needy students from benefiting from its provisions. Participation in the program is restricted to students from very low income families, because of the laudable desire to help those at the very bottom of our economic ladder. But as the report of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee states:

The rigid limitation of the original bill severely handicapped many universities which have large numbers of students requiring assistance, yet few who are technically from low-income families.

A considerable number of presidents and deans from colleges and universities in Minnesota have written me about this matter. They point out that higher education is a very expensive proposition, and that it is not only the very poor who need the benefit of this type of program. So I have made efforts to secure a modification of this provision.

I believe that the bill as reported by the committee provides an excellent solution to the problem. It insists and rightly so that preference should be given to students from the lowest income families. But it eliminates the rigid income ceiling, and leaves it to universities and colleges to determine who among their students are in need.

I believe that this change will permit the work-study program to help many more students, without changing its basic purpose.

The bill also gives the Office of Education sole responsibility for the administration of this program at the Federal level.

Because of the interest which Minnesota institutions of higher education have shown in this matter, I would like to place in the RECORD a number of letters which I have received from them discussing this question. I believe that they demonstrate strong support for the bill as reported by the committee, and that they are evidence of a continuing desire among leaders of higher education in Minnesota to make the benefits of their institutions available to all able students, regardless of their financial condition.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MANKATO STATE COLLEGE, Mankato, Minn., August 30, 1965. Senator WALTER F. MONDALE,

U.S. Senate,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Your letter of August 18, addressed to President C. L. Crawford, has been turned over to me for reply since I am handling this program at Mankato State College.

We, too, find that the low $3,000 (recently changed to $3,200) level of income makes the program very restrictive. We would be able to help many needy students if this low limit could be changed to $3,700.

There are still many students who could remain in college or possibly attend college if some sort of loan program could be established with low interest rates to help these young men and women. This could be in addition to the work-study program.

It is quite difficult, in many instances, to establish need. This is especially true of students who come from farms. Farmers usually have assets ranging from $13,000 to

$50,000, but these are definitely related to stock and equipment needed to operate the farm. It does not seem justified to have in order to send their sons and daughters farmers mortgage their stock and equipment to college. to college. Has any special provision been made in the work-study or national defense student loan programs to take care of this?

You may have noted that President Crawford is leaving Mankato State College. He has accepted a position in one of the Florida colleges. A short time ago, Dr. Budd, president of St. Cloud State College, also resigned. It will be very difficult to find replacements for these two men and I feel that Minnesota State colleges have lost very fine leadership. I trust that in the very near future the situation in Minnesota may change in order that we may hold and attract high-caliber administrators and teachers for our State institutions.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: With reference to your letter of August 18, be assured that we heartily support your effort to liberalize the eligibility requirements for participation in the college work-study program and to have

it transferred from the Economic Oppor

tunity Act to the Office of Education.

As we mentioned to you when you were in Bemidji several months ago, the exclusive emphasis on students from poverty families is not realistic; and many students need the program who do not qualify under the terms of the original legislation. We keep a close touch on our students and would be in a good position to ascertain their need as far as financial aid is concerned.

in knowing that we will have perhaps $2 In this connection, you may be interested million or more in loan funds on the books this coming year (we are getting about $600,000 in National Defense Education Act student loans for the coming year) and our defaulting rate on National Defense Educa

tion Act loans is between 4 and 6 percent

compared with a national average, which is from 19 to 25 percent. This speaks well for the character of the students from northern Minnesota and Minnesota in general who are attending Bemidji State College and for the way in which student personnel services at the college have handled implementation of the National Defense Education Act loan program.

Again, your interest in this matter is greatly appreciated by all of us. Sincerely yours,

HARRY F. BANGSBERG,

President.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Duluth, Minn., August 23, 1965. Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Your efforts to make the requirements for participation in the college work-study program more realistic are appreciated by all of us working with the program.

We have an excellent program of off-campus and on-campus work here at University of Minnesota, Duluth. These young people are earning funds to keep them in school; however, there are many others with real need who do not qualify at present.

Sincerely,

R. W. DARLAND,

Provost.

HIBBING JUNIOR COLLEGE, Hibbing, Minn., August 26, 1965. Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE, Washington, D.C. U.S. Senate,

SIR: We are actively participating in the work-study program under the Economic Opportunity Act. We find the requirements for participation in the program most restrictive. Many deserving students cannot make use of the program because of limiting factors. The family income restriction is particularly severe.

The program could be much more effective and could accomplish the purpose for which it was established if determination of need could be made by college administrators on the local level. With such a provision, many students in the Hibbing area who need the program could remain in or attend college. We heartily endorse such a change. It would be a big factor in making the program at Hibbing Junior College much more effective for and beneficial to students in the area. Very truly yours, OVE C. NORDVOLD,

Dean.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Morris, Minn., August 25, 1965.

Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Thank you so much for your letter of August 18 concern

ing the proposed Higher Education Act of 1965, S. 600. It is my belief that the workstudy program is unnecessarily restrictive in many instances, and that there are a number of students which do not qualify under the present work-study program which exhibit a real need for gainful employment in order that they might remain in college or to attend college. I would support this kind of proposal with one major exception. What may be the need for a student to attend a college that has a very high tuition might not exhibit itself as a need in a public institution with a relatively low tuition. Therefore, the provision that the determination of need be made by college administrators on the local level might in effect be highly supportive of the high-cost colleges, and in many instances, these are the private institutions. There needs to be, in my estimation, some safeguards put into such a bill which will insure that these funds do not become recruiting devices to a specific college, but recruiting devices that will allow students to attend college.

We have a very vigorous work-study program presently operating on our campus, and have been very satisfied with the development of it. However, there are a number of categories of students who do exhibit needs that do not qualify under the program, and which could be materially assisted by broadening the restrictive nature of the present work-study program. I remember the working of the NYA projects in the thirties, and would be highly supportive of such a program updated to meet the kinds of needs as present in 1965.

Thank you so much for your letter.
Sincerely,

RODNEY A. BRIGGS,

Dean.

BRAINERD JUNIOR COLLEGE, Brainerd, Minn., August 24, 1965. Senator WALTER F. MONDALE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: We have had a dozen or more students employed under the Economic Opportunity Act and could very well have had more if we had not interpreted the "need" provision of the program as closely as we had been advised we should

interpret it. I am confident we turned away a number of prospective students whose "need" was considerable in order to stay in college, but whose family income was such that it was impossible to give them employment.

I have understood that this has been inter

preted in a variety of ways in other localities and that, in actual fact, we perhaps need not have interpreted the ruling as rigidly as we have. I am certain if the need rule were to be relaxed, many more students might have been employed. Sincerely,

J. E. CHALBERG, Dean, Brainerd Junior College.

ST. CLOUD STATE COLLEGE, St. Cloud, Minn., August 24, 1965. Hon. WALTER P. MONDALE, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Your letter addressed to President Budd concerning changes in eligibility requirements for participation in the college work-study program

was referred to me for consideration.

I have conferred with our local officials who

administer this program at our college, and they agree that transferring the work-study program to the jurisdiction of the Office of Education is wise and practicable. Furthermore, they believe that the emphasis on students from poverty-line families should be broadened to include such students as may need the program to remain in college.

Many thanks for your efforts in improving

the work-study program.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT H. WICK, Acting President.

MACALESTER COLLEGE, Saint Paul, Minn., August 30, 1965. Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR FRITZ: Thank you so very, very much for your letter of August 18, 1965 and for your efforts to make it possible for students in financial need to obtain assistance in order that they may attend college.

Here at Macalester we have identified approximately 40 students who qualify under the antipoverty bill, and about 30 of these students are taking advantage of the workstudy program. It is going to be of untold value and assistance to them.

One of the unfortunate problems involved in the work-study program is that so often the young people who qualify, economically, for this program are from such deprived backgrounds that they have great difficulty in achieving a satisfactory level of academic success while, at the same time, spending a great deal of time at work and, as a consequence, away from their studies.

We shall be glad to cooperate with and assist in any way that we can to broaden the opportunities for more young people to obtain a greater amount of education, for only along this path can a continuing success of our society and of our world be achieved. With warm personal regards, I remain, Very sincerely yours,

HARVEY M. RICE, President. Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. President, before us today is the second major education bill in this session. This bill is concerned with the quality of our higher educational institutions and seeks to bring the benefits of higher education to a greater number of our citizens and their communities.

Earlier, we enacted an Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The thrust of that bill was directed at bettering our public educational institutions in those areas of greatest need. The successful implementation of that measure can only lead in the future to a greater reliance on our institutions of higher education by more and better prepared students.

I consider myself fortunate to be a Member of this Congress, for I am convinced that we are doing more to affect the quality of American life than at any comparable time in our history. Our efforts here, especially in the area of education, will redound to the national good for decades to come-for when a Congress acts again and again with the express purpose of bettering and assisting the basic institutions that form the supports of our society, the results are reflected in each generation, and in each individual whose life is uplifted.

The senior Senator from Oregon has given each of us an opportunity to be involved in such changes that will so affect the level of our society. It would affect the level of our society. It would be most difficult for me or my colleagues to fully express our admiration for his work in the area of education. The passage of this measure today, so much the result of his tireless efforts and so filled with his own ideas and hopes, must be ample to record the gratitude of this body.

Mr. President, any higher education measure carried with it the assumption that there is a natural progression in the lives and development of our citizens. It assumes that our children travel a path in the growth of their minds that leads to the ultimate in formal training, leads to the ultimate in formal training, and then to a continuing desire to further their knowledge over a lifetime. For the fortunate in our society this is a normal expectation. But there are many, too many, whose introduction to education creates no such hope, and no such desire for more. To these children, education is a meaningless experience encountered between learning to walk and going to work. Most often their parents have fared no better and usually their relations and neighbors offer no contrast. These children are poor; they live in poor communities that can afford only the bare minimum in educational plant and equipment. But more than that, these communities cannot afford to attract the best, or enough of the best, in teaching talent produced by our colleges and universities. It is not the dull surroundings that are controlling in stunting the mental growth of these children, it is the lack of exposure to the bright and dedicated teacher, who can bring to the classroom-any classroom-the excitement of learning.

The examples of teachers who affected the lives of great men in our history, but in the poorest possible surroundings, are endless. But a more graphic and are endless. But a more graphic and recent experience can be found in the recent experience can be found in the past 3 years in Prince Edward County, Va. There the public schools were closed Va. There the public schools were closed in defiance of a Supreme Court order. There the most disadvantaged in our

society went totally without education for a period of 4 years. When a program to establish a substitute school system was inaugurated in 1963 a nationwide call for teachers produced over 100 in 3 weeks or less. The physical surroundings remained the same, the social inequities were not changed, but these children began to receive the benefit of the work of skilled teachers who were leaders in their profession. After 4 years of no schooling these children quickly began to read and write. They were fast to respond to the teaching stimulus. Many who had been considered average students before were found to be exceptional in tests of intelligence, others developed from illiterates to average readers for their age in a far shorter period of time than could ever have been reasonably expected. The teacher was the key, the teacher was the pivotal point in lives that will some day prove to be fruitful and productive. There is no doubt that in a decade many of these Prince Edward children who had been marked for social oblivion, will be the recipients of the benefits found in this very bill we are considering today.

It was on the basis of this experience, Mr. President, that the idea of a National Teacher Corps was proposed. The amendment that I proposed was directed toward a reallocation of experienced teaching talent on a national basis from the most fortunate to the most deprived school districts. I was pleased to join my concept with that of the junior Senator from Wisconsin, and to work with him to advance what is now a major part of this bill. While this concept of attracting and transferring experienced teachers is distinct from the idea of making student teaching teams available to disadvantaged school districts, they are compatible and will function well together.

Mr. President, on past occasions both Senator NELSON and I have set forth our impression as to how the Teacher Corps will function. Moreover, the report accompanying this bill is designed to clearly state our specific hopes for the administration of the program. I think it important, however, to restate a few general points of particular interest to me.

First. It is crucial to the successful implementation of this program that the recruitment, selection, and enrollment of Teacher Corps members be undertaken at the national level to the fullest extent practicable. The Teacher Corps is akin to the Peace Corps in this respect. If we are to attract the best teaching talent from among our experienced educators we must allow them to be involved in a nationally directed program against poverty and deprivation. I am convinced that there are many citizens who wish to contribute to the current campaign to raise the level of American life, but who find themselves in a situation where personal responsibilities are heavy. The Teacher Corps, while asking some sacrifice, will allow them and their families to be involved. But they must be

assured of association with a truly national program. Only a federally directed effort can accomplish this.

Second. The bill was written in such a manner as to provide the Commissioner of Education with the greatest possible flexibility in its administration. This is important because of the diversity that will be encountered in school districts and university and college training programs across the country. We did not seek the hard and fast criteria or administrative arrangements. If the program is to grow and broaden over time, experimentation in administration must be the rule.

Third. While the local school district is given complete control over the teachers assigned to it, it is my expectation that the district will allow, and indeed expect, these teachers to innovate in the classroom for the benefit of the students and their fellow teachers. There is no doubt that the greatest amount of innovation in teaching is developed in those more fortunate school districts where affluence and sufficient personnel create the favorable environment for new approaches. It is my hope, then, that members of the corps will, while being treated as any other teacher in the receiving school system, be given some latitude to bring their experiences to bear in the new teaching environment. I hope that the Office of Education will be able to express this thought to the applying school districts. The bill does, of course, make it clear that members of the corps are not to be considered as substitutes, but as supplemen

tary personnel in the receiving district.

Fourth. The bill is also designed to attract corps members who may wish to enroll for less than a period of 2 years.

What we contemplate here are the special advantages that children may receive in summer remedial programs. All too often, the child who falls behind in reading comprehension, for example, goes undetected until the learning process becomes so painful that education

loses its excitement and rewards. This

situation is often magnified in the poorer

school district where class size alone

tends to camouflage such problems. Remedial reading courses during the summer months can be of great importance in such situations. But beyond that, remedial programs for the generally

slow learner, the hard of hearing, the nearly blind, or the retarded, may be made available in the poorer school districts as a direct result of the corps. The highly specialized teachers in these subject areas may not be able to leave their responsibilities during the school year, but would be most willing to join the corps for such summer programs.

Finally, the Senate version of the

corps carries its own authorizations. The House version, as accepted in committee in the form of a separate bill, would call for the corps to be funded under title I funds of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is my hope that in conference the House will accept the Senate version. It would be most It would be most unfortunate for unique and unusual

program such as this to be placed in direct competition for the limited funds allocated to local school districts by title I of the Elementary Act.

Mr. President, the passage of the Higher Education Act today will complete the major education work of this session. It is my hope that this legislation, coupled with the earlier elementary and secondary education bill will provide us with a firm basis for even greater assistance to education in the future.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate is deserving islation before the Senate is deserving of the most prompt and thorough action. It is our duty as representatives of the people to do all in our power to advance the cause of learning within our Nation. Our action on the bill before us will serve Our action on the bill before us will serve as an index to how well we are carrying as an index to how well we are carrying out that duty.

I am convinced that the administration of education is the rightful province of the States and local educational agencies. This has been the pattern ever since the beginning of public education in America. I am equally convinced that the time has come when the old system of financing education primarily from taxes on property is no longer sufficient. In today's rapidly changing world, limited progress in education is little better than standing still; and limited progress is the natural result of limited finances.

In order for our educators to use their abilities to the fullest extent and for our young men and women to develop their skills fully, we must shore up the fiscal underpinnings of our educational system wherever they are shaky. We must search untiringly for new ways to improve the dissemination of knowledge, prove the dissemination of knowledge, and we must implement the findings of

this search.

agencies simply do not have the reMany students and many educational sources to repair deficiencies and to undertake new and necessary programs.

The students have few means of obtain

ing funds necessary to obtain a higher ing funds necessary to obtain a higher education, and many local educational institutions have no means of independently acquiring the resources they need.

But the effect of the education, good or poor, transcends local and State or poor, transcends boundaries and makes itself apparent in every facet of our national life. Therefore, if we move to grant funds for aid to education, we will but act in the na

tional interest.

We will be well within the limits of Federal prerogative as defined by PresiFederal prerogative as defined by Presipeople what they cannot do for themdent Lincoln: "We will be doing for the

selves."

And yet, there are arguments that the Federal Government has no place in American education. Proponents of this view maintain that if the Federal Government once makes financial grants to

individuals and universities, then it must follow that the Federal Government will attempt to control education. Such is attempt to control education. Such is simply not the case.

At present, the Federal Government shares in the financing of vocational education, school construction, education in federally impacted areas which

means so much to my State, and other education programs. In all these varieducation programs. ous programs there has been no indication whatever of moves toward Federal control of education. I must make it clear that I would vigorously oppose any effort to extend Federal controls over the educational process. It is clear to me that this bill, if enacted, would grant the Government the power to assist individuals and unversities financially, and only that power. Control of education would remain solely in the hands of State and local authorities.

It is equally clear to me that this bill must be regarded as an adjunct in the effort of local and State officials to improve and expand higher education. I am hopeful that they will expend the effort and resources necessary to make our colleges and universities models of academic excellence.

Mr. President, the Congress of the United States stands close to striking another meaningful and necessary blow for the betterment of American education, and through that, for the improvement of American life.

I favor the proposal before us and I compliment the committee for its action on this legislation and hope my colleagues will join with me in support of the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, as a former college history professor and Senate sponsor of the Higher Education Act of 1965 I rise to express my wholehearted support for H.R. 9567, strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in

postsecondary and higher education.

to

At this point when colleges and universities are faced with mushrooming enrollments, when needy students wishing to obtain a higher education are faced with rising tuition costs, and when institutions of higher learning all across the Nation are faced with the need for better, more adequate libraries, dormitories, and other academic facilities, this bill represents an impressive step forward to improve higher education in the United States.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation provides for low-interest insured loans and undergraduate scholarships. I have long believed that such programs are essential to provide thousands of needy and deserving students with the opportunity to obtain the higher education they so earnestly desire.

As Senator from a State which does not have public community colleges or public technical institutes, I am gratified by the provisions of section 702, subsection (a) of this legislation, amending the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The language in the bill now before us

provides that a State's allotment for the construction of facilities for public community colleges and public technical institutes may be used instead for the construction of academic facilities for other kinds of institutions of higher education of the request of the Governor of the State. The critical need in my State of

South Dakota is to assure adequate support for the schools now in existence.

Early in the current session of Congress I introduced legislation to provide for this transfer of Higher Education Facilities Act funds. For this reason, I am delighted that the Senate version of the Higher Education Act follows the approach which I have been urging in this regard for many months. I earnestly hope that in the House-Senate conference on this bill, this Senate amendment will be retained intact.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to overwhelmingly approve H.R. 9567.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, no one endorses more wholeheartedly than I the Jeffersonian maxim:

Any nation that expects to be both ignorant and free, expects what never has

been and never will be.

One of the reasons that a large part of our more than $100 billion of foreign aid has been largely wasted with respect to the establishment in the recipient countries of a democracy modeled after ours, has been the ignorance in those countries and the consequent lack of capacity for self government. For instance, we have donated billions of dollars, primarily in food, to India but only about 5 percent of that country is literate and we are not making any headway. The same general conditions apply in Brazil, the largest and potentially the richest country of South America. And so far as the 18 or 19 new nations of

darkest Africa are concerned, they boast when they can claim that 1 percent of

the population is literate.

Fortunately, what we call literacy, namely, the basic ability to read and write simple English, is high in this country, but we are rapidly moving into what is called a period of automation which demands skills, and skills demand education. At the present time, the largest percentage of those unemployed are high school students who lack the ambition to get an education and lack the skills to get a job. Fundamentally, therefore, I would be glad to support a program to stimulate education at all

levels and especially at the college level as is proposed by the pending bill. But I think that the Senate committee overreached itself in sending us a 5-year program to subsidize college education when the President recommended only a 1-year program, and a bill to cost $4,700 million when the President rec

ommended only $364 million. This bill

should have been cut back to what the President recommended, for two reasons: First, a majority of colleges are now unable to accept the students who are applying without this Federal aid; and second, while we continually talk peace we are still at war in South Vietnam and no one knows how long that war will last or how much the cost of it will increase within the next 12 months. For those reasons I cannot vote for the bill.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, it is a privilege to have this opportunity to

voice my support for the Higher Educavoice my support for the Higher Education Act of 1965.

In the 14 years I have been in the Senate, I have studied numerous education bills. A number of these have had some good features; and there have been others which I felt I could not support. However, after carefully studying this bill, I find that I can give this measure my whole-hearted support.

I want to commend my colleague from Alabama and the distinguished Senator from Oregon as well as the other members of the committee for their fine work in bringing a landmark piece of legislation to the floor.

I might point out that the committee has not accepted the bill without amendment. The bill has been considerably improved since it was introduced. The many months of work on this bill has resulted in a good bill which merits the support of each one of us.

When the Higher Education Act of 1965 was first introduced I was concerned about the fact that 2-year institutions were specifically excluded from participation in the title III program.

This was an unwarranted limitation

which was inconsistent with the rest of

ing the authorization of title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963Public Law 88-204-by $100 million and by doubling the authorization in title II of that act.

The benefits of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to the institutions, students and residents of Florida are especially significant with regard to title III. At this time, I would like to address myself specifically to that title.

The State of Florida has been exerting itself to the limit in order to meet the rapidly increasing demand for higher education. One of the methods we have used to meet the need has been the establishment of a comprehensive system of 2-year colleges which offer 2 years of the least expensive higher education available in the Nation. At the present time, we have more than 30 2-year colleges in the State-counting both public and private schools.

We have not been satisfied with just also done everything possible to make establishing 2-year colleges. We have these schools strong. However, there have been some difficulties.

has not been able to develop the prestige The 2-year college at the present time necessary to hold highly qualified profes

sors.

Further, since 2-year colleges generally offer many introductory courses and fied professors feel that they do not have 2-year professional courses, highly qualithe opportunity to teach in specialized fields or to do specialized research.

I think that title III will offer many

outstanding scholars the opportunity to

experience some of the advantages of teaching in 2-year institutions which are making an all-out effort to give quality higher education. These professors are

going to find that close contact with stu

dents and the relief from the "publish or perish" pressure are an aid to quality in education not an evidence of lack of quality. Personally, I think some of the

emphasis placed on publishing at the socalled prestige universities is the result of more interest in reputation than in

education.

Title III represents a most significant step in the direction of upgrading and strengthening the smaller colleges of the country. This title provides for a 5-year

program of grants to institutions of higher education and to teaching fellows to assist in raising the quality of education For the present fiscal year and the sucavailable in underdeveloped institutions. ceeding 4 fiscal years, it authorizes $25 million for 4-year schools and $25 million for junior colleges.

It also authorizes $5 million for fiscal year 1966 to be granted at the discretion of the Commissioner of Education. It is my hope that the Commissioner will not overlook the opportunity to expand the capabilities of 2-year institutions in

the granting of the funds to be used at his discretion.

In our modern industrialized Republic, where nothing is any longer simple, the people must make intelligent citizens. There was a time when an elementary or a secondary level education was considered enough education to provide a citizen with the tools necessary to make wise decisions. Today more formal education is necessary. It is time that we realize that the need exists to provide a low cost, if not free, higher education to all able young people.

Let me cite some of the reasons why the Higher Education Act of 1965 should be adopted. Among them is the fact that it recognizes clearly the importance of higher education to the continued progress of the Nation, and proposes some specific measures for the improvement of the program of our colleges and universities.

These institutions have vastly enlarged responsibilities, for they must train their students for situations in which the fields of knowledge are expanding and diversifying, new techniques of industry and business are coming daily to the fore, and ways of life and living are being altered immeasurably.

Students are coming in ever-greater numbers to the campus. Faculties must be enlarged and be better educated and equipped for the instruction they render and for the research they pursue.

No program for raising the quality of instruction and research in an institution of higher education can proceed very far or very successfully unless it has an adequate library to buttress the endeavor. Educators have, therefore, taken a close look at the library, as regards book collections, personnel, building, and fi

nance.

In the "National Inventory of Library Needs," published in 1965 and based heavily on U.S. Office of Education statistics, the following observations are well to keep in mind in considering libraries.

First. Stress has been given to independent study, honor programs, and new teaching methods in institutions of higher education. They add responsibilities to the library.

Second. The tremendous increase of recorded knowledge, which makes it difficult for libraries to cover the fields adequately and satisfactorily.

Third. With the sheer increase in the number of students and faculty has come the steady rise in graduate study, particularly study leading to a doctorate. It is estimated that U.S. colleges and universities will turn out twice as many Ph. D.'s in 1966 as in 1962. This trend affects libraries.

These facts are some that underlie the problem of college libraries. A study of statistics shows some of the current shortcomings at the national level.

Fifty percent of the 4-year institutions fail to meet the standards for size and quality of book collections.

Eighty percent of the 2-year institutions fail. In the case of the percentage of the total educational and general budget which should be devoted to library purposes, instead of 5 percent, 3.5 brary purposes, instead of 5 percent, 3.5 percent is being spent. The staff lackpercent is being spent. The staff lacking in college and university libraries is some 4,000.

The colleges and universities in my own State of Florida have been making remarkable progress, but in view of the remarkable progress, but in view of the demands made upon them because of rapidly increasing enrollments and faculty, rising prices, and other factors, faculty, rising prices, and other factors, they still face many gaps.

For example, of the 17 4-year institutions of higher education, 10 do not meet the national support standard for their the national support standard for their libraries. libraries. Of the 25 2-year institutions, 8 spend less than the recommended 5 percent of the total operating budget of the college.

There are a total of 129 libraries in institutions of higher education in the United States containing 300,000 or more volumes. Three are in my State. However, of the 14 4-year institutions with libraries of under 300,000 volumes in Florida, none meet the standards. Of the 2-year institutions, 25 in number, the 2-year institutions, 25 in number, none meet the standards for numbers of volumes.

The pending measure proposes various kinds of grants, on a matching and maintenance of effort basis in the case of the basic and special purpose grants, to help especially the small and medium colleges build up book collections.

It authorizes funds for the training of library personnel of all types and for research in librarianship, and for centralized cataloging.

The proposals included in the measure before us mean improved libraries. This in turn means a better program of higher education in this Nation.

I urge my colleagues to give their wholehearted support to this measure. Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, I am pleased to President, I am pleased to see incorporated in the committee report on corporated in the committee report on H.R. 9567, my amendment designed to H.R. 9567, my amendment designed to coordinate the educational activities supported by the Federal Government and to eliminate possible duplication found in our current Federal program.

The hearings before the committee showed clearly that the host of Federal showed clearly that the host of Federal and State programs designed to serve different educational purposes overlap one another. Federal programs support vocational training at one level and visiting scientists on another. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the educational programs which overlap one another and which I compiled be printed at the end of my comments to indicate the scope of the programs involved.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. President, we cannot delay in providing the additional assistance contained in this bill, but similarly we cannot delay in eliminating unnecessary duplication and changing programs that do not serve the purpose for which they were designed.

Therefore, in order to coordinate the many Federal and State programs and to recommend ways in which our higher educational system can be improved, this bill establishes a Presidential Advisory Council on Extension and Continuing Education. This Council will review and evaluate the operation of the extension and continuing education activities of the Federal Government. It will recommend to the President for transmission to the Congress an annual report specifying ways in which these educational programs can be better coordinated.

I believe that the reports of this Advisory Council can go a long way in improving the fabric of our system of higher education. But we must also have the cooperation of the Federal agencies and the State agencies involved in higher education, if this is to be accomplished. We cannot have a situation in which each segment of the system acts as if it were a completely independent entity. I think that we can achieve effective cooperation through this Council.

On another aspect of this bill, a part of the funds that would be available under this bill would be used for the construction of classrooms, laboratories, and other educational facilities.

It is important that these buildings and facilities and the surrounding grounds be constructed with attention to their architectural beauty as well as efficiency in education.

My colleague, Congressman JAMES H. SCHEUER, of New York State, has recommended that H.R. 9567 be amended to provide that 1 percent of the funds available for construction be used for artistic or esthetic amenities such as architectural design, landscaping, paintings, sculpture, or ornamentation.

This amendment would follow the precedent set in our legislation for highway construction that provides that 3 percent of the funds made available to the States for this purpose can be used for landscaping to make our highways more attractive. It would also be in keeping with the administrative regulations established by the Housing and Home Finance Agency in construction of their buildings.

I have discussed this matter here on the floor with my distinguished colleague, Senator MORSE, and it is his desire that this point be taken up in conference,

So I am not offering an amendment to H.R. 9567 for this purpose, but rather am urging that the House and Senate committees stress the desirability of using 1 percent of the funds available for the esthetic design and embellishment of the educational facilities constructed.

EXHIBIT 1

Following are a list of federally supported training programs and three memorandums describing Federal programs, actual and pending, which are related and supplementary to title I of S. 600.