« ПретходнаНастави »
Federal support of training and related activities, estimated obligations by level, fiscal years 1965 and 1966 1
[Amounts in thousands]
See footnotes at end of table.
Academic level and type of support 1965 1966 Academic level and type of support 1965 I 1966 Total 4 ______________________________________________ __ $3, 775. 147 $6,081,104 Student support—Continued Graduate trainccships. National Science Foundation_. _ $15, 120 $22, 285 Elementary-secondary education 8 __________________ __ 706.019 1 960.507 Summer fellowships for graduate teaching assistants, National Science Foundation _______________________ -_ 961 961 Support, of local schools ___________________________________ -. 613. 105 l. 636, 006 Postdoctoral fellowships. National Science Foundation_ 1, 632 1,632 Senior postdoctoral fellowships, National Science FounPublic land revenue for schools, Agriculture __________ _- .900 17.200 (lation _____________________________________________ __ 1,115 1, 200 Federally impacted areas, Office of Education ......... -_ 397,820 402,010 Science faculty fellowships, National Science FoundaGrants for equipment and remodeling, National Defense tion _______________________________________________ _ _ 4, 125 4, 395 Education Act, Office of Education---_' ............. __ 70,400 79, 200 Summer fellowships for secondary schoolteachers, Counseling and guidance grants to States, National National Science Foundation ______________________ __ 855 0 Defense Education Act, Office of Education ________ __ 20.485 24, 496 Senior foreign scientist fellowships, National Science Loans to nonprofit, private schools, National Defense Foundation _______________________________________ __ 641 755 Education Act, Oflice of Education ................. -- 1.000 1.500 (Training grants) ___________________________________ __ (289,175) (318, 247) Education of children of low-income families, Office of Institutes for counseling personnel, National Defense Education ______________________________________________________ __ 1,000,000 Education Act, Office of Education _________________ __ 7, 250 7,250 Indian education, Interior ____________________________ -_ 69.000 75.000 Institutes, National Defense Education Act, Office of Public land revenue for schools, Interior ______________ _ . 37.500 30. 600 Education _________________________________________ __ 29, 750 32, 750 __ Institutes on civil rights for school personnel, Office of Support of related school services _________________________ _- 10,300 238,050 Education __________________________________________ __ 3, 000 3, 000 _-—- National Institutes of Health training grants, Public school library resources, Office of Education ______________________ __ 100, 000 Health Service ______________________________________ _. 180, 527 193, 396 Supplementary education centers, Office of Education- _ __________ - _ 100, 000 Injury control training grants, Public Health Service. _ _ 0 100 Grants to State departments of education, Office of Chronic disease of aged training grants, Public Health Education ______________________________________________________ _ _ 25, 000 Service _____________________________________________ _ _ 100 200 Grants for State supervisory services, National Defense Dental services training grants, Public Health Service. _ 2, 269 2, 549 Education Act, Office of Education _________________ -_ 5,200 7,500 Environmental health training grants, Public Health Grants to States for statistical services. National De- _Servlce ________________________ ___ ___________________ -_ 2,262 3,578 fense Education Act, Ofiice of Education ___________ -_ 2, 100 2, 250 Air pollution training grants, Public Health Service_ ___ 998 1, 309 Civil rights grants to school boards, Office 01Educatfon- 3, 000 3, 300 Rigdiological health training grants, Public Health 2 500 00 ervice _____________________________________________ _ - , 2, 5 Support of special areas ___________________________________ __ 77, 749 80,540 Winter supply and water pollution, Public Health Servce .................................................. -- 2, 000 2, 500 Education of dependents of Federal personnel overseas, Cancer control training grants, Public Health Service--- 600 700 Department of Defense _____________________________ __ 72,000 75,000 Community health practice training grants, Public Cuban refugee payments, Office of Education _________ _- 5, 280 5, 097 Heulthservicc ...................................... __ 100 200 Kendall School, Gallaudet College, Health, Education, N 911701081081 and Sensory disease training grants, Public and \Velfare ________________________________________ __ 206 221 Health Service ______________________________________ __ l, 090 l, 100 Schools in national parks, Interior ____________________ __ 89 94 Nurse research training grants, Public Health Service--. 364 480 Menominee Indian grants, Interior ___________________ _ - 83 44 Institutes for environmental health, Public Health ServEducation of pages, District of Columbia _____________ __ 86 86 Ice __________________________________________________ __ 0 1,500 ____.___ —_= Training personnel—Juvenile delinquency program, other _____________________________________________________ __ 4, 365 5, 909 Welfare Administration _____________________________ -_ 2, 000 2, 000 Child welfare training grants, Welfare Administration___ 3, 575 5, 000 American Printing House for the Blind, Health, Educn- Faculty-student participation, Atomic Energy Commistion, and Welfare ___________________________________ _ _ 865 909 $1011. _______________________________________________ -_ l, 130 l, 130 Science education for secondary students, National Summer student training,Atomic Energy Commission__ 70 70 Science Foundation _________________________________ _ _ 3, 800 4,600 Faculty training institutes, Atomic Energy Commission_ 7 790 Visiting scientist program, National Science F0unda~ Federal-State training,community development,Houstion _________________________________________________ __ 200 400 ing and Home Finance Agency- ____________________ __ 5, 050 10, 1445 Academic year institutes for college teachers, National Higher education ___________________________________ __ 1, 904, 797 2, 542, 099 Science Foundation _________________________________ __ 1, 530 1,800 Summer institutes for college teachers, National Science Student support __________________________________________ _ _ 749,666 1, 023, 047 Foundation _________________________________________ _ _ 3, 000 3, 350 Conferences for college teachers, National Science Foun(Fellowships and traineeships) ______ _- - _____________ __ (202, 041) (257,500) dation ______________________________________________ __ 670 800 Graduate fellowships, National Defense Education Act, Academic year institutes for secondary school teachers. Office of Education _________________________________ _- 32, 740 58, 108 National Science Foundation _______________________ -_ 10, 500 10,600 Fellowships in foreign languages and area studies, Office Summer institutes for secondary school teachers. Naof Education ________________________________________ _ . 1, 500 2, 000 tional Science Foundation __________________________ __ 23, 200 23, 500 Language fellowships, National Defense Education Act, Inservice institutes for secondary school teachers, NaOffice of Education _________________________________ _ _ 5, 620 6, 120 tional Science Foundation- _ _ __ _ ____________________ __ 3, 000 3, 200 Fellowships—Educational improvement for handi- Summer institutes for elementary school personnel, Nacapped, Office of Education _________________________ __ 8, 915 12,818 tional Science Foundation __________________________ __ 1,400 1,950 'I‘raineeshlps—Educational improvement for handi- Iuservice institutes for elementary school personnel, N a— capped, Oflice of Education _________________________ -_ 2, 646 3, 658 tional Science Foundation _________________________ __ Short-term trainecships—Educational improvement for (Other student assistance) __________________________ __ (258,450) (447, 300) handicapped. Office Of Education ___________________ __ 2, 621 2, 866 Student loans, National Defense Education Act, Office Injury control fellowships,_ Public Health Service _____ __ 0 50 of Education ________________________________________ __ 146, 700 181, 550 Community health fellowships, Public Health Serviee_-_ 0 100 Work study, Economic Opportunity Act. Office of National Institutes of Health fellowships and trainee- Education __________________________________________ __ 56,000 84,000 ships, Public Health Service ________________________ __ 48,172 54,580 Cuban refugee loans. Office of Education ______________ __ 2,300 2, 500 Nursing services fellowships, Public Health Service.___- 362 412 Undergraduate scholarships. Office of Education _________________ __ 70, 000 Air pollution fellowships, Public Health Service- _ ___--- 252 378 Insured loans, Office of Education ________________________________ __ 15, 000 Water supply and water pollution fellowships, Public Additional college—Work study, Office of Education__-_ __________ __ 45,000 Health Service- ___- ______ _- 617 710 Health professions student loans, Public Health Service_ 17, 900 15,400 Neurological and sensory disease traineeships, Public Nursing student loans, Public Health Service ________ __ 7,550 12,850 Health Service ______________________________________ _- 228 228 Indian education, Interior ___________________ _- 1, 000 1, 000 Professional nurse traineeships, Public Health Service_ - 8 ,000 9 ,000 Veterans education, Veterans’ Administration ________ __ 27, 000 20, 000 Public health traineeships, Public Health Service _____ -_ 4,500 7,000 Senior clinical traineeships, Public Health Service ____ __ l ,000 1,000 Institutional support _____________________________________ __ 983, 064 1, 311, 908 Rehabilitation fellowships, Vocational Rehabilitation Administration ..................................... -_ 160 160 (Construction) ______________________________________ _- (842, 327) (1, 047, 528) Rehabilitation research traineeships, Vocational Re- Higher education facilities, Office of Education__-___--- 463, 1, habilitation Administration _________________________ __ 11,420 12,622 Howard University construction, Health, Education, Fellowships—Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Interior“ 200 and Welfare _________________________________________ _ _ 1,810 2,920 Fellowships—East-West Center, State ................ __ 3 ,485 4,000 Gallaudet College construction, Health, Education, and Nuclear traineeships, Atomic Energy Commission ____ _- 300 300 Welfare _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ , . _ _ _ _. 367 308 Nuclear science fellowships, Atomic Energy Commis- Health educational facilities, Public Health Service_-.- 100,000 90,000 sion _________________________________________________ __ 2,029 2,100 East-West Center construction, State _________________ -_ 0 250 Fellowships, planning and urban studies, Housing and College housing loans, Housing and Home Finance Home Finance Agency ____ -. - ______________________ - _ 515 530 Agency ______________ __. __________________________ __ 277, 000 312, 300 International fellowships, National Aeronautics and (Other institutional assistance) _____________________ _- (140, 737) (264, 380) Space Administration- _______________________________ __ 258 260 State merchant marines schools, Commerce ___________ __ 1, 725 1, Resident research associateships, National Aeronautics Medical education for national defense, Department of and Space Administration __________________________ __ 1, 300 1, 300 Defense _____________________________________________ __ 1,000 1,000 Predoctoral traineeships, National Aeronautics and College library assistance, Office of Education _____________________ _- 65,000 Space Administration ______________________________ -_ 25. 000 30,000 Grants to developing institutions, Oflice of Education.. __________ _- 30,000 Graduate fellowships, National Science Foundation____ 9,617 9, 617 Language and area centers, National Defense EducaCooperative graduate fellowships, National Science tion Act, Office of Education ________________________ __ 4,830 5, 080 Foundation ......................................... - - 6, 135 6, 135
Federal support of training and related activities, estimated obligations by level, fiscal years 1965 and 1966 1-—Continued
[Amounts in thousands]
Academic level and type of support 1965 I 1966 Academic level and type of support 1965 1966 Institutional Support—Continued Vocational-technical training- _ ___________________________ __ $979, 586 $1, 352, 357 Stimulation grants—Educational improvement for handicapped, Oiilce of Education ___________________ __ $318 $159 Vocational education, act of 1963, Office of Education- -_ 106, 650 159, 750 Instruction in land-grant colleges, Office of Education--- 14,500 14,500 Grants to States for vocational education, Office of Howard University, Health, Education, and Welfare- _. 9,660 10,982 Education __________________________________________ -- 34, 796 34, 991 Gallaudet College, Health, Education, and Welfare“--- 1, 926 2, 277 Promotion of vocational education, Oilice of Education- 7,161 7, 161 Freedmen's Hospital training program, Health, Educa- Area vocational education, NDEA, Ofiice of Education_ 15, 000 15, 000 tion, and Welfare .................................... -_ 868 1,114 Work-study programs, vocational education, Oiiice of Project grants for improving nurses training, Public Education __________________________________________ -_ 5, 000 25,000 Health Service .................................... _- 2,000 3,000 Residential vocational schools, Ofiice of Education- - ___ 0 5,000 Payments to diploma Schools of nursing, Public Health Cuban refugee training, Office of Education ___________ -_ 1, 443 l, 443 Service ............................................. -- 4, 000 4, 000 Vomtional education—Appalachia grants, Office of Formula grants to schools of public health, Public Education _____ -- - 8, 000 8, 000 Health Service ...................................... -- 2, 500 2, 500 Work experience, Welfare Administration _____________ -_ 117,000 150,000 Project grants for public health training. Public Health Indian training, Interior ______________________________ __ 12,205 14, 427 Service_ ............................................ -- 2,500 4, 000 Manpower Development and Training Act training Teaching grants, Vocational Rehabilitation Adminis- and subsistence, Labor .............................. -- 342, 640 386. 361 tration .............................................. -_ 8, 230 9, 518 Area Redevelopment Act training and subsistence, East-West Center, State .............................. -- 1, 840 2, 250 Labor _______________________________________________ _- 8, 229 0 E uipment and materials grants, Atomic Energy Work training, Labor _________________________________ __ 132, 500 245. 000 ommission ........................................ -- 2,000 2, 000 Promotion of apprenticeship and training, Labor ..... __ 5. 762 5. 724 Instructional e uipment for undergraduate, National Job Corps, Oflice of Economic Opportunity ___________ _- 165,200 280,500 Science Foun ation ................................. -_ 8, 000 8, 000 Veterans education, Veterans’ Administration ________ _- 18, 000 14. 000 Graduate science facilities, National Science Foundation- ............................................... -- 28,000 28,000 Continuing education ____ -- - 77,567 103, 474 Institutional grants for science, National Science Foundation ......................................... -- 11, 000 19, 000 Agricultural extension service, Agriculture .... -- - 73, 561 74, 468 Science development program, National Science State technical services program, Commerce. _-- -_ .......... __ (4) Foundation ......................................... -- 28, 000 40, 000 Civil defense training, Oflice of Education. ___________ -- 4, 006 4, 006 Science education for undergraduates, National Science Urban extension and continuing education, Office of Foundation ......................................... -_ 6, 000 7, 500 Education _____________________________________________________ __ 25, 000 Science education improvement grants. National Basic adult education _____________________________________ __ 19 ,000 33,000 Science Foundation ____ -_ -_ --- 1, 450 2,500 Visiting scientists, National Science Foundation ______ -_ 390 400 Adult literacy program, Office of Education_-._ _______ __ 19,000 33 ,000 Training of Federal personnel ............................. __ 172, 067 207, 144 Other education .................................... -- 88,178 89,967 Merchant Marine Academy, Commerce ............... -_ 3, 567 3, 644 Library services .......................................... -- 74,036 76 .505 Military ficfldell'lleS, Department of Defense ___________ __ 105,000 129,000 _ Coast Guard Academy, Treasury ..................... __ 6, 500 6,500 National Agricultural Library, Agriculture ........... __ 1 ,599 1,865 Outservice training of Federal personnel, ALL ........ __ 57, 000 68, 000 Grants for library services, Oflice of Education ________ __ 55,000 55,000 National Library of Medicine, Public Health Service--- 3,958 5,010 Vocational-technical and adult education ........... -_ 1, 076,153 1,488,831 Library of Congress, Legislative ...................... __ 13,479 14 ,630 Other ..................................................... __ 14 ,142 13 ,462 Educational TV facilities grants, Health, Education, and Welfare ........................................ _- 13,742 13,062 Public understanding of science, National Science Foundation .............................................. _- 400 400
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am highly pleased to add my support to this landmark legislation, which I believe will add significant dimensions to our efforts in the field of higher education.
It is particularly gratifying to me that the Senate Subcommittee on Education, under the very capable leadership of my friend and colleague from Oregon [Mr. Mouse], saw fit to accept my recommendation that funds be added to provide for a major eifort in the field of continuing education. This will now enable facilities to be constructed through the use of which our universities and colleges can respond to the needs of the communities they serve. As is stated in the report by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, on which I serve:
In their bearing on adult life, knowledge and change in every part of our lives have at last brought us to the point where the old expressions of lifelong learning and continuing education become meaningful decriptions of what is required of man.
The overall effect of this higher education legislation enables greater efforts in the areas of university extension and continuing education, scholarship and loan programs, work-study, grants to public schools, loans to private schools, new and modern equipment, library assistance, aid to community colleges and
technical institutes, and other institu-
In my own State of Rhode Island, as
Senator MORSE has done a remarkable job of leadership in piloting this bill over the many shoals that faced it and he and his committee deserve every congratulation for what they have done.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS], I ask unanimous consent that his statement on the pending bill be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY MR. TYDINGS
It is my privilege to support this bill, the product of so much effort, and patient consideration by the members of the Education Subcommittee and the entire Labor and Public Welfare Committee. The chairman, the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morass], and the members of the subcommittee and the full committee have performed invaluable service for our Nation. I wish to especially commend the junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] and
the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] for their vision in devising and their effort in advancing the National Teachers’ Corps for disadvantaged school districts which is embodied in this bill. Thousands of our young people will receive the benefits of a better education, because of the provisions of this bill, and a good education will enable these young Americans to lead richer, fuller, more productive lives.
Money spent to improve the quality of our educational facilities, to broaden and strength our educational resources, is an investment and not an expenditure. It is an investment in the future of our young people. This is the most meaningful investment which any society can make.
Several months ago, the Congress passed a monumental bill to provide over $1 billion per year in Federal assistance to elementary and secondary schools. That law will provide much-needed assistance to the school districts of our Nation, so that they may better educate our young people through elementary and high school.
But today a high school diploma is often not enough. Our expanding economy will need increasing numbers of highly skilled professional and technical workers. And individuals who are not so trained will find it most diflicult to provide for themselves and their families. It is thus imperative that higher education be made available to increasing numbers of our citizens, for their individual benefit and for the good of us all. Allowing increased flexibility in the allocation of assistance to public junior colleges
and technical institutes is especially important in this regard.
The Office of Education reports that in 1960 over a million high school graduates did not attend college. Of this number, 42 percent were influenced by financial reasons in their decision. Nearly half of this number said that they simply could not afford to consider going to college.
In my own State of Maryland, a recent survey of the 44,000 June high school graduates disclosed that more than half planned to continue their education. And approximately 9. third of the high school graduates who were not planning to continue their education indicated that they would go to college if they could secure a scholarship or a student job, or a long-term student loan.
We live in a complex and ever—changing world, where the useful skills of yesterday can become obsolete by tomorrow. By maintaining a strong and vital educational system we insure that our society will have the trained and skilled manpower which our complicated patterns of living require. By maintaining a strong and vital educational system we insure that our young people will have the opportunity to equip themselves to lead fruitful and meaningful lives.
The key to this bill, I think, is that word. “opportunity." This bill is aimed at broadening the opportunity of the young people of our country to play a fuller role in the workings of our society.
There will be opportunity for the children of lower- and middle-income families to earn scholarships or to take out low-interest student loans, or to engage in work-study programs.
There will be opportunity for smaller colleges to improve their programs, and to augment their faculties.
There will be opportunity for our educational institutions to proceed with the programs of expansion which are so vitally necessary, so that they may adequately serve our expanding school age population.
There will be opportunity for students to avail themselves of expanded stores of books and scholarly material in their college 11braries.
And there will be opportunity for our colleges and universities to concern themselves more directly with the problems of center city, problems of poverty and rootlessness, and the possibilities of community service and community development.
We do not seek to subsidize an isolated class of students and scholars. Rather, we seek to open the doors to educational opportunity to all of those who have the ability and the ambition to walk through those doors. And we must provide the educated with the opportunity to apply their skills to the task of finding solutions to the problems which face us as individuals, and as a nation.
THE NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to speak in support of HR. 9567, the Higher Education Assistance Act of 1965. This bill will, I believe, prove a landmark in the history of American education.
I want in particular to compliment the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] on the intelligence, wisdom, and patience with which he conducted the long and exhaustive course of hearings on this bill and congratulate him on the excellent bill he has reported out.
This afternoon I wish to speak about that part of title V of HR. 9567 that related to the National Teacher Corps.
The national shortage of teachers— estimated last September by the National Education Association at 118,000— is nowhere so acute as those schools
where excellent teaching is most crucial, the schools teaching the children of poverty.
Not only are we short of teachers, but last fall fully 85,700 full-time public school teachers—5 percent of the total— did not fulfill State certification requirement, usually the equivalent of a college degree.
And you may be sure that these teachers were concentrated in those school districts with the least in financial resources and the most in educational problems, the schools serving rural and urban areas of poverty.
The schools in these areas bear a great responsibility. For particularly in cities, the local school is the only community institution within walking distance of every adult and child. It is the one institution to which all children must come, and one to which they come with high hopes and great expectations. It is our best hope for changing their lives.
The Corps will provide a magnificent opportunity to bring into the teaching profession, our most important profession, dedicated and promising college graduates, while at the same time providing desperately needed aid for these embattled schools.
If another generation is not to be lost beneath that destructive wheel of ignorance, anger, and apathy we call the cycle of poverty, we must now make good our ancient pledge of genuine educa— tional opportunity to all.
Teaching is our most important profession, as education is our first responsibility in a free society where the dignity and individuality of man is our creed.
The importance of teaching is such that we must make every effort to attract, train, and keep in the teaching profession our very best young people.
The purpose of the National Teacher Corps, then, is to attract into the teaching profession, and to train by the latest tested techniques for service in the schools of poverty areas the very best of our young people, the kind of practical, idealistic college graduates that made the Peace Corps a success;
To provide an opportunity for dedicated experienced teachers to devote part of their careers to the schools that need their services most critically;
To provide an opportunity to experienced teachers of unusual professional ability to advance in their profession by becoming training teachers leading a Teacher Corps team.
The Teacher Corps is expected to provide approximately 6,000 teachers during its first full year of operation. The bill authorizes $36,100,000 for the Teacher Corps in this fiscal year, $64,715,000 for fiscal year 1967 and for each of the 3 following years.
The great appeal of the Teacher Corps to the young college graduate, like that of the Peace Corps, is the challenge it offers of doing a difficult, useful job.
After a 3 months’ intensive training period at a university, the young Teacher Corps interns would go in teams of about five into schools requesting them, led by an experienced teacher. All the Teacher Corps members-interns and
experienced teachers alike—would teach part time. Time would be set aside for seminars in curriculum, teaching method, and other teacher-training subjects, led by the experienced teacher.
The interns would be paid a salary by the school equivalent to the beginning salary of a full-time teacher in the school system. The experienced teachers leading teams would be paid a salary in keeping with their added responsibilities. Costs to the schools would be covered by a Federal grant. Let me emphasize, Teacher Corps members would be employees of the local school.
When it comes to selecting teachers to lead intern teams the first place to look is in the schools serving disadvantaged areas themselves. It will be extremely helpful to the success of the training program if the team leaders are already experienced in the problems that the interns will be learning to solve. It is also the purpose of the bill, in part, to provide for the excellent teachers who have given selfless service in difficult situations the opportunity for recognition and advancement that leading a teach— ing team would provide.
Crucial to the success of the Corps would be a close relationship between the school and the cooperating university. The university would continue to take part in the training program in the school. Additional course work at the university would make it possible for the interns to earn an advanced degree by the end of the 2-year program.
It is most important to make clear that while the Teacher Corps is a new program, it does not contain untried ideas. Rather it brings together the practical idealism of American young people and the best ideas for the training of teachers for the disadvantaged.
Dean Lindley J. Stiles, of the University of Wisconsin School of Education, said in testimony before the Education Subcommittee:
You have patterned your bill after proven successful practice.
Intern teacher training programs are now in operation at some 40 universities including Wisconsin and Harvard.
The specific pattern outlined in this bill has had 2 years of practical testing at Cardozo High School here in the District of Columbia. There returned Peace Corps volunteers served in intern-teams, teaching part time while studying in the school under the direction of experienced teachers who were also teaching themselves. Fully 80 percent of the program’s graduates have chosen to remain in the field of education for the disadvantaged.
The practicality of setting up Teacher Corps intern teams in rural areas was testified to before the committee by Dr. Pat Wear, of Berea College, Berea, Ky.
We have explored the internship method (at Berea) and it worked most effectively.
Dr. Wear said:
I speak on behalf of the institution and we heartily endorse the development of the National Teachers Corps and feel perhaps it is long overdue.
In his testimony, Dr. Wear emphasized the importance of the provisions in the bill that assure local control and initiative.
The Office of Education itself would conduct a nationwide recruiting effort and make arrangements with local um‘versities, public school agencies, and State departments of education where appropriate for the operation of the program.
But the language of the bill is written so that maximum flexibility, maximum opportunity for local initiative is maintained. Strong local leadership is cru— cial to the success of the program.
Teacher Corps teachers would. of course, be under the direct control of the local school authorities.
There is no reason to set up an elaborate screening system in Washington for applicants when that could be handled better by the participating universities.
Training teachers to work in poverty areas requires more than knowledge of teaching technique. Broad understanding of the sociology of urban and rural development is needed, and also a close acquaintance with the work and problems of social agencies in the community.
The Teacher Corps training program at the universities would utilize community resources, and public school resources, as well as university faculty.
Educators have welcomed the commitment of Congress to action against the poverty that blights so many American lives. Particularly those who must deal with the dilemmas of urban and rural education in areas of poverty have long been struggling with the problem. New programs and ideas have been developed, but a chronic shortage of cash has hampered putting them into action.
This Congress has, at long last, begun to put up the money needed to redeem our ancient pledge of equal educational opportunity for all.
Young Americans are eager to help in this effort. This National Teacher Corps can also provide the funds and the framework to take a great leap forward in teacher education.
By shifting the training locale from the college to the disadvantaged school, by providing a situation in which disadvantaged schools and universities can get to know and learn from each other, and by providing a sizable group of new young teachers to the profession, the Teacher Corps could provide a vital spark to the reform of teacher education in the country.
September 3, 1965, and that immediately after convening on that day the Presiding Officer shall, without the transaction of any business or debate, declare the Senate adjourned until noon, Tuesday, September 7, 1965.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. In other words, when we are through with the pending bill, which is a bill of major importance, there will be no further business today, none tomorrow, except a pro forma session, and on next Tuesday we shall take up KB. 10586, the Labor-HEW supplemental appropriation bill; following that will be HR. 9811, the omnibus agriculture bill; HR. 8072, Calendar No. 655, the bill to provide assistance in training State and local law enforcement officers; the immigration bill; and miscellaneous other bills as they are reported out of committees.
There is one correction in that state— ment. They will not necessarily be taken up in that order all the way through, but in general that will be the schedule.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (HR. 9567) to strengthen the educational resources ofv our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on passage.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, as the Senator from Oregon knows, I am a firm believer in education and have supported bills authorizing Federal aid to education when they specified there would be no Federal control of education.
As the Senator from Oregon also knows, I have been concerned when certain education bills have been passed which I believed might violate the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment. The courts have held that it is a violation of the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment for tax moneys, either Federal or State, to be used to finance the teaching of any religious doctrine.
I ask the Senator from Oregon what provision this bill contains with respect to aid to private colleges and universities.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I want to make legislative history on this point. I shall be brief.
I share the concern of the Senator from North Carolina about separation of church and state. I am the author of a judicial review bill, of which the Senator from North Carolina is a cosponsor, as is the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], and several others. As the Senator also knows, I have been urging that we have hearings on the bill. The Senator from Oregon is hopeful that at an early date, although it may not be until the next session, the Judiciary Committee will schedule hearings on the bill.
For the legislative record on this bill, let me direct the Senator’s attention to
page 114 of the committee report. I read, starting in the second paragraph: The term "academic facilities" shall not—
I emphasize “shall not"—
include (a) any facility intended primarily for events for which admission is to be charged to the general public, or (b) any gymnasium or other facility specially designed for athletic or recreational activities, other than for an academic course in physical education or where the Commissioner finds that the physical integration of such facilities with other academic facilities included under this act is required to carry out the objectives of this act—
This is the heart of the matter
or (c) any facility used or to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship, or (d) any facility which (although not a facility described in the preceding clause) is used or to be used primarily in connection with any part of the program of a school or department of divinity.
Dropping to the bottom of that paragraph:
For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term “school or department of divinity" means an institution, or a department or branch of an institution, whose program is specifically for the education of students to prepare them to become ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation or to prepare them to teach theological subjects.
Honeycombed throughout the bill, these guarantees are contained in section after section. I insisted on them as chairman of the subcommittee.
I ask unanimous consent at this point to insert in the RECORD, for the purpose of legislative history, reference by way of restrictions in this bill that bears upon the Senator’s question which will leave no room for doubt that money provided for by this bill cannot be spent for religious purposes.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Racorm, as follows:
The following sections of the bill bear upon the point raised:
"Sec. 111. No grant may be made under this title for any education activities or services related to sectarian instruction or religious worship. or provided by a school or department of divinity. For purposes of this section, the term “school or department of divinity" means an institution or a department or branch of an institution whose program is specifically for the education of students to prepare them to become ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation, or to perpare them to teach theological subjects.
"SEC. 207. No grant may be made under this part for books. periodicals, documents, or other related materials to be used for sectarian instruction or religious worship, or primarily in connection with any part of the program of a school or department of divinity. For purposes of this section, the term “school or department of divinity" means an institution or a department or branch of an institution whose program is specifically for the education of students to prepare them to become ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation, or to prepare them to teach theological subjects.
"DEFINITION OF ‘DEVELOPING INSTITUTION’
"Sec 302. As used in this title the term ‘developing institution’ means a public or nonprofit educational institution which—
“(ai admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a high school, or the recognized equivalent of such certificate;
8 t t t O
“(h) is not an institution, or department or branch of an institution, whose program is specifically for the education of students to prepare them to become ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation or to prepare them to teach theological subjects."
Title IV is concerned with programs assisting students to receive higher education training.
“SEC. 502. Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to authorize the making of any payment under this title for religious worship or instruction.
"TEACHER cones PROGRAM
"SEC. 513. (a) ' “ ‘.
"(d) A local educational agency may utilize members of the Teacher Corps assigned to it in providing, in the manner described in section 205( a) (2) of Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress, as amended, educational services in which children enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools can participate.
"SEC. 529. No fellowship shall be awarded under this part for study at a school or department of divinity. For the purposes of this section, the term “school or department of divinity” means an institution or department or branch of an institution, whose program is specifically for the education of students to prepare them to become ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation or to prepare them to teach theological subjects.
"LIMrrATION 0N PAYMENTS
"SEC. 609. Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to authorize the making of any payment under this part for any equipment or materials for religious worship or instruction."
Mr. ERVIN. So the only question that could arise as to religion is whether or not a mere furnishing of the grants to sectarian schools for construction of facilities for nonsectarian purposes and the furnishing of grants for the acquisition of materials used in courses of instruction for nonsectarian purposes meet the mandate of the first amendment.
Mr. MORSE. That is the view of the manager of the bill. The Supreme Court is the place to get that finally decided. The judicial review probably would be the vehicle to take it to the Supreme Court.
Mr. ERVIN. The Senator from Oregon agrees with me that although the Supreme Court holds very clearly that tax moneys can not be used for the teaching of any religious doctrine, it has made no decision on this specific point as yet.
Mr. MORSE. We have no decision. The Senator and I discussed that this afternoon. We hope the Maryland case will go to the Supreme Court and raise the issue. No one knows with certainty because, as We know, the Supreme Court tries to avoid constitutional issues if they can be determined on other grounds.
Our bill would be one which I do not see how determination of the question could be avoided.
Mr. ERVIN. Does not our bill spell out clearly that any taxpayer can bring a suit to test the constitutionality of the 5th amendment of any provision of this bill as well as all of the provisions of all bills providing aid to education at any level.
Mr. MORSE. That is clearly my opinion.
Mr. ERVIN. And any Federal taxpayer could bring such a suit and the Court would have jurisdiction regardless of the amount of the tax in dispute.
Mr. MORSE. That is the provision of the bill which I offered and the Senator cosponsored.
Mr. ERVIN. I appreciate the replies of the Senator from Oregon to my questions. The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary. I propose, as the chairman of that subcommittee, to hold hearings on the bill early next session. I trust we shall be able to report the bill favorably and obtain action on it before anything can be done under this bill.
Mr. MORSE. I now invite myself, through my friend from North Carolina. as an early witness to those hearings.
Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I wish to take only a minute. I know that Senators are prepared to leave the city.
I do not want the occasion to go by without making a comment, having served on the full committee and the subcommittee, and without paying tribute to the Senator from Oregon.
I heard the Senator say he is not preparing himself to be buried, when some of the other Senators were singing his praises.
I wish to say what an experience it has been for me to serve with the Senator from Oregon on this important piece of legislation.
We are all interested in the coordination of the Federal program. There are approximately 200 different Federal programs on education. There should be some coordination between all of those programs. I believe that aim is accepted in most cities.
I also have had some discussions with the chairman and the manager of the bill in regard to the possibility of some funds being used for beautification of school buildings. I have discussed an amendment to a bill in the House of Representatives for 1 percent for the beautification of school buildings. I defer to the judgment of the chairman on that matter.
Before I take my seat I will reiterate my praise for the chairman and for the Republican Senators, Senator PROUTY, Senator DOMINICK, and Senator JAVITS, as well as the Democratic Senators, for their contribution in this important piece of legislation.
Mr. MORSE. I wish to state furthermore for the RECORD that the contributions of the Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY], are printed on page after
page of this bill. He has been of great help to me in bringing the bill to fruition on the floor of the Senate.
In regard to the language which I assume to be in the House bill, which deals with trying to beautify our school buildings, to give 1 percent of funds for the architectural aspects of them, I am in complete agreement with the objective of that proposal. It can be discussed in conference. I wish to state to the Senator that I shall support it in conference.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, the bill before us today, the Higher Education Act of 1965, reflects the labors and judgments of many persons, but of no one more dedicated and persevering than our colleague, the senior Senator from Oregon. As one who has observed closely his efforts as chairman of the Senate Education Subcommittee, and who served for a time as a member of that subcommittee under his leadership, I want to pay special tribute to his understanding and his accomplishment in bringing forth this long-awaited legislation.
I am particularly pleased that the bill incorporates a number of proposals that I have advanced over the past year. Three relate in particular to community or junior colleges—a type of institution that I have long felt should be given a larger share of our educational resources. Congress made a start in this direction when. 2 years ago, it adopted in the Higher Education Facilities Act a large part of the community college program I had been advocating for years.
Thus, title III of the pending bill would open up to 2-year colleges, as well as 4-year colleges, the assistance to be provided for developing institutions. Grants under this title would meet part of the cost of financing cooperative agreements between developing institutions and other colleges and universities—a technique well designed to upgrade the qualifications of junior colleges.
In addition, title VII amends the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 in two important respects, so far as junior colleges are concerned.
The first change removes the arbitrary requirement that construction grants to public community colleges and technical institutes amount to 40 percent of costs— no more, no less. This formula has forced several States, including New Jersey, to assign their entire allocation to one institution, leaving no funds for other worthy applicants. Today's bill revises this formula to make 40 percent the ceiling on the Federal contribution, leaving it up to the States to distribute the funds more widely as they see fit.
Title VII also increases the authorizations provided in the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 for fiscal year 1966. The amount authorized for grants for the construction of undergraduate facilities is increased by $100 million, from $230 to $330 million. For graduate facilities, the authorization is doubled. from $60 to $120 million. I had proposed that both authorizations be doubled, but the amounts now provided in the bill will allow for a significant expansion of these programs.