the present time appropriations for the establishment and improvement of graduate schools and cooperative graduate centers are. under the provisions of section 201, available for obligation only during the fiscal year for which the appropriation is made. As a consequence, campaigns to stimulate private and corporate contributions to make up non-Federal matching funds labor under a serious disadvantage. Such campaigns often require several years to reach their objective. It is not now possible for institutions, in soliciting contributions for very worthy but highly specialized projects, to expand graduate education to enjoy for more than a fraction of 1 year the fund-raising advantages of a durable obligation of Federal funds in the amount

[merged small][graphic]

needed. The committee believes that the use of Federal funds under this title would be fairer, more effective, and result in a much more powerful stimulus to private and corporate giving with this amendment. TWO-YEAR AVAILABILITY or TITLE III FUNDS

Section 303 (c) of the Higher Education Facilities Act would be amended so that funds appropriated under that section shall remain available for reservation until the close of the fiscal year next succeeding the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. With this amendment, funds appropriated would be available for obligation under both titles I and III of the act on comparable terms. Applications for funds out of appropriations for fiscal year 1965 are being received at an accelerating rate. However, many institutions need additional time to develop sources of matching funds and also to secure enabling legislation to permit them to borrow for non-self-liquidating facilities. For both these reasons, the availability of funds for obligation for 2 years, rather than for the single year to which we are presently limited. would strengthen this program and augment the amount of non-Federal capital which could be mobilized under it.



Clause E of section 401 (a) (2) of the Higher Education Facilities Act would be amended so that the definition of schools of nursing established therein (by reference to see. 724 of the Public Health Service Act) will conform to the definition set forth in section 843 of the Public Health Service Act as amended by the Nurse Training Act of 1964. Without such amendment, the former definition would remain more narrow than the latter and in consequence some kinds of schools of nursing, after June 30, 1965, have the option of applying for financial assistance for the construction of facilities under the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. This would, however, be contrary to the intent of Congress in framing the Nurse Training Act of 1964, which was to concentrate programs of Federal financial assistance for the construction of facilities for the training of health personnel under legislation for that special purpose.

Mr. MORSE. Finally, Mr. President, title VIII of the bill contains general provisions relating to the various titles, and I shall not dwell further upon them at this time.

To conclude, Mr. President, I urge passage of the bill as reported to the Senate. It is a carefully considered piece of legislation. In my judgment, it is a necessary piece of legislation, and an overdue piece of legislation. It is necessary because we live in an era of promise and danger. It offers promise because science, technology, business, and general understanding of life have made such rapid and striking advances that man has within his grasp the greatest opportunities ever known. At the same time, it presents grave dangers because man must learn how and know how to utilize the electrons, the mechanical devices, the new way of life, and the altered view of the universe, or else he is overwhelmed and demolished by them.

The call is clear and distinct for a better and expanded program of higher education which will train and equip men and women to meet the challenges and responsibilities of the modern age.

Therefore, I am highly honored at this time to offer this bill to the Senate for

passage because its passage, in my judgment, and its signature eventually by the President, would give mankind, as well as the young people of America, hope that we shall come to grips successfully with the great challenges that face us in this age of electronics.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I intend to speak for only a minute and then yield to my colleague the senior Senator from West Virginia. However, I wish to say at this time that tributes are generally paid after a bill is passed. I hope that we shall be able to do that today.

The work of the senior Senator from Oregon in bringing this bill to the floor with the unanimous support of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is of such an extraordinary quality that I feel that that alone, whatever else ensues, deserves the highest encomium of which not only I am capable but also the entire world of education.

It is extraordinary that a man of so many abilities in so many fields becomes the most adroit, intelligent, wise judge, conciliator, and friend when he is in charge of a bill that any committee could ever have.

It is most extraordinary. I say to the Senator that I am not given to banalities. Therefore, I make this special point because we know the Senator as a man who stands alone in many things. However, when it comes to his handling this legislation, it is extraordinary to witness the gifted performance which he has given. This is but one of a series of examples.

I believe that the country should be very proud of WAYNE Mossn in his handling of a bill in such a sensitive and highly important field.

The pending measure is probably as vital to the future of the Nation as any other legislation we have had or will have.

It is somewhat difiicult to realize the fact that the committee agreed upon the report by a unanimous vote.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

M1‘. JAVITS. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I really should not have asked the Senator to yield because I do not know what to say except to tell the Senator of the great help that he has been to me and of my great appreciation for the warm friendship which has existed between us.

I want the Rscoan to show—as I have said in committee, as the Senator knows—so that the American people may know, that this bill would not be before the Senate today if it were not for the cooperation, the help, and the contributions made to the bill by the Republicans on my subcommittee, the senior Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY], and the junior Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoMINIcK].

Every Republican on the subcommittee and on the full committee made contributions to this bill and made it possible for us to bring the bill, unanimously voted for by the committee, to the Senate

What more can I say except to say to the Senator again that it is a great honor to serve with him on the committee. I shall always appreciate the kind words he has just uttered.


I warn him that I would not be a bit sin-prised if his statement did not creep into my campaign literature in 1968.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall have to run that risk. I am sure that the opponent of the senior Senator from Oregon at that time will find many things to counterbalance my statement.

Like every first-rate captain, the Senator thanks his team. We are all very grateful to him.

Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, it is

a privilege at this time to voice my sup

port for H.R. 9567. I am a cosponsor of

the original bill, S. 600. It was my responsibility to work closely with other

Senators on this measure and to have

participated in its consideration in both

subcommittee and full committee.

As a. member of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, it has often been my duty to review programs which aid in the education of our Nation’s young people. With due respect for the work of past Congresses on higher education legislation, I state with emphasis that the Higher Education Act of 1965, when enacted, will be the most significant law in the field of higher education since the enactment of the Land-Grant College Act.

This is true because the bill recognizes and underscores the fact that support for higher education must be both varied in approach and coordinated in efi'ort. Two years ago, when we enacted the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, we gave assistance in a specific area of need—facilities. However, experience has demonstrated that the need is as immediate, if not more so, in other areas.

The need for university extension and continuing education programs in urban and rural areas, for books, for training and research in college libraries, for a comprehensive student assistance program, for strengthening underdeveloped colleges, for highly qualified teachers, and for adequate educational media has been pointed out by persons knowledgeable in education. Now we have the opportunity to take action in satisfying these needs. In evaluating this legislation carefully I have come to the conclusion that it is the best higher education bill to be offered in the Senate since I became a Member of this body.

As the Senator from New York [Mr. Jsvrrs] has so effectively stated, much of the credit for assembling and refining this comprehensive measure must go to my cherished friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator WAYNE MORSE. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Education he has maintained the closest contact with citizens and groups throughout the Nation who are vitally concerned with strengthening higher education. Throughout the Senate hearings, and

during lengthy executive sessions of the subcommittee, Senator IVIORSE sought to steer a course of responsibility and responsiveness. He listened with patience to the witnesses and the arguments, and he endeavored to sift from each the ideas which would make this a more effective law.

Mr. President, I join in applauding the productive efforts of Senator MORSE in bringing to the Senate the higher education bill of 1965. I congratulate him, and assure him that it was a rewarding experience for me personally to have labored at his side during the preparation of this significant and complex legislation.

Mr. President, the Higher Education Act of 1965 will combat some of the major problems that have plagued colleges and universities in our Nation in recent years.

The principal provisions of the bill will:

First, assist institutions of higher education in establishing extension and continuing education programs designed to help solve some of the problems of urban and suburban areas;

Second, upgrade the quality of college libraries by grants for the purchase of library materials for research and training in librarianrhip, and for expanding the services of the Library of Congress to other libraries;

Third, improve the quality of higher education by assisting intercollegiate cooperative arrangements and by establishing a national teaching fellowship program to attract outstanding young scholars to teach in developing institutions;

Fourth, extend the benefits of college education to more students by provid— ing undergraduate scholarships to needy students; by establishing, assisting, and stimulating programs of insured reduced-interest loans for college students; by extending and expanding the college work-study program; and by expanding the National Defense Education Act of 1958;

Fifth, establish a National Teachers Corps to strengthen the educational opportunities available to children in areas having high concentrations of low-income families and encourage colleges and universities to broaden their programs of teacher preparation;

Sixth, improve the quality of undergraduate classroom instruction in selected subject areas by authorizing funds for equipment purchases and for faculty development programs; and

Seventh. increase the number and capacity of academic facilities by raising the appropriations of titles I and II of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, Public Law 88-204.

The benefits of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to the institutions, students, and residents of West Virginia are both significant and varied. Certain aspects of these benefits can be given in detail, others must be estimated, and still others depend on the desires and actions of the people and the institutions of higher education in the State.


This title would authorize the Commissioner of Education to make grants to institutions of higher education in States which have designated a State institution or agency to submit a plan outlining its program to strengthen extension and continuing education. The plan would set forth:

First, if an institution of higher education administers the program, the establishment of an advisory council representative of institutions in the State which are competent to participate in the program;

Second, a comprehensive coordinated statewide program of projects assisted under this title;

Third, policies and procedures for the allocation of funds to insure that effective programs are available where the specific need exists; and

Fourth, periodic evaluation of projects and programs in relation to the needs and problems within the State.

The types of projects and activities possible under this title include: studies of employment problems and of economic growth possibilities; appraisals of welfare administration and effectiveness; seminars on antipoverty projects; courses to train subprofessional personnel as aids in the health services and social work; conferences and siminars on the problems associated with segregation and with measures taken to promote desegregation; and courses for professional people such as doctors, lawyers, and administrators to relate the findings of research, the significance of current events, and new techniques to their responsibilities to the public. Of the $25 million authorized under title I for 1966 fiscal year, $239,629 would be allocated for grants in West Virginia. TITLE II—COLLEGE LIBRARY ASSISTANCE AND


Title II provides for four types of grants to institutions of higher education which are designed to improve the quality of library services in colleges and universities: First, basic grants of $5,000 to each institution for the purchase of library materials; second, supplemental grants of up to $10 per full-time student to institutions whose lack of adequate library resources hinders the development of the institutions; third, special purpose grants to institutions demonstrating special needs for additional resources in order to meet national or regional needs in the library and information sciences; and fourth. grants to assist in the development, expansion, and improvement of programs to train persons in librarianship. to assist trainees with stipends and allowances, and to assist in the conducting of re— search in the field of the library and information sciences.

In West Virginia there are approximately 19 institutions which would be eligible to receive basic grants under this title. This means that up to $95,000 could be granted to colleges in West Virginia. It is possible that as much as $320,000 would be granted to West Virginia institutions as supplemental grants.


There is no way to give an adequate estimate of what the amounts of special purpose grants and research and training grants to institutions in West Virginia would be. This is entirely dependent on the desires of the colleges and universities and on their qualifications. However, representatives of West Virginia institutions have indicated an interest in both types of grants.



Title III provides a 5—year program of grants to institutions of higher education and to teaching fellows to assist in raising the quality of developing institutions. Fiscal year 1966 authorizations would be $55 million.

West Virginia is fortunate in that none of its many 4-year colleges and universities, according to the 1964—65 Education Directory, lack accreditation and that, in general, the institutions are of high quality. However, participation in this program would not be limited by this high quality.

Three of its four junior colleges listed in the directory lack accreditation by the regional accreditation association and should be able to take full advantage of this title.

Grants could be used to assist West Virginia institutions in making cooperative arrangements to aid such developing institutions in the State as well as such institutions in other States.


The various parts of the title offer aid in all of the major forms of student assistance now available in the United States. It is a major step toward pro— viding all our youth the opportunity to attend college regardless of their financial situation.

Part A would establish a program of undergraduate scholarships for students from families with incomes which do not permit significant family contributions toward the student's college education.

Part B is designed to establish and improve insured student loan programs with Federal interest subsidies on the loans. Each State would receive a grant to assist in establishing or strengthening reserve funds for student loan programs. Until the States establish comprehensive programs, the Federal Government would insure student loans. The Federal Government would also subsidize interest payments on all loans made under this part for families with adjusted annual incomes of less than $15,000.

West Virginia would receive $177,411 for a reserve fund to insure loans.

Part C would extend and broaden the college work-study program which was established by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The eligibility criteria would be based on need rather than the original requirement that participants be from low-income families.

Part D would allot an increased authorization for West Virginia of $114,000 under title III of the National Defense

Education Act for grants to public schools and of $3,400 for loans to private schools for the purchase of laboratory equipment.

The subject areas of titles III and XI would be expanded and the loan forgiveness provision would be expanded to permit persons who teach in areas of high concentration of low-income families to cancel their entire obligation at the rate of 15 percent per year. The benefits under title XI to West Virginia cannot be determined.

Estimated benefits of title IV to the students of West Virginia are as follows: All calculations are based on estimated averages.

[graphic][graphic][graphic][merged small][merged small]

Title V will establish an Advisory Council on Teacher Preparation, a National Teachers Corps, a fellowship program for teachers, and provide grants to institutions of higher education for improved teacher education.

The Advisory Council, under part A, would be established in the Office of Education to review the fellowship and Teacher Corps programs and other teacher preparation programs.

Part B provides that the Teacher Corps would be funded at $36,100,000 for fiscal year 1966. This program in its first year would permit approximately 6,000 individuals either alone or as members of a teaching team to provide teaching services in local school districts. Teacher corpsmen would be available for those areas of West Virginia with high concentrations of low-income families.

Part C would authorize the Commissioner of Education to support fellowship programs for graduate study leading to a master's or equivalent degree for the purpose of serving in elementary, secondary, or postsecondary vocational schools. Of the total number of fellowships, 40 percent would be awarded to recent recipients of a bachelor's degree graduating with high standing who are recommended by institutions of higher education.

The remaining 60 percent would be awarded to persons with at least 5 academic years of experience teaching in an elementary, secondary, or postsecondary vocational school. Four thousand five hundred fellowships would be authorized in 1966; 10,000 in 1967; and 15,000 in each of the 3 succeeding years.

Part D would provide the Commissioner of Education with $5 million for

fiscal year 1966 and each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years for grants to pay part of the costs of improving graduate and undergraduate teacher training programs in institutions of higher education.

The exact benefits for West Virginia under this title cannot be determined but the people of the State have expressed an interest in this program. TITLE VI—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE



Part A of this title would make available to institutions of higher education $35 million for fiscal year 1966 for the acquisition of laboratory and other special equipment. It would also authorize $2.5 million for fiscal year 1966 to be used by institutions of higher education for the acquisition of television equipment and materials and to pay for minor remodeling necessary for the use of such equipment.

Part B would authorize $5 million for fiscal year 1966 for the operation of short-term workshops or short-term or regular session institutes for individuals preparing to use educational media equipment in teaching in institutions of higher education or individuals preparing to become specialists in educational media or librarians or other specialists using such media.

West Virginia would be eligible for $345,000 under part A but there is no State allocation under part B.


Title VII increases the authorization in titles I and II of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The existing authorization for title I would be amended to provide $100 million more than the original $230 million for grants to colleges and universities for construction of undergraduate facilities. Title H authorizations for construction of graduate facilities would be increased from $60 to $120 million.

Three million, four hundred and fiftyfive thousand, nine hundred and twentyeight dollars would be allocated to institutions in West Virginia under the provisions of title I. There is no State allocation under title II.

Estimated total benefits of the bill
(H.R. 9567) to West Virginia

Amount Title I ______________________ __ $239, 629 Title II (does not include special grants or research and training grants) _______________ _- 415,000 Title III (estimates not available). Title IV _____________________ __ 8,329, 647 Title V (estimates not available). Title VI (does not include part B) ________________________ __ 345,000 Title VII (does not include grants for graduate facilities) 3, 455, 928 Total _________________ __ 12,785,204

This total should not be construed to be the total benefit of the bill to West Virginia. It does not include all of the benefits of titles II, VI, or VII nor does


it include any of the benefits in title III or V.

Mr. President, I am certain of the potential benefits of the Higher Education Act of 1965 which will accrue to the citizens of West Virginia and the Nation.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Senator makes it as difficult for me to reply as did the Senator from New York. I say good naturedly that I am more interested in getting the bill passed than in being buried, but I would be less than human if I did not take note of the eulogies. I would also be derelict if I did not let the record show my appreciation of the contributions the Senator from West Virginia has made to the bill. The people of the country and the people of his State should know of my belief, for whatever it may be worth, that in my judgment there is no Senator who is a better authority or has a broader knowledge of the problems of the smaller colleges of America than does the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].

The record is replete with the contributions of the Senator from West Virginia. Almost automatically we turned our eyes to the Senator from West Virginia to hear his views on such problems. But his knowledge is not limited to small colleges. He is versed in all aspects of this problem.

I do not know the attendance record— I do not pay attention to those statistics—but I know there was fine attendance by all my colleagues. There was a particularly fine attendance record by the Senator from West Virginia, and fine assistance in questioning witnesses and recommending witnesses. The record will show his contributions time and time again. As I did the Senator from New York, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. But I plead that the Senate get on with its job of passing the bill and considering it section by section.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF] without losing the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With— out objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Moss, BIBLE, BARTLETT, GRUENING, CHURCH, BURDICK, INOUYE, MCGOVERN, Booos, FONG, and MCIN'I‘YRE to this bill. This amendment would provide——

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may we have the amendment ofiered?

Mr. METCALF. I am not going to offer it at the present time.

The amendment would have provided a $75,000 minimum by providing that 10cal educational agencies of each State administer title I of the Secondary-Elementary Educational Act.

Title I now provides that each State agency should have 1 percent of the amount allocated. The 1-percent provision is ample in many States, but in many more sparsely populated States, where there are many school districts. it would not be adequate or sufiicient.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a

[blocks in formation]

Federal funds
Present required to Revised
maximum establish a maximum
administration $75,000 mini- administration
costs allowable mum State costs allowable
allotment for

Alabama _______________________________________________________ _ _ $346, 345. 67 ______________ - _ $346. 345. 67
Alaska ......................................................... -_ 15. 517. 98 $59, 482. 02 75. 000. 00
Arizona ________________________________________________________ -- 103. 600. 05 ______________ -_ 103, 600. 05
Arkansas ...................................................... - - 226, 000. 21 ______________ _ _ 226, 000. 21
California ...................................................... _- 778. 862. 86 ______________ . . 778, 862. 86
Colorado _______________________________________________________ -- 95. 885. 86 ______________ _ _ 95, 885. 86
Connecticut ................................................... -_ .965. 04 3, 034. 96 75, 000. 00
Delaware ...................................................... _ _ 19, 752. 17 55, 247. 83 75, 000. 00
District of Columbia ........................................... -- 53. 819. 27 21, 180. 73 75, 000. 00
Florida ________________________________________________________ -- 274. 789. 37 ______________ _ _ 274, 789. 37
Georgia ........................................................ _ _ 373, 423. 41 ______________ _ _ 373, 423. 41
Hawaii ........................................................ - . 23. 749. 44 51, 250. 56 75, 000. 00
Idaho .......................................................... _- 24, 466. 30 50, 533. 70 75, 000. 00
Illinois _________________________________________________________ -_ 391. 767.88 ______________ -- 391, 767. 88
Indiana ....................................................... __ 183. 780. 29 ______________ _- 183, 780. 29
Iowa ___________________________________________________________ _ - 186. 529. 57 ______________ - _ 186. 529. 57
Kansas ........................................................ - - 104. 829. 63 ______________ _ _ 104, 829. 63
Kentucky ..................................................... -- 301. 313. 30 ______________ . - 301. 313. 30
Louisiana ______________________________________________________ -- , 442.21 .............. .. 383, 442 21
Maine ......................................................... -_ 40, 142. 13 34, S57. 87 75, 000. 00
Maryland _____________________________________________________ -_ 152. 492 38 ______________ - . 152, 492. 38
Massachusetts ................................................. _ _ 165. 396 89 .............. - . 165. 396. 89
Michigan ______________________________________________________ -_ 347, 275. 68 ______________ _ _ 347, 275. 68
Minnesota _____________________________________________________ -- 245, 092. 12 ______________ __ 245, 092. 12
Mississippi _____________________________________________________ -- 308, 942. 44 ______________ - _ 308, 942. 44
Missouri _______________________________________________________ -_ 298, 579. 37 ______________ _ . 298, 579. 37
Montana _______________________________________________________ -_ 36. 316. 45 38, 683. 55 75, 000. 00
Nebraska ______________________________________________________ -- 69, 201. 91 5, 798. 09 75, 000. 00
Nevada ________________________________________________________ _- 9. 499. 69 65. 500. 31 75, 000. 00
New Hampshire _______________________________________________ __ 14, 522. 53 60, 477. 47 75, 000. 00
New Jersey ____________________________________________________ -_ 245, 602. 86 .............. __ 245, 602. 86
New Mexico ................................................... _ - 97, 898. 95 ______________ -_ 97, 898. 95
New York ..................................................... -_ 1 096. 393. 48 ______________ __ 1, 096, 393. 48
North Carolina ................................................ _- 528,260.63 ______________ __ 528, 260. 63
North Dakota _________________________________________________ _- 52. 198. 93 22. 801. 07 75, 000. 00
Ohio ........................................................ --_-- 391,856.91 ______________ _- 391,856.91
Oklahoma _____________________________________________________ _ _ 173, 759. 21 ______________ _ _ 173, 759. 21
Oregon ________________________________________________________ __ l, 668. 14 ______________ _ - 81, 668. 14
Pennsylvania __________________________________________________ _ _ 559. 414. 28 ______________ _ _ 559, 414. 28
Rhode Island .................................................. -- 40. 395. 55 34, 604. 45 75. 000. 00
South Carolina ________________________________________________ -- 274. 787. 21 .............. -- 274, 787. 21
South Dakota ................................................. _- , 930. 29 6, 069. 71 75, 000.00
Tennessee ..................................................... _- 322, 062.25 .............. -- 322, 062. 25
Texas .......................................................... __ 781,970.18 ______________ __ 781, 970. 18
Utah __________________________________________________________ -- 28, 208. 24 46. 791. 76 75, 000. 00
Vermont _______________________________________________________ -- 17. 313. 78 57,686.22 75, 000. 00
Virginia _______________________________________________________ __ 3%. 192- 94 .............. - _ 306, 192. 94
“Washington”--. .............................................. __ 107,463.03 ______________ __ 107, 463.03
West Virginia __________________________________________________ -_ 169. 912. 25 ______________ - _ 169, 912. 25
Wisconsin _____________________________________________________ __ 177. 014.78 ______________ .- 177, 014. 78
Wyoming ...................................................... -- 14. 636. 60 60. 363. 40 75, 000. 00

Total- ................................................... _- 1 11, 183. 242. 59 674, 363. 70 11, 857, 6%. 29

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. Iyield.

Mr. MORSE. As the Senator knows, I am favorably inclined to his amendment. We shall be considering in committee and, we hope, on the Senate floor next week or in the next few days thereafter, a House bill which is an appropriate vehicle for the adoption of the proposal of the Senator from Montana in my judgment. I ask the Senator, if he could not agree with me that his amendment would be more appropriately included in the House bill to which I have reference, than the bill before us this afternoon?

That is my understanding of the parliamentary situation. I want the Senator to know that when the subcommittee takes up the House bill in executive session within the next week or the week

thereafter, he will find me giving him support in connection with that bill.

If that is satisfactory to him, I would prefer not to have the amendment offered this afternoon, but offered to the House bill we shall soon be reviewing.

Mr. METCALF. That is the reason I did not offer it. I expected the Senator from Oregon to make that response.

I agree that the amendment should go in the appropriate place in the House bill rather than the bill now before the Senate. My amendment is an important amendment which should be adopted before Congress adjourns. I am delighted to have the assurance of the Senator from Oregon that it will be offered to the House bill.

If the Senator from New York will yield to me for one more minute, I, too, wish to pay tribute to the Senator from Oregon.

In all the history of the United States there has never been an educational program enacted such as the one under the leadership of the Senator from Oregon. Not since the leadership of Senator Morrill a hundred years ago have we had the kind of leadership we have had since the Senator from Oregon assumed the leadership of the subcommittee.

The boys and girls of America and the families of America for another 100 years will praise the distinguished Senator from Oregon just as they praised Senator Morrill and other great leaders of education.

This is a culmination of one of the finest educational programs that has ever been put together. This is the culmination of a drive of two decades for Federal support of education; and under the leadership of the Senator from Oregon we have been able to achieve it and bring it to the floor.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?

Mr. J AVITS. I yield.

Mr, MORSE. I thank the Senator from Montana very much. He has always been one one of those who have made contribution after contribution to legislation.

On behalf of my committee I want the Senator to know that we always consider him a special consultant to the committee and thank him for his help.

Mr. ME'I‘CALF. I thank the Senator. I am glad.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Montana used excellent judgment in withdrawing his amendment, I am the ranking minority member of the committee, and, like the Senator from Oregon, I have the greatest sympathy for this amendment. I understand its nature, and I will do my utmost to cooperate in obtaining some results from the amendment.

Mr. MEIiCALF. I thank the Senator.

Mr. JAVITS. I shall not reiterate anything said by my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, but I wish to make certain points briefly that I consider significant in this connection.

It has been properly said that this is probably the leading proposal in education and will stand beside the Morrill Act and the National Defense Education Act as the principal pillar supporting the structure of college and university training in the United States.

I believe it is fair to say that Congress, by passing the bill today, will be legislating for today and tomorrow. Happy indeed are the legislators who can pass a measure which looks forward to tomorrow or takes care of the needs as adequately and effectively as I find this measure does.

Second, this is a measure in which the highest degree of partisanship within bipartisanship was exercised; the rivalry between Republicans and Democrats on the committee was to find which could contribute the most constructive means to achieve the goals we seek. Hence, it is a legislative achievement of the first rank.

As has already been said, the bill had the unanimous support of the minority

members of the committee. This is consistent with the historic sponsorship and support in the Congress of education legislation on a bipartisan basis.

We confront a critical problem. College costs are rising 5 percent annually; 5.2 million students are now enrolled in higher education; by 1970 there will be 7 million; and by 1973 there will be 8 million. More colleges are coming into being every year. We now have about 2,300 colleges, but about 10 percent of the baccalaureate-granting institutions are not accredited, indicating the critical need for title III of this bill which seeks to develop colleges which have not reached an adequate stage of attainment in terms of the education they can offer young people. The bill recognizes the population explosion in the United States. It also recognizes the knowledge explosion which has made college libraries inadequate, which requires more trained teachers, which requires teachers with advanced degrees to a greater degree than ever; which requires special help to developing institutions; which requires more complex and advanced laboratory equipment, new concepts of teaching, and continuing college level education for those who have completed their schooling and have embarked upon life careers.

All of this is covered by the bill.

Then—and this point always arises in matters of this character, and I say it advisedly, considering its objectives— the bill is not costly. On the contrary, failure to enact the bill will be far more costly to the people of the United States and especially to the future of the United States.

The bill is distinguished, in my judgment, by its loan features, in which it has made a very impressive breakthrough. We know that a college graduate earns upward of $100,000 more during his lifetime than the individual who lacks this training. This is shown by many surveys. Those with advanced degrees earn still more. A recent survey by the College Placement Council, for example, shows that the monthly starting pay for the holder of a bachelor's degree in chemistry is $593; with a master's degree his monthly salary is $703; and with a doctor's degree his monthly starting salary would be $998.

We are doing something to contribute greatly to the economic strength as well as to the scientific vitality of the country.

I said a moment ago that one of the most outstanding aspects of the whole measure is in the loan title. In the bill we are authoring a new program which, in my judgment, is the most imaginative kind of program since the National Defense Education Act provisions.

Under part B of title IV, an insured interest loan program is provided, under which the student may borrow from banks and other non-Federal loan funds up to $1,000 annually to finance his studies. This introduces private enterprise into the effort in a most effective way, and utilizes all of its resources. At the same time it gives that degree of gov

eminent assistance which makes feasible the entry of private enterprise into the bill.

As I have said, under the bill the student could borrow from banks and other non-Federal loan funds up to $1,000 annually to finance his study. The loan is to be guaranteed by State or private nonprofit loan guarantee funds, or by the Federal Government when private funds are not available. The student is not obliged to commence repayment until 9 months after he has completed his studies. In that respect it is like the National Defense Education Act loan program. In addition, provision is made for Federal payment of the interest on his loan during his college years and a subvention of up to 3 percent annually thereafter, so that the effective interest the student pays on his loan is not greater than what he would pay under a National Defense Education Act loan direct from the university or college.

By doing this, we release hundreds of millions of dollars in credit, which will service the needs for loans of hundreds of thousands of students.

This is quite remarkable, in view of the relatively small amount of appropriations required for this purpose. We authorize only $17,500,000 in appropriations through fiscal 1968 to assist in establishing or strengthening the State and private nonprofit student loan programs.

Let us understand that, as is true of FHA—and FHA has, indeed, operated at a profit—we have every right to look to this guaranteed loan plan to cost us very little. Ninteen States already have active student loan insurance programs and three more have plans which will be operative shortly. I am proud to say that includes the State of New York, which I and the present occupant of the Chair represent. The United Student Aid Fund, the Nation’s largest nonprofit student loan guaranty organization, is operating in cooperation with 685 colleges and 5,522 banks in 49 States— in all but one State. It is guaranteeing loans at the rate of $30 million annually, and the rate is growing every year as more and more young people seek to advance themselves through a college education.

In short, this is an extraordinarily gifted program, requiring relatively little in order to carry it through, and it will have enormous repercussions on the opportunity afforded to our youth of the country who are entitled to a college education to attain it.

The authorization for advances to States and nonprofit private funds and the authorization to insure up to $700 million annually for fiscal year 1966 and more thereafter is sufficient to cover all projected needs, even if students seek to borrow the full amount authorized, which is unlikely. Experience has shown that young people do not tend to overborrow for their education. Indeed, the experience of the United Student Aid Fund, the largest private nonprofit loan program in the Nation, reveals a delinquency rate of only about 1 percent. Incidentally, that is one of the big commendations for the private enterprise

« ПретходнаНастави »