« ПретходнаНастави »
concrete product—money, creatively authorized and creatively used.
At present, the supply of students is great and growing—the supply of facilities, teachers, books, and money for student aid is short.
With the passage of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, Congress moved to aid the Nation’s institutions of higher education in making up one of these shortages. I am pleased to have been associated with the enactment of that measure. I am gratified by its results after but a single year of operation. During that year, a total of 601 grants and 133 loans were made to colleges and universities across the country for use in their building programs. I believe that we can look for continued progress under this act in the years ahead.
But there are still shortages of teachers, books, and money. S. 600, the Higher Education Act of 1965, would attack these problems in a variety of ways. Let us look for a moment at these problems and examine the ways in which the provisions of this bill would attempt to ease this.
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The first title of S. 600 will bolster college and university extension and continuing education programs.
Given the complex state of life today. particularly in America, the university must teach us not only how to make a living but how to live as well.
There is a need for more university extension and for fuller college and university participation in curing the ills to which an urban and rural America is heir.
To say that institutions of higher learning can do more in these areas is not to say that they have been doing nothing. Many institutions have had programs of adult extension education since the turn of the century.
Already there has been a great deal of research done under the Morriil Act in areas related to agriculture, such as irrigation, animal husbandry, and conservation.
The extension and continuing education programs now existing at our colleges and universities will be strengthened and broadened by title I of the bill so as to assist the people of each State in the solution of community problems such as poverty, housing, recreation, employment, youth opportunities, and health.
To further extension and continuing education the bill authorizes the appropriation of $25 million for the present fiscal year and $50 million for each of the next 4 fiscal years.
There are thousands of ways in which this new money can be used. With it, universities can be more responsive “to the popular demands and views of the society they serve.”
If an adult wishes to go to school for professional retraining or refresher courses, institutions of higher learning will have funds to set up the program he needs.
The widow who must prepare to reenter the labor market will find new vistas of opportunity through the
strengthening of continuing education made possible by the bill.
In a word, title I is based on the premise that the university is dedicated not simply to serve young men and women but to nourish, educate and, yes, to inspire society at large.
In my own State, the University of Vermont has, for some time, been actively engaged in a program of adult education. For those who could not come to the university, in many cases the university has come to them through courses taught in remote corners of the State.
This program has resulted from the Vermonter’s traditional faith in and concern for education. For, despite the relative smallness of our number, we have ever held education in high regard and look to it as the chief guarantee of our cherished freedom.
As a great scholar once said:
If the State wishes to know how to beneficiate certain ores, how to eradicate wheat rust, ‘ ' ' how to build roads, how to eliminate the white pine blister, it will apply to the university for assistance.
Now, for “how to beneficiate certain ores,” add “how to train civic leaders;” for “how to eradicate Wheat rust,” include “how to eradicate blighted housing”; beside of “how to build roads,” put in "how to build effective job-training programs”; for “how to eliminate the white pine blister," join “how to eliminate youth crime.” Then we will be getting some idea of the directions the programs under this title could take. Through this program, our Federal Govermnent, our State governments, our colleges and our universities will join forces in a joint attempt to solve problems that are beyond the powers of any of those organs taken singly.
STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING THE LIBRARIES OF OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Title II of the bill is the title which would strengthen and improve the libraries of our colleges and universities.
When we think of libraries, I suppose most of us think first of books, then, perhaps, of buildings, and finally of librarians. Of course, the library is a combination of all three. It is a sad commentary, but the great majority of our college and university libraries are deficient in all three of these areas.
The funds authorized by the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 have already been put to work on campuses across the land in an attempt to bring the physical facilities facet of libraries up to standard. In fiscal 1965, 212 of 601 grants and 56 of 133 loans made under that act were used in library construction or remodeling projects.
But even if—fond hope—every college acquires the requisite library facilities, there will remain the material and personnel shortages. Many colleges and universities simply do not have the fiscal wherewithal to remedy the situation, though they are making a valiant effort.
During the school year 1963-64, institutions of higher learning made a 35percent increase in library spending over the amount of money used for the 1961— 62 school year.
Yet, in spite of this large increase, at least $226 million is needed to provide our institutions of higher learning with the books required for present enrollments.
S. 600 begins to meet this deficiency by authorizing $50 million for the purchase of books, periodicals, documents, magnetic tapes, phonograph records, and other related library material.
If the average library book cost $5 in 1948, it would cost $9.10 today—a rise of 82 percent. The average cost of a peri— odical subscription has increased 56 percent over the same period, and costs for cataloging and care of books have risen as well.
It is clear, then, in the light of these factors, that college and university libraries must have aid and increase their own spending radically just to keep from falling further behind.
Deficiencies in librarian training are as serious as those in library collections. The American Library Association states that the libraries of the Nation need 100,000 more professionally trained librarians to staff them adequately. But in 1963—64, only 3,240 library science degrees were awarded on all levels. Twenty-seven States have not a single accredited graduate school of library science.
Looking ahead to the future, S. 600 allows the Commissioner of Education to make grants to colleges and universities to assist them in training persons in librarianship; $7.5 million is designated for this purpose in the current fiscal year and $15 million for each of the next 4 fiscal years.
The Library of Congress which serves all institutions of higher learning is having a difficult time cataloging books. Pursuant to the provisions of the bill, there will be a centralized cataloging facility in the Library of Congress which will aid all libraries in bringing about a modern, efiicient catalog card service.
STRENGTHENING DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS
Title III of the proposed Higher Education Act of 1965 is concerned with strengthening developing institutions of higher learning through a number of possible programs, most of which are based on interinstitutional cooperation.
At the end of World War II, 22 percent of all the Americans aged 18 to 22 were enrolled in colleges. In 1964, 43 percent of the same group were so en— rolled. This percentage, like the absolute number of college students, is increasing annually.
This great proliferation of people engaged in seeking higher education is, of course, most heartening, but it has also given rise to some problems. Many of the institutions that were operating when the great postwar tide began to rise were virtually inundated with students; their resources—physical and fiscal—were stretched to the snapping point. Rather than receding, that tide has ever continued to rise. Again, a great many new colleges have opened during the years since the war—146 in the last 3 years alone—and many of these, too, have found that their desire to serve was far greater than their resources.
We need every one of our 2,100 plus institutions of higher education and then some. But we also must do everything within our power as a people to see that these institutions are strong. It is plain that if 10 percent of our institutions are not accredited, and if 15 percent of the total number of new college teachers in a given year hold less than a master’s degree, and 75 percent less than a doctorate, to take an actual example, then many of our institutions stand in dire need of strengthening.
Title III of the proposal under consideration would throw the fiscal resources of the National Government into the fray on the side of the hard-pressed, developing institutions. It would authorize $50 million for fiscal 1966. The funds would be used to help the 4-year institutions and the junior and community colleges finance the planning, development, and carrying out of cooperative ventures between a developing institution and a more firmly established one, or between the developing institution and some other organization or agency.
These cooperative arrangements could take a variety of forms. They might involve faculty-and student—exchange between the fledgling and the established institution; joint use of facilities, such as libraries and research laboratories; expanded programs of “cooperative education," featuring alternate periods of academic study and actual job experience; and so on.
There is ample evidence that such arrangements work, and also that many other types of effective sharing arrangements could be developed. There is also clear evidence that many of the colleges which would profit most from these arrangements are unable to attract better developed partners simply because the developing institutions cannot pay their share of expenses. Prompt passage of the bill before us would do much to remedy this unfortunate situation.
Finally, title III includes a provision which would authorize the Commissioner to institute a program of teaching fellowships designed to encourage promising graduate students and young faculty members to teach at developing institutions, In conjunction with the cooperative programs that could be carried out between institutions, this system of teaching fellowships would move in a direct manner toward strengthening the faculties of our neediest institutions.
The fourth title of the proposed act deals with the very heart and core of our entire system of higher education: the college and university student. I have a particularly keen interest in this title of the bill, for the finest libraries, laboratories, classrooms, faculties, and administrations imaginable cannot fulfill their functions if, for any reason, students are denied access to them. It is a patent matter of fact that many of our youth who want and need postsecondary education, and who could derive great benefits therefrom, are denied opportunities to pursue it.
They are denied those opportunities, for the most part, for a simple economic reason: their families do not have enough
money. One hundred and forty years ago, Daniel Webster cautioned his fellow Americans: “Let no man have the excuse of poverty for not educating his children.” We have heeded that warning admirably regarding the lower schools. Today, for the good of our Nation, we must extend it to higher ones as well.
Costs at private colleges have increased 40 percent in the last decade, and costs at public colleges and universities have increased 30 percent since 1954. Indeed, it is estimated that during the next 10 years there will be an increase of 50 percent in college expenses.
It is small wonder that 40 percent of our families who want to send their children to college feel that they cannot afford to do so.
STUDENT ASSISTANCE, PART A—UNDERGRADUATE SCHOLARSHIPS
After surveying all existing programs, the Labor and Public Welfare Committee came to one firm conclusion: the demand for student aid far exceeds its supply.
If we are to develop the potential of hundreds of thousands of young Americans, the supply of student aid must be rapidly and radically increased. A broad program, including stepped-up programs for grants and loans, must be provided.
It is such a program that title IV of this bill would attempt to establish.
S. 600 authorizes $70 million for the first year to afford undergraduate scholarships to 140,000 students.
These scholarships may vary from $200 to $800 a year, according to need. To encourage academic excellence, an extra $200 or a maximum of $1,000 would be allowed to students who rank in the upper half of their college class.
Scholarships would be awarded by those most familiar with the needs of young men and women, the institutions of higher learning themselves.
While the scholarship program authorizes but $70 million for each of 5 years for first-year scholarships, appropriations are also authorized to continue scholarships previously awarded. STUDENT ASSISTANCE, PART B—GUARANTEED
REDUCED INTEREST EDUCATION LOANS
The committee was very much aware that college costs represent a real problem for middle-income families as well.
To aid the latter, we have devised a Federal insurance program of commercial loans to bring about a tremendous expansion of the loan funds available from commercial lenders to American college students.
The guaranteed loans will have a low interest rate and will be interest-free to the students while they are attending school. The difference between the interest charged to the student and the cost of the money through State or private organizations will be met by a subsidy which is estimated to be $15 million in the first year of the program. By the fifth year the cost will be an estimated $42 million.
It should be noted, however, that this will make possible loans to students valued at over $700 million.
If a State already has a student insurance fund, it can secure a Federal
grant to match new sums of State money it is able to allocate for that fund. If a State does not have a student insurance fund, it can receive up to $25,000 to be used in establishing one.
In short, the loan insurance program bears the hallmark of the best type of Federal aid to education: it supplements, rather than supplants, efforts initiated by the States and private organizations.
STUDENT ASSISTANCE, PART C—COLLEGE WORK STUDY PROGRAM:
Those youngsters who are willing and eager to Work their way through college are the most deserving of all. Their industry and ambition did not go un— noticed by the committee.
In part C of title IV, the committee authorized additional funds for the college work study program and during the present fiscal year there will be on and off campus jobs for 225,000 to 285,000 students.
There is an old saying “Work while you learn, and learn while you work.” This saying captures very well indeed the theme of the college work-study program.
STUDENT ASSISTANCE, PART 0, INCREASED NA
TIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT LOAN CAN
CELLATION FOR THOSE ‘WHO TEACH IN POVERTY-IIMPACTED AREAS
The other new provision of title IV which I wish to mention is the amendment I proposed to the National Defense Education Act of 1958, as amended. This would provide for increased cancellation of the indebtedness of National Defense Education Act borrowers who serve as teachers in certain schools in what may be called poverty-impacted areas.
Many Senators in this Chamber today played active roles 7 years ago in the original enactment of this milestone of educational legislation. Others who have come here since that time have become thoroughly familiar with the act by participating in the consideration of the several amendments which Congress has subsequently passed. Thus, I need hardly remind the Senate that one of the main purposes Congress had in enacting title I of the National Defense Education Act was to encourage and assist more of our qualified young people to choose teaching as a career.
To this end, special consideration was given to prospective teachers in granting loans, and, more importantly, borrowers who went on to become teachers in public schools were to be allowed a partial cancellation of their debt. This forgiveness was set at 10 percent of the total amount of the debt each year for up to 5 years of teaching. In effect, then, public school teachers have been required to repay only one-half the amount of National Defense Education Act loans they have secured. By the close of fiscal 1964, some 63,000 National Defense Education Act borrowers had applied for partial cancellation under the teacher forgiveness provision. If each of them receives the full 50-percent cancellation, $8.1 million in loans will have been forgiven.
In 1964, as a result of a proposal of mine, the cancellation privilege was extended to borrowers who had become or were to become teachers in private elementary and secondary schools, and in institutions of higher education. As a result, 9,000 more former borrowers serving as teachers in such schools were made eligible to apply for loan forgiveness at once.
While we have figures on how many borrowers are benefiting from the cancellation privilege as rewarding for teaching, I have not seen figures indicating the number of graduates who have become teachers because they could get partial forgiveness, but, who, without this reward, would not have entered teaching. I like to believe that this figure would be a sizable one.
Consider a new graduate who is interested in teaching, but who has a $4,000 debt hanging over him from National Defense Education Act loans. This graduate knows that other fields pay better than teaching, and he might well be pressured into entering a higher paying field to pay off his debt more quickly. But, with the forgiveness provision in effect, he knows that he can go ahead with his teaching plans, for, although he will make less money, he will have to repay only one-half of his indebtedness.
My proposal to title II of National Defense Education Act attempts to reinforce the graduate’s desire to teach by increasing the percentage of loan cancellation he could qualify for. It is based on the realization that while nearly all of our lower schools need more and better teachers, the schools which serve large concentrations of poor families stand in most desperate need for such teachers, and that these very schools have the most difficult time in attracting the superior teachers they require.
Under my amendment, a National Defense Education Act borrower who teaches in a poverty-impacted school is allowed loan forgiveness of 15 percent per year for up to 7 years, resulting in 100-percent cancellation of his indebtedness in just under that period of time.
The definition of poverty-impacted schools is tied in with the provisions of title I of Public Law 89-10, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. For a National Defense Education Act borrower to qualify for 100percent forgiveness, he must teach in a school in the area of a local educational agency which is receiving aid under that title for the year in question. Further, the Commissioner of Education must have found that the school enrolls a high concentration of children from low-income families. Finally, the Commissioner shall not make such a finding in more than 25 percent of the schools of any one State.
I firmly believe that the amendment would have the effect of encouraging larger numbers of service-minded graduates to lend their efforts in the great struggle to break the vicious circle of poverty and ignorance.
FUNDING AND IMPROVING THE HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963
Recognizing that rapidly rising enrollments call for more classroom construction on college campuses, the Labor and
Public Welfare Committee voted to increase for 1966 by $100 million the construction aid previously authorized for 4—year undergraduate schools and voted to increase by $60 million the construction money available for graduate schools.
Up to now, under the Higher Education Facilities Act, colleges and universities could receive grants for the construction of buildings designed only for use as a library or for use in the fields of science, mathematics, modern foreign languages, and engineering.
When the original act was before Congress, I fought in committee, on the Senate fioor, and in conference to broaden the scope of this program to include construction aid for the arts, humanities. and other curriculums.
At long last, my views on this question have prevailed, because the committee adopted my amendment to broaden the categories of construction eligible for assistance under the Higher Education Facilities Act.
The facilities statute requires that 22 percent of the grant money be reserved for public community colleges and technical institutes. Because some States have few or none of this type of institution, I proposed in committee that each State have the right to transfer funds reserved for 2-year colleges to the regular 4-year colleges and universities where such action is in the public interest.
The committee accepted this amendment to make the Higher Education Facilities Act more flexible.
MATCHING EQUIPMENT GRANT PROGRANI
Under the National Defense Education Act, Federal equipment grants can be made to elementary and secondary schools on a matching basis. This program has worked so successfully that the committee is now establishing. for the first time, a program of Federal grants to institutions of higher learning for the purchase of educational equipment.
As originally drafted, the equipment proposal did not cover the whole range of studies. At my request, the commit— tee revised it to make possible the purchase of equipment to aid the arts and humanities.
The matching equipment grant program is funded at $35 million for the first year. This will rise to $60 million at the end of the fifth year.
NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS
S. 600 would also establish a National Teacher Corps which will enable 6,000 individuals either alone or as members of a teaching team, in conjunction with local school districts, to provide teaching services in such districts.
The object of the program is to beef up teaching in areas where there are high concentrations of low-income families.
TEACHING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
The Labor and Public Welfare Committee, recognizing the fact that more and better teachers will be needed in the dynamic era ahead, adopted a new program to facilitate graduate study for those entering or continuing in the teaching profession.
A total of 4,500 fellowships will be awarded the first year, and this will rise
to 15,000 in the fifth year. The fellowships will be used to allow recent graduates to attain master’s degrees and to provide advanced training for experienced teachers.
As originally drafted, the fellowship assistance was available only to teachers in the public school systems of the country. At my request, the program was revised so as to make eligible for fellowships teachers who teach in private schools as well.
It has always been my view that we need good teachers in not a few, in not some, but in all our schools, and my amendment is based on that principle.
Mr. President, day after day. the members of the Education Subcommittee labored in long sessions to bring forth a bill which would foster the growth and improve the character of our institutions of higher learning, and which would extend a helping hand to the thousands of young men and women who so desperately want to attend them.
That we have done a job and done it well is evidenced by the fact that every single member of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare—Republican and Democrat—voted to bring this legislation before the full Senate.
S. 600 is of necessity a complex bill, seeking as it does to solve complex problems. Behind all of its provisions, however, lies a single purpose. Though spoken in 1872, in relation to another act of Congress, the following words of Justin Morrill express that purpose admirably:
The paramount object is to place higher and more appropriate education within reach of all, the poor as well as the rich, without regard to ancestry or race, and of that sort which will engender a perpetual appetite for more.
I believe that the proposed Higher Education Act of 1965 can help to accomplish that object. I support this measure, and I urge my friends and colleagues in this Chamber to do the same.
I could not close these remarks without a word or two about the committee staff members who have worked so tirelessly to make this bill a bill of which the Senate can be proud.
To Jack Forsythe and Charlie Lee, to Roy Millenson and Steve Kurzman, goes my deepest appreciation. If the public could know what they have done, they would receive, as well, the everlasting thanks of the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk proceeded to state the amendment.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD at this point.
The amendment ofl'ered by Mr. HARTKE is as follows:
On page 130, line 11, strike out and insert in lieu thereof “$2,000".
On page 130, line 13, strike out and insert in lieu thereof “$1,500".
On page 130, line 16, strike out and insert in lieu thereof "$10,000".
On page 130, line 20, strike out and insert in lieu thereof “$7,500”.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, this amendment merely deals with the guaranteed loans provision of the bill which I introduced as Senate bill S. 5. At that time, 26 Senators introduced a bill which deals with the problem of guaranteed loans to student grant and work study programs, all of which are basically in the present program.
I compliment the Senator from Ore— gon [Mr. MORSE] for his fine work in bringing this bill to the floor for consideration at this time. However, I think there are certain deficiencies. One of them is the amount of the loan.
I talked with the Senator from Oregon. He said, "Thank goodness that we have as much as we have.” However, I make the point that what can be borrowed under the bill, under the student guarantee loan program is still $1,000 for an undergraduate student, and $1,500 for a graduate student, on the maximum level.
Senate bill 5 had provision for $2,000 for an undergraduate student and $2,500 for a graduate student, which would more nearly approach the expenses of a person who is really in need of a loan for the purpose of going through school. The total amount of the loan would not necessarily be required for any individual student.
I point out that my amendment calls for an increase of from $1,000 to $1,500 for an undergraduate student, the maximum amount of the loan, and for an increase in the maximum amount of the loan to a graduate student from the present $1,500 under the bill to $2,000.
The point I wish to make is that quite simply, if the guaranteed loan program is to mean anything to the student, it should mean something to someone who really wants to go to college.
I think that it is a sad state of affairs when we place a test on a person who asks for a loan which should not belong on that person. I refer to an economic test. The test should not be whether he or his parents have the ability to finance his education. The test should be whether he has the brainpower and the desire to go ahead and better himself and make himself a better person in the society in which we live. However, the economic test runs throughout the program.
I am not condemning the bill. I shall vote for the bill. However, I believe that the economic test is a test which this committee has placed in the bill. I think this is unfortunate. If such a test were incorporated in the bill, I believe that it would establish a pattern for years to come. I am sad to see that happen.
I should like to ask the Senator from Oregon if there is any way that a boy
“$1 ‘500" "$1,000" ‘($7,5007'
or girl who wants to go to college this fall, who does not have the money and is in a State which does not have the loan program today, could obtain a loan.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I would not say the chances are not small, but there will be a chance once the bill gets into operation. That would not be immediately.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate not to agree to the amendment. The amendment is being offered by one who is as interested as or more interested in this field than anyone else. The Senator has worked hard on the loan program on my committee. We had the Hartke bill 2 years ago and also last year.
I have worked very closely with the Senator.
We have the loan program, the scholarship program, the fellowship program, and the NEDA loan program. I am very grateful that we have made that much progress.
Let me say why I do not want the Senate to disrupt the situation in which the Senator in charge of the bill finds himself. The loan program that we have worked out in this bill is the result of prolonged conferences with the representatives of financial institutions of this country, the banks and the loaning agencies, the Treasury, the Bureau of the Budget, and with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
This is a remarkable agreement that we have reached. I plead with the Senate not to disrupt this agreement. It does so much more than anyone had the slightest idea we would be able to do. I want to have this bill enacted into law.
My friend is wrong if he thinks it is not going to last. For many years, we shall have education legislation from year to year. There will always be plenty of opportunity, after we see how it works out, to consider the request of the Sena— tor from Indiana.
I urge the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. Iyield.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, if the pending bill were enacted into law, how long would a boy or girl who wanted to go to college and needed to borrow the money and make his own way—there are some of those who do not want to be dependent on their parents but would like to do it on their own—have to wait in a State which does not have the pro— gram today?
Mr. MORSE. The bill makes it possible for a State to adopt a program.
I cannot guarantee that a student in a State which does not have the program today will receive a loan. I would rather say that the people in that State should get busy and adopt the program.
Mr. HARTKE. If they do not do so, a boy in such a State would be denied that opportunity.
Mr. MORSE. We are talking about two different things. If a State does not have a program—which they should have—this bill would provide a guarantee
by the Federal Government. The student could make his application for a loan in a bank in Indianapolis or in a loan association in Indianapolis and that loan association has the right to call upon the Federal Government under the terms of this bill to guarantee that loan.
Mr. HARTKE. That is the point that I wanted to come to. How long after this bill is passed would it be before the triggering device would occur by which the Federal Government would guarantee that loan?
Mr. MORSE. It would not be in operation for this semester or quarter, but once the bill is passed and signed into law, it will be in operation for the next quarter.
Mr. HARTKE. As I read the bill, I do not understand it in that way. I understand that the State must first fall to provide its own program.
Mr. MORSE. If an investigation revealed that X State has no program, the procedures of the law would go into operation. That will not happen overnight. However, it will be done within a very short time.
Mr. HARTKE. Would there be any assurance that it would be done in sufficient time for the college year next fall?
Mr. MORSE. I believe that it would be done by then. I cannot give assurance, but I am perfectly satisfied that it will be long before next fall.
Mr. HARTKE. Knowing of the sincere dedication of the senior Senator from Oregon to the field of education, if there were a State which did not have a program and none had been instituted, and the State had not taken advantage of the provision for matching funds, would it be the position of the senior Senator from Oregon that he would be willing to insist that the Commissioner of Education make funds available for boys and girls who want to go to school next year‘?
Mr. MORSE. The law places the duty on the Department to work out the procedure by which that boy or girl could go to the bank in Indianapolis and get a Federal guaranteed loan if he met the requirements.
Mr. HARTKE. I understand that. However, I see nothing in the bill which would trigger this operation if the State were to refuse or neglect to take care of its own people. I see nothing which would trigger that action. It would be left to the discretion of the Commissioner.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator is correct, but that would be automatic, because that is the purpose of the bill. The Senator is not implying that the administrator of the law would not apply the law.
Mr. HARTKE. Is it the impression of the Senator from Oregon that this program will be in operation by next fall? In other words, I want a boy or girl who wants to go to college next year to have a chance to make a loan and borrow some money if he or she wants to do so, either through the State or Federal Government.
Mr. MORSE. Speaking as manager of the bill, I think it clearly will be in operation by next fall, and I think that it will be in operation before next fall.
Mr. HARTKE. That is the kind of statement I want. In regard to the interest charges that are to be made under the bill, they would begin immediately; is that correct?
Mr. MORSE. They would begin, but they would not pay it while in college.
Mr. HARTKE. Is there no requirement for the payment of interest charges? I thought the payment of principal was deferred.
Mr. MORSE. There are no requirements for the payment of interest charges while in college if the boy were to come from a family having an annual income of less than $15,000. It would not be arbitrary. If it were a family with an annual income of $15,000 and nine children, and four of them in collegeand I use that hypothetically—then the administrator would have the authority to exercise discretion to make some loans even to that family.
Mr. HARTKE. Let me make perfectly clear that I am opposed to that part of the bill. I am not going to support any philosophy that depends on how much the Government subsidizes a certain part of education. It should be universal. I think the time has come to extend aid for our whole educational system as much as we have to certain parts of it. The time has come when we should take away the economic tests for our boys and girls who need an education.
Mr. MORSE. I agree with the Senator.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Indiana has the floor.
Mr. HARTKE. from Texas.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, I sympathize with the statement the Senator from Indiana has just made. I find myself in agreement with much of what has been said. This is a forward step. Under the scholarship provisions, there will be 140,000 students. There will be 285,000 students under the work-study provision. I do not believe that we ought to hang the insignia of the pawnshop, three balls, over a student, and have him start in life with a mortgage hanging over his head.
Until a democracy, or any government, for that matter, has an educational system that will develop to the maximum the resources of their children, it will not fully be able to face its problems. A government should be able to educate its children through mature adulthood, ages 21, 22, 23, or 24, depending on intellectual capacity. The country that does that first is going to be No. 1 in this world, make no mistake.
The United States and Germany were the first nations to have relatively universal free education through high school. Frederick the Great, by imperial decree, provided for free education in his
I yield to the Senator
country, because he knew that without education the soldiers in his army would not be able to use the munitions of the army. As a result of her educational institutions, Prussia survived.
The step in this bill is a forward step. But we should not be hanging an FHAtype mortgage over the heads of students. It is the duty of a Great Society to educate its children, just as much as it is one of the duties of that society to provide a social security system and medicare for its elderLv people.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I shall respect the admonition of the Senator from Oregon that I withdraw the amendment. I thank him for his suggestion and statement. I think the bill is a forward step. I compliment him for his leadership on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment, as amended.
The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I rise in support of HR. 9567, the Higher Education Act of 1965. I have long favored the enaxztment of this vitally needed legislation. And I am confident that the Senate will pass this bill by an overwhelming vote.
In his education message this year, President Johnson stated:
Higher education is no longer a luxury, but a necessity.
We are finding that more and more of today's jobs require the background and the skills that only college can provide.
Our young people recognize this. From 1954 to 1964, enrollment in institutions of higher learning doubled. It is expected to go up at least 50 percent more in the next decade. And our junior colleges have expanded even faster.
To provide all these young people with the quality education they will need will require the combined efforts of governments at all levels, and of the many dedicated teachers and administrators in universities and colleges throughout our land.
To meet this unprecedented challenge, there is overwhelming agreement that the Federal Government must play an increased role in supporting higher education. Thus we find that the bill before us this afternoon was reported out unanimously by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee.
HR. 9567 provides many advances in our Federal higher education policy, so many that I could not hope to mention all of them this afternoon. Surely one of its greatest contributions will be the increased assistance it gives to students in meeting the increased financial burdens which college education imposes.
Already, in the year 1965, it costs a student an average of $1,560 for 1 year in a public college; for private colleges, the figure is even higher—$2,370. And in the next 5 years, this figure is expected to rise to $1,840 for public colleges, and 2,780 for private colleges.
This bill takes major steps to help students meet this burden.
It provides a program of general undergraduate scholarships, with amounts in each case tailored to the need of the recipient.
It inaugurates a low-interest, insured loan program to meet educational expenses, and it encourages States and private agencies to carry out similar programs.
To meet the growing need for buildings and needed facilities, this bill amends the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 to provide increased grants to educational institutions.
In recognition of the vital need for improved library resources, the bill provides grants for the purchase of books, periodicals, documents, and other materials, as well as funds for the training of library personnel.
To help our colleges and universities make a greater contribution to the solu— tion of community problems, we are providing funds for a bold new program of university extension and continuing education.
To help institutions facing particular academic and financial difficulties, the Higher Education Act of 1965 will inaugurate a special program of grants to developing higher education institutions to assist in raising the quality of the teaching they provide.
To improve the quality of undergraduate instruction in the broad range of our colleges, the bill will authorize grants for the purchase of special teaching equipment, and for setting up workshops and institutes to train faculty personnel in the use of new educational media.
To improve the quality of teacher education, and to make this teacher education have an impact in the schools of our low-income areas, title V of this bill provides fellowships to prospective teachers, and grants to universities for the improvement of teacher education, and it establishes a new National TeacherCorps for service in schools with a high proportion of poor children.
And even after mentioning all of these provisions, I feel that I have only scratched the surface in my description of what this bill will provide.
I would, however, like to say some special words on behalf of the work-study program inaugurated by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. This program has made it possible for needy students to earn essential funds to support their college education. I believe that this program is in our best American tradition, of helping our young men and women to help themselves.
Yet, despite its unquestioned value, this program has suffered from a serious flaw, a flaw which has prevented many