but in the full committee-the House had taken action on the Waggonner amendment. It was called to our attention in the full committee.

I should say to the Senate very candidly that between the time of the meeting of the full committee and the action taken by the House the matter was brought up, and it was the decision of the committee, based in part on procedural grounds, that we should not accept the amendment in full committee, that we should oppose it on the floor, and also that the matter should go to conference.

I am not saying that this was the unanimous position of all members of the committee. However, I do not recall of any member taking a different view. No roll call vote was had, but this was the consensus of opinion.

I will tell the Senate what some of the fears are. I wish to express these fears, and of course I shall abide by what the Senate wishes to do. I hope that in the next few minutes members of both the full committee and the subcommittee will advise the chairman of the subcommittee what their position is. I wish to call attention to these facets. Of course, if we had taken the amendment as proposed by the Senator from Illinois in the first instance, it would have been locked into the bill, and it would not have been a matter for conference.

I will tell the Senate where I believe the problem should be handled. It should not be handled in connection with the higher education bill in the absence of hearings on it. It should be handled

as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act. That is where it belongs. When all is said and done, this is pregnant with civil rights problems. I shall not take the time to go into details, as I told the Senator from Illinois, but I can give a long list of hypothetical situations which would create civil rights problems.

It was suggested in one conversation

a few minutes ago and this suggestion was made by my colleague from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER]—that the handling of fraternities and sororities varies from

campus to campus. On some campuses a wing of a men's dormitory or a wing of a women's dormitory is set aside for fraternity or sorority use. They pay rent to the institution. In some instances some student fees go to build some of the dormitories. There are housing programs, as the Senator from Ala

bama must know, in connection with his great work as chairman of the Housing Subcommittee. On some campuses a dormitory does not have a dime of State

money in it, save and except for certain subsidies, such as land and certain services, such as janitorial services, and so forth, but students construct their buildings out of student fees. What we need to be agreed on is that we are moving, no matter how true our intention to the contrary may be, to a breakthrough in the application of the Civil Rights Act, particularly with respect to title VI of

the act.

This is the first breakthrough on title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

My own preference would be not to take any action on the amendment. It

will be in conference. We have the time between now and the conference to talk among ourselves on the committee. I would prefer to have the committee itself get together and advise the chairman as to what its views are with respect to the amendment.

From the best that I can learn, there is this history about the amendment: The Senator from Illinois, with his usual fairness, implied clearly that there may be some change of point of view on the part of certain Members of the House, and perhaps some change of view on the part of some of the conferees on the part of the House. There is no doubt about it, because in representations that have been made to me since this discussion started-and we have only been at it for an hour-I have been advised that there has been a considerable change of heart and great concern among some of the Members of the House, who say they misunderstood the amendment. The amendment apparently meant what they did not know it meant, and they have cautioned me not to adopt the amendment, at least not in the House form.

The Senate is entitled to know this, and, of course, I shall not conceal from the Senate any information, any more than I would conceal it from the members of my committee.

I believe the Senate is playing with something that may have some serious repercussions far beyond the education bill, which will cause a great deal of confusion and concern in the country as to whether or not we hold true to the pro

visions of the Civil Rights Act.

Further, for legislative history, on August 26, 1965, immediately before the passage of H.R. 9567, the proposed Higher Education Act of 1965, Mr. WAGGONNER proposed an amendment to subsection 704, as reported by the Committee on Education, which was accepted by Mr. POWELL, the committee chairman, and

agreed to by the House. The section is as the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] reported it to the Senate.

Mr. WAGGONNER stated that Congress did not intend the Civil Rights Act to be applied in such a manner as to interfere with the membership practices or internal operations of fraternal or special organizations or to authorize their withholding of Federal assistance at any time on such basis.

JAVITS] has said he does not intend, and The Senator from New York [Mr. I do not intend, to interfere with the private rights of social fraternities. say most respectfully, as I have said to members of my own fraternity, that

I

social fraternities and sororities in this country ought to face the fact that they are living in a new era and are connected inseparably with an educational institution in its educational processes.

It is not true any more that a social fraternity or sorority is 100 percent a private institution on a campus. part of the campus. I consider it a It is a quasi-public institution, within the campus, in carrying out the educational purposes of the campus. Although we refer to them as social fraternities and sororities, if that were their only pur

pose, I would seriously question their right to exist on a campus. But that is not for me to determine. It is because they are designed to contribute to the educational process of the student that they are basically justified, through developing the social and cultural side of the student's life. That is their main function. But I am not proposing to interfere in any way with the privacy of a social fraternity.

I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. PASTORE. In view of what the Senator from Oregon has said, I wonder, if the Dirksen amendment with the modification suggested by the Senator from North Carolina is adopted, how much of this problem will be in conference, in view of the action taken by the House of Representatives.

Mr. MORSE. In my opinion, the whole proposal will be in conference, and I think that understanding ought to be of legislative record.

Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Oregon will state it.

The

Mr. MORSE. If we adopt the Dirksen amendment as modified, will not the entire issue then be in conference?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is true.

stated, I prefer no amendment at all. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, as I have The language of the printed section appears to go far beyond Representative the sincerity of his intention. He says: WAGGONNER's intention. I do not question

Nothing contained in this Act or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer or employee of supervision, or control over the curriculum, the United States to exercise any direction, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution.

That is what the amended language

literally states. It can presumably be

argued that all educational institutions, from kindergartens to universities, are Executive orders of general applicability exempt from all Federal legislation and affecting their operations, such as, for example, those involving wage and hour requirements and those involving nondiscrimination in employment practices under Federal contracts.

Whatever else may be said, the sponamendment, "or any other act," was sor's remarks make it clear that the insertion of the words, in the Waggonner specifically intended to refer to title VI of the Civil Rights Act. If all of the amendment had followed the original section 704, so as to read, "neither this act nor any other act shall be construed to exercise any control over the membership, practices, or internal operations of any fraternal organization," then only the sponsor's intention, as announced in the debate, would have been carried out. But the words "or any other act" section reads in full: are inserted in the first line, so the

Nothing contained in this Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be construed to authorize any department to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, or per

If the Senate will hear me for a moment or two longer, I want to say that discrimination by fraternities is not the only issue.

Mr. HOLLAND. I am deeply disturbed about this question, because I have already received numerous complaints from members of the fraternity to which I happen to belong, that it is being threatened with expulsion from certain university campuses throughout the country in spite of the fact that in most cases it owns its own fraternity houses and owns them off the campus. I cannot understand why this sort of threat should be applied to it. Yet, I am told that there are numerous cases.

If the Senator will yield to me further, I apologize for mentioning a personal situation, but when I was a law student at the University of Florida, I was assigned by my fraternity to travel the length and breadth of the State of Florida to obtain enough funds to build the first little house upon a lot which we had purchased the year before, without any public funds.

That fraternity house has been replaced from time to time by more expensive edifices, but always at the expense of the members, alumni, and families of the members of the fraternity.

I believe that there is no possible rationale by which the existence of that fraternity, or the fact that the university recognizes that fraternity, could make any trouble for either under the civil rights law. I also happen to be a graduate of another university, Emory University, at which the practice is for the chapter houses to be erected on longlease lots on the university campus. I am assuming that some loans may have come from Federal sources, but I am not even sure about that. I know that loans have been made, and that the university as such does receive rather large Federal grants for research and various other ac

tivities there.

I realize that in that set of facts there is a quite different situation from the one at the first institution which I have mentioned. Therefore, I would very much like to see the Senate adopt the amendment in the form in which it is at present, because I believe that it is in the minimal form. I have understood the distinguished Senator from Oregon to say that in such cases as those which would be covered by the amendment in its present form-and I have stated one such in the RECORD-there could not be any difference of opinion. Then, in conference, there will be a rather wide variety of cases lying between that minimal statement of security-if I may call it that in the pending amendment-and the much larger coverage of the House language.

I am quite willing to leave it to the able conferees to handle the problem on the basis of equity to all concerned. I am not willing to vote down an amendment which certainly recognizes and preserves the precious right of individual association with persons of our own choice such as those who gather in the chapter house which I have mentioned at the University of Florida.

Mr. President, it so happens that our near neighbor there is a Jewish fra

I just do not wish to see us avoid the opportunity to go on record as recognizing the right of association with people of our own choice and preference as being a fundamental right under our American system.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for yielding to me.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, let me make it plain that I did not initiate this amendment. The last section of the 80page House bill, section 604, is under the page House bill, section 604, is under the caption of "Federal Control of Education Prohibited." It prohibits supervision, direction, and control over curriculums, and that sort of things, as they apperand that sort of things, as they appertain to schools. The Representative from Louisiana added to that only one clause; namely, as to supervision of programs, practices, and internal operations of fraternal organizations, sororities, and so forth.

That is in the House bill. The Senate committee did not put it in the Senate version.

It is before the Senate at the present time in modified form. I believe that is a pretty good form in which to take it to the conference. If further modification is necessary, that can be done. tion is necessary, that can be done. I believe that it should be agreed to.

The bill was passed in the House by a vote of 367 to 22 with that provision in vote of 367 to 22 with that provision in the bill. The chairman of the House

committee, Representative ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, stood on the floor of the TON POWELL, stood on the floor of the House and supported that amendment. House and supported that amendment. If pressure is put on that there ought to be a modification and the Senate does not protect itself, then what?

I believe that the Senate ought to accept this proposal and refine it further if necessary. I did not initiate it. It started on the House side and was then laid in my lap.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I know exactly what the situation of the Senator from Illinois is. He did not initiate it. I know how this came about. The Senator has made a statement as to what happened. He has a responsibility to the Senate, just as I have a responsibility, although I dislike to take this amount of time to make this legislative history. I am almost through. I shall summarize it and then ask to have a part of the statement printed in the RECORD.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. MCNAMARA. Mr. President, did I correctly understand that the Parliamentarian held that this entire matter, regardless of what our record shows at this point, will be in conference?

Mr. MORSE. The Senator is correct. All issues will be in conference.

Mr. President, I would hope that we would not adopt this amendment now. It will be incomplete. No testimony for the proposed amendment was presented at the hearings held for the bill and the committee itself has had no opportunity to act upon it.

We have no evidence to indicate that there is even a need for the proposed amendment, no facts to show that the problem has actually arisen.

This is not the place nor the time to debate the question of the relationship of fraternities and other private organizations to institutions of higher education. The question arises from the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the practices of discrimination based on race and color by some college fraternities.

Institutions of higher education are required to file with the Office of Education an assurance of compliance with the Civil Rights Act in order to participate in all Federal assistance programs. Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

The assurance of nondiscrimination given by the university applies to the entire institution and the practices under its jurisdiction relating to the treatment of students. This means any facilities affording to students the opportunity to participate in any educational, cultural, athletic, recreational, social, or other program of activity. The university also declares it will make available to students any "housing, eating, or health service" and for the use of students "any building, room, space, materials, equipment, or other property."

This language, which appears in the formal explanation of the assurance of compliance makes it clear that a fraternity or other private organization on campus and under the jurisdiction of the university may not engage in practices which discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

This is a policy which many universities adopted years ago on their own initiative. We do not here have to reopen the question of a university's responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is now the law of the land.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the explanation of form No. 441 I referred to, be printed at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the explanation was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

EXPLANATION OF HEW FORM NO. 441, AssurANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE REGULATION UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Section 80.4 of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's regulation effectu

ating title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that every application to the Department for Federal financial assistance shall contain or be accompanied by an assurance that the program or facility to be assisted will be conducted or operated in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act and with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Department's regulation.

Section 80.4 further provides that "the form of the foregoing assurance and the extent to which like assurances will be required of subgrantees, contractors, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants," shall be specified by the responsible Department official. Under this authority, HEW form No. 441 has been specified as the form of assurance which shall apply to all applications for Federal financial assistance (except for continuing State programs which must meet the requirements of section 80.4 (b) and school districts availing themselves of section 80.4 (c) of the regulation) submitted to the Department after January 3, 1965; also the circumstances have been specified under which an applicant shall obtain comparable written assurances of compliance from its subgrantees, contractors, and transferees. (See answers to questions 11 and 12 below in this regard.)

HEW form No. 441 constitutes a legally enforceable agreement to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued thereunder. Applicants are urged to read the Department's regulation before executing the assurance.

The following explanation of the requirements of the Department's regulation and the examples of the kinds of discriminatory practices prohibited by them are for the guidance of the applicants.

1. By executing the assurance (HEW form No. 441), what does an applicant agree to do?

A. The applicant agrees to make no distinction on the ground of race, color, or national origin in providing to individuals any service, financial aid, or other benefit under any program receiving Federal financial assistance extended to the applicant by the Department.

2. What is meant by "distinction on the ground of race, color, or national origin"?

A. "Distinction on the ground of race, color, or national origin" includes (1) any type of segregation, separate or different treatment, or other discrimination on that ground; (2) the imposition of any admission, enrollment quota, eligibility, or other requirement or condition which individuals must meet in order to be provided any service, financial aid, or other benefit under a program or to be afforded an opportunity to participate in a program, if the race, color, or national origin of individuals is considered in determining whether they meet any such requirement or condition; (3) the use of membership in a group as a basis for the selection of individuals for any purpose, if in selecting members of the group there is discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin; and (4) the assignment of personnel to provide services, or the assignment of times or places for the provision of services, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the individuals to be served. It does not, however, include distinctions on the ground of race, color, or national origin determined by the responsible Department official to be necessary to the conduct of research or experimental programs having as their primary objective the discovery of new knowledge concerning special characteristics of particular racial or other ethnic groups.

3. What is meant by "service, financial aid,

or other benefit"?

A. "Service, financial aid, or other benefit" under a program receiving Federal financial assistance includes any education or training,

any evaluation, guidance, counseling, or placement service, any health, welfare, rehabilitation, housing, or recreational service, any referral of individuals for any of the foregoing services, any scholarship, fellowship or traineeship stipend or allowance, and any loan or other financial assistance or benefit (whether in cash or in kind), which is made available to individuals (1) with the aid of Federal financial assistance, or (2) with the aid of the applicant's or of other non-Federal funds required to be made available for the program as a condition to the receipt of Federal financial assistance, or (3) in or through a facility provided with the aid of Federal financial assistance or the non-Federal matching funds referred to in (2).

4. What requirements are placed on the use of facilities?

A. The applicant agrees to make no distinction on the ground of race, color, or national origin in making available to individuals the use of any land, building, equipment, or other facility leased, acquired, constructed, improved, or equipped with the aid of Federal financial assistance extended to the applicant by the Department, including (a) the use of any room, dormitory, ward, or other space in the facility; (b) the use of any equipment in the facility; (c) the use of any office, waiting room, restroom, eating, recreational, concession, or other accommodation or convenience provided in the facility; (d) the use of any facility not provided with the aid of Federal financial "assistance" if the availability of such facility is required as a condition to the receipt of Federal financial assistance for the federally assisted facility. assistance for the federally assisted facility. 5. What requirements are placed on the opportunities to participate in a program receiving Federal assistance?

A. The applicant agrees to make no distinction on the ground of race, color, or national origin in affording opportunities to individuals to participate (other than as employees) in any program receiving Federal financial assistance extended by the Department to the applicant, including opportunities to participate (a) as providers of any service, financial aid, or other benefit to individuals under the program (e.g., as physicians, surgeons, dentists, or other professional practitioners seeking the privilege of practicing in a federally aided hospital or other facility); (b) as conferees, observers, consultants, or advisers, or as members of advisory or planning groups; or (c) as volunteers (e.g., as voluntary workers, or as patients or other subjects of study or experimentation in research, survey, demonstration, or like programs).

6. Does that mean that an applicant who signs the Department's assurance may nevertheless make distinctions among his employees on the basis of race, color, or national origin?

A. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does not concern itself with employment practices except where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment. Thus, where a basic objective of the program is to provide employment, the applicant's employment practices are subject to the Department's regulation. However, even where this is not the case an applicant may be precluded from engaging in any discriminatory employment practices under the provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Executive Orders Nos. 10925 and 11114, and the merit system regulations.

7. When an applicant's employment practices are covered by the Department's regulation, what requirements must be met?

A. The applicant agrees to make no distinction on the ground of race, color, or national origin in its employment practices (including recruitment or recruitment advertising, hiring, layoff or termination, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and use of facilities)

with respect to individuals seeking employment or employed under any program receiving Federal financial assistance extended to the applicant by the Department, in those programs where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment to such individuals. This includes programs under which the employment is provided (a) as a means of extending financial assistance to students or to needy persons; (b) to students, fellows, interns, residents, or others in training for related employment (including research associates or assistants in training for research work); or (c) to reduce unemployment or to provide remunerative activity to individuals who because of severe handicaps cannot be readily absorbed in the competitive labor market.

8. What effect will the regulation have on a college or university's admission practices or other practices related to the treatment of students?

A. An institution of higher education which applies for any Federal financial assistance of any kind must agree that it will make no distinction on the ground of race, color, or national origin in the admission practices or any other practices of the institution relating to the treatment of students.

(a) "Student" includes any undergraduate, graduate, professional, or postgraduate student, fellow, intern, student, or other trainee receiving education or training from the institution.

(b) "Admission practices" include recruiting and promotional activities, application requirements, eligibility conditions, qualifications, preferences, or quotas used in selecting individuals for admission to the institution, or any program of the institution, as students.

(c) "Other practices relating to the treatment of students" include the affording to students of opportunities to participate in any educational, research, cultural, athletic, recreational, social, or other program or activity; the performance evaluation, discipline, counseling of students; making available to students any housing, eating, health, or recreational service; affording work opportunities, or scholarship, loans or other financial assistance to students; and making available for the use of students any building, room, space, materials, equipment, or other facility or property.

9. Does the assurance of nondiscrimination apply to the entire operation of an institution?

A. Insofar as the assurance given by the applicant relates to the admission or other treatment of individuals as students, patients, or clients of an institution of higher education, a school, hospital, nursing home, center, or other institution owned or operated by the applicant, or to the opportunity to participate in the provision of services, financial aid, or other benefits to such individuals, the assurance applies to the entire institution. In the case of a public school system the assurance would be applicable to all of the elementary or secondary schools operated by the applicant.

10. What about a university which operates several campuses?

A. Section 80.4(d) (2) of the regulation provides for a more limited assurance only where an institution can demonstrate that the practices in part of its operation in no way affect its practice in the program for which it seeks Federal funds. This would be a rare case.

11. If an applicant intends to make use of other individuals to help carry out the federally assisted program, does the requirement not to discriminate apply to such subgrantee or contractor?

A. It does. The applicant must require any individual, organization, or other entity which it utilizes, to which it subgrants, or with which it contracts or otherwise arranges

to provide services, financial aid, or other benefits under, or to assist it in the conduct of, any program receiving Federal financial assistance extended to the applicant by the Department, or with which it contracts or otherwise arranges for the use of any facility provided with the aid of Federal financial assistance for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance was extended, to comply fully with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the regulation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued thereunder.

12. Must this assurance of nondiscrimination by the subgrantee, etc., be in writing?

A. In the case (1) of any contractual or other arrangement with another such individual or entity which will continue for an indefinite period or for a period of more than 3 months, (2) of any subgrant, or (3) of any conveyance, lease, or other transfer of any real property or structures thereon provided with the aid of Federal financial assistance extended to the applicant by the Department, the applicant shall obtain from such other person, subgrantee, or transferee, an agreement, in writing, enforceable by the applicant and by the United States, that such other individual or entity, subgrantee, or transferee will carry out its functions under such subgrant, or contractual or other arrangement, or will use the transferred property, as the case may be, in accordance with title VI of the act and the regulation will otherwise comply herewith.

13. What obligations does the applicant have to inform beneficiaries, participants,

and others of the provisions of the

regulation?

A. The applicant must make available to

beneficiaries, participants, and other interested persons information regarding the provisions of the regulation and protections against discrimination provided under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Department will issue shortly more detailed instructions on carrying out this phase of the regulation.

14. What obligations does the applicant have to keep records and to make them available to the Department?

A. From time to time, applicants may be required to submit reports to the Department, and the regulation provides that the facilities of the applicant and all records, books, accounts, and other sources of information pertinent to the applicant's compliance with the regulation be made available for inspection during normal business hours on request of an officer or employee of the Department specifically authorized to make such inspections. More detailed instructions in this regard will also be forthcoming from

the Department in the near future.

15. Must separate assurance forms be filed with each application?

A. As a general rule once a valid assurance is given it will apply to any further application as long as there is no indication of a failure to comply.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Waggonner amendment has caused grave concern to many. I read the following telegram I have received as indicative of that concern:

PALO ALTO, CALIF.,

Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

August 30, 1965.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: According to New York Times dispatch in the San Jose Mercury, the higher education bill as passed by the House includes an amendment by Representative JOE WAGGONNER, Louisiana Democrat, exempting college fraternities from title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Mercury quotes Representative ADAM CLAYTON POWELL indirectly as saying he has no official concern with discrimination of private groups, especially when they receive

no public funds; the facts are: (1) several colleges and universities now allocate Federal loan funds for student housing to construction of college-owned fraternity facilities; (2) fraternities receive tangible and intangible benefits in varying degrees from the moment they are recognized by a college or a university; (3) this amendment would be the first real break in the type ban against discrimination on campus provided by the Health, Education, and Welfare regulations issued under title 6 with White House approval.

Passage of the Waggonner amendment would seriously undermine current efforts to end racial discrimination by fraternities through joint action of undergraduates and their universities. It is specifically designed to nullify the strong, straightforward stand taken by Education Commissioner Francis Keppel in response to the suspension of the Stanford chapter of Sigma Chi by its national fraternity, as described on page 15458 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for July 1, 1965.

As a life member of Sigma Chi, I hope you and your fellow committee members will block passage of the Waggonner amendment and then kill it in conference with the House it would be the height of irony and shame for the Federal Government to condone racial discrimination in any form on college campuses when students, civil rights workers, and other citizens risk their lives every day for the cause of equality.

ROBERT W. BEYERS.

PORTOLA VALLEY, CALIF. I have some other material which raises questions as to the danger of the proposed amendment that I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

EFFECT OF WAGGONNER AMENDMENT TO H.R.

9567 ON TITLE VI OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT On August 26, 1965, immediately before passage of H.R. 9567, the proposed Higher Education Act of 1965, Mr. WAGGONNER proposed

an amendment to section 604 (sec. 704 in the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor), which was accepted by Mr. POWELL, the committee chairman, and agreed to by the House. The section, as amended, reads as follows (new material in italics):

"SEC. 604. Nothing contained in this Act or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the

curriculum, program of instruction, adminstitution, or over the selection of library reistration, or personnel of any educational insources by any educational institution; or the membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, fraternity, or sorority, any private club or any religious organization of any institution of higher education."

the amendment is to make clear that Congress did not intend the Civil Rights Act to be applied in such a manner as to interfere with the membership practices or internal operations of fraternal or social organizations or to authorize withholding of Federal assistance of any kind on such basis (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Aug. 26, 1965, p. 21947).

Mr. WAGGONNER stated that the purpose of

The language of the amended section, however, appears to go far beyond Mr. WAGGONNER's announced intention. If nothing contained in any act of Congress shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, which is what the amended language literally states, it can plausibly be argued that all educational institutions,

from kindergartens to universities, are exempted from all Federal legislation and Executive orders of general applicability affecting their operations, such as, for example, those imposing wage-and-hours requirements and nondiscrimination in employment under Federal contracts.

Whatever may be said as to such other acts, the sponsor's remarks make it clear that the insertion of the words "or any other Act" was specifically intended to refer to title VI of the Civil Rights Act. If all of the amendment had followed the original section 704, so as to read: "Neither this Act nor any other Act shall be construed to authorize * * any control over the membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization * * *," then only the sponsor's intention, as announced in the debate, would have been carried out. But the words "or any other Act" are inserted in the first line, so that the section reads, in effect:

*

"Nothing contained in this Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be construed to authorize any department *** to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution."

The plain language would seem to exempt all educational institutions as well as fraternities from title VI coverage.

Even with respect to fraternities, its ostensible object of protection, the Waggonner amendment seems based on a misapprehension. In accepting it, Chairman POWELL stated:

"I do not believe that there should be any

withholding of funds from any institution of higher education because of discriminatory practices on the campus by private clubs" (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Aug. 26, 1965, p. 21947).

Discrimination by fraternities might constitute a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act requirements. This opinion is based on research showing, among other things, that at least half of all colleges with with fraternity housing, in many cases ownfraternities have a significant connection ing the fraternity buildings. In some cases Federal funds themselves have been used to

build fraternity housing. In such instances the Waggonner amendment would authorize reinstatement of the separate-but-equal doctrine, by permitting universities to assign all dormitory space to fraternities with various racially restrictive admission policies.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call

the attention of the Senator from Illinois

[Mr. DIRKSEN] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] to the fact that, although this bill passed in the House with the Waggonner amendment in it by an overwhelming majority, let us face it. A great many Members of the House did not know anything about the Waggonner amendment. We are all familiar with that in the legislative process. The amendment is in the bill and many Members are now waking up to the surprise that it is in there.

The Senator from Illinois impliedand I believe correctly so that there may be some change in views in the House. Since the debate started, I received a note from a member of the House committee, who undoubtedly will be a conferee, and who is very much concerned about what we do in the Senate on this amendment.

I read a part of it without disclosing any identity:

Attached you will find the amendment offered by Mr. WAGGONNER. We have been advised that several adjustments will have to