UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(iongressional Recordst

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 I CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

VOLUME 116-PART 19

JULY 21, 1970, TO JULY 29, 1970

(PAGES 25135 TO 26488)

i UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1970

26190 ~CONGRESSIONAL '1tECORD 4 SENATE July 28, 1970"drainage, and indu.Strial dewiiopmen:!;,especially in the oll and chemical fields, tl0wendanger the habitat of the species. 'I'herapidly expanding Houston-Galveston ·'areahas already effectively split the ,coasta! wolfpopulation into two segments and' mightoverrun much more of the region 1n a fewyears. Deer and'waterfowl hunters, long con­sidered a major factor in the decline of ,thewolf in Louisiana, are also a gr9Wing prob-lem on the Texas coast. '

The greatest immediate threat to the redwolf, however, remains direct and deliberatekllling by ranchers who consider the speciesa danger to l1vestock, especially calves. PIm­lott and Joslin (1968) said that in 1960-19,61a single trapper kllled, 52 wolves in thesoutheast Texas counties by means of cya­nide guns. And Steele reported that in theperiod trom 1963 to 1966 another trapperkilled 151 wolves on one large ranch in Jef­ferson County. These flgures probably rep­resent mostly immature animals.

Recent reports indicate that red wolvesare st11l being slaughtered at a shocking rateby ranchers and others along the Gulf Coast.According to Steele, a total of 265 wild canidswas killed in his six county study area fromJanuary 1968 to October 1969.

Federal predators control operations Withinthe suspected range of ,the red wolf, weresharply curtailed in 1966 and there were at­tempts to carefully· investigate complaints'against the species. Although Steele's proj­ect has now ended. limited Federal studiesof C. rufus are continuing in Texas. Currentplans call for more research along"with se­lective trapping of those wolves known to becausing damage. It is hoped that, rancherscan be convinced to forego their own controloperations which presently include indis­criminate poisoning and shooting. Klll1ng ofwolVes by private individuals apparently in­creased after the reducti.on in governmenttrapping and .possibly total Federal with­drawal from the scene would mean a ,morerapid extermination of C. rufus in Texas.

Certainly the livestock interests in thearea cannot be ignored. Rightly or wrongly,many Texas cattle ranchers bel1eve that thered wolf is a detrimental factor in their busi­ness. Of course. further research might wellshoW that here, as' elsewhere. most of thecattle bel1eved k1l1ed by wolves actually dieddue to disease, poisonous plants, malnutri­tion. drowning, or other factors, ,and j1Vereperhaps then fed on as carrion..studies todetermine the facts are badly needed, IUld!:lould prOVide friends for the red'wolf.

CONCLUSION

In the end the preservation ,of the redwolf w11l depend on how much money andeffort can be devoted to the problem. Idealprotection could be provided only, thr.oughthe purchase of a large and guarded refuge,Within the range of C. rufus, tQaqcommo­date a viable population of the species in'its natural habitat. Current plll_S for inten~

sive research, sincere efforts at winning local'cooperation, and captive breeding might alsohelp, if effectively supported and cal'1'iedou~.

.Ofgreat benefit would be ,the pa.ss~ng statelaws' to prohibit the kUling .of ,any, wildcanlds within, the known or suspected ,r.angeof the red wolf. This range ,currently includesat least the following areas: Brazoria, Cham­bers" Jefferson, and Orange c91lI).ties,Texas;and Cameron and Verm1ll0n parishe,s, ~ou­

isiana. Concerted p1.!bliclnformation· pro­grams are,a1l\o required to let local residentsknow of the rarity of the species and theneed for protection. ,.'

Som,eactioI1 should be taken immediatelyif the red wolf is to survive. Even if thehighest current 'popull\tionestimates ,wereto :be accepted. Canis rufus would st11l haveto be considered the rarest mammal in NorthAmerica. It Is; thr.eatened not only by con-

tinuing ruthless human persecution, but b~the steady deterioration of its habitat andthe serious problem of hybridization. Despitethe general awareness, of the, red wolf'splight, no refuges have been provided for it.no laws to protect it. and l1ttlemoney hasbeen spent to help it. '!'he tIme has nowcome for a top priority effort to save ·thisub.1que American species.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS' '

I am sincerely gratefUl to the personnelof the Division of Wildlife Services and theDivision of Wildl1fe Research of the U.S.Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife forproviding detailed information ,and assist­ance. SpecImens and facilities were madeavailable through the courtesy of the Birdand Mammal Laboratories ,of the DiVisionof Wildilfe Research.

I wish to express my particular gratitudeto John L. Paradiso of the Bird and MammalLaboratories and to thank all of, those per­sons, mentioned and ,unmentioned in thisreport, who took the, tro~ble to answer, cor­respondence or who otherWise ,assIsted ,mein gathering information on the red wolf.

LITERATURE CITED

American Society of Mammalogists. 1967.Report of conservation of land mammalscommittee. Defenders Of Wildlile News.- 42(3) : 267-270. ',"

Anonymous. 1967. Does theied wolf ·per­sist in Arkansas? Defenders o/Wildlife News,42(4): 380-381.

BaUey, Vernon.' 1905. Biological survey ofTexas. North Am.erican Fauna, 25: 1-222.

Beezley, Clarence. 1967. Marsh fugitive.Texas Parks and Wildlife, 25 (1): 18-20. '

Bond, Glen W., Jr. 1968. A survey of thered wolf popUlation on the Ozark NationalForest (a supplementary report) . ArkansasPolytechnic College, 11 pp.

Etter, Alfred G. 1969. Adventures on thetrail of the hooved locust. Defenders of Wild­life News,44(2) : 158-166.

International Union for Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources. 1967. RedData Book sheet-Red wolf.

Lawrence. Barbara, and W11liam H. Bossert.1967. Multiple character analysis of ·Canislupus, latrans. and familiaris.with a dis­cussion of 'the relationships of Canis niger,American Zoologist, 7(2) : 223-232.

Louisiana WildLife and Fisheries Com­mission. "1968. Biennia, I Report, 1966-1967.

Lucas, Joseph (ed.). ,'1969. InternationalZoo Yearbook, volume 9. ZOOlogical Societyof London.

'McCarley. Howard. 1959. The mammals ofeastern Texas. Texas Journal of 'Science,11 (4): 385--426.'---. 1962. The taxonomic status of wild

Canis (Canidae) in the the south centralUnited States. Southwestern Naturalist, 7(3-4H227-235. '

Mayr. Ernst. 1963. Animal Species andEvoluMon. .Cambridge," Massachusetts,' Har­vard University Press,xiv+797 pp.

Nowak,RonflldM: 1967. '!'he .red wolftnLouisiana'- Defenders Of Wildlife News;' 42(1): 60-70.

Paradiso, John L. 1961t" Recent recordS ofred wolves from the Gulf, Coast .of Texas.·Southwestern Naturalist 10(4): 3~8:~19.•

--,-,1966. Recent records ofcoYQtes,Canis latransi from' the southeastern UnitedStates. Southwestern Naturalist, 11(4): 500.,­501. " "c' .

-,--.1968. ,Canids recently collected ineast Texas, with comments on the taxonomyof the red wolf. American Midland Natur~

alist, 80 (2) : 529-534.Pimlott.-DouglasH.'1965. Progress report,

a study Of the status, and ecology of the redwolf in the southcentral United States. Uni­versity of Toronto Department of Zoology,6pp.

-'--'-' and PaulW. Joslin. 1968. '!'he statusand distribution of the reli wolf. Trans. 33rdNorth.American Wlldlife and Natural Re­sources Conference, 373-389.

Rutter, Russell J.,and Douglas H. Pimlott.1967. The World Of the Wolf. Philadelphia,J. B. Lippincott. 202 pp.

Sampson, Frank W. 1961. Missouri's van­ishing wolves. Missouri, Conservationist, 22(6): 5-7.

Sealander. John A. and Ph1l1p S Gipson.1969. Annual progress report, rl.'.nge, fOOdhabits, and reproduction of coyotes andferal dogs in Arkansas. UniverSity of Arkan­sas,25 pp.

Snell, DaVid. 1969. Night of the wolf race..Life, 66(6) : 18D.

Wilson, Steve N. 1967. A stUdy cf the redwolf p.opulation on the Ozark Naticnal Forest.a preliminary report. Arkansas PciytechnicCOllege, 17 pp.

Young, Stanley P. and Edward A. Goldman.1944. The Wolves Of North America. WaSh­ington. D.C., American Wildlife Institute~+~6p~ ,

CONCLUSION OF MORNINGBUSINESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Is·there further morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therefurther morning business? If not, morn­ing business is closed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I sug­gest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection. it is so ordered.

OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPRO­. PRIATIONS BILL, 1971-CONFER­

ENCE REPORT

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I sub­mit a report of the committee of con­ference on the disagreeing votes of thetwo Houses on the amendments of theSenate to the bill (H.R. 16916) makingappropriations for the Office of Educa­tion for theftscal year ending June 30,1971, and for other purposes. I ask unan­imous consent for the present considera­tion of the report.

,The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GRAVEL). The repOl·t will be read for the.information of the Senate.

The legi~lativeclerKread the report.(For conference report, see House pro­

ceedings of July 15, 1970, pp. 24453­24454, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the present consideration ofthe ,report?, 'There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the report., Mr. M:AGNUSON.Mr.President, I askunanimous consent that a summary ofthe bill as agreed to by the conferees andadopted by botl:1 bodies be printed in theRECORD. '.

There being no objection. the summarywas oraered to be printed In the RECORD,as follows:

(J,uly 2$,)970 ,C0NGRESSIONAL RECORD".SENATE -26191

OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATION BILL, 1971 (H.R. 16916)

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT, OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATiONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971

, IKey: ESEA--':Elementary and Secondary Education Act; NDEA-National Defense Education Act; ESEA, 1967~Elementary and, Secondary Educatio~ Act Amerydments 011967; VEA-Vocational Educalion Act ?119631 ","

(All amounts are dollars In the lorm 01 definite appropriations ulliess otherwise indicatedj

(11)

Senote bill

(10)(9)(8)

Increase (+) or decrease (-), Conference bill compared with-

New budget Budget New budget(obligational) estimates (obligational)

authority, of new authority,. fiscal year (obligational) recommended

1970 authority in thealter ~ide:~~:~ ,fiscal {971 :~~sl~m

, New budget Budget New budget New budget New budget(obligational) estimates (obligational) (obligational) (obligational)

New budget authority, ot new authority, ' authority, ,authori~" (obligational) fiscal tear (obligational) recommended recommended recommende ,

authority, ' 970 authority in the in the H.R. 16916fiscal year after 2 percent fiscal r::r House bill' Senate, bill conference

1970 I reduction I H.R.16916 H.R. 16916 agreement

(2) (4) (5) (6)

Agency and item

(I)

+4,000,000

-4,000,000

_2,000,000

+1,000,000 +1,000,000.--"---- .... --.

+50,000,000 ...... __

+1,000,000

+50,000,000

+160,949,100 +160,950,000 _. : __ • __ . __

+12,550,000 +23,000,000 +6,000,000 -7,000,000

+37,500,000 • . __ • .. •••• -- ...

1,000,0001,000,000

33,750,000 29,750,000 .. .. __ . .. • .

2,000,000 ...•..... _, .. . .•.. " .... __ . __ .. __ . __ ,._

• 346,336,000 • 350,336,000

79,200,000 50,000,000 +12,821,000 +50,000,000' +30,000,000 -29,200,000

1,809,593,000 1,773,393,000 +223,820,100 +233,950,000 +36,000,000 -36,200,000

15,000,000 10,000,000 +5,000,000 -5,000,000 +2,000,000 -5,000,000

31,000,000 25,000,000 +3.750,000 +3,750,000 _____________ . -6,000,000

'1,500,000,000 '1,500,000,000

150,393,000 143,393,000

80,000,000 80,000,000

29,750,000

350,336,000

1,500,000,000

137,393,000

80,000,000

29,750,000

300,336,000

1,339,050,000

120,393,000

80,000,000

29,750,000

300,336,000

31,339,050,900

130,843,000

42,500,000

16,375,000 13,360,~OO 14,450,000 15,300,000 15,300,000 15,300,000 +1,940,000 +850,000 ." __ , ___ ..._•____ • ___ ••_•••

2,900,000 1,800,000 3,550,000 3,550.000 3,550,000 3,550,000 +1,750,000 ____ . __ , __ ..... ________ ,. ________ .. ________ •

4,000,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 +2,500,000 +2,000,000 __ . _. ______________ .... ____ •

6,500,000 4,750,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 +1,250,000 ___ .... __________ .. _____ . ____ .....__________

29,775,000 21,910,000 26,500,000 29,350,000 29,350,000 29,350,000 +7,440,000 +2,850,000 ..... _____________ . __ .. _____

~9,190,OOO 29,190,000 31,900,000 35,000,000 34,000,000 34,000,000 +4,810,000 +2,100,000 -1,000,000 _..___ . ______ .

4,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 +4,000,000 +3,000,000 ____ . __ •. __ •______ .. ________

36,000,000,.'~'

30,000,000 31,600.0~0 32,600,000 32,600,000 32,609,000 +2,600,000 +1,000,000 ___ •____ .. _•__ . ____ . ___ • ____

610,000 475,000 500,000 500,000 500,~00 500,000 +25,000 . ___. __ ._...... ________ •. __ •• _. _______......[

36,610,000 30,475,000 32,100,000 33,100,000 33.100,000 33,ILO,OOO +2,625,000 +1,000,000 .... __ .•. __ ....._..... _... __

29,750,000

'1,396,975,000

133,393,000

50,000,000

9,250,000 8,825,000 9,250,000 8,825,000 8,825,000 8,825,000 .• _..... _._ ... __ -425,000 .... _._ .• -----.- ... --- .. --.-

Total.. . _•._._. _. _.==1,=69=3",,1=08=,0=00==,==1,=61=4=,3=97=,9=00=1,;,6=1=4,=69=3'=,00=0=1",,8=08=,9=68,;,0=0=0=1=,9=00,;,I=68=,=000==I'=,84=6~,9=68~,0=00==+=23=2'=,57=0;,,' 1=00==+=23==,2,=27=5'=,00=0=,;+=38=,000==,,00=;=0=-=5==3,=,2=00=,0==00=

Education for the handi·capped:

I. State grant programs(ESEA VI}•••..•.••_•••

2. Early childhood proj·ects (Public Law 90-538).

3. Teacher education andrecruitment:

(a) Teacher education(Public Law 85-926)••

(b) Recruitment and,,"formalion (ESEA ,VI-IJ)•• "__ ..•• ' •••••SUbtotal••• ~.,~:" ••:_~--':-:~------:-:7::---:C~'-=:-::-"':-:----'---------"-----"':'---------------------

4. Research and innova·tion:

(a) Research anddemonstration(Public Law 88-164sec, 302)••••••••••••

(b) Regional resourcecenters (ESEA VI-B)••

(c) Deaf·blind centers(ESEA VI-e). .

(d) Media services and:. captioned films '. (Public Law 85-

905)_. •• ---:::-::::-:::--_-::-:::_:_:::--~:::_:_:::_:_-_::_:=-:=-:-- --.....:......:.---.:...:......:....--------__---

SubtotaL __ • ••_====='==============~===='=='~=~~~~=~~~~=~;;;;~;,,;;;;;;,;;;;;;~;;;;,;;;,;;;~5" Specific learning, disabilities (ESEA 197.0,

Title VI, Part G) • __ •• •• __• __ --. ------- -- -----.-.-- --.----- -- .----- .. , .• --6. Planning and evalua·

~i:c~ ~~~~:_I_~6:.'_._._.,._--=-:-:-.4~25::-,0:::0~0---::-:::42::5-::,O=00~---:=50::0:-:,O=00~__::::::_:5:::50:_:,0~0::-0- __~55-0:..,0-00--,--55_0:..,O_00----=-+_I-25.:,,0_0_0__--=-+_5..:0,..:00_0_._,_--_-_••_-_-....._--_._--_-_-._--_-_--...._.-_.

Total._. • .;:.==1;:0=,O,=00=0,=,0;:00==;:8;:5,;:00=0,='OO=0==95=,00=0,00=0='=10=5,=,0=00=,0=00==1=05=,0=00,;,,0=0=0==10";5,~00=0;",O;:00=:;::;+=2";O,=00;:0;,,,O=00=:;::;+;:1~0.,,,00,;,0,;;00=0=_';'_;;__';__;;';;"';__;';'';__;;';;__';__;;_;;__;;.;;__';__;;'Vocational and adult

education:I. Basioocalional edu~"

cation grants: "(a) Grants to States

(YEA, pt 8)--------.. . 300.336,000(b) Consumer and

homemaking edu-cation (YEA, pt F)---. 17,500,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 17,500,000 25,000,000 21,250,000 +6,250,000 +6,250,000 +3,750,000 " -3,750,000

(c) State advisory" ~ ,..' "(dr~~t~~~a<j'aFfv~t~)-. ,', 2.800,000 2,380,000 2,380,000 2,380,000 2,380,000 2,380,000 __ ....... ••. . •• _. .. __

" CQuncii (YEA, pt ~),.: '"_2oo~,ooo:-::---_:_:::_::200'_:_:,000:::'"-::_:_3:_30-,_:_000_____::_:_3:_30-,000__--_3-3--0,000--. 33_0.:,.,000 .:..+_13_0:..,000_-_._--_._--_.-_._.-_-_••_--_._-._-_--_--_._--_-,.,.--"'.-_._••_----------.-

SubtotaL•• _•••••_ 320.836,000 317,916,000 318,046,000 370,546,000 374,046,000 374,296,000 +56,380,000 +56.250,000 +3,750,000 +250,000Footnotes a.t end of table.

School assistance in, lederally aflected areas:I. Maintenance and

operations (874)•• 505,400,000 505,400,000 2425,000,000 425,000,000 658,800,000 536,068,000 +30,668,000 +llI,068,OOO + llI,068,OOO -122,732,0002. Construction (815)..... 15,181,000 15,181,000.---.--.-----. 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 -181,000 +15,000,000 ..•...•.•.• -•..•••..•.. -.-.-

(Obligations)_. _•.• _._ _ (15,167,000) (14,416,000) (21,049,000) (36,049,000) (36,049,000) (36,049,000) (+21,633,000) (+15,000,000)- .-- __ . • . _... _••

TotaL. • •. ==52=0;;,5=81~,0=00===52==0~,5==81~,0==00===4==2~5,==00=0~,0==00===4==40,;,O==0""O,==00=0===6==7""3,=80=0;,,,0==00===5=51~,O=68,;,O=0=0==",+~3==0~,4==87,;"O=00=="",+=12==6;",O=68~,0=00=+;;I=I""1,=06=8';"00=0=-=1=22,;,7=3,,,,2",=00=0Elementary and secondary

education:I. Aid to school distriCts:

(a) Educationally de·prived children(ESEA 1)._._._ .•• _••

(b) Supplementaryservices (ESEA III} _

(c) Library resources(ESEA 11) •• _._. __

(d) Equipment andminor remodeling

(NDEA 111)."" •. --".-,.,.__4-,3,_74_0_,0_00__"'3_7,-,17_9_,0_00_'-_- -_-._.-_.~-._-.__2_0_,O_00__,0_00 _

SubtotaL~•.~_".".. "1,62.(,108,000 1,549,572,900 1,539,443,000 1,737,393,OOu2. Dropout prevention

(ESEA VIII).._.. __ •... _ 5,000,000 5,000,000 15,000.000 8,000,0003. Bilingual education

(ESEA VII)••. _•.. _.... 25,000,000 21,250,000 21,250,000 25,000,0004. Strengthening State

departments 01 educa·tion (ESEA V). -.. -.

5, School nutrition and ..health (ESEA, sec. 808)•• __ " • . __ ... _. _. __ --.- -•..••• _., •.•• -- _.. __ --••. _. __ .

6. Planning and evalua·tion (ESEA 1967,sec. 402,, __ ••... _. __ ••

;26192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -.S:eNATE \'July28, ·1970OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATION BILL, 1971 (H.R, 16916) "'-Continued

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND BUDtET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971-Continued

[Key: ESEA-Elementary and Secondary Education Act; NDEA-National Defense Education Act; £SEA, 1967-Elementary andSecondary Education Act Amendments of 1967; VEA-Vocational Education Act 0119631

(All amounts are dollars in th. form of definite appropriations unless otherwise indicated)

Increase (+) or decrease (~), Conference bill compared with-

New budget Budget !'lew budget New budget New budget New budget Budget New budget(obligation.l) estimates (obligational) (obligational) (obligational) (obligational) estimates (obligational)

New budget authority, of new authority, authority, authori~ authority, of new authority,(obligational) fiscal {;:~ (obligational) recommended recommended recommende , fiscal ~ear (obligational) recommended

authority, authority In the in the H.R. 16916 970 authorily in thefiscal year after 2 percent fiscal {;:f House bill Senate, bill conference after 2 percent fiscal ~ear House bill

Agency and Item 1970 1 reduction 1 H.R.16916 H.R.16916 agreement reduction 971 H.R. 16916 Senate bill

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

5,000,000

14,000,000

31,980,000

49,900,000

4,250,000 • ••

14,000,000 24,000,000

14,980,000 25,000,000

49,900,000 55,000,000

5,500,000

18,500,000

20,000,000

55,000,000

4,000,000 _. .... __ • .. ._._. _• • -4,000,000

5,500,000 5,500,000 +1,250,000 +5,500,000 . .. _ •

18,500,000 18,500,000 +4,500,000 -5,500,000 • . _

, 20,000,000 , 20,000,000 +5,020,000 -5,000,000 .. _

55,000,000 55,000,000 +5,100,000 • __ . • __

1,100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 -100,000 -100,000 • .... __ . __ ... .

+3,000,000

+75,150,000

+3,000,000 .. __

+54,150,000 +3,750,000 -3,750,000

164,600,000 164,600,000 185,600,000 167700,000 185,600,000 167,700,000 +3,100,000 -17,900,000 _•• -17,900,000

154,000,000 154,000,000 160,000,000 160,000,000 176,000,000 160,000,000 +6,000,000 .. _. __ .. •...••. .• -16,000,000

229,000,000 195,685,000 176,925,000 229,000,000 243,000,000 243,000,000 +47,315,000 +66,075,000 +14,000,000 • •.• ••

-500,000

+9,500,000 __ . __ • . .• _.... ._

+7,000,000 +7,000,000 ~7,500,000

+10,080,000 '+2,000,000 -2,040,000

-7,300,000 • -],300,000 +2,OOC,000 -7,300,000

-9,281,000

+3,850,000 • •.• _._._ • __ ,". __ •__ . _. _.~ ., ..• ,_

8,000,000

9,500,000 ._._. •. _._._

7,000,000 +7,000,OUl

10,080,000

33,850,000

500,000 •_, c••• "." •., • _, •• • _. ,'.• _•. _•••••• _'.'. _._ .. .•

9,500,000

14,500,000

15,300,000

12,120,000

33,850,000

5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 ••_••• __ .• __ .•_____ . ____________ •____ •_. _._ •. _________ . _____29,637,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 +363,000 _. __ . _.• _____________ . __ •. __ ~'-"' _______ ._••

10,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 +5,000,000 _______ • __________ . ______ •__ . __ , ___.' ___ . ___

44,637,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 +5,363,000 _c_ • __ ••___________ , ________ ._._____ • ___ • ___

622,822,000 717,925,000 752,100,000 800,000,000 766,100,000 + 143,278,000 +48,175,000 +14,000,000 -33,900,000

5,000,00029,683,000

10,000,000

44,683,000

656,183,000

SubtotaL _===================================================

Subtotal,studentassistance__ •

=================================================================

(Teacher cancella·tions) __ . ._ (4,900,000) (4,900,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) (-400,000) .• • .

(2) Insured; (HEAIV-B);

(A) Advances forreserve funds . •__ •__•• . . ,, .•_. • __ •_. ._. • ... . • •_' __ ._. _. •• _(Obligations). ___ (2,800,000) (2,800,000) (4,441,022) (4,441,022) (4,441,022) (4,441,022) (+1,641,022) • . . ..• ". __

(B) Interest pay·ments • 62,400,000 62,400,000 143,200,000 143,200,000 143,200,000 143,200,000 +80,800,000 _. . ._." . •

(Accrued costs)._ (109,454,000) (109,454,000) (143,200,000) (143,200,000) (143,200,000) (143,200,000) (+33,746,000)_. . "._. • .(New loans

subsidized)__ •• (794,241,000) (794,241,000) (940,428,000) (940,428,000) (940,428,000) (940,428,000) (+146,187,000). __ •_..._. _. • __ '"'. .'•.• _~~~.. :servlces_______ 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 +700,000 • ._•• ~ ._,. ._._. __

(Obligations)_ .__ (1,697,990) (1,697,990) (2,200,000) (2,200,000) (2,200,000) (2,200,000) (+502,010) ,. • . __

SubtotaL__ ._. 63,900,000 63,900,000 145,400,000 145,400,000 145,400,000 145,400,000 +81,500,000 _••• _. • __ •• _._. •• _._._._. __ ._. •

(d) Special programsfor the disadvantaged(H EA sec, 408):

(1) Talent search._(2) Upward bound__(3) Special services

in college •• _---------------------------------------~---

2. Institutionalassistance:

(a) Aid to land·grantcolleges(BankheadJones Act}__ • • • 19,361,000 19,361,000 ••• _. ._.. 8,080,000

(b) Strengtheningdeveloping .institutions(HEA 111).. .• • 30,000,000 30,000,000 33,850,000 33,85G,OOO

(c) Universitycommunityservices(HEA 1). •• 9,500,OG09,500,OOO __ .• _. __ ._____ 9,500,000

(d) Instructionalequipment. .• ._ .. _. __ . _. _. _. •• _.•. . . _.• . _•. •_ .. _

(e) Foreignlanguage,training andarea studies(NOEA VI;Fulbright-Hays).. _. ' •• __ 18,OOO,OGO 15,300,000 '153,00,000 6,000,000

(I) International. Education

Act.. __ ... _.. •• •• _. _.• • • •_. •. __ , •.••. __ . . .....

iF90tncites at end o!ta'ble.

July 28,_1970."

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD L..:SENATE'

Increase (+) or decrease (-), Conference bill compared with-

New budget Budget New budget New budget New budget New budget Budget New budget(obligational) estimates (obligational) (obligational) (obligational) (obligational) estimates (obligational)

New budget authority. 01 new authority, authority, . authori~ authority, of new authority,(obligational) fiscal ~ear (obligational) recommended recommended recommende 6 liscalmO (obligational) recommendpd

authority, 970 authority in the in the'· H.R. 1691 authority in thefiscal ~ear alter 2 percent fiscal rear House bill

SJ.~~tMl~conference alter 2 percent fiscal 1m House bill

Agency and item' 1 701 reduction 1 971 H.R.16916 agreement reduction H.R.169t6 Senate bill

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Higher educatlon-Con~'(g) Improvement 01

graduateschools "(HEA X) • ._. _

(h) Institutional "sharing 01resources(HEA VI I1) ... •• _. _••• __ .. __ • __

76,861,000 74,161,000 49,150,000 57,430,000

500,000 • • .. . _

500,000 • •

86,770,000 68,430,000 -5,731,000 +19,280,000 +11,000,000

-500,000

-500,000

-18,340,000

+43,000,000 +43,000,000 -28,050,000

+62,280,000 +54,000,000 -46,390,000

-19,117,000

-24,848,000

-28,050,000 +43,000,000 +43,000,000 -28,050,000(-29,650,000) (+43,000,000) (+43,000,000) (-28,050,000)

+9,250,000 , __(+14,330,000) • _

(+127,000,000) , • __ . •_•• cc _

6,000,000 ••• _•. _

5,100,000 -317,000 _

43,000,000(43,000,000)

21,000,000(25,250,000)

(520,000,000)

6,000,000

5,100,000

103,150,000 75,100,000

189,920,000 143,530,000

71,050,000(71,050,000)

21,000,000(25,250,000)

(520,000,000)

6,000,000

5,100,000

32,100,000

89,530,000

6,000,000

5,100,000

32,100,000

81,250,000

6,000,000

5,417,000

94,217,000

168,378,000

71,050,000 .. • • '_(72,650,000) • •__ c _

11,750,000 . 21,000,000 21,000,000(10,920,000) (25,250,000) (25,250,000)

(393,000,000) (520,000,000) (520,000,000)

6,000,000

5,417,000

76,000,000(76,000,000)

1I,750,OQO(11,750,000)

(435,000,000)

Subtotal, con-struction _ ,99,167,000

Subtolal, institu-tionalassistance_ 176,028,000

(i) Construction:(I) Grants (HEFA I

& 11)_--_--------(Obligations) _

(2) Subsidized loans(HEFA 111) .. _(Obligations) _(Loans subsi-dized)__.. _

(3) State administra­tion and planning(HEFA 1).. __

(4) Technical services(HEFA l,sec.105)_----------------------------------------

47;350,000 47,350,000 -1,463,000 ... __ ...... __

10,000,000 10,000,000 • • _

500,000 .. .___ __ __ -500,000

500,000 ... __ • .. .. __ -500,000

58,350,000 57,350,000 -1,463,000 -1,000,00057,350,000

47,350,000

10,000,000

57,350,000

47,3~O,OOO

10,000,000

58,813,00066,163,000

1,000,000 900,000 1,000,000 900,000 900,000 ' 900,000 ________________ -100,000 _____ .... ___________________

899,374,000 850,913,000 857,525,~00 899,880,000 . 1,049,170,000 967,880,000 +116,967,000 +l1U,355,OVO +68,000,000 -81,290,000

18,250,000 15,512,500 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 -512,500-~ -- -- _. ---- ----_.._- --_.- -- .---..--. -- ---_.

88,348,000 79,098,000 88,500,000 88,500,000 88,500,000 88,500,000 +9,402,000 _. ____ ••• _________ . _________________________

477,000 477,000 1,300,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 +523,000 -300,000 _________.. _________________

425,000 425,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 + 75,000 _. __ • ____________ .. _____________ • ______ . ____

21,737,000 21,737,000 30,800,000 30,800,000 40,800,000 30,800,000 9,063,000 ______________________________ -10,000,000

129,237,000 117,249,500 136,100,000 135,800,000 145,800,000 135,800,000 + 18,550,500 -300,000 ______________ -10,000,000

40,709,000 35,459,000 35,459,000 40,709,000 40,709,000 40,709,000 +5,250,000 +5,250,000 ________________ ....._______

9,185,000 7,807,250 ___ •__________ 5,000,000 9,185,000 7,092,500 -714,750 +7,092,500 +2,092,500 -2,092,500(10,911,034) (9,533,284) ______________ (5,000,000) (9,185,000) (7,092,500) ( -2,440,874) ( +7,092,500) (+2,092,500) (-2,092,500)

49,894,000 43,266,250 35,459,000 45.109,000 49,894,000 47,801,500 +4,535,250 +12,342,500 +2,092,500 -2,092,500

20,750,000 9,816,000 9,900,000 9,900,000 20,750,000 15,325,000 +5,509,000 +5,425,000 +5,425,000 -5,425,000

6,833,000 4,000,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 8,250,000 3,900,000 -IOO,COO ______________________________ -4,350,000

6,732,000 5,721,450 5,727,000 5,727,000 7,500,COO 6,613,500 +892,050 +886,500 +886,500 -886,500

5,083,000 4,320,550 4,000,000 6,000,000 15.000,000 11,000,000 +6,679,450 +7,000,000 +5,000,000 -4,000,000(5,396,639) (5,396,634) (4,000,000) (6,000,000) (15,000,000) (11,000,000) (+5,603,366) ( +7,000,000) (+5,000,000) ( -4,000,000)

89,000 89,000 460,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 +311,000 .,.,60,OGO ._,______ •___ c _______ •• _____

: 89,38l;ClOO 67,213,250 59,446.000 71,636.000 101,794,000 85,040,000 ' ,+17,826;750 +25,594,000 +13,404,000 -16,754,OOQ

SubtotaL _==================~==============

4. Planning andevalualion (ESEA, 1967,sec. 402) .------

===================================TolaL _

Community education:I. Public libraries:

(a) Services (LSCA I,III, IV-A and IV-B)__

(b) Construction '(LSCA 11) ..

(Obligations)c ,~

-----:----------------'--------'----------:------Subtotal ---

=================================2. College library

resou rces (H EA II-A) _3. Librarian training

(HEA II-B) _4. Catalnging by the Li-"

brary 01 Congress(HEA II-C).. __

5. Educational broad­casting facilities (litleII, Communicalio,ns .•Act 011934). _, __ c_c _

(Obligations' __6. Planning and e~alua·.

tion (ESEA 1967, sec.402) ._

~,.......~~-------~~--~-------c.,.,..-,-_:c_--:-'-,--O....,..,-,-------,-----,--~--'-'---­TotaL_~,_.,j~__ ._·_c_

==================================~=======

Education professionsdevelopment:

I. Slate grants (EPDA-pl.B-2)__ .. _2. Personnel development

programs (EPDA-pts.C, D. & F>------ .. -----

3. Planning and evaluation(ESEA 1967, sec. 402) __

4. Encouragement 01 edu·cational careers (EPDA-sec. 504) _

5.Teacher Corps (EPDA-pl.B~l) •• •__

----------------------------------------------TotaL ._..

Footnotes at end of table.

26194 .. CONGRESSIONAD:RECORD 7 ":SENATE)OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATION BILL, 1971 (H.R.16916)---eontinued

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND B~DGET EST!MAT"ESAND AMOUNTS ,RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971---eontinued

(Key: ESEA-Elerilentary and Secondary Education Act; NDEA-c-National Delense;Education Act; ESEA, 1961-Elementary andSecondary Education Act Amendments of 19~1; VEA-Vocational Education Act of 1963]

(All amounts are dollars in the form of definite appropriations unless otherwise indicated)

Incre~se (+) or decr~se (-), Conference bill compared with-

Agency and item

(I)

New budget(obligational)

authority,fiscal year

1970 •

(2)

New budget BUdget New budget New budget Newbudget New budget Budget New budget(obligational) estimates (obligational) (obligationa!) (obligational) (obligational) estimates (obligational)

authority, of new authority, authority, authority authority, of new authority,

fiscal r~~O (obligational) recommended recommended recommended, fiscal r~~o (obligational) recommendedauthority in the in the H.R. 16916 authority in the

after 2 percent fiscal r::r House bill Senate, bill conference after 2 percent fiscal r:~r House billreduction' H.R. 16916 H.R. 16916 agreement reduction H.R. 16916 Senate bill

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

-5,000,000 _. _-10,000,000

-2,000,000 • ._. . _

(-2,000,000) • •• - --- ----

+15,000,000

+2,000,000

( +1,150,000)

3,000,000'

(2,150,000)

15,000,000

25.106,000 _._••••_••• ••••• •.• +100,000 :~_._. •

9,300,000 -500,000 -200,000 •• __ •••_. .. •15,000,000 -1,562,000 -1,562,000 -4,208,000 _••• __ . __ . •4,000,000 +1,204,000 -1,000,000 --250,000 __ ~. .• _

4,500,000 +2,600,000 __ ••••••••••••• ••. __ ••• -- .•

2,171,000 • • •_. •_•• , .,••• • __ ._. __• -- - --- - -.,

2,000,000 +2,000,000 -500,000 _. •. __ • • •

62,017,000 -2,258,000 -9,262,000 -3,758,000 _

3,000,000

(2,150,000)

15,000,000

25,106,000

9,300,00015,000,0004,000,000

4,500,000

2,171,000

2,000,000

62,017,000

20,000,000

3,000,000

(2,150,000)

24,406,000

9,300,00019,208,0004,250,000

4,500,000

2,171,000

2,000,000

65,835,000

5,000,000

(4,150,000)

25,106,000

9,500,00022,562,0005,000,000

4,500,000

2,111,000

2,500,000

71,339,000

1,000,000

(1,000,000)

64,335,000

25,106,000

9,800,00022,562,0002,796,000

1,900,000

2,171,000

1,000,000

(1,000,000)

65,158,000

25,125,000

10,000,00022,862,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

2,171,000

SubtotaL .•2. Major demonstration

(Cooperative Re-o search Act)•• •

District of Columbiamodel schooL••_.. _

3. Experimental schools(Cooperative ResearchAct)__ •__ . _._. . • ._. .•__ 25,000,000

4. Dissemination (Coop·erative Research Actand sec. 303 VEA) ._ _ 1,200,000 6,140,000 6,140,000 6,140,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 -1,140,000 -1,140,000 -1,140,000 __ -... -.-- --.-

5. Training•• _.. _- • __ • 6,750,000 6,350,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 -4,350,000 -4,250,000 -4,250,000 • _- -- --- -. -.,.6. Statistics ... _._ ___ 2,000,000 1,900,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 +1,100,000 -1,000,000 - 500,000 _-- --. -- -- -..•

1. (~ob~fJ~~i~t~~)~---~~::::: :- -'--W,29-i,202j-- -- -<ICi9i,202j:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::- --(::':ii;29D02j::::: :::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::

10taL_. .• 82,108,000 80,325,000 118,329,000 '105,325,000 90,017,000 10 90,017,000 +9,152,000 -28,252,000 -15,248,000 _.'_

Research and training:1. Research and develop­

ment (CooperativeResearch Act):

(a) Educationaf labora·tories _(b) Research and de-

velopment centers _(c) General education.__(d) Evaluations_. ._(e) National a6hieve·

ment study__ •. _(f) Special library reo

search ._._(2) Nutrition and

health . _. •-. . -.- __ -•• - -- ---- .--.

1,000,000(1,029,405)

44,308,000

1,000,000(1,029,405)

44,308,000

3,000,000(3,000,000)

46,133,000

3,000,000(3,000,000)

46,107,000

3,000,000(3,000,000)

45,164,000

3,000,000(3,000,000)

45,164,000

+2,000,000 _•• •• . ---(+1,910,595) __ • • . - -- - - --

+856,000 -1,569,000 -943,000 _

Student loan insurance fund(HEA IV-B)____________ 10,826,000 10,826,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 +7,114,000 . . _

(Obligations)__ . . _____ (16,338,000) (16,388,000) (18,182,000) (18,182,000) (18,182,000) (18,182,000) (+1,194,000). _. . . __ . -_ - - --. - -- -- - -. -.

Higher education facilitiesloan fund (HEFA III):

1. Loans to higher educa·

(o~a~ait~~~:)~~~~s::::::. --- -<2s:oi)0:oOO) -- - -(IS,ooil,OOOj -- -(iO:OOO,OOO)" -. (io:ooo:oOO) -- - (25;000,000)" - -<25;600,(00)"-- <+io;ooo,oooj---<+-ls:600.000) - --(+is,ooo:oooj::::::::::::2. Parbcipation sales in·

sufficiencies_________ 2,918,000 2,918,000 2,952,000 2,952,000 2,952,000 2.952,000 +34,000 ,_, . ,(Obligations)___ ________ (31,651,000) (31,651,000) (25,293,000) (25,293,000) (25,293,000) (25,293,000) (-6,358,000) . --. - -- -- --- --

TotaL ---2,"918-;ooo----2;9i8.000 2,952,000 2,952,000 2,952,000 2.952,000 +34,000 h h_Wh w, :_::~~~-:-::-::-:

-75,000,000 +75,000,000 -75,000,000

+453,321,000 +293,031,000 -362,726,000

'+75,000,000

+606,367,350

150,000,000 75,000,000

4,782,871,000 4,420,145,000

Emergency school.asSistance (OEO, title II;EPDA, pI. 0; Co op.Research Act; ESEA, sec.807; Civil Rights Act,title IV; ES EAAmendments of 1967, 000 0sec. 402•• . __ • .___ ___ 150,000,000

Total,OEO , __ .,__ 4,015,651,000 3,813,177,6~0 "3,966,824,000 4,127,114,000

Title' advance funding:1970 advance (in 1969bill) __ •• ._ -1,010,814,300 -1,010,814,300 • . . . +1,010,814,300 . -.---- ---- --- - -- ---1972 advance (in 1971bitf) •••• • • __ ••• __ •••• •• _._._. 1,339,050,000 _. ._. _c • : _: _ __ _ -1,339,050,000 --'__ -~ -. --.- - - ---- -- ---

Total, EducationAppropriation Bill_ _ 3,004,842,700 2,802,963,350 5,305,874,000 4,127,114,000 4,782,871,000 4,420,145,000 +1,617,181,650 -885,729,000 +293,031,000 -362,726,000

11910 appropriations are comparable to the 1971 estimates.I To implement proposed reform legislation now pending in Congress.I Includes $1,010,814,300 appropriated in the 1969 bitf.• Includes $7,841,685 for pI. B, incentive grants and $15,453,650 for pt_ C, grants for high can·

centrations of poor.I Department distribution. Key to legislative authorities: ESEA 1910 (Elementary and Secondary

Education Act Amendments of 1970).• Provides 10 percent of total for vocational research under pI. C of the basic law.I Earmarks $4,000,000 for curriculum development and $16,000,000 for exemplary programs.I InclUdes a budget amendment of $9,300,000 (S. Doc. 91-80). Key to legislative authorities:

HEA (Higher Education Act); HEFA (Higher Education Facilities Act); EPDA (Education ProfessionsDevelopment Act).

• Department distribution_.0 Tentative distribution. -II Includes budget amendment totaling $279,759,000. Includes $425,000,000 to implement

impacted area aid legislation; and includes $150,OOO,O()O for 1970 supplemental estimate for emer-gency school assistance. 0

12 Not considered by House. Key to legislative authorities: Economic Opportunity Act 01 1964title 11 •

Not H. Rept. 91--996, Apr. 9,1970, passed House Apr. 14,1970. S. Rept. 91-871, May 15, 1970passed Senate June 25, 1970. H.J. Res. 1264, continuing resolution, 1971, Public Law 91-294,June 29,1910.

July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORI;:> -' SENATE 26195

Astudents.. . ..• -.. 90 $158,100,000Bstudenls . '. __ ._. __ . 65 334,100,000Hardshipstudenls ._ .. 100 8,800,000Section 6 (mandalory)_.. __ .. _._. 100_ 35,000,000

SubtotaL .. __-..-__-.-..-..-.-_.-5-3-6,-000-,~00-0Construction (Public Law 815). __ . __ . . _ 15,000,000

--------TotaL_ •• _. __ . __ • . __ . . . 551,000,000

The Senate last year in adopting theconference report provided equal en­titlement for both A and B students. Itwas 77 percent after the conference.

I know- that many Members are dis­appointed that equal entitlement was notretained for B students. This was in theSenate verision:

Funds reqUired to pay 90 percentMaintenance and operations

(Public Law B74) $658,800,000Construction (Public Law815) :______________________ 15,000,000

Total 673,800,000

Fund requirements include provision topay full entitlement for school districts with25% or more "category A" pupils.

However, let me say that under theconference agreement, B students willreceive over $100 m1llion more than w~provided in the House version or the De­partment's proposal. The amount pro­vided this year is the largest amount inthe 20-year history of impacted aid.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to have printed at this point in theRECORD a tabUlation which points thefunds that have been provided for im­pacted aid since 1951.

There being no objection, the tabula­tion was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

cent of the total contribution annually.This bill covers only $4.4 billion of the$7.8 billion Federal outlay. .-

The States are putting up about $20.9billion for education, the local govern­ments are investing $23.7 billion in edu­cation, and $17.7 billion goes into educa­tion from endowments and gifts, and soforth. These private donations run almostthree times what the Federal Govern­ment contributes to education; And weknow what happens when the Federalportion is reduced-8tate and local taxesgo up. And when local bond issues failand States do not come up with addi-­tional tax dollars-education suffers.

Whether the percentage of the Federalcontribution goes up or down by one­tenth of a percent has very little, or per­haps nothing, to do with reducing infla­tion.

Now, let me touch just briefiy on someof the particular aspects of this bill.

First, school assistance in federallyaffected areas-impacted aid-we··spentmore time on this part of the bill thananything else.

However, the conference figure is $126million over the administration's sub­mission and $111 million over the Houseallowance.

The conference agreement provides forthe following:

- Mr. MAGNUSON;- Mr. President,:!have a short statement to make, and Iam sure that the distinguished Senatorfrom New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON) willwish to make. a statement on the adop'"tion of this very important conferencereport.

Mr. President, before I move the adop­tion of the conference report on H.R.16916, I would like to comment verybriefly on several aspects of the bill, _asagreed to by the conferees. ,_ .

First, the total bill, as reported out ofconference, iS$4,421l,145,OOO, which isunder the Senate figure of $4,782,871,000by minus $362,726,000. The conferencefigure is over the House amount of $4,­127,114,000 by $293,031,000 and over thebudget estimate of $3,966,824,OOO-with­out a-dvance funding of $1,339,050,000­by $453,321,000; It is under the budgetestimate of $5,305,874,OOo-including ad­vance funding of $1,339,050,OOO-by$885,729,000, The conference figure isover the fiscal year 1970 comparable ap­propriation of $3,813,777,650-taking in­to consideration the 2-percent reductionof tlie total amount of last year's edu­cation appropriation-by $606,367,350.

The House, on July 16, adopted thisagreement by a rollcall vote of 357 to 30.

I am hoping' the Senate will adop,tthe conference report by just as impres­sive a margin as the House so we cansend this education bill to the Presi­dent and have him, sign it, and theschools and the students can gell theirmoney and we ca.l1 get on with the busi­ness of educating 52,000,000' students.

There has been a little noise down on1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about the sizeof appropriations bills being approved byCongress. That four-letter word "veto"keeps cropping up again and again-butlet me say that Congress wants this ap­propriation bill signed into public law.The Senator from New HampShire, thechairman; the slic.bcommittee and theCongress have deliberated on educationfunds for 1971 10Ilg. enough and havecompleted. a' fairly decent bill, .and weare readY to turn our attention to otherpressing matters. ---

Appropriation bills are a composite o!the annual bUdg~t--:-thePresident's bUdg­st. And when we finish passing the vari­ous component l?arts of the President'sbudget, I think he will find that Congresshas reduced his blidget-not increased it.This is what happened last year, and inmany other years, and I predict this willbe the final resUlt when we conclude thissession.

This is what the taxpayers should betold. This is what they shoUld know be­tween now and November.

Congress' also knows' that a flow ofsupplemental requests for more moneywill begin their march up the Hill fromdowntown between now and the time weadjourn. The taxpayers shoUld know this,too.

Expenditures for education in thiscountry are running about $70 bUliona year at all levels-:-Iocal, State, andcounty. ._,

The Federal cohtributiori. toward edu­cation is about $7.8 bUlion, or 11.1per-

Category

Percentof entitle'

ment Amount

Public Law 874 appropriations-School as-sistance in federally. affected areas

1951 .------ $29,OBO,7B81952 c __ 51,570,0001953 60,500~000

1954 .72,350,0001955 75,000,0001956 c . 90,000;0001957 ~ 113,050,0001958 ~ ~ 127,000,0001959. 157,362,000

1960 .-------------------- 186,300,0001961. __~~ c 217,300;0001962 ~ 247,000,0001963 c 2B2,322, 0001964 ~ ~~ __ 320,670,0001965 ------------~--- 332,000,000196~. ---~~------~----------388,000,0001967 ~ ~~ 416,200,0001966 .: 507,165,0001969 505,900,0001970 1 505,400,0001971 __ ~__ ~ ~ 536,000,000

1 In addition to this total, $2.5 million wasreserved for SAFA In Public Law 91-237,signed May I, 1970.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, this,along with other items the Senate com­prised, and in some cases receded on, arealways disappointing, but we foughthard for what we thought was right foreducation.

For the record, let me sight some com­parisons.

The conference flgures exceed thePresident's budget estimate and Houseallowance on impacted aid, elementaryand secondary education, vocational andadUlt education, higher education, andcommunity education.

This covers all major portions of thebill in the conference report.

The conference figures also exceed thebudget estimate on education of thehandicapped. The House and Senatehad no disagreement on increasing thisamount. Compared to flscal 1970, thisconference report is an overall increaseof 16 percent.

So, I think we came out pretty good­and, Mr. President, this is what a con­ference is all about.

In concluding, may I say that we com­promised on the general provisions. Theconference bill retains the Whittenamendment and strikes the Jonasamendment.

Not everyone is pleased with this-thechairman included-but whatever waythese amendments are resolved-eachyear-it is to the displeasure ofmany. I wish they did not exist in thisappropriation measure, but they do, andwe have to deal with them year afteryear.

On the President's request for emer­gency school assistance we split.

The Senate measure carried the re­quest of $150 million and the House hadnot considered this item. We reached mu­tual agreement at $75 million.

That, Mr. President, is brlefiy the sub­stance of the conference agreement.

Mr. President, I move that the Senateadopt the conference report.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, willthe senator yield? '

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I am

delighted that the chairman of this par-

26196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -:.. SENATE July 28, 1970

ticular subcommittee has made the state­ment he has and that the ranking mi­nority member of that subcommittee, thedistinguished Senator from Ne\v Hamp­shire (Mr. COTTON) is also on the floorat this time.

They will both recall my intense per­sonal interest in what was formerlyGlasgow Air Base in Montana whichcost the ,Government of the UnitedStates, through the Defense Department,$150 million and which has now beendeclared vacant as far as defense pur­poses are concerned.

This is a facility which is the mostmodem in the United States, bar none.It has everything, including its ownwater system, hospital, good up-to-datehousing, long runways, and everythingwhich an airman would want or need.

The Senator will recall that in con­nection with the, Glasgow matter, amongothers, consideration was given to a $4million appropriation that wou~dbe usedto great advantage in the field o~ voca­tional education.

The Senator will recall that the Senatebill included a $4 million earmarking f9rinitial funding of the residential voca­tional schools program. This activity wasfirst authorized in the Vocational 'Edu­cation Act of 1963 and was extended inthe Vocational Education Amendmentsof 1968. The S,enatefeltthat this pro­gram deserved funding on a demonstra­tion basis to see if. the poncept of residen­tial vocational education has merit. The$4 million would have provided for oneor more projects on an experimentalbasis. I understand the conferees dis­cussed this, matter at length and thatthe Senate 'conferees reluctantly recededon the amendment as written into ,theSenate-passed bill, but dici workout acompromise to include it iIi another partof the agreement. . '

Would the, distinguished manager ofthe bill comment on tl].is? " .

Mr. MAGNUSON. I would be glad to.We pressed hard in conference for theoriginal amendment but the corifereesfinally decided that .the SecretarY.shouldexercise discretion,' as to ,distribution ofthe total research and training appro­priation among various activities;c andthere \vOuld be no objection to the useof an additional $4millionundedhe lineit~m ofe~p~rimental schools, Which isactually, what it is; and I hope it willbe .directed to what the Senator froniMontana intends it to be directed for.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Specifically, to whatwas once the Glasgow.Air Force Base,

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is where theproblem exists. I a.msurethat the intentof the. conferees in reachfug this .agree"!nel1twas an understanding of' exactlywhat it should be \lsed for.,. ',:/., '.,'. 'Mr. COTTON. M,r:,president; 'will 'theSenator yield on that poirit?, .

,Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield. "Mr. COTTON.• The, .HouSe coriferees

objected to earmarking tills money forGlasgow becaUSe they were ,afraid .itwould lead to evgrybodY comingin andwanting portions. of' the .. funds ~ar-marked.' .'

Mr. 'MAGNuSON. They said some kllldof new program.

Mr. COTTON. But they agreed'to addthe $4 million to the experimental school.Chairman FLOOD and his associates, andthe Senator from' Washington and I allagreed it was the intent of the confereesthat the $4 million added to the line itemof experimental schools should be usedfor Glasgow.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am delighted. Ithank the Senator.

Mr. MAGNUSON. May I say, we endedup with an agreement with the Housethat it is perfectly clear this is what wemeant.

I said, "Then, if I understand correctly,Secretary Richardson has authority andthe necessary funds to initiate a residen­tial vocational training school of an ex­perimental type?" The House Memberssaid that that was the intent-theymeant Glasgow.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am delighted thatthe Senator from Washington, the chair­man, the manager of the bill (Mr. MAG­NUSON) and the senator from'NewHampshire (Mr. COTTON) both had an­ticipated my next question, which I willaccordingly forgO. , '

I am confident that you will agree withme that there is a great need to providesuch vocational training to residents ofrural America and particularly in thoseareas of the Upper Great Plains wheredistances between communities andsparse population often militate againstthe establishment of adequate schools. Ihave in mind specifically eastern Mon­tana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming, in ad­dition to surrounding areas. I wouldhope, therefore, that this administrationwill follow through with a' go-aheadon such a concept to benefit the youngpeople of that area inclUding many'In­dians-we have 40,000 of them in Mon­tana and a sizable number in both Da­kotas-who are disadvantaged to agreater degree than other segments ofour population. ", ' . .. '.

Sometimes I think original AnitMcansare ,the forgotten Anlericans. If some­thing could be done at Glasgow, it wouldhelp in Montana, the bakotas, and Wy~

oming to a great degree.' ' ," .'Mr. MAGNUSON. I repeated the same

statement to the conferees. There was athorough understanding that this is whatwe meant, almost exactly in the words ofthe Senator from Montana. I am surethe new Secretary of HEW will hear itloud and clear.

,Mr. MANSFIELD. Arid t4at Glasgow il:1the place. .' '.,' ',", , •

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr:Presideht, will theSenatoi" yield? "

Mr. MAGNUSON: I Yield.g ;;~.:)

',Mr. YOUNG of North ,Dakota: Mr.President, as one of the 'coilferees'twfShto confirm the discuSsioriwhiclFis,taklirig place. There,was noqu~stion!,l,mq~gany of the conferees but that api'ogl'amlike thls washecessary not only to helpthe Indians b~t others, and the placeJorit was Glasgow. .,' " .•... ',', .. ', Mr. MAGNUSON. I, ,f;J;1i!*. 'p;le ;:f}q~econfer~es agreedWcith tbeSenator fl'om:New ~ainpshfre ;:i'ndm¥sel,(Hlatwe'\Y~r:enot enunciating 'a new progralIl but try­ing to take care of a problem that mightinvolve North Dakota and other areas,

but this was a good beginning. Partic­ularlY in view of the fact that the Senateand the House increased the vocationaleducational funds. In other words, thethrust was toward these funds. I do notthink there should be any questionabout it.

Through this colloquy on the floor ofof the senate I again suggest to the newSecretary that I hope he understandswhat we meant.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I think he is a veryunderstanding gentleman.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.Mr. COTTON. I shall take this state­

ment out of the RECORD. I probablyshould.

However, in order to make it perfectlyclear to the distinguished majorityleader and to indicate to him that hehas a slight duty to perform, the exactwords of the distinguished chairman ofthe House conferees, RepresentativeFLOOD, were:. We will add this $4 m1lllon. We are notearmarking, but all that MIKE MANSFIELDneeds to do Is to make one telephone calland he wlll have It.

o Mr. MANSFIELD. Leave it in theRECORD

Mr. MAGNUSON. If the Senator needstwo or three telephone calls he will getone from the Senator from Washington,and another from the Senator from NewHampshire, and another from the Sena­tor from North Dakota.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Senatorand senators. You are all most consider­ate, most understanding,and very gra­cious, indeed.' .•

Mr. SPONG. i\rr. President, will theSenator yield?' ,

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.Mr: SPONG. Mr. President, I shall not

seek to delay adoption of the conferencereP9rt on the education appropriationsbill for fiscal 197i. I do, however, strenu­ouslyobject to one of, the provisions inthe conference bill-that Willch providesfor the fUnding of the impacted areas aidprogram.

The provision for funding of the im­pll,cted are'as pJZogram amolJnts to legis­lating in the appropriatioris process-aprocedure of which I disapprove.

In thisbill, the coriference committeemodified the existing .impact aid pro­gram.•It distorted the distiriction whichnow exists in la.w betweerl chUdren whoseparents live and work on Federal prop­erty..,.....kll()W as "A,u students-and thosewhos.e parents (only' WOrk on Federalproperty,,--,known as "B". students. Inother words, it decidedthat the differenceproviqed by the legislative committee be­tween the two' types of schoolchildrenwas not erioughand provided for furthel,'differentiation: Furthermore, it providedfor special consideration for those schooldistricts with a particularly large num­berof children from families who liveand work on Federal property. ',j I do not believe that it is the responsi­bility of an Appropriations Committee tomake this kind of decision. I particular­ly do not believethat it is the responsi­bility of an Appropriations Committee to

July 28, 1.970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.-SENATE 26197bill recognizes that fact because, at thispoint in the RECORD, I ask unanimousconsent· to insert a chart showing theamount which certain school districts inVirginia received under the impact pro­gram fOr the 1968-69 school year andthe amount of taxes which they mighthave collected had Federal propertybeen taxable. I would also note, at thispoint, that the amount these districtswill receive under the pending bill is lessthan the amount. they received :lor the1968-69 school year. .

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

Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, as I notedat the beginning of my speech, I shallnot seek to delay adoption of this con­ference report. For a number of years,I have been calling for early or advancefunding of education programs. As onewho has been closely associated with theed'ucation process in my State, I am cog­nizant of the importance of early fund­ingso that 'school' officials and adminis­trators can plan. For the first time since1966 we are about to clear an educationappropriation before the beginning ofthe school year. This is still not earlyenough to permit local school personnelto know precisely how much Federal aidthey will receive when they make uptheir school bUdgets, but it is a start inthe right direction. Iwant our school per­sonnel' to benefit from such a start thisyear.. In the meantime, I would urge the leg­

islative .committees to continue theirwork on this complex program so thatwe might have some equitable and rea­sonable reform and so that the uncer­tainty and doubt which continuallythreaten the program may be abolished.

I thank the Senator from Wallhingtonfor yielding to me.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will theSenator from Washington yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I shall yield in justa minUte.

. I thank the Senator from Virginia forputting that statement in the RECORD,because too few people realize the amountof taxes that might have been achievedif the school district had not been im­paCted. I may say that I have not knownof any Member of the senate, since thesenator from, Vfrginia'came: into thisbody, whtill.as more'diligently pursuedthe matter::'ofpaymentsin lieu of taxesin'this area than the senator from Vir­ginia; Last 'year, as· I recall, he was theprime sponsor of an amendment, whichweca:rriedin the senate, to put in a 900lpercent entitlement.

1968-69 DATA

make this kind of decision when legisla~

tive committees in both Houses of Con­gress are •. considering 'legislation toreform the. impacted aid program.

I am fully aware of the fl.\ct that. thereare many criticisms of. the impaGtpro­gram and' that some' changes should bemade. I do not, however, believe ·thatthey sho.uld be made in the appropria~

tions process, and I do not believe thata majority of. the Senate believe theYshould be made in the appropriationsprocess. As a matter of fact, the Sen­ate placed itself on record. earlier. thisyear as opposing the. type •.•.. of. fundingwhich this bill includes when it adoptedan amendment I offered providing forequal treatment·· in the appropriationsprocess for, both groups of children.

If the authorizing legislation providedfor no distinction between "A" and "B"students, then I could see some reasonfor the proVisions in this bill, but since adistinction now exists in which schooldistricts are reimbursed at twice the ratefor "A" children'as they are for "B"children,' then .I believe .any furtherchange in. the program' should emanatefrom the legislative committee.

As I noted before, the legislative com,:"mittees in both Houses have under con­sideration bills. to reform the existingprogram. I approve of this. In' fact, Itestified before' the Senate. EducationSubcommittee on this matter. However;the impact aid program is a complexprogram. It is an important program.For some States, it is the single largestsource of Federal education funds.' Forothers, it is the second largest source.

At a time when many of our schooldistricts are facing financial crises andwhen additional J:)urdens are being placedupon them, I think it is unfortunate andunwise to deprive them· of the. generalschool aid. which the impact programprovides,' . '.

I know that. manY relatively wealthyschool districts b~efitifromthe impactprogram. :r, know, .' too, however, thatsome of the less advantaged' school dis­tricts also, benefit. But, under the appro­priation proposal,. these. less advantageddistr~cts must suffer along with the dis­advantaged-a situationLwhich the leg~islative committees might be able to avoidif given· the opportunity.,' .

That, however; is not my principalargument,' fQr the impact program wasnever meantto .. be· an aid program' fora disadvantaged district because it wasdisadvantaged. It was meant to compen-'sate a district for' the tax loss sufferedbecause Federal property is not taxable.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President; willthe Senator. yield -at. that' poiht?'

Mr. SPONO, I·Yield.Mr. MAGNUSON/The' impacted aid

program1S rapidly becoming an in-lieu;,;of-taxes for local districts" and theymust be entitled<'to that:'because theyhave to talCecare: of the education, ofchildren, It hasI no' strings attached!That is why itjg:....:.;:well~ I'should not say"popular," but that is 'whYitis.the mostimportant· thing the school districtswant. [.,

Mr. SPONO.'! thirtkit Is pbpular be:cause' it has no striitgS' 'attached,' I amdelighted the able floor manager of the

CXVI--1651-Part 19

School district

Chesa peake _Fairfax , __ .. ' , _Hampton , ,_ L _Newport News__ • ,_. _Norfolk__ • _Portsmoulh_~ • ,_Prince William" • _Virginia Beach _

Impactaid

received

$835,82810,898,5821,400,0001,058,9943,972,5951.162,0001,677,7182,520,797

Estimaledpotential

revenue ifFederal

property. were

taxable

$468,0007,840,2257,035,8672,603,6329,450,0004,320,0001,130,0008,000,000

What happened this year, of course,was that we put in':-and I want the REC­ORD to show this--funds in both cases for90 percent, which would have amountedto $963,800,000. The House put in 45 per­cent of the entitlement. The Senatorfrom New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), theSenator from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG),several other Senators and I finally gotthe conferees up to 65 percent-with dif­ficulty, may I say.

I know whatthe Senator from Virginiais thinking about. He wants to knowWhether this is going to be nonflexibleand whether or not it is mandatory if wego this far. It is as far as we are con­cerned. The Senator from New Hamp­shire, the Senator from North Dakota,and I would like to have 90 percent ofthe entitlement. The Senator from Mis­sissippi (Mr. ST~NNIS) was also there. Wethink we have' achieved a fair compro­mise on the figure in view of the fact thatthere might still be trouble on the bill.

However,J am sure that no suggestionwill be made by anyone who has stUdiedthe problem that 65 percent is not a min­imum amount. It should be 90 percent.Otherwise, ,I suggest they come here andchange the bill, if we are not going to dothat.

We came up with a bill that provides$100 million more than was provided bythe House version and the departmentalproposals. This is the largest amount forthe impacted aid program in 20 years.

Mr.SPONG. I thank the Senator fromWashington. I want him and the S~ma­

tors from New Hampshire, North Dakota,and Mississippi all to know that I amaware of the problems which presentedthemselves in the conference. Neverthe­less, because I have been insisting thatthe authorizing committees come up witha reformed program and that we ceaselegislating on the fioor in the appropria­tions process every year with regard tothis program, I felt compelled to makethese remarks here this morning.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I think not onlyshould the Senator have felt compelledto 'make them, but I think what he istalking about most of us in the Senateagree with. But we hadto have aconference, and I think'wecame outwith a reasonable figure at this time. Istill suggest the whole matter of impact­ed aid has to be reviewed by' the legisla-tive committee. .

I yield now to the Senator from NewHampshire (Mr. COTTON).

Mr. COTTON. Mr PresidentFthe dis­tinguished manager of the bilI coveredwhat I wanted to mention. I join him incommending the Senator from Virginiafor his statement. He is 100 percentright. This is a matter which'must beadjUsted legislatively. He is right thatit should not'be year after year the sub­ject 'of dickering and horse trading be­tween the Appropriations Committees ofthe Senateand of the HoUse.

r thought tho.t in the earlier part ofhis statement the senator from VirginIamade the statement-that chlldreri in AcategOry were getting twice what thechildren in B category were, getting,They: would have received less than thatif the House had prevailed on the 90 Per­cent for A and 45 percent for B, but our

26198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ')-"SENATE July 28, 1970

deternlined"efforts pushed thatup,asthe Senator has stated,to 65 percent,which is 100 'million more thah what itwould have been for the B category..

I think the position of the Senatorfrom Virginia Is very well taken, but Ithink he also realizes that we as confer­ees did· our best to bring about the willof the Senate.

Mr. SPONG. I appreciate the efforts ofthe conferees. What I was referring towas that, regardlesS of the appropria­tion percentages, built 1rito the law al­ready is the fact that A children re­ceive twice as much as B children. Westart from that. If the Senate confereeshad not raised the entitlement from .45to 65 percent, school districts would havereceived four times as much for A chil­dren as for B.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON:' I yield.Mr. BAYH. I compliment the Senatol'

from Washington and the other mem­bers of the conference for the diligenteffort they made in behalf of this im­pOl·tant legislation. I would just like toclarify one point that is of particular in­terest to me, because of an amendmentthat was adopted while this measure wasbeing considered on the tioor of the Sen­ate.

When the bill was reported to the Sen­ate, the committee recommended an ap­propriation of $140,393,000 for title III.Of this amount, the committee indicatedit hoped that $20 million was to beused for guidance, counseling, and test­ing. ., When the bill was considered by theSenate, the committee accepted anamendment, of which I was a sponsorand several other Senators were co­sponsors, to add $10 million for title illPf this amount, I indicated I hoped $5.5million would be used for supplementalservices and centers, and $4.5 millionwould be used for guidance, counselingand testing. '.' " . ,

As I observe the legislative architec­ture that ()ame.about as a result of the'diligent efrQrts' of -the Senator fromW~sh~~gt,On.and the other conferees, Inote tha~ the. conference report providesthe sum of ,$143,393,000 for supplemen­tary centers and services under title III.

I would like to ask the Senator fromWllshington if he would please informus which title ill program this $3 millionover and above the Senate committeerecommendation was for.

Mr. MAGNUSON. As the Senator fromIndiana knows, there is $20 mIllion withinthe $143 million for guidance and coun­seling and testing. The ;House had .$17million, and we, a~the Senator pointedout, put in $24.5 million in the Senate,and we ended UP, in the conference; with$20 million. There' was some. dispute inthe conference about the relationship be­tween the so-called dropout program andgllidaneeandcounseling. The Senatorfrom New:Fiampshireand I thought thetwo of them went well together. Weadded a little more to the}iouse billandgot part of that through the conferencefor 1he dropout prevention program, The

Ho'use had $8 million, and we had $15'million. We ended. up with $10 millionin conference. We gave a little there'toassure that the $20 million was in forguidance and counseling.

We had some very impressive testi­mony on the lack of guidance and coun­seling. For instance, there is one coun­selor, in some cities, for something ;like1,000 students. A better figure would beabout one for every 300. '

So we had to give and take a little onthe ,two programs, but I think the $20million is a good figure for guidance andcounseling. It is over the budget estimate,'and $3 million over the House figure.

Mr. BAYH. May I rephrase the ques­tion just a bit, to be a little more specific?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes.Mr. BAYH. From talking with some of

the committee staff, it was my impres­sion that the additional $3 million as.aresult of the conferees' effort was to beapplied to guidance and counseling,which is so important.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is right; and Ithink we made that clear in conference.I wish it could be more, I really do, be­cause I think this is getting down to thekey to some of the problems we have inthe secondary schools in particular, andalso the community colleges. But we didthe best we could on this item. Actually,in conference we increased the Housefigure by $6 million and $3 million ofthis goes to guidance counseling andtesting.

Mr. BAYH. I salute the Senator fromWashington for the tenacity with whichhe pursued this matter, and I concur inhis judgment that it would be better ifwe could invest more of our resourceshere. We find ourselves in the unfortu­nate yet realistic position of having tocompensate by providing some guidanceand. counseling for that which does notoccur at the home level.

I think this is an investment that isgoing to result in great dividends, and Iappreciate the efforts. of the Senatorftom Washington and the other, can':ferees in this area.

Mr. MAGNUSON.·1 think .the dividendin this area will be great, becauseif.wecannot do this, and prevent the droppingou't of the people who do not want'to con­tinue, it is j'lSt going to cost the bodypolitic more money in thelong run: I amsure thIS item will, reap good dividends.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,

there· are many advances and some set­back for education in this conference re­port. It advances funds available for Fed­eral support of education well beyondthe starvation· diet for edUCation pre­scribed in the administration bUdget. Ihighly commend the Sena.tor from Wash­ington and all the Senate conferees forthat advance, though there are.some dis­appointing setbacks, The conferees havesignally increased this appropriation-by$454 million more than the bUdget, and$600 million more than was available lastyear. Thisis badly needed in education,andl commend the senator. I want theRreORD to show the fact that my remarks

on' specific items are subsidiary to' anover-all commendation of the great workdone by the able parliamentarian who ispresenting this bill to the Senate. I havehad the privilege of serving under theSenator's leadership for 7 years on theconference comm,ittee. I know his greatlegislative expertise, without which wewould never have had such a good billhere.

I concur in some of the remarks mycolleague from Virginia (Mr. SPONG) hasmade about the impacted aid. But thereagain, I commend the conferees, becausethis $551,068,000 in the conference reportis more than we had last year, when wehad $520 million, and it is a great dealmore than the $425 million the admin­istration recommended for the impactedaid.

Like the Senator; I did not think thedistinction ought to be made betweenthe A and B students, for all the rea­sons the Senator from Virginia stated;I shall not detail them, because they havebeen discussed at length. Essentially, thebasic law alreadY gives A students prior­ity because their entitlement is 100 per­cent of their cost of education, while theentitlement for B stUdents is only 50 per­cent. We should not use the appropria­tion to create a further preference.

I do wish to call the attention of theSenate to one program, in the hope thatnext year the Senator will try to holdthe moneys in the bill for bilingual edu­cation.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION

When we passed the Bilingual Educa­tion Act in 1967, the Office of Educationdid not recommend it. They apparentlyhad not thought of it. I introduced inthis body, in 1967, the first BilingualEducation Act ever introduced in eitherHouse of Congress.

There are in this country 3 millionchildren in non-English-speaking fami­lies. Two million of those are in Spanish­speaking homes. They drop out of school,in my State, with more frequency than_lack children. They· are the most edu­cationally deprived group of children inAmerica today. This is the result of thelanguage barrier they encounter.

This bilingual 'education program wasenacted without help from the Office ofEducation. The Office of Education hascontinually come in with little tokenrecommendations in this important field.

We authorized $80 million this year.The Senate had provided $31 million, butin the conference, they' receded to theHouse figure of $21 million.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Twenty-five milliondollars.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Twenty-five mil­lion dollars. That is slightly more thanthe .$21.75 million appropriated lastyear, so it is some improvement, butas I say, this is a new program, wehave to fight our way every inch ofthe way -against the officials in theOffice of Education. I think it showsthe value ofcategorical grants. If Con­gress ever ceases to insist upon categori­cal grants, many of the programs we inCongress have found absolutely necessarywpuld be swept under the rug.

I commend. the distinguished Senator

July2B, '1'970 :CONGRESSIONAL:RECORD- SENA-TE 26199~ for the entire.program;:but I am hopefulthat next.: year; thlsbilingualeducationand appropriation, can be retained andincreased. '

Mr. MAGNUSON; Mr. President, willthe Senator yield at that point?

Mr;YARBOROUGH.I yield.Mr. MAGNUSON; I. for,one, must con­

fess Ulat I was verysurprised-c-I do not"know just why ,I was surprised, but Iwa~at the number of children who needbilinguaLeducation in this countrY. If

, someone had quiCkly asked me the figure,my estimate woUld have been 50 percentunder 'the 3 million, or perhaps more. .

Mr. YARBOROUGH. It was 3 million4 years ago. .

Mr. MAGNUSON; Yes. And Ulat is whythe committee felt Ulat we' should en­hance tills program. Of course, the pro­gram itself, at the start, is mainly to getpeople who are qualified to teach Ulem.

Mr. YARBOROUGH;' That is right.Mr. MAGNUSON. This is the shortage

on Ulejob in all fields.We have in my State a group of people

whose youngsters are Spanish speaking,who come up there mainly to work in thefruit crops and things of Ulat kind. Loand behold, about· 3 years ago, I foundout that some of the youngsters whocoUld otherwise qualify to drive an auto­mobile could, not get a license becausethey could not read English'-yoU know,stop, go, left turn-it gets down to thatlevel.

We are hopeful of being able to trainsome teachers to go down in Ule Senator'scountry and other places, to do this job.Up around the 'New York area, and inNew Jersey" and, those places, a greatnumber of Puerto Ricans are involved inthis matter. I have suggested a littlefacetiously that maybe there are someSwedes who need to be taught English.I do not know.

We will perhaps, send somebody towisconsin to find out about that. But I

: was, SUrPrised at Ule number ,of young­sters who need this' training in this coun­try. '

Mr. YARBOROUGH. The Senator is· correct;'One problem is the training ofteachers. Even though a teacher may beexpert in Ule use of English and Spanish,or whatever' oUler the second languageis, .he is not necessarily a bilingual

· teacher. They have to be trained. It,takesmore time to traiD. them and it costs

,more money to train them to be bilingual,teachers. " .

As Ule Senator has stated, the Spanish­,speaking people aremigratmg all overthe country. They are looking for jobs,without a governent bonus or loan. They

·Use old cars.After the great program on television

the oUler night about the tragedy of themigrant worker; Chet Huntley or some­

,one else said, "What is the motivation1"The distinguished Senator from Mimle­sota(Mr. MONDALE) said:.,:.what greater motivation' can you show,when POOplll in poverty takll, a car and gothousands .ot. mUes in strange country whenthey hear there Is opportunity forthelr chU-dren? .

in my State, we)iaYe found that theyhave a great mechanical aptitude. If you,train ,them bilingually so that they can

lWderstand a work manual, they can alsogo on to college. They are bright people,i:>rilliant people. All they need is an op­portunity by training them in their own

.language. Two-thirds of those in non-English-speaking homes in Ulis countryspeak Spanish. The national language isEnglish. TheYIDust learil. both if Uley areto get ahead in this country~

Mr. President, I commend the distin­gW/?hedSenator from Washington forwhat has been done for students in theil1Stitutions of higher learning.

HIGHER EDUCATION

" The conference report does a good jobof assuring college students of continuedfinancial aid. For direct, loans throughthe National Defense. Student Loanfund. $243 million is appropriated, asubstantial boost over the $195.6 millionof last year. That has proved to be oneof the most successful higher educationprograms to aid students in the historyof tills country. It was my privilege tocoauthor. the original National Educa­tion Act, and I have worked on everyamendment since that time. I think thisis a wise and perceptive action. Thechairman of this subcommittee of theAppropriations Committee is doing a jobfor education of which all the countrycan be prOUd.

For work-stUdY, $160 million is pro­vided, and for education opportunitygrants, $167.7. For interest subsidies andother expenses of the guaranteed stu-

,dent loan program, $145.4 million is inthe conference report, the amount pro­posed in the bUdget.

Each of the student-aid programswill receive more Federal support thanin fiscal 1970, under this measure.

Thill is the best appropriation bill forstudents in these categories that theSenate has yet passed. I commend theSenator from Washington highly for hisknowledge of the subject which he hasacquired as chairman of this very impor­tant subcommittee of the AppropriationsCommittee. There is no more importantsUbcOIll-Illittee of the AppropriationsCommittee than the one of which thedistinguished Senator from Washingtonis chairman, nor is there one that re­quites more hard work, than his subcom­mittee has to do;

I have been a member of the EducationSubcommittee for 13 years; and, havingworked on, 'all these education bills for13 years, t think I can speak with someknowledge of the subject. I know thewor!!; that this, Appropriations Commit­tee. has done. It has produced the bestappropriation bill on education that hasbeen before the Senate in my 13 years inthe Senate. However, I regret that we donot nave more: money for college con-struction. ',,' ,The institutions of .higher learning donqtfarelll; well in the conference rellort.F'unds for construction under the HigherEducation Facilities Act are limited to$43 million for community colleges. TheSenate added $28 million for construc­tion 'at 4-year institutions, the sameamount provided laSt year.

This reduction in, the conference re­"port back ,to $43 million'will further cur­taU' ~e constru<:,tionprogram in highere~uc~,t1on: Itisnot a true saving: It is

"onlY a postponement, which will cost, more later. ". , I also regret 'we were unsuccessful in

holding in conference the' initial fundsthe Senate provided for several highereducation activities authorized fpr yeatsbut never activated. These are networksfor knowledge,' clinical law experience inlaw schools, public service education,graduate school improvement, and intel'-national education. , ,', ,

For library resources, colleges will have$15,325,000, a significant improvementover the mere $9,900,000 that had beenbudgeted, but still a mel:e token com-pared to real needs. '

The net total of the bill is $454 mil­lion more than the bUdget, and $600million more than was available last fis­cal year.

I urge adoption of the conference re­port. I urge the President to sign the bill.The money is needed to keep the Ameri­can education system current with thepersonal needs of our people and the eco­nomic and military strength of theNation.

An investment in education is repaidmany times and in many ways. A bettereducated people produce more and paymore taxes. The bill is not inflationary;it is good economics.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I thank the Sena­tor.

I am sure that no other member ofthe subcommittee appreciates more thanI, the guidance that we get from theHealth and Education Subcommitteesof the Committee on Labor and PublicWelfare, of which the distinguishedSenator from Texas is chairman. Wecannot always give what the Senator'scommittee authorizes, but we do the bestwe can, because we all agree that theseare worthy projects; and in this day ofpriorities, we have some problems.

· The distinguished Senator from Flor­ida is in the Chamber. He has workedhard and long with us on this commit­tee.

I think that overall we have enhancedthe education commitment of the Fed-

·eral Government to all ranges of edu­cation and in these specific fields. In allfairness, the percentage of the budgetfor these purposes has risen vis-a-visthe defense bUdget, and tills is becausewe have all sat down and decided thateducation does have so~ne priorities im­portant in this field. Even with al! we

·are doing, as I pointed out earlier, with,all, educational funds-that is, SCienceFoundation, NASA, DOD" Labor, OEO,and the rest-we are contributing onlyabout 11.1 percent to the total bill. I donot suggest that we should go any higheror any lower, b:lt it is not an unusualcontribUtion. '

I cannot see how spending money oneducation, trying to get a dollar's worthfora dollar spent-willch we do not al­ways do in a big program~is inflation­ary. I believe tne Senator from Texas willagree With me. I never could understandwhy educatihg children is considered in:"fiationari. If you do not train them andgive them the opportunity in our schoolsand take advantage of all the Nation'seducational programs, they coUld becomevery iliflationary.

- -,;-'- -';. ;.J"

26200 ·,CONGRESSIONALRECO:a.D :..:....;.SENA.TE July 28, 1970The Senate committee wanted. a little

more money in certain items, but I thinkthe House passed a pretty good bill, also.I think this is a good, responsible bill,and I want to underline "responsible."

I thank the Senator from Texas.Mr. YARBOROUGH. I thank the Sen­

ator from Washington for his very kindremarks about my work on the Educa­tion and Health Subcommittees of theCommittee on Labor and Public Welfare,since I am chairman of the Health Sub­committee and the ranking majoritymember of the Education Subcommittee.

All our authorizations would go fornaught if we did not have the Appropria­tion Subcommittee with the perceptionto know that this money is needed. Asthe distinguished chairman has said, it isnot inflationary to educate the youths ofthe land.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I tell the Senatorfrom Texas, also, that I have served onmany appropriation subcommittees inthe many years I have been~ here, andthere was absolutely not a tinge of par­tisanship in this conference. We had ar­guments 'about different programs, butthere was not a tinge of partisanship inthis conference. I am sure that all theconferees would bear that out.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I think the ab­sence of partisanship is due largely to thelegislative expertise of the distinguishedchairman. He has been here many yearsand has worked with all Senators on bothsides of the aisle.

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, this isone of the most important conferencereports we will consider all year. It rep­resents an investment of over $4.4 bil­lion in American education' and thefuture of America.

I want to congratulate the Senate con­ferees, particularly the distinguishedSenator from Washington' (Mr. MAGNU­SON) and the distinguished Senator fromNew Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), for bring­ing back a generally sound and progres­sive conference report. They deserve ourthanks for the hard work which has pro­duced a relatively generous bill, and en­abled us to complete action on educa­tion appropriations, before the schoolsopen in the fall.

While compromise is inevitable in theappropriations -process, there are twoareas in whiCh I regret that it was.nec­essary to retreat from the Senate posi­tion. The first is grants for the construc­tion of higher education facilities undertitle I of the Higher Education FacilitiesAct of 1963. The other body recom­mended.' no conStruction grant funds foreither 4-year institutions ,or communitycolleges. The Senate, on the other hand,originally a'Pilfoved $28,050tOOOfor 4­year institutions and ,$43 million, forcommunity colleges. Theconfererice re­port includes the Senate funds for com­munity colleges but omits any,grant-in­aid funds for4-yearcoll~ges. , •.' " .

.In expressing my concern about thisitem, let me pote that even the Senate­approved figures were grossly inadequate.It has been estimated that total'enroll­ment in institutions' of higher' educationwill reach over 8.4 milliol}in 1971,anincrease of 32 percent since 01966, Toserve these students will require an'in­vestment of over $2.5 billion in academic

facilities everyyear'between rnowand1977. This investment can be securedonly through a combination of generous

. Federal support, massive State and looaleffort, and continuing private philan-thropy. , ,

Unfortunately, Federal aid for con­struction has lagged behind for the lastfew years, while the backlog of unmetconstruction needs has grown. For fiscal1970, for example, the Congress provideda total of just over $71 million to meetpreviously established needs of $582 mil­lion-and that $582 million agenda doesnot include the additional facilities whichfuture enrollment increases will demand.The Maryland backlog alone, a year ago,was $18.5 million.

While the interest-subsidy. programenacted 2 years ago is helpful, we cer­tainly cannot rely on it as a substitutefor both Federal grants and Federal di­rect loans. I am heartened by the con­ferees' approval of $43 million for ourfast-growing community colleges, butregret that it was not possible to obtaingrant funds for 4-year institutions aswell. We cannot afford to let this programdie.

The second area of concern to me 1sstudent aid. As the costs of higher edu­cation continue to soar, it is vital for usto increase all forms of student assistanceto keep college doors open to all who seeka higher education. Recognizing thischallenge, the Senate originally ap­proved a total of $604.6 million for NDEAstudent loans, educational opportunitygrants, and work-stUdy programs. Thistotal, while still below the need, was$47.9 million above the House figure. Un­fortunately, the' conferees retreated by$33.9 million from the original Senateposition. ' " .

Mr. President, our current 'economicsituation makes ari increase in studentassistance funds even more importantthan under normal circumstances. Con­tinuing inflation has undermined theability of students and their families tosave money to finance college educations.The guaranteed stUdent loan programhas fallen short of expectations. RisIngunemployment has cut back opportuni­ties for outside work for students. Thealarming deficits in operating budgets,encountered by.a growing number of col­leges inclUding some in Maryland, reducethe number and amoUnt of scholarshipswhich can be supported from eridow­ment funds. "

I know that, the' choices facing theSenate conferees 'were, difficult. .In 'alarger context, this.bill· dramatizes 'thehard choices which we must make In try­ing to set sound national priorities. Buteducation is a national investment whichcannot wait. W(l have an 91?ligatiqn bothto provideadequa~efunds,'~ndto shapea long-range strategyfol.'·meetingtheenormous needs of American higher edu-cation. " ,. ' . ': ~ ,

Mr. PEARSON.¥r. President, I wishto commend the 'ehairrnan •of the Sub­committee on Edu!lat\on Appropriations,the distinguished 'Senator from Wash­ington (Mr. MAGNUs<m) and the Senatorfrom New Hampshire ,(Mr. COl'TON). forthe outstandingmailhe~iU:which the'yhandled an extremely complicatEld task.I also want to note the efforts of the

Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) Whoworked 'to preserve some of the mostsignificant programs for improving thelibrary resources of our institutions ofhigher learning, a problem which Iwould like to discuss briefly.

Many educators and school adminis­trators were heard during testimony ses­sions, and the bill that is now before thisbody after going through a conferencefairly represents the thinking of thesepersons. Of course, most of those heardargued that the Federal share of educa­tion costs should be increased, and Ihope the day will come soon When thiswill be possible. In only two areas havethe conferees unduly restricted Federalassistance in my opinion, and those werein the fields of higher education andlibraries.

I refer particularly to title II of theHigher Education Act of 1965. Underpart A of this title-college library re­sources-the Congress appropriated $25million in 1969 and $9,816,000 in 1970,following the Presidential veto. In the1971 bill the Senate had recommended$20.75 million-the same amount asoriginally approved by the Congress lastyear-but this was cut to $15,325,000 inthe conference.

Parts Band C also ended up consider­ably below the figures at which theypassed this body. Part B-librariantraining-received only $3.9 million, asagainst $8.25 million recommended bythe Senate; while part C-Library ofCongress cataloging-was cut to $6,613,­500 from $7,500,000.

The Senate figure, therefore, did notrepresent increases over amounts ap­proved in previous years. On the con­trary, when one considers that collegeenrollment will reach an all-time peakthis fall, the amounts available per stu­dent will be less than in other years.

Part A of title II was designed to im­prove college libraries and the quality oflibrary service by providing grants forthe acquisition of books and other librarymaterials. Part Baids in the training oflibrarians, research, and dem()nstrationprojects, while part C helps the Library ofCongress catalog ma.terials, a servicewhich is of great value to all libraries.

There are many urgent needs for col­lege library resources and for librarians.About' 60 !lew junior colleges are beingestablished each year, and all need booksand other materials. Community collegesalso require job-related materials that

"ar(l 'relevant to their curriculums., It issignificant that 80 percent .of 4-yearNegro colleges fall below the acceptednational minimum' standard of .50,000volumes per library. Not ,a single 2-yearcollege 'with a predominantly black en­rOlltpent meetS the, minimum staffing

'standards of school, college, and univer­sitylibraries. Thousands of librariansnow working' in these institutions needto update their skills. New methods, ma­terials, and technology now developed foruse.in libraries ,have great potential forimproving services, but manY librariansknow little of these new techniques.

All of this tends to demonstrate clearlythat, these are ,programs which cannotbe cUt..They are basic at their present

'level, and any further reduction in fundswill cause a severe handicap to thousands

July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 26201of libraries., It is hoped that additionalappropriations ,will. provide the flindsneeded for these important programs ata later date. ", '" ," '" ,;'

Mr. PELL. Mr. Presig~flt, s0nte year~ago legislation, establishUii prograins ,oninternational' ,educatIon:,networb'forknowledge, education for'thepublic se11'';'ice,strEmgtl:1eninggraduate programs,and the improvement orlega} educ~tion"wereauthorizect. Since;theirorigmal au-,

, thorizations, they have :never, never beenfunded. ",'.", ",' '" ,C" " ;

ThiS year an amendment was .ac:"cepted on the fioor of the Senate to fundthese progTamS ip aVery modest way.Specifically, at a level of $500,00Q foreach ,of the five categories of which Ispeak. ,A~,chairman of the authorizing,subcommittee whose amendment thiswas, I had hoped that this amendmentwould be held in conference.

I am disappointed at this result of theconfereni{e which dropped all fundingfor these programs., "

I am of the opinion that when theCongress" authorized programs undertitles VIII;, IX; X:, and XI of the HigherEducation ,Act of 1965, and the Interna­tional Education Act of 1966, we made acommitment to thehlgher educationcommunity, and students in our collegesand universities. When the authorizinglegislation was, 'passed, the "Congressmade a specific'finding of need for sup­port of networks for knowledge, educa­tion for the public service, strengtheninggraduate programs, the improvement oflegal education, ,and international stud-ies programs. '" "' " '. ' "

In the case of 'the, appropriation forschool, health and nutrition' programs,nobody questionS the need for funds. Yetthe conferees have been unwilling toagree to even a smallcappropriation forthese verynecessary demonstration proj­ects. As clui.irman of the Education Sub­committeeand as the originalsponsor ofthe program, I'particularly regret theaction of the conferees.

I am also yeiimuch concerned aboutthe priorities ,for; funding federallyaf-·feeted school districts in the conferencereport. Under those priorities, schooldis­tricts with':morethan 25 percent "A"childfep receiVE; 100 percent of their e.n­titlemenl;', other school districts, with"A" cWld!.'en,wiJlreceiye90percent, andschool districts with'l"B" 'children willreceive, the remainder-around" 60 'per­cent of entitlement.' Indeed,if the lan­guageof the HoUSe bill had been offeredon the Sepate floor,' I believe it wouldhave6een sUbjec~ to a point of order,since it 1Sinconsistent with, the. author­izing legislation. I firmly believe that' theSenate ought not permit appropriationSbills'to containH!gislation as this con­ference'report does; nor should it permitthe other body to disregard the rules ofthe Senate, as is the case in this fustance.

I shall not oppose the conffence re­port. However, WiSmy belief#hat theSenate ought to bE! cpgmzant q',! the factthat it has been forc~d to acce-et an ap­propriation bill' of far less qULity thanth~tQf.' the pi1l1~ubmitt~.to the: con-ference.' i' , ,," 1 "",..,. .' '. Mr.~ CASE, ;~. Presidentl.,~t~{lrewasun~I1iIn~:m8 ;lurreem~tJam.ong. the con­ferees,on;~ H.eQlli 01., disagr~~t. be-

tween the, two Houses except one. Fourof ,~all on the Senate side-did notagree with the conference committee'sdecision to accept the House position byincluding sections 209. and 210, the so­called "Whitten amendments." in thebill.

I opposed,' these provisions becausethey could encourage confusiOlf over theconstitutional' obligations' of schools todesegregate. ". But, as several of my colleagues and

r. poInted out before this bill was. sent toconference, sections 209 and 210 wouldnot in any way ,alter schooLMsegreg~­tion requirements under title, VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI forbidsdiscrimination ill the use of Federalfunds. .

Sections 209 and 210 prohibit busingof students, abolishment, of schools•. orassignment of pupils at any school whichis desegregated as that term is definedin title IV of the Civil Rights Act: TitleIV excludes racial imbalance from thedefinition of segregation. J;3ut it does notlimit the responsibility Dischool districtsto eliIilinate dual school systems rootand branch.. ,".. ' .

.This was made clear by the FourthCircuit Court of Appeals in a decision inSwann !j.gainst Charlotte-MecklenburgBoard of Ed~cationon May 26,

In its decision the Court said that thepl'ovisions of title IV "are not limitationson the power .of school boards or courtsto, remedy' unconstitutional ,segregation.They were designed-by Congress-toremove, any implication that ,the CivilRights Act conferred new jurisdiction oncourts to deal with the question ofwhether school boards were obligated toovercome de facto segregation." .

Because the court's decision and thelegislative record we have made in theSenate should dispel any real possibilityof confusion over sections 209 and 210, Ishall not oppose adoption of the confer­ence report. To do SO at this 'point wouldonly serve to delay needed assistance toour schools and stUdents.EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT

SHOULD BE APPROVED

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, the con­ference version of the education appro­priations bill <H.R. 16916) is a mostimportant measure, funding the U.S. Of­fice of Education programs of Federalassistance to education at all levels inAmerica for the cUlTent 1971 fiscal yearending next June 30.

Totalfug $4,420,145,000, the conferenceversion. emphasizes particular areaswhere conferees representing the Houseand Senate agreed emphasis is needed,such as student assistance, higher edu­cation, library resources and services, vo­cational and adult education, educationprofessions develop~ent, and elementaryand secondary education, particularly fordeprived children.

As one of the conferees for the Senate,I believe I can say that we confereessought to, improye the quality of educa..:tion in America's schools and to provideequal°e9ucational opportunity for amer-ica's chil,4ren;:,. ',c '. ; ,; ·As,Qll~.who I,(nQWS from personal expe­riencehow importan~a good education isto help overcome barriers of poverty andminority race, I have long ~en astrong

supporter of better schools and facilities,better training.and professional advance­ment for teachers and greater opportu­nities for young peopletoobtain the bestpossible education at the highest levelto which they aspire and can m8.9ter.

I am, therefore, disappointed that theconference version reduced the $800 mil­lion provided by the Senate for studentassistance. .In particular, the conferenceversion disallows the $17,gOO,000 ad(jedby the Senate to the HoUSe amount foreducational opportunity grants and the$16,000,000 added by the Senate for, the,college work-study' program. On the'other hand, the Senate, addition of $14,­000,000 for National Defense EducationAct student loans remains in the finalbill. . ',' .

All in all, the conferees provided $766.6million for student assistance-24 per­cent more than the appropriation ayail­ablein 1'970 after the 2-percentreductionrequired Jjy Congress.' , '.

The total inclUdes funds for NDEA andguaranteed stUdent. loans, educationalopporturuty grants; college and voca­tional wdrk~study programs, cooperativeeducation, and special programs for stu­dents from' low-income, families such astalent search,Upward Bound, and specialservices in college.

For assistance to areas where schoolenrollments have mushroomed becauseof Federal installations and operations,conferees provided $551.1 million, higherby $111.1 million than the House votedearlier this year.

This will fund at 90 percent the en­titlement of school districts for categoryA students-whose parents live and workon Federal property-and at 65 percentof entitlement for category B students­whose parents work on Federal property.

The impacted areas aid is $30,487,000more than was provided in 'fiscal year1970, which just ended June 30.

For elementary ,and secondary schoolsto help educationally deprived children,both the House and Senate provided $1.5billion, $161 million more than in 1970.This is of course the amount in thefinal bill.

For education of handicapped stu­dents, both the House and Senate agreedon $105 million, an increase of $20 mil­lion above 1970, and this is the amountin the final bill. '

Vocational and adult education alsoare increased-by $75,2 million over 1970,for a total of $494.2 million. The Househad provided $490,446,000, the Senate$497,946,000. The final amount is $54.1million above the budget estimate. Boththe adininistration and Congress recog­nize the need for greatly improved 'voca­tional education that will' equip youngmen and women with skills to qualifyfor employment in today's and tomor­row's job markets. '.

For higher education, we confereesprovided a. total of $967.9 million, an in­crease of $116.9 million over 1970.

For education professions develop­ment, inclUding Teacher Corps, we can,;,ferees allowed $135.8 million., TeacherCorps was'increased by $9,1 million to$30.8 inilliop. " .. " ". For community education, including

libraries,. we confer,ees agreed,upon $85million" whi(:h is $17.8 inillion.()ver 1970~

• "", j. , , . - "-. . , _' ••~; ',. t•. ~, .•.-l' ::.h;

26202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -'SENATE July 28, 1970College library resources were in-­

creased more than $5.5 million, for atotal of $15,325,000 and educationalbroadcasting facilities were increased$6.7 million over 1970 to $11 million.

Ftmds for public library services wereincreased $5.3 million over 1970 to atotal of $40,709,000.

We conferees provided $75 million foremergency school assistance to helpschool districts desegregate for the fallterm.

These are but a few of the highlightsof this multibillion-dollar educationfunding bill.

To get additional perspective on thisvital measure, let me show what con­ferees did In terms of percentage in­creases.

We raised impacted aid for mainte­nance and operations costs of schoolsthroughout America by 6 percent over1970; elementary and secondarY educa­tion by 14 percent; and education forhandicapped youngsters by 24 percent.

We raised vocational and adult educa­tion by 18 percent and higher educationby 14 percent.

We raised education professions de­velopment funds by 16 percent and com­munity education including libraries by26 percent.

Even so, the total provided in the con­ference version before the Senate todayis only $404,488,000 over the amount forthe Office of Education in the Labor­Health, Education, and Welfare Appro­priation Act for fiscal year 1970, whichthe President signed.

The total for all programs in the pend­ing conference version is 16 percentabove the app,opriations available for1970 after deducting the 2-percent re­duction imposed by Congress.

When you consider inflation amountedto almost 6 percent in the past fiscalyear, the increase in this bill is just about10 percent. .

This, it seems to me, is a modest in­crease in view of the needs of America'sschools and America's schoolchildren.

I urge my colleagues to support theconference version, which I hope will be­come law.

FUNDS FOR LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES ANDCOLLEGES

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in thisconference report on the Office of Edu­cation appropriations, there is an itemsmall in amount but immense in signifi­cance-the reduction below authoriza­tion of instructional funds for the 68land-grant universities and colleges Inthe Nation. This is the first ti~e sincethe passage of the second Morrill Act in1890 that Congress has failed to appro­priate fully the funds authoi'ized by leg­islation for this purpose.

The administration intended to repealthe existing legislation by recommendingno appropriation at all for it. The Houseprovided $8 millio):}. The Senate restoredall the money authorized by law-$12.1million. The conference report compro­mises at $10.08 million.

Mr. President, I appreciate the dIffi­cult problems faced by the House andSenate Appropria,tions pommittees andhave no fault to find wIth their actionsunder the circumstimces. I do not In­tend to move to return -the appropria-

tions bill to conference over this rela­tively small item in a total of such mag­nitude. But I do want to say why Ioppose any attempt, to cut the land­grant teaching funds next year or ataPy time in the future.

First, this is an appropriation of greathistOlic significance. The first MorrillAct of 1862 provided for the "endowment,sUPpOrt, and maintenance" of at leastone land-grant college in each State.The result was called by the HooverCommission in 1949 "the most successfulgrant-in-aid ever made by the FederalGovernment." The second Morrill Act in1890 provided annual appropriations tosupplement the endowment provided bythe original act. When the Congresspassed the second Morrill Act by unani­mous vote of both Houses, it said it wasintended to stand as a permanent trib­ute to Senator Morrill, author of theact and 'one of the founders of the Re­publican Party, and to "place these in­stitutions on a flrm foundation for aslong as this Nation shall live." ,

Since that time, other acts of Congresshave increased the amounts going equallyto each of the States and added a facto!'based on the relative population of theStates.

Second, there is at stake a fundamentalprinciple of orderly legislatIve and ad­ministrative procedure. The PresIdent didnot suggest the repeal of the authorIzinglegislation: he attempted to nullify it bylegislating in his budget. As the distin­guished chairman of the Senate Appro­priations Subcommittee saId in his com­ments on the Senate version of the ap­propriations bill:

Tl) adopt this m~thod of repeal of existinglaw by la3k of appropriations is unconscion­able to me: If the President wants to repealthe Bankhead-Jones Act, then suitable legis­lation should be Introduced and acted uponby the appropriate legislative committee.

Senator MAGNUSON also observed thatthe proposal to eli111inate this, program:was made precipitously, without con­sultation or warning to the land-grantinstitutions, or even consultation withthe Congress.

I believe the chairman is absolutelyright. If the administration wants toeliminate or further reduce these fundsfor the land-grant institutions, it shouldsubmit legislation at an early date forconsideration by the committees having'jurisdiction-in this case the Committeeson Agriculture-so that a full appraisalof the program can be made in openhearings' at which all involved may pre-sent their views. .

Mr. President, the ~ormula underwhich these funds for further endowmentof instruction in the land-grant institu­tions is provided is based in part on abasic amount going to each State, and inpart on the relative population of thevarious States.

The last appraisal of this program Pythe Congress reSUlted in the enactmentin 1960 of legislation increasing the totalauthorizations almost threefold. This ac­tion was based on evidence that Inflationand increases in total U.S. populatiohhad reduced the effective value of the"further endowment" to one-third of thatprevailing at the time of Its last previousadjustment. '

Since 1950 there has been a most sub­stantial further inflation and a most sub­stantial growth in population. The Con­gress has also passed legislation designat­ing a new land-grant institution-Fed_eral City College In thl:: District of Co­lumbia. The administration has sup-.pOrted, in testimony before both Houses,legislation which would designate col­leges in Guam and the Virgin Islands asland-grant Institutions. So the land­grant principle is still very much aliveand supported by the Executive as wellas Congress.

My third pOint is that these funds arevery useful in the support of higher ed­ucation. The UnIversity of Wisconsin.for instance, gets $290,650. This seemslike a small amount of money for a largeuniversity, but its importance is that theuniversity is relatively unfettered in itsuse. The money can be put where it isneeded most. The trouble with most Fed­eral aid to higher education is that it isstrictly earmarked as to how it can bespent.

If this approprIation is important tothe University of Wisconsin, think howcritical it is to the predominantly blackland-grant colleges In the South. Theirsupport from all sources is small. Thisappropriation is a very large part of theInstructional bUdget in many of theseinstitutions. To lose it would be literallydisastrous.

Mr. President, if anyone were to askwhy land-grant institutions should getthis money and not other colleges anduniversities, I would say that all insti­tutions of higher education should besimilarly supported. I believe that everyyoung American who can benefit frompostsecondarY education should be ableto get it, regardless of his financialstatus. I support Federal assistance tothe economically disadvantaged for thatpurpOse. But the institutions cannot ab­sorb another million students in the next5 or 6 yearS-Which they must if theyare to do their job-without help, espe­cially if they hope to stop the spiralingIncreases in tuition that make a mockeryof equal oPpOrttmity.

So the land-grant instruction fundsshould not be killed. Instead we shoulduse the principle of broad institutionalaId which they represent in legislationto assist all colleges and universities inthe land.. '

EDUC,ATION APPROPRIATIONS AND SCHOOL

INTEGRATION

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. Presiclent, on be­half of the Senator from Maine. (Mr.MUSKIE) and myself, I congratulate thedistinguished members of the conferencecommittee for their successes in pre­serving the safeguard provisos added bythe Senate to the President's request foremergency school desegregation funds,and in sustaining the Senate's deletionof the so-called Jonas amendment de­signed to dismantle title VI of the CivilRights Act as it applies to racial dis­crimination In public schools.

WHITTEN AMENDMENTS

Tshare the disappointment of the dis­tinguished Senator from Washington(Senat6tMAGNUSON), and 'three ofI;iscolleagues· on the conference commIt­tee-8enators CASE, FONG, and BOGGS-

July ,88, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 26203that the so-called Whitten amendments,sections 209 and 210 of the Office of Ed­ucation appropriation,have been re­tained in the' conference repart. I amconcerned that the confusing languageof these provisIons may encourage someschool districts to, futile resistance ofschool desegregation required by law.However, because the ,Whitten amend~

ments do not legally limit or dilute schooldesegregation requirements and becausethe administration has repeatedly as­sured us that these provisions will haveno effect on Federalenforcement of theserequirements, I reluctantly support theconference report in this regard.

I ask unanimous consent that relevantcommunications from the administra­tion on this subject be printed at thispoint in my remarks.

There being no objectIon, the materialwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:

THE SECRETARY UF HEALTH,EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Washington, D.O., June 23, 1970.Hon. CHARLES MeC. MATHIAS, Jr.,U,S. Senate,Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR MATHIAS: This Is In responseto your request for my views on Sections209, 210 and 211, the school desegregationamendments, In HR. 16916, the fiscal year1971 Office of Education Appropriation Bill,as approved by the Senate AppropriationsCommltttee. I am pleased to respond.

On April 21, my predecessor In this office,former Secretary Robert H. Finch, testifiedon this matter before the Committee onAp­proprlatlons. At the time, he expressed theAdministration's opposition, to these sec­tions, which are unnecessary and undesir-able. '

I wish to reaffirm that opposition. WhlleSections 209 and 210, the so-called WhittenAmendments, would not, If enacted, alterschool 'desegregation requirements underTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, theywould, nevertheless, encourage some peopleto believe that there has been a change Inbasic law,when there was not, and thus serveto confuse local authorities as to their con­stitutional responslblllty.

Section 211, the so-cal1ed Jonas Amend­ment, would deny vital Federal educationaid to many school distrIcts which Imple­ment desegregation plans contrary to "free­dom of choice." Under this section, schooldistricts would be penalized for carrying outdesegregation plans ordered by the Federalcourts, In conformity with State law, or Inaccordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The effect of enacting section 211, therefore,would be to tie the hands of local offlclalsand encourage defiance of the constitutionalobligation to desegregatll.

As the President Indicated In his com­prehensive message on SChool desegrega­tion, the aPPropriate role for the FederalGovernment Is to assist school districts Inmeeting the requirements of the law in thisdifficult area. Sections 209, 210, and 211would not serve that purpose. I know thatyou have been a leading opponent of slmllaramendments In the past. Your assistance Inurging deletion of these sections When theSenate considers H.R. 16916 would be ap-preclated., .

For your Information I am enclosing anexcerpt from Secretary Finch's testimony ofApril 21 In reference to the aforementionedsections. .

With kind regards, I amSincerely; , ,

"i ELUOT'l' RICHARDSON,Secretary-designate.

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH,EDUCATIoN, AND WELFARE,

Washington, D.O., May 14, 1970.Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,U.S. Senate,Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR CASE: This Is In response toyour request for my views on Sections 209,210 Rnd 211, the school desegregation amend­ments, In H.R. 16916, the fiscal year 1971 Of­fice of Education Appropriation Bill, as ap­proved by the Senate Labor-HEW Appropria­tions Subcommittee. I am pleased to respond.

As you know, I testified on this matterbefore the Subcommittee on April 21. At thetime, I expressed the Administration's oppo­sition to these sections, which we regard asunnecessary and undesirable, An excerptfrom my testimony Is enclosed,

I wish to reafflrm that opposition. WhileSections 209 and 210, the so-called WhittenAmendments, would not, If enacted, alterschool desegregation requirements underTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, theywould, nevertheless, encourage some peopleto believe that there has been a change inbasic law when there has not, and thus serveto confuse local authorities as to their con­stitutional responsibility.

Section 211, the so-calIed Jonas Amend­ment, would deny vital Federal education aidto many school districts which Implementdesegregation plans contrary to "freedom ofchoice." Under this section, school districtswould be penalized for carrying out desegre­gation plans ordered by the Federal courts,In conformity with State law, or In accord­ance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Theeffect of enacting Section 211, therefore,would be to tie the hands of local offlclalsand encourage defiance of the constitutionalobligation to desegregate,

As the President Indicated in his .compre­hensive message on school desegregation, theappropriate role for the Federal GovernmentIs to assist school districts In meeting therequirements of the law In this dlfflcult area,Sections 209, 210 and 211 would not servethat purpose.

I would appreciate any assistance you maydeem appropriate In urging deletion of thesesections during this afternoon's fuII Commlt~tee session.

With kind regards, I am.'. Sincerely,

BOB FINCH,Secretary.

APRIL 17, 1970.Hon. WARREN MAGNUSON,Ohairman, Subcommittee on Departments of

Labor and Health, Education and Wel­fare, and Related Agencies, Oommitteeon Appropriations, U.S, Senate, Washing­ton, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON:• • • • •DELETION OF "WHITTEN AND JONAS"

AMENDMENTSI am asking the Senate to delete sections

209 and 2lQ.-the so-called Whitten Amend­ments-and section 211-the so-called JonasAmendment-from the House bill. AlthoughI am convinced that sections 209 and 210do not change basic law or Federal regula­tions, my concern Is that the enactment ofthese two provisions would In fact encour­age some people to believe that a changehas been made in the basic law and thusgive rise to much confusion. Further, it Ismy belief that language which pertains tothe enforcement of school desegregation be­longs in SUbstantive legislation rather thanIn an appropriation bill. For these two rea­sons, I am convinced that sections 209 and210 should be deleted. Even If they are not,however, I believe everyone should under­stand my conclusion that a school districtthat has not ,completed its ConstitutionalObligation to achieve a unitary system would

not be "desegregated" within the meaningof the proposed sections. 209 and 210. Sucha district, therefore" would be una'ffected bythese sections, '. Section 211 shOUld be stricken from theblUfor several reasons. First, It would pre­vent the Federal Government and localschool offlclals) from carrying out the re­quIrements of the Constitution-require­ments which this section does not and can­not remove. What this provision does Is toImpose a penalty on a school district forcarrying out Its legal obligation to desegre­gate. The Department would be put In theposition of having to prohibit many schooldistricts from using Federal funds to drawup and Implement desegregation plans pur­suant to court order. It would thus tie thehands of the Federal Government and oflocal school offlcials In dealing with the non­discrimination requIrement of law.

In addition to preventing enforcement of­ficials from carrying out their legal oblIga­tions, section 211 would jeopardIze the sub­stantial progress made to date In schooldesegregation, and make more difficult theapplication of uniform standards In accord­ance with the Constitution. Furthermore,the amendment directly contravenes thePresident's March 24 statement on schooldesegregation In Which he pledges to supportthe recent Supreme Court decisions mandat­Ing ImmedIate desegregation. Freedom-of­choice plans, as has been demonstrated timeand again, do not do this, Court decisionsare unequivocal on this point. Because sec­tion 211 Is not consIstent with court rulingson "freedom-of-cholce plans," It could onlyproduce an administrative nightmare for theDepartment. It should be deleted.,

In summary, Mr, Chairman, we are askingthat your Committee return to the Presi­dent's bUdget with respect to both the In­creases and decreases enacted by the Houseand delete from the bIU sections 209, 210,and 211 of the general provisIons,

In conclusion, I would commend the Com­mittee for the promptness with which ithas approached the House bll1. I understandthat you have already started hearings withoutside witnesses. We will do our best to helpyou In your efforts to complete your workon this Important bill.

Sincerely,BOB FINCH,

Secretary.SAFEGUARD PROVISIONS

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I amextr~melYpleased that the House, in ap­provmg the PresIdent's request foremergency assistance to desegregatingschool districts, has agreed to the limi­tations placed by the Senate on use ofthe funds. These elementary safeguardsare essential to help insure tha t thefunds will not be spent in districts whichare desegregated in only the mosttoken and misleading ways.

The first limitation prohibits assist­ance to local educational agencies whichtransfer, or have unlawfully transferredproperty, services, or equipment to non~public schools which practice discrimi­nation on the basis of race, color, andnational origin.

The second limitation prohibIts use ofthe emergency assIstance funds to sup­plant per pupil expenditures from non­Federal sources reduced as a result ofdesegregation or of the availability ofthe emergency assistance. This provisiondoes not, however, prohibit assistancewhere State assistance calculated on apre pupil basIs declines by operation ofexisting law, solely because a local edu­cation agency contains fewer stUdents

26204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 28, 1970

after desegregation than before. Nordoes it prohibit assistance where Statesupport of transportation is reduced, byoperation of existing law, solely becausea local education agency's transporta­tion needs are reduced following deseg­regation. In these cases, aid has been re­duced because of declining enrollmentand reduced transportation needs andnot because of action taken as a prepa­ration for or consequence of desegrega-tion. .

The final safeguard assures that as­sistance will be made available on a na­tionwide basis to school districts deseg­regating under either Federal or Statelaw. I regard this last provision asespecially important. Our commitmentto school integration must be a nationalcommitment. The leadership of Stategovernment is vital to successful publicschool desegregation. It is, therefore, es­sential that Federal assistance be madeavailable to desegregating districts inthose States, such as California andPennsylvania, which have required de­segregation of schools &S a matter ofState law, as well as in those Stateswhere desegregation is taking placeunder Federal law.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we areconsidering today one of the most im­portant appropriations bills which Con­gress will consider this session. For ade­quate Federal support is vitally necessaryto achieve the high quality of educationwhich is fundamental to a vigorous, pro­ductive, democratic Nation. The bill be­fore us goes a long way toward provid­ing that Federal support.

Mr. President, I want to commendparticularly the chairman of the Ap­propriations Subcommittee, SenatorMAGNUSON, and the ranking minoritymember, Senator COTTON, for their hardand effective work on this bill. I had theprivilege to testify before the subcom­mittee and to work with these leaderson amendments which I thought wereimportant. I had the opportunity to par­ticipate in the debate and discussion ofthe bill.

I think that in all of their work on thisdifficUlt, complicated, important legisla­tion, the Senator from Washington wasthorough, knowledgeable, and fair. Heis a dedicated leader in the effort to giveour Nation's youth the best possible edu­cation. The Senator from New Hamp"shire was equally effective and construc­tive in 'connection with the educationappropriations.

So, I commend these leaders and themembers of the committee for theirwork on the bill. Of course, there areareas where we might prefer to spendmore and areas where we might preferto spend less. But by and large, this isa balanced and very necessary bill.

Mr. President,I am pleased that inreaching a compromise on education ap­propriations, the House and the Senateconferees agreed to an increase of $14million in the national defense studentloan program. As you know, this increasewas approved by the Senate when itpassed the amendment to increase Fed­eral student assistance which I spon­sored last month.

This increase brings the new total fordirect student loans to $243 million for

the coming academic year. The $14 mil­lion will help an additional 23,000 stu­dents.

My own State of Massachusetts will re­ceive an estimated $594,111 of this in­crease, giving assistance to close to onethousand additional needy students whomight not otherwise be able to attendschool this fall. Whereas last year Mas­sachusetts colleges and universities re­ceived only 52.6 percent of their approvedrequests for direct student loans, thisyear they will receive 62 percent.

And so, :rvIr. President, this increaserepresents a substantial improvement. Assponsor of the Senate amendment, I amproud that Congress is partially respond­ing to the need.

However, Mr. President, present Fed­eral spending for student assistance isstill inadequate. And this failure to ap­propriate necessary Federal funds willdeny thousands of young Americans inMassachusetts and across the country theopportunity to attend college. this fall.Until the Federal Government makes afull and realistic commitment, our Na­tion's youth-especially those from low­income families-will be the ultimatelosers.

The shortage of student aid is stagger­ing. I am sure that everyone of mycolleagues has received many movingletters from parents and students whocannot find assistance, and in manycases have been forced to drop out ornot even start college or vocationalschool. My own office in Boston receivesan average of 40 to 50 telephone calls aweek from distraught parents and young­sters who need financial help for theirhigher education. Yet all I can report tothem is that Federal funds have longsince run out. . .

The University of Massachusetts atAmherst has been forced to reject sev­eral hundred deserving applicants fornational defense student loans this year.They use a nationally developed testingservice to determine how much a familycan afford to pay. Yet with estimated tui­tion, room, board, costs and personalspending money of $2,200 for each stu­dent, the university must deny aid toany family which can afford $1,700 ormore-even though the cost may be asmuch as $500 more than the family canafford.

One State college in Massachusetts hascalculated that the amount it receivesfor Federal student assistance works outto an average of only $36.28per studentin attendance.

A number of factors have contributedto· the severe pressure on families withcollege-age children.

First, with inftationover 6 percent,theincrease in other costs leaves familieswith less for education. Yet at the sametime, rises in tUitioil, iees, and.room andboard have raised' the price 'tag ofcollege.

In Massachusetts, Boston College re­cently announced a tuition increase of$240 effective this coming September.This comes on top of a $400 tuition in­crease just last year. In addition, roomand board costs at Boston College willbe raised by· $300 at the opening of thefall term.

Even greater increases had been pro-

posed initially, precipitating a strike oncampus this spring. The college needsmore money. but the stUdents and theirfamilies simply cannot afford it.

At another private university in Mas­sachusetts, seniors this fall will pay $915more in tuition and costs than they paidas freshmen in 1967-68. On the average,tuition and costs in Massachusetts col­leges and universities have lisen from 30to 40 percent in the last 5 years.

Second, guaranteed student loans frombanks are increasingly difficult to obtain.Last year Congress passed an amend­ment I offered to reduce discrimination.But a recent stUdy resulting from thatamendment revealed that 82 percent ofloans still are made to students who aredepositors or whose families are deposi­tors in the bank; 67 percent of the lend­ers indicated that they give preferentialconsideration to students whose familiesare depositors. As a result, many citizensin Massachusetts and elsewhere-espe­cially those who cannot afford large de­posits in banks as a condition for aloan-are denied aid.

Just last week I received a letter froma father who had been to nine differentbanks seeking loans for his college-agedaughter. So far, he has drawn a com­plete blank.

Another frustrated constituent sum­malized the problem with ironic hyper­bole:

You have to be a millionaire to be poorenough to receive a guaranteed student loan.

Third, nsmg unemployment andshortage of jobs reduces outside work forstudents. Reports from college aid offi­cers and several newspaper articles inBoston and other papers have confirmedthat many students simply cannot findwork this summer to support their edu­cation in the fall.

Fourth, with growing deficits, collegesthemselves have less money availablefor scholarships. Since 1962, the debtlevel for all private institutions of highereducation in Massachusetts has morethan tripled, to $191.8 million in 1969.Non-Federal sources have simply notbeen able to keep pace with rising enroll­ments and costs. Without increased Fed­eral student assistance, colleges and uni­versities will simply have to cut off aidto needy and deserving students and letthem drop out of school.

In short, Mr. President, especially inthis time of economic pressure, Federalstudent assistance is critically needed.Inflation means family bUdgets are morestrapped than usual. It is becoming moredifficult to obtain guaranteed studentloans from banks and lending institu­tions. The. current shortage of jobs iscutting students out of outside work tohelp finance their stUdies'. Rising deficitsand growing enrollments leave collegeswith less moneY' available for scholar-ships. .

We have come part way down the roadto meeting the needs for Federal studentassistance. But we still have a long wayto go. I am distressed, for example, thatthe conferees rejected increases in thecollege work-stUdy program, and ingrants to students from the most pov­erty-stricken families. If necessary, Iwould hope that Congress will be pre-

July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -.SENATE 26205pared to add money to these two pro­grams in a "supplemental. appropriation.

For under the present bill, even withthe $14 million increase in direct loans,we are appropriating for the three directFederal programs-national defensestudent. loans, college work-study, andeducational opportunity grants-only 58percent of the amount authorized andonly 72 percent of institutional requestsactually approved by regional panels ofthe Department of Health, Education,and Welfare.' '

Mr. President, every citizen in, theUnited states' should have a full and fairopportunity to pursue a higher educationwithout regard ,to his fina~<:ialneed orthat ofnis family. But we are a longway from. achieving that goal today.Meanwhile,. the financial needs of. ourfamilies with children in college· havereached crisis proportions.

We' must continue to press for fur­ther increaSes in student aid when sub­sequent appropriations bills come beforethe Senate. When we consider that forevery $1 spent on student aid tlieFederalGovernment receives an estimated $14return through taxes' on the recipient'shigher: income from the college educa­tion, this is a sound and ,worthy in­vestment.

Mr. President, I am disappointed thatthe conferees decided to drop the addi­tional $10 million which the Senateadded on the floor for new TeacherCorps' programs authorized earlier thisyear. The conferees also dropped carry­ing the Teacher Corps as a separate lineitem in' the bilL But I gather that thiswas done witli the clear understandingthat the full $30.8 million allocated forthe Teacher Corps . in both the Houseand the Senate committee reports willnot be diverted to other'use. The TeacherCorps continues to be. an extremely ef­fective program both' for interestingqualified"· persons to teach in poverty­area' s"chooIs and for· increasing thequality of; education in those schools. Iexpect the Department of Health, Ed­ucation, and Welfare and the. Office ofEducation to purSue this program withthe vigor reflected in the congressionalincrease.thisy:ear.

The conferees decided to. drop the ad­ditional$1 million 'which had been addedin the Senate'specifically for Indian bi­lingual education in title vn of the Ele­mentary and Secondary Education Act.But I think that the need for priority onthese programs was fUlly established inthe debate, and I expect and am confi­dent that HEW and the Commissioner ofEducatlou,wilL expand these programsas part of ,the expansion of title VII gen-erally. •

I am also disappointed that the con­ferees, dropped the $4 million added'onthe Senate floor specifically for grants toState and local -education iagelicies forplanning and evaluation under the newauthority added earlier this year in titlev of the'Elementaryand Secondary, Ed;:ucation Act. Unfortunately, this author­ity was added after the Bouse had actedon the education appropriations, sO thematter waS not the subject of hearingsand action on'the: House :Side;'r. wowdhope that at a later pointtheHciuse will

have a full opportunity to consider thiscritical need and determine-as the Sen­ate already has-that this new authorityshould be promptly funded.

Finally; Mr. President, I would like todiscuss the so-called Whitten amend­ments which have been retained in theconference report. For this year theyhave undergone a facelifting and achange which we' should all clearly un-derstand. ,

The amendments have been modifiedin such a manner that they comport withthe existing requirements of title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Both sections 209 and 210 provide thatno funds may be used to force the bus­ingof stUdents, the closing of schools,or obligatory pupil assignment, with re­spect to a desegregated school district asthat· term is defined in title IV of theCivil Rights Act.

Under title IV, "desegregation" is de­fined as "the assignment of students topublic schools and within sUch schoolswithout regard to their race, color, reli­gion, or national Oligin, but desegrega­tion' shall not mean the assignment ofstudents to public schools' in ol'der toovercome racial imbalance."

Now. this provision of title IV-section401(b)-has not been interpreted by thecourts' as compelling anything less thanthe disestablishment of the former dualschool system. The nondiscrimination re­quirements of title VI have been appliedin the context of Supreme Court deci­sions interpreting the reach of the 14thamendment,- and this has held true re­gardless of the provisions of title IV.

Similarly, when title IV prohibits theGovernment from requiring the trans­portation of students "in order to over­come racial· imbalance," the restrictiondoes not negate the affirmative duty todesegregate when segregation has comeabout through the deliberate acts of re­sponsible authorities.Th~ Federal courts. have long sub­

scribed to this view. In U.S. v. JeffersonCounty Board of Education (372 F. 2d836 (966) "the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe 7th CirCJlit ruled:

It Is clear .•. that Congress equated theterm (racial Imbalance) ... with de factosegregation, that is non-racially motivatedsegregation inaschooi system based on asingle neighborhood school for all childrenIn a definable area.

In short, section 401 (b) of title IV doesnot affect the responsibility of school dis­tricts to correct de jUre segregation 01'discrimination under the provisions oftitle VI.

The new Whitten amendments cannotalter the constitutional requirements todesegregate and·· the regulations andguidelines which have been pUblished toenforce those requirements. It is impor­tant'to fully understand this, so thatpassage of sections 209 and 210 will notdeceive school districts as to their legalopligations under the law.

There is altogether too much confu­Sionand ambiguity iri this difficult area.

School districts Which have. not yetmoved to comply with the law should notseize these amendmentl? as a way out.These amendments should not open thedoor to another round of resistance and

court litigation. They should not com­plicate the task of the Departments ofJustice and HEW which are responsiblefor enforcing the mandates of the courts.For we are not changing substantive law., And so, in accepting these amend­ments, we must be clear that Congress inno way intends to pull back or reduce theeffort to end unconstitutional discrimi­nation. The amendments do not changethe obligations of communities facedwith a court order to desegregate. Theycannot change HEW's desegregationguidelines.

Mr. President, I strongly support Sen­ate adoption of the education appro­priations conference report.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident, I ask unanimous consent thattime on the conference report be limitedto 1 hour, to be under the control ofthe able manager of the conference re­port, the Senator from Washington(Mr. MAGNUSON), and that the vote oc­cur on the conference report at 2 o'clocktoday, with the understanding that thefollowing Senators will be given at leastthese amounts of time: The Senatorfrom New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), 10minutes; the Senator from Alabama(Mr. ALLEN), 10 minutes; the Senatorfrom Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), 15 min­utes; and the Senator from Wisconsin(Mr. NELSON), 5 minutes; and as I havesaid, all time to be under the controlof the Senator from Washington (Mr.MAGNUSON) .

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.CRANSTON). Is there objection to therequest of the Senator from Washington(Mr. MAGNUSON) ? The Chair hears none,and it is so ordered.

Mr, BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident, I ask for the yeas and nays on thethe conference report.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the

Senator from Washington yield me 2minutes?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Let me say, before Iyield to the Senator from Florida, thathe suggests I yield him only 2 minutes.That is a very modest request becausehe has spent hundreds of hours on thebill and just 2 minutes is not quite suf­ficient to make up for all of the work thedisting1lished Senator from FIOlida hasdone on this education appropriationsbill. ., , ,

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank my distin­guished chairman. I rose primarily tothank him and the distinguished' min­ority ranking member, the Senatorfrom New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), fortheir arduousefforts throughout the con­sideration of this bill, the hearings, andthe floor work, as well as the markingup of the bill in committee and theirconference work which was the roughestof all.

I want to say just this one thing, thatthe distinguished Senator from Virginia(Mr. SPONG) put his finger on the onematter of legislation which I think mostneeds attention-the impacted schoollaw-and while he did call attention tothe difference between class A: a"nd classB,students, whiCh is one of the big pointsof argument, he did not mention the fact

26206 July. 28, 1970.

that last· year we put a tWrd class Intothe bill, that is"of children coming frompublic housing homes, wWch I twnk wasa mistake; but whether a mistake or not,it calls out loudly for complete reex­amination of this particular legislationby the legislative committee.

I wanted to emphasize that point incommending the distinguished Senatorfrom Virginia (Mr. SPONG).

Mr. MAGNUSON. I appreciate thatstatement and, of course, we excludedthe public housing entitlement mainlybecause of what the Senator from Floridajust suggested, the reason that here wewere again embarking upon sometWngnew. We have got to take a new look atthis whole business of impacted aid. Ilike to call it a payment in lieu of taxes,because that is what it is. I think thatis a good way to do these things for thelocal school districts that have thesehave these problems, but the public hous­ing entitlement could have added asmuch as $289 million to the bill.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, if theSenator will yield me 1 more minute, Ithink the Senator and his rankingminority associate were so wise in goingalong with the committee. The commit­tee as a whole thought it would be un­wise to venture into that field whichwas put into the authorizing legislationlast year.

The point of my rising was to say thatthis new issue adds to the necessityfor a complete revision of the impactedschool legislation which I tWnk is one ofthe first "musts" that is ahead for Con­gress.

I thank the Senator from Washingtonand again commend him.

Mr. MAGNUSON: I thank the Senatorfrom Florida. .

Mr. President, the distinguished Sena­tor from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON)' isaway on a personal matter. In fact, he isattending his father's funeral. He askedme to have his statement on the con­ference report printed in the RECORD, ashe made such a strong plea to the. Sen­ate on this year's bill; and fask unani­mous consent to do so.

There being no objection, the state:ment ,by .Senator EAGLETON was orderedto ~e printed in the REcoRD,as follows:.

Mr,EAGLE'I,'oN. Mr. President" I wish tothank the senior Senator from WaShington,as well as. the senior 'senator from NewHampshire and all members of the EducationAppropriations SUbcommltteeAor, the finejob they have done on the fiscal 1971 edu­cation'· appropriations biiI. CertainlY, mostmembers of this body are in full agreementthat the etlucation needs of this 'countrysllQuldhave top priority, and itts"'Pleasureto support a measUre which in most· respectsrecognizestheprohlems faced by our schqOis",ndproyides. the type Qf assjstancethlit'lsdesperately needed. ...,. . .'. One of the areas, however, for which I feelwe ht\ve not 'provided 'adequate funds Ishl 5her education. Despite the praiseworthyefforts'of some oj' my colleagues, who. weresuc.cessfulin· having amendments approvedon the fioor, the conference did not go alongWith this body's recomm!lndatlons that in,creased funds be put in certain higher edu~

catiOn programs. " 'ThiS' I f~l, Is extremely unfortunate. If

our country is to move forward, It mustcontinue to rely in large measure 'on the out­put of our institutions of higher learning. To

cut funds in this area at a time when thllnumber of stUdents in our colleges is at apeak is, in my opinion, snort-sighted.

SOme of the specUic programs which I,ieelhave not been given the funds they <leserveare Titles n and VI of the Higher EducationAct (which provide funds for college librariesan<l for instructional materials and eqUip­ment) an<l the lan<l grant colleges appropri­ations.

Taking first the programs un<ler the HigherEducation Act, the Senate appropriated$20,750,000 for Title n (college libraries),which was the same amount as originallyapproved In fiscal 1970, although the 1970appropriation was reduced to $9,816,000 fol­lowing the President's veto of the first ap­propriation bill. The conference committeehas recOlIlmen<le<l a re<luetion of the Senateappropriation to $15,325,000. For Title VI(Instructional materials), the Senate ap­proved $14.5 mllllon, which was the sameamount appropriate<l from 1966-1969 (nofunds were appropriated In 1975) . This. figurewas slashe<l to only $7 mUlion in conference.

I think It is important to stress the factthat these programs are not <leslgned tocover, in any substantial way, the financialneeds of our colleges and universities. Theyare basically seed programs; they provi<le theyeast that It is hoped wlll result in an im­proved end product. Thus they are not<livisible.

The admlnistra.tion costs alone often makeit uneconomical for schools to fill out theforms required to apply for these funds, andthis will be especially true at the new lowlevels. Simply because these programs, aresmall it <loes not follow that they should beregarded as insignificant. They have beeninstrumental over the years in upgrading thequality of instruction in our colleges,andthey are even more important' now whenmost of our higher education Institutionsare making <lesperate efforts, to maintainquallty levels. ' ,

Both Titie II and Title VI have been ca·pably administere<l at State an<l Fe<leral lev­els, and each <lollar allocated has serve<l togive the recipient institution the little extraamount neede<l in these vital areas of 'in­struction.

I urge that we do not forget these impor­tant programs over the coming weeks. Thereis no better way we can spend this nation'smoney than to give our ,chlldren a better edu­cation. This means not only provi<ling bUll<l­ings and teachers, but als!' making availablethe innovative technology requlre<l to main­tain the quallty of instruction' at the levelwedeman<l. , , .... .

I want to comment also on the appropria­tions for the nation's lan<l grant colleges. Thisis another it~m which is smalLin !lpllars !lutwhich. has great significance in. t!!rms ofAmerica's educational resources.

The Presi<lent saw fit to recommen<l thatno fun<ls be appropriate<l for this program.Nevertheless, the House approve<l$8 mill10nand the Senate vote<l $12.1 mimon, .the Sen­ate figure being at the same 'fevelas fiscal1970 appropriations. Theconierence commit­tee has recommen<le<l a compromise figure ot$10,080,000. .

I, for one,' want the recor<l to shoW' that itis my view that this re<luction below:lastyear's funding level <loes. ~ot mark 1;lie ,be­ginning of a phase-out of appropriations forthis program, 'but rather it simply marks arecognition of constraints imposed by thisyear's ditncult fiscalsltuation.

We should 'keep "in min<l that the,lan<lgrant colleges were the nation's first real"peoples' colleges"-an<l they' contlnue"tofill that role. Both the Administration ,,,,n<l.the Congress have committe<l themselvesto the principle that higher e<lucatiQn op­portunities must be expande<l, partiCUlarlyfor' those who, are economically <lisadv'an­taged. If we are to make these real oppor­tunities an<l not merely empty promises,

our land grant universities must .necessarllyplay a major role. Federal financial support,such as that offered through this appropri_ation item,.is necessary to enable the landgrant colleges to e<lucate these a<l<litionalstU<lents whlle at the same time keepingfees sufficiently low so that they <l0 notimpose a major obstacle to the poor butotherwise qUalified stu<lent.

It should be polnte<l, out that in theseprograms involving small amounts of moneythe purpose of fe<leral support is not eco­nomic but educational. The Federal Gov~

ernment provides incentives an<lleadershlp-..fostering the Innovation, the new curricu­lums, and the educational change and re­form necessary to provide quallty instruc­tion for an ever-increasing number of stu­<lents. The <lemands of our society, bothculturally an<l economically, obllge us to im­prove and upgra<le the educational processat all levels. This is why we must be at­tentive to these smaller, less costly programsan<l reallze that they are important to edu­cation. Oniy by using the power an<l pres­tige of the federal government can we hopeto foster the e<lucationalprogress which isthe precondition to all progress In a civlllze<lsociety.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I shOUldlike to make a brief point here, and thenask a question of the manager of thebill who has been a most influential Mem­ber of the Senate in terms of sUPpOrt­ing the National Teacher Corps, as wellas the Senator from New Hampshire(Mr. COTTON). They have both endorsedand supported an increase of $10 millionin the request of the administration toadd to the Student Teacher Corps, theIndian 'reservation program, sponsoredby the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.KENNEDY) , and the corrections programssponsored by the Senator from New York(Mr. GOODELL).

My understanding is that the confer­ence found it necessary to recede andeliminate .the $10 million added by theSenate, and to return to the $30,800,000requested by the administration, andthat it was necessary to remove the Na­tional Teacher Corps as a line item with­in the budget, the line item having beenput in by the Senator from Washing­ton (Mr. MAGNUSON).

I pose this question for legislative clar­ification to the Senator from Washing­ton: The Senate approved $40.8 millionfor the Teacher Corps, and the programswhich I have mentioned; and the Housevoted $30.8 million for the Teacher Corpswhich was the amount requested by theadministration.

I just wanted to ask the manager ofthe bill, for purposes of being clear aboutthe legislative intent, both as approvedand appropriated as high or higher thanthe administration' requested for theTeacher Corps, the fact that in, confer­ence we eliminated the earmarking doesnot evidence an intent not to spend the$30.8 million approved by both houses,does it?

Mr. MA9NUSON. No; it was my un­derstanding-the Senator for 'NewHampshire is 'not here at this moment,but I am sure it isnis, too..,,-thatafterlengthy discussion in conference, we hadan agreement that it was mandatory tospend it for the .Teacher Corps, or atleast that is the intent of conference andit is the. intent of Congress.

I hadmlxedvlews about whether it

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATEJllly 28, iliff)'should be a lIne item of put ,in the~dUc~7,tion professions, development' lin,li Item;'which is a very, large item in the bill.­One side point~d-out that last y,eat; wehad $21,737,000',~p.d,that_tllebU<l~,etes~­timate came up to $30,800,000, luld whep.'it was within the amount, of the new'Teacher Corps it fared betterwithout be~ing a line item than it did last year. Iwould prefer to keep' the lirie .item. Iwould personally like' to do so; But theHouse was insistent' that' it be put in theeducation professions development, withthe understanding that the' $30;800,000be used for this specific purpose.

Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator." Mr. MAGNUSON:If there ~s any indi­cation they are not going, to do this,that, would be violating the intent ofboth House and Senate conferees.

Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator forthat, clarification. '

Mr. MAGNUSON. Now, Mr. President,I yield the fioor to the Senator fromNew Hampshire, unless there are somefurther questions.

I might say one other thing, as Ipointed out in my introductory remarks,we did have the so-called Whitten andJonas amendments in the bill, in theHouse bill, and it was cut out by theSenate. We finally agreed to the so­called Whitten amendments and re­moved the Jonas amendment.

There were four of us, inclUding thechainnali, who signed the conferencereport with the exception of the 80­called Whitten amendments, merely to beon record. '

We had'a good, long discussion aboutthese amendments. That is the usualthing every year." Finally 'the Housemembersiri all siI'lCeritysaid that theydid not think they could go back to theHouse and sustain' a deletion of theWhitten amendments. '

So the senator from New Hampshireand I felt that we wanted to get a billout as' soon as possible since this in­volves the whole educational process ofthe eotintry. The House was faifIY amen­able to compromising with us and having~ realcOlIlpromise on the money items.We had to accept the so-called Whittenamendments. ' '

The House conferees in the beginningsaid this' was one of the importantthings, and that they did not feel they,could go back to the House without theso-called Whitten amendments.c" There were four members of the com..mittee-theSenator from Washington,the Senator Jrom New' Jersey, the Sena­tor from' Haw)lii, and the Senator fromDelawiue-that'make exceptions to. theWhitten' amendments. ' ., , '

Mr"."COTTC>N.Mi'> President, I wouldlike to take 1 IItiriute ofmy 10 minutesto express my appreciatIon and admira­tion for the effeCtive and able leadershipthat the distinguished chairman of thesUbcommit~e, the SeJ;ll!o-torfrom Wash­ington,-chat:a,cteristicalIY displayed thisyear, as he has"m tlli 'past; With'out hiliguidance, and ,without his , ability 'andskill in 'ri~otiatfugWith the-Hc>usecon­ferees, we 'w6illc:f-not, have been able toachieVe-as much' as we dld.· < , , ::'

The Senator If6m'WasllitigtOrl'is' per­fectly correct when he says that not onebreath of partisanship had been involved

iIi. any of \he'dellberations eIther in thesubcOmmittee; the full committee, or the,c,onference committee. ''If tJartisaliship were to have been dis­

playetl,it could have well been displayedby the majority lllembersin allowing thebill to staylarge enough so that it mightinvite a Presidential veto which, in anelection year, might be good politics fromthe, standpoint of some. That was notdone. It was characteristic of the Senatorfrom Washington that we went to con­ferencetoget the best results we couldand to get as much money for educationas wecouId and, at the same time, tryto aVOId' 'going through the donnybrookwe went through last year after a Presi­dential .. vetO and trying to reform ourlines and produce a new bill.

As the Senator from Washington hasindicated very clearly, we went into theconference with a Senate bill that was$966 million-practically $1 biIlion-overthe bUdget. That amount included $150million that the President himself hadasked for for emergency school assist­ance. We caine out with that amount re­duced by almost $363 million-$453 mil­lion over the bUdget figure.

Mr. President, I hope and believe thatthe President will not veto this bill. I aminformed by stat! members of anothersubcommittee that another conferencereport that is likely to come to the Senatein a very short time will run $500 millionto $600 million over the budget. That billis not for education.

Considering that this bill is pinpointedfor education in this Nation; I am hope­ful that the President will go along withus. We exercised our duties and he willexercise his. I think our duty is to adoptthe conference report.

Mr. President, if anything should hap­pen to the bill, the first thing we wouldhave to do would beto put back into anybill. that came through advance fundingin the amount of $1,339,000.000, to takecare of the school districts that have tomake their plans, hire teachers, and dotheir work before the opening of theschool year.

The HEW, appropriation was split.Education was made a separate bill sothat we could get it through and get theassurance of money for the school dis­tricts soon enough so that they couldmake their plans.

A good deal has been said about theimpacted area funds. Every year, ofcourse, that has been· a bone of conten­tion. That is probably one of the chiefobjections of the administration to thebill.

Mr. President, since the impacted areafunds started in 1951 until this year, theamounts have been increased every year.In 1951,it was $29 million. In the pend­ing bill it is $536 million.

The total that we have paid in im­pacted area funds' over the years ,sincewe started is $5,220.237,000.

Mr. President, this situation must bedealt with by the legislative committeebecause I think that every member of ourcommittee and every Member of .the Sen­ate knows that these moneys are appro­priated and actininistered under an out­moded and distorted [onnula. '

One reason, however-and I think themain reason-that our school districts

26207

and school officialS are insisting andw'ging and begging for every cent theycan get of impacted area funds is thatthese funds are the only funds they canspend for their own individual needs intheir localities and in their districts.

This is something that has troubled meever since I have served on the subcom­mittee, and I have been on the subcom­mittee for many years. The Office ofEducation !lnd the Federal authorities inthe HEW insist on having their fingerson every single cent that is spent. .

Striving and struggling as has theSenator from Washington, I, and oth­ers have to prevent duplications and tosee that the money necessary for thedisadvantaged children in this Nation,both city and rural, shall go to themand not' be spent for overhead and ad­ministration. Trying to be fair has beenan extremely difficult matter, ,

I hopethat the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, and more par­ticularly, the Office of Education, will getthemselves straightened out so that wehave a more incisive and clearcut pol­icy. I also hope that the legislative com­mittees in the Senate and the House willreview and give us a modernized, stream­lined, eqUitable method of aiding theschool districts of the Nation. TheSenator from Washington was correctin his statement that it is necessary thatthis be done so that we will not have thisconstant difficulty over impacted areafunds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to have printed in the RECORD ap­propriations for impacted areas runningfrom 1951, the year of the inception ofthe program, to the present bill.

There being no objection, the tablewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:Public Law 874 appropriations-School as-

sistance in federally affected areas1951 $29,080,7881952 51,570,000i953 60,500,0001954 72,350.0001955 75,000,0001956 90.000,0001957 113,050.0001958 127.000,0001959 157.362,0001960 186,300,0001961 217.300.0001962 247,000.0001963 282,322,0001964 320,670.0001965 332,000,0001966·~______________________ 388.000,0001967 416,200.0001968 507,165.0001969 505.900,0001970 505,400.0001971

'536,068.000

Tota~ ~ 5.220.237,000

1 Conference agreement.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, as thebill left the Senate we were nearly $1billion over the budget. We are now only$453,321,000 overthe bUdget. We think,or at least the,Senator from New Hamp­shire thinks and I think other membersof the subcommittee concur, that this isall we could hope to get without runningthertsk of going through anoth'er Presi­dential veto. I cannot speak for the Presi­dent. I have no intimation of what hemay do. I simply think and believe that

26208 CO~GRESSIONALRECORD,-S~N.t\.T. E." ~ . .t". .i _" J '.~' ,- ... '

July 28, 1970after all due consideration he will notchoose the educational funds to vetowhen these other appropriations' formuch less important purposes than edu­cation are coming on the heels of themeasure.

Again I commend the distinguishedSenator from Washington and membersof the subcommittee. We have listenedto much testimony and we ,have gonethrough to the end of the road, or whatwe hope is the end of the road. ,

Mr. President, I hope the Senate willadopt the conference report.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will theSenator yield to me for 3 minutes?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall aa­

dress myself to amendment 38, whichwas reported in disagreement and whichrelates to emergency school assistance,in which we carried $150 million here. AsI understand it now, that amount wascut by 50 percent in conference, or to $75million; and the other body has now con­curred in that amendment so that it re­mains but for us to concur and the $75million will be appropriated. Is thatcorrect?

Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. JAVITS. Is it correct the limita­tions with respect to utilization of thesefunds specified in the Senate amend­ment remain as part of the bill, now thatthe conference report has been com­pleted?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Those provisions doremain in the bill.

Mr. JAVITS..The only thing changedwaS the amount of money?

Mr. MAGNUSON. The amount ofmoney.

Mr. JAVITS. I would like to state tothe manager of the bilI that we thoughtthe $150 million couid be extremely wellused in respect of the desegregation ef­fort. We were deeply concerned that thelimitations should remain in the bill, asthey are such as to prevent a defeat ofthe very e1Iort which the $75 million or$150 million originally was designed topromote, to wit, desegregation. Thosewho would attempt to avoid the e1Iect ofdesegregation by unlawfully utilizingpublic property by transferring it to pri­vate segregated' schools, are discouragedfrom doing so by the first limitation.The other limitations prevent the use ofFederal funds to supplant available non""Federal funding and assure that thefinancial assistance provided is availablein all sections of the country where simi~

lar problems have created similar needs.I consider the precedent of the reten­

tion of the limitations in the amendmentof such overriding importance that I ameven willing to accept the disappoint­ment of the 50-percent cut provided thatthe limitations are included.

I would be the first to affirm,becauseI have been a member of the Committeeon Appropriations and. served with theSenator from Washington, (Mr. MAGNU­SON) •on conference committees, the. tre­mendous e1Iort which I know it took toget,even the $75 million. The chairmandid extremely well under the circum­stances.

But, Mr. President, the real danger weface, aside from a lagging desegregationpolicy anywhere in the country-and 'Iemphasize that because it· needs to beemphasized-is that we are seeking tobring about a better educational systemthrough exercising the spectre of segre­gation wherever it may be present.

One of the fine points brought out indebate was the fact that so-called defacto segregation and racial imbalanceare exactly the same thing. I hope verymUCh, as this educational process goes'on, people will understand that sO-'calledracial imbalance is just as capable ofdepriving children of a sUfficient educa­tion as so-called de jure segregation.

The only question is, Can, we reachracial imbalance, and if we can, what canwe do about it intelligently?

We all agree we would prefer' not tobus our children over long distances. ButI deeply believe, if you want to give chil­dren the best in education, they are en­titled to an education which is integrated.While we may not prefer busing, we knowoften there is no other way-just as \vediscovered with the little red schoolhouse-to provide a decent educationwithout the use of busing.

So I think it should be noted veryspe­cifically that a real achievement is. in­corporated in this conference report inthese terms. I am the first to affirm thatI hope very much this legislation will beused with intelligence to deal with situ­ations in the North, and West, as well asin the South. But there are two caveats:First, that should not divert our attentionfrom areas where there is unlawful segre­gation which has already been identifiedby the courts and HEW; this appropria­tion will not substitute for fair law en­forcement in many areas .of the South;and second, we should not be scaredaway by the catch words of "neighbor.,.hood schools" and "forced busing" fromgiving the children, who cannot representthemselves and for whom we .are speak­ing, the very optimum we humanly canin education. . ,-:,',

I am a member' of the Select C6nt:­mittee on Equal Educational Opportunitywhich the Senator from Minnesota '(Mr.MONMLE) heads and a member of theEducation Subcommittee, chaired by ,theSenator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL).We will be coining in with a substantialbill. The administration has asked for$1.5 billion. This is abeginning. '

I say to the administration that theeasiest way to kill a program which hasmuch promise around here, is to ruin itwhen you start, or waste money in re:'spect to it, or engage in experimentswhich are footless, just because.you donot,know what to do with the nioney. '

Nobody is asking the administration. tospend money. If they .do ,not want. tospend it, that is all right, but if they do,they, should bear ill. mind they have tospend it intelligentlyande1IectivelY.Everything theydo about the expenditureof this $75 million will have a directand decisive e1Iect on our chances forgetting the whole program enacted into~aw. I think this is critically important,and I hope the administration will takeit very much to heart.

I note with great regret that the 80­caIled Whitten amendments, which alsorelate to desegregation problems in theschools, are carried over in the confer­ence report We all knew, and we knew itwhen we debated the question, that theyare of no legal eff~t, unIikethe so-caIledJonas amendment, which fortunately isleft out of the bill; but the Whittenamendments are still an albatross aroundthe neck of this measure.

I know the other body insisted on thembecause they did go back in disagreement.To the great credit of a number of Sen­ate conferees, they signed the confer­ence report--and that includes the dis­tinguished chairman, the Senator fromWashington (Mr. MAGNUSON)-with theexception of amendment No. 39, whichrelated to the so.,.called Whitten amend­ments. This e1Iort to act as King Canuteto stem the tide of our doing our utmostto remove the color factor from the edu­cation of children of the United Statesis doomed to failure. rt is vestigial, itis archaic, it is bound to go. The tenacitywith Which it hangs on in amendmentslike these is really appalling in this coun­try. Yet the very same people who advo­cate this kind of amendment are thepeople who talk about neighborhoodschools and being against busing, whenthe worst expressions of segregation cameunder the heading of busing, and blackchildren were bused 20, 30, and 40 milesa day, right past the doors of whiteschools which were their neighborhoodschools, in the name of segregation.

I sympathize with the Senator fromWashington (Mr. MAGNUSON). I knowhow he feels. We live in a working world.There is a heavy responsibility borne bythe other body for its persistence includ­ing this kind of amendment. It is amaz­ing to me to see it, since it does not, in myview, represent the prevailing view in thecountry. We can only hope to continuethe fight and to urge our brethren inthe other body to be more decisive andvigorous in their opposition to suchamendments. It is unfortunate that weare at the point of having or not having amassive bill for education which is abso­lutely essential to the school districts ofour country, at the price accepting anamendment like this, which is not goingto ,turn the world over, I agree--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired.

Mr. JAVITS. But which is nettlingand disagreeable, considering the stateof the times,and the Jaws enacted byCongress and the decisions of the courts.It is depressing and sad and distressing.I sympathize, however, with the managerof the bill and the ranking ,RepublicanMember, the Senator Jrom New Hamp­shire (Mr. COTTON) "who has certainlyexpressed his feelings on many occasions.s6 I say that while these amendmentsare most regrettable, I shall vote for theconference report. ,. , .,'Mi'. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, Iyield to the senator from Alabama (Mr.ALLEN);""':":"

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Howmuch time does the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. May I have 10 minutes?Mr. MAGNUSON. VerY well.

July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD>-' SENATE 26209Mr. ALLEN. 1fr.president, ,I wish to

commend the distingmshed Senator fromWashington arid the' other conferees onthis bill for the splendid work which theydid in conference. I appreciate his spiritof comprolllise,the·spirit'Withwhich he

'came' back)Vith. tl:1econferenc.e-report,which doesemboc1Y,what he has calledthe Whitten amen9,men~s,. .

I ask unanimoug'coriserit that sections209 and 210 of the bill be inserted in theRECORD at this poink

There being no objection, the sectionswere ordered to be printed in the REC-

. ORO, as follows:,·,,' " ",SEC. 209. No part ,of the funds· contained

In thls'Act may be used- .To force any school or school district which

is desegregated as that term is defined in titleIV of the Civil Rights Act· of 1964, PublicLaW 88-352, to take any aCtton to. force thebusing of stUdents;

To force on account of race, creed, or color. the abolls1:lInent of any school so desegre­gated: or

To' force the transfer or assignment of anystudent attending any elernentary or second­ary school so desegregatect to or from a par­ticular school over the protest of his or herparents or parent. '.

SEC. 210. No part of the funds containedIn this Act shall be used-

To force any school or school district whichis desegregated as that term is defined intitle IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub­lic Law 88-352, to take any action to forcethe busing of stUdents: ,

To require the abolishment of any schoolso desegregated; or

To force on account of race, creed, or colorthe transfer of students to or from a par­ticular school so desegregated as a conditionprecedent to obtaining Federal funds other­wise avallable to any State, school district orschool.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am gladthat for the first time since the Con­gress has been considering the Whittenamendments-and that considerationgoes back for several Congresses-thisis the first time, I believe, that the Whit­ten amendments in their original formas presented to the House, 'lis aI)provedby the HouSe, have ended up in that sameoriginal form as presented to the Sen­ate now, in the conference report under~onsideration.

The two amendments taken jointlymake provision for four prohibitions.They provide that po portion of the fundsappropriated by this education bill tanbe used to force any school or school dis­trict to take any action to force the bus­ing of students;, or to force, on accountof race, creed, or color, the abolish­ment of any school so desegregated; orto force the transfer or assignment ofany stud-ent attending' any eledlentaryor secondary school so desegregated toor from a particUlar school over the pro­test of his or her parents or parent; or,to force on account of race, creed orcolor the transfer of students to or froma particula.r school so. desegregated' asa condition precedent to obtaining Fed­eral fundsothe~iseavamlbleto·anyState,. school district ',orschoo!: " ,

There is a very definite fieid of oper­ationror these amendments; because wesee massive busing ordered by HEW andordered by district colirts:We see sChoolbuildingsabandoped, schools 'c~osed, ail

over the South. In my own State of Ala­bama the rulings of the Federal courtsand the edicts of the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare havecaused our State to close school buildingsvalued at more than $100 million.

So we would like the protection of theWhitten amendments, and we believethese amendments will be effective ifthey are implemented by action by HEW,

, if HEW will be bound by the provisionsof these amendments.

Soon after coming to the Senate Iwrote Mr.' Finch, the Secretary of the

,DepartmellCof' Health, ;Education, andWelfare, calling attention to the massivebusing that was being reqUired by HEWand pointing out that that was in oppo­sition to and in direct' contravention ofthe provisions of the Whitten amend­ments then in force and effect.

There were three aspects of the Whit­ten' amendments at that time: that thefunds could not be used to require bus­ing and could not be used to require theclosing of a school or could not be usedto force a child to go to any school otherthan.one approved by his or her parentor parents. But as finally enacted it hadthe clause that these things could notbe done in order to overcome racial

. imbalance.So the Secretary informed me that

these provisions gave protection todistricts where they had de facto segre­gation, and provided that the districtswere protected from this action, or fromthe requirement of these actions,whereas segregation in the South, whichthey called de jure segregation, was notprotected.

So they could require these things inSouthern school districts. I was verymuch interested in the remarks of thedistinguished Senator from New York,in which he said that these are onerousproyisions, the provisions of the Whittenamendments, and that they hang like analbatross around this bill.

He could say that because, his schooldistricts in New York are protected underexisting law from the very things thatwe want protection from under the termsof. the pending conference report em­bodying the Whitten amendments.

Yes, this is an anomalous situation, Mr.President, that in the South, desegrega­tion is rapidly taking place, whereas inthe North-and I speak with particularreference to the great State of New York,because I have the report of the regentsof the University of the State of NewYork pointing this out-segregation ison the increase. It is increasing in theNorth, whereas in th~(South it is on arapid decline. All we are asking is thesame type of protection that the lawgives to the school districts that have defactosegregation.

Mr. President, I do not see how, infairness, we can have a Federal schoolpolicy which demands immediate deseg­regation.. iU,the South, and at the sametime outside the South encourages and

=fosters segrE'!gation.,But that is the exactsituation that we have, under existinglaw.

Possibly we will get some relief if thecpnference report embodying the Whit-

ten amendments is accepted. I favorthe adoption of the conference report,and I ask unanimous consent to haveprinted in the RECORD at this point theremarks that I made on June 24 in theSenate, and the colloquy in connectionwith those remarks, appearing in theRECORD at pages 21224-21227.

There beingho objection, the remarksand the colloquey were ordered to beprinted in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, earller this eve­ning, the junior Senator 'from Alabama dis­cussed at considerable length the SCottamendment which was agreed to by thesenate by roughly a 2-to-1 vote. It struck out

. section 211 of the bUl.Now the distinguished Senator from Mary­

land seeks to strike out sections 208 and 209which, as the distinguished Senator fromMaryland referred to the sections, are the1970 version of the Whitten amendment.

I assume by that that the distinguishedsenator from Maryland is call1ng attention tothe fact that for' a number of years, for yearsbefore the junior Senator from Alabama cameto the U.S. senate-

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President. would theSenator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, perhaps they

would be more accurately referred to as theretreaded 1970 version. It Is the second timethat we dealt with them this year.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Sen­ator for his revision of his original remarkswhich the junior senator from Alabama Isseeking to quote.

Starting apparently with the ClvU RightsAct of 1964, at least that far back the word"desegregation" was being defined. And itwas expressly provided that desegregationshould not mean the trans'fer of a stUdentfrom one school to another In order to over­come racial Imbalance.

So, then, as far back as 1964 at least, thethrust of the clvll rights legislation and of

'a majority of the Senators and Representa­. tlves In Congress, was to protect de factosegregation because, as the distinguishedSenator from Maryland clearly understands,the words "racial Imbalance" are used Inter­changeably for de facto segregation.

All through the legislative history of theWhitten amendments and the clvll rightsprovisions, an attempt has been made to pro­tect de facto segregation, which Is segrega­tion as It exists outside of the SouthernStates.

The Whitten amendment, as It appears forthe first time, I belleve, In the 1968 HEWappropriation bl1l-posslbly at a period be­fore that; It may have appeared In 1966­but at any rate, in the 1968 appropriationsbill the Whitten amendment, as It passedthe House, provided that no portion of thefunds appropriated by the HEW appropria­tions should be used for the purpose of 'forc­Ing the busing of students or forcing theclosing of schools or forcing any chlld toattend a school other than the school chosenfor him by his parents.

As the junior Senator from Alabama under­stands, in the legislative process the wordswere added that these things could not bedone in order to overcome racial Imbalance,which deprived the segregated schools, whichare said to exist in the South, ot the protec­tion of these prohibitions. But at the sametime It gave to those areas which had so­called de facto segregation the protection ofthese prohibitions against busing, againstthe closing of schools, and against requiringany chlld to attend a school other than theschool of the choice of bls parents.

The Whitten amendment started out oneway. And when it came to the Senate, some­

'where In the legislative process, either i~ the

',J1,lly ~8, ~'(}7.0

!'Racial cepsuSo, reports' ShOW that ,between1961 ·and. 1966, in the 4l.school,distrfctswiththe highest percentage of Negro puplls (ex-clusive of New'York City). .,

... • • thentiiilber.bf 'elementary schoolswith more than 50 percent Negro pupils In­creased, Jrom 60 to 72; the'uumberWjthmore than 90 percent Negro pupils Incre<\sedfrom 25 to 33; "'" " ",'

" "Racial isolation among ~Ch9Ql ,iiistrict~ is'also increasing. In this same perted, the per­centage of Negro pupils In oneiniburbandistrict rose to82 and in another, to 71. Inthree other districts, the percentage sur-passed 50." " , , ' "

Then, In December of 1969, working onthis problem, trying to do aomething aboutit suppo§edly, there was a review of the re­vised studies taken some 2 years, before,a,restatement of the policy, In 'which It Isstated ,by the regents of, the University ofthe State of New York: '

"The efforts of the State of New York toellminate segregation apd to apeed integra­tion must be Increased.

"Racial antisocial, class legislation'ln thepublic schools has increased substantiallyduring the past two years despite efforts, toeliminate it.'" ,

So, Mr. President, there In this great Stateof New York we have aegregation increasing,whereas In the southern school dlstrleta theadministration, boasts ,that they are' goingto require the desegregation of every schoolsystem in the South-not In the North; ev­ery school system in the South~by Septem­ber of this year'.

That Is golIig to wreck the public schoolsystem of the State of Alabama and In mostof the South.

It is not only the white citizens of ourState t):1at disapprove of thls policy of cloa­ing the achools, of busing studenta, ofre­fusing to allow a child to go to the achoolof his Choice; the black citizens, the blackstudenta also object to this in the most de­cisive and In the strongest fashion that theycan.

Mr. President, it is a matter of record thatit Is the black studenta of our State whoseschool buildings in the main are ,being closedby order of HEW, and they object to that.One of the best school bUildings in my

.- hometown of Gadsdtm, Ala., is the blackhigh school with' about 1,000 students. That

,school was ordered closed to the dismay ofthe pupils, the black 'pupils, the faculty, thefamilies and the friends of those students.Througliout the State it Is the biack atu­dents that are bearing much of the ,pruntof thls policy of, forced desegregl\tion ,nowin the southern sChool districts. They do notlike being bused into the white high achoolain order to desegregate the white schools.They do, not, like that,.' This ls not only acomplaint of white citizens ofthe State ofAlabama and the White citizens ,of ,theSouth. But 'is is destroying the public schoolsystem in my Stlllte,and in otl1er SouthernStates. Bond Issues are being defeated; pro­posed taxes, which are being. aubmittect tothe people are ,being defeated in tax refer­endums; taxea already Imposed, coming '\Ipfor renewal, are being defeated; and public~upport is i>eing Withdr,awn from t)1e publlcschool aystemln our State,.

What weare interested In doing ianotin having sociological experiments with ourchildreIi, White 'and black:' We want to seeevery schoolchild, in our,· section,every

,schoolchild In the Nation given the ,advan­,tage of having a quality education. So wethink It lsunfl\lr to have a ~deral achool

'polieY that' requires' this ,Immediate deseg­regationin the South imd 'thai fosters, en­courages, and; promotes segregation In theNorth that is every bit as pronounced andmore so In .some instances than segregationtha.t ,eXists in' the South. All we are askingis equal protection of the laws and we be-

~nate: or Inth~ conference co~ttel!,lt'was so diluted, _s9 watereddown~, antL,sochanged tis to deprive thesouthem. schoolsystems of any of'the protectlons.providedby theamendinent; But at the same time It

, gave that protection to the schools 'outsldethe South where they had so-cal~ed de factosegregation. , " , "

, 'Instead of doing what the amendmentsought to do; they did Just the opposite andafforded protection, to 'de' 'factosegrega:tlonand deprived' those school districts that hadde Jure segregation of any protection what­soever.

How Ironic and hypocritical can we act orcan we be?

Then when the Whitten amendments cameover from the House last year and were ap­proved by the Senate committee and carneto the fioor of the Senate, as the junior Sen­ator from Alabama recalls, the distinguishedjunior Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS)added the Interesting phrase that becamesomething of ,a hallmark for this type of leg­islation: "except as required by.the Consti­tution," which gave the HEW the supposedright tasay that the Constitution requiredthe protection of de facto segregation andthat it provided for the stamping out ofde jure segregation. ,

There again the Whitten, amendmentswere changed in the Senate to provide some­thing entirely different from what they pro­Vided When they started out ,In the House,when they passed the House and when theycleared the Senate committee.

This time they go one step further and say,"We are not even going to have any languageof that sort in here. We are going to elimi­nate every single vestige Of language of thissort."

The present amendment is to strike bothof these sections, 209 and 210.

All that these sections do is to seek to giveto the southern school districts thep~otec­

tlon that is already afforded to districts out­side of the South that already have thisprotection.

All that the Whitten amendment seeks todo is to give the southern school districtssome little piecemeal start toward achievingsome type of equal protection of the laws,equal application of the laws, and equalenforcement of the laws.

Mr. President, it is hard for the juniorSenator from Alabama to' accept a Federalschool policy that demands immediate, de­Eegregation of the public school systems inthe South and at the same time, by, everysingle piece of legislation enacted by Con­gress that the Junior Senator from Alabamahas been able to located dealing with thematter of desegregation, de, facto segrega­tion has been protected, It has been fostered,and it has been preserved. Now, as we haveimmediate desegregation in the pUblic schoolsystems of the South what Is happening InStates outside the South? Is segregation be­ing eliminated there? What are ~hese Sen­ators and these Representatives who twistthe language of the Whitten'amendmentaround so that It means exactly, the oppo­site of whlllt it started out to provide, doingto eliminate segregation in their areas?,

Mr. President, I have excerpts before mefrom a study made by the regents" of theUniversity of the State of New York, thefirst one being dated January, 1968, entitled"Integration and the Schools." I would liketo read an, excerpt from that study onpage !!: '.

uPROSLEU. GROWS

"Despite the determination and aignifi­cant l\ccompllshments of many In education,the growth of the problem hl\s 'out~tripped

,the efforts to deal with it:"Racial imbalance ,within school districts

is ,increasing in both suburban and urban.communlties.", '.' '

This,is segregation In the State' of NewYock: '

Itt' • • •

, lieve that the Whitten amendment, not di­luted,not changed In meaning, but passed

•as It passed the Home, wUl give us' sOmesmall measure of equality of enforcement ofthe law and equality or'treatment under thelaw. ')

Mr. President, I have been interested Inthe fact that this b111 )1as been under con­sideration now fdr paits of 2 days. It is abill that appropriates some $4.5 blllion forthe cause Of education.

Many 'Senatora, haye amendments theywant to offer, I am told. I have been toldthat the distingUished Senator from NewYork (Mr. JAVlTS) has an amendment hewanta to offer haVing to do with the appro­priation of $150 m111l0n to aid In easing theshock in southern school districts of the de­mand for immediate desegregation.

That amendment has not been offered.,There are a number of other amendments onSenators' desks.

Why was it so important to rush in here?The distingUished RepUblican leader, the ableand distinguished senior Senator from Penn-

'sylvania, rushes In with an amendment, justiIs soon as the b111 ls brought up, to strikesection 211, the Jonas amendment. They donot consider any of the adVisability of this$4.5 blllion appropriation. They do not con­sider the merit of that.

'Is it wlse to appropriate $4.5 billion? Is itproperly allocated? Do the proper services getthe correct amounts? Are the proper priori­ties being maintained? Have we spread outthe $4.5 blllion properly? Should not someadjmtment be made In this amount? Doesone agency get more money than perhaps itshOUld?

It is easy to make reference to this tremen­dous sum of $150,000,000 when $4.5 billion isinvolved. Is that what is considered by theSenate? Is that why Senatora rush in withamendments, reallocating the $4.5 blllion?

No; it is not. The two Items given priorityare not those amendments. There seems to bea general feeiing of consent In this matter.No Senator rushed in. I did not see three orfour Senators on their feet with amendmentsasking for recognition. The Senator fromPennsylvania was recognized. He did his work.He put his amendment in to knock out theJonas amendment.

Now the distinguished junior Senator fromMaryland has no trouble getting recognition,because no other Senator has an amendment.

'Let us get this possible relief from the south­ern school systems knocked out before wedo anyt):J.ing else--that seems to be the opin­ion. That seems to be thC'ught to be mostimportant--the knocking out of thooe threeamendments, the two Whitten amendmentsand the Jonas amendment. They have toppriority. Let ua see that no protection, let ussee that no guaranty, let us see that no equal­Ity, l~t us. see that no equal enforcement ofthe law, ia made available to southern schooldistricts. Let us place as the top prioritythe knocking out of those three items. Butat the asme time let us Inake sure that thesesections are not turned against de factosegregation as It exists In the North. Thatls the attitUde of many Senators.

Is anythingllver going to be done aboutde facto segregation? Are we always going tosay that where a black child Is required to goto an all black school, he is being denleda good education in the South, that he isbeing denied equal protection of the law,

:but prevent that statement from being madeabout a black child in the North in a seg­

_regated school? Do you suppose that blackchild In the North, With a protected de factosegregation 'staring him In the face, saysto himself, "Well; the black students of theSouth are getting to go to White schoolsdown there because they have de jure segre­

'gation, but that is all right with me. I llkethis black school that I go to in the Northbecause this is de facto segregation, andthat is all right"? As long as segregation is

July 28, 1~70 CONGRESSIONALr RECORD :.:-SENATE 26211de' facto, that Is fiIill.: iLdoes, not hliye to lit:!broken up; but· if itls ,de jure. lf It Is thattype Vfhich eXisisJn Jhe South,it hasta bebroken' uP" " . " , ,", .

Well, If segregatloh is'unlawafulin theSouth.: it should also be, UlllaWfl.l:I in theNorth.'·: "'-;-~"-~-:-~ \, J ,j;':"-,t·_·<.;),, .:..;

Mr. Presldliliti' 'early r i.n'; ,this sessIon theSenate. ihan "all :too 'rare'display ,of states~

m.anshlp, voted: for the Stenn~s ,aJIlendmt:!nt.A total Of'56votesw;ere:cast,fol' it. and 30~odd;castaga1nskit;,:·.<,; "•• ' ;. ~

That amendInellt. of .cOUl'se. pl'ovided fol'un1formity?~.enrorc~e'ntpf Federal gUid~,Unei; In' implementing : Federal ' pqHcy l'e'"gardlng •desegre\fatlon 'of the public schools.

I . do not' know, '-what.: happened to' thatamendment; ,or why! the, Senate' apparentlychanged its mInd when,the conference,com­mIttee brought out Its versIon oOhe amend~

ment and diq Just 'the oppositeQf providingfor uniformity. It provIded: for two uniformI­ties-,-the, u,JtlforIhity 0 of appUcl!-tlon.of de­,segregation poHclesas regards de jure seg­regation, and unIformIty' of: desegregationpoHcles as regards de' facto segregation.

Certain Members of; the" Senate were ap­parently aghast, ,a1; wpat they ~ad ,dolle. Theyhad voted for uniformIty In the appUcationof a Federal,poHcyregarding desegregationof pUblic schools., SoWhe~;,they got"the op­portunIty to go back to a' dual policy-(>nepoHcy for the North. one policy for theSouth-they were quIck to jump at It; andthat Is What happened. ' "

But the StennIs' amendment had servedIts purpose. It had, pOln,ted out to ,thepubUcthat segregatiqn exIsts In theNorth,in manycases to a far greater degreethlln it exIstsin the South; and,that w~ne segregatIon isendIng in the South,it.l.s increasing In theNorth. '

Many people throughout the 'country didnot realize that that was the case. Of COU1'8e.at the bar of public'oplnioh.' Mr: President,the StennIs amendm.ent won a great vIctoryfor the cause of rlght: alid justice, because ofits Insistence,on giviifgto each c~tizen of ourcountryequar i>rotection and ,equal appU­cation of 'our laws.

The effect' of shInIng" the Ught of pubHcnotiCe on this condItion wm ,be of great in­fiuence for many yeats to come. and I" wantagaIn to qO,mmel?d the l!-ble and distln,guIshedsenator from M!sl!issippi (Mr. STENNIS) forhis untiring efforts iIi. conn'ection wIth, theStennIs amendme~t and in, cOn,nectIon 'w1ththe Whitten amendments' and· ,the JonasamendIIi.ent.' ,', ' , " '

Mr. President. as we seek to speak fOr thepubl1c schools in ,pur area" and as we seekto speak for the schoolchIldren 'In our areaand the people of our area. we wonder'whereour help is to come from. in seeking to solvethIs problem. . '

If ,'these 2" amendments are left in-andI wIll say frankly that I do not expect themto be left In, and I am not goIng to seek toprevent thIs amendment from comIng to avote; I certainly am not trying to extend anydiscussion unduly, but, the feeling of thepeople of Alabama and the people of theSouth 'needs to, be expressed in thIs matter.and it is for tbiit reason that those of uswho are interested in' thIs amendment areadl:1:rl:!5slng OlU" attention to it-Where is,ourhelp to comef1'Om?

We passed the Stennis amendment. If welIackuP on It. and gq back to the old doublesta,n4ard; HE\V '., offers no 'encouragement.They say, "Yes~we have double standards; weprotect de facto' segregation' In the North.and we seek to' 'stamp out de jure segrega­·tion in the SOuth." So tbpre is no hope there.

W)lat about the Republ1can, leadershiphere in the Sen,ate?Is there any hope there?Well, no; no hope ,there. The Republ1canleader (Mr. SCorr) killed the Jonas amend­Dlent. If he were here now. ' }leo would vote.~ the Whitten amendnient alSO. I am'su.n;,J;,i i '

M:t'. ERVIN. Mr. PresIdent. wUI the distIn­guIshed' Senator from Alabama yIeld to theSenator from North CaroHna, for a question?

Mr. ALL'EN. I am del1ghted to yield.Mr. ERVIN. Does, the distinguished Senator

from Alabama not recall that during the latecampMgn. when PresIdent NIxon was seeldngthe votes of the people of ,the South. hestated,' In an interview at Charlotte. N.C.•that. he was' opposed· to, the busing of chll­dren to achIeve racial balance in the publicSChOOls?·;.Mr.ALLEN. Yes, he did, accordIng to thepress accounts.

Mr. ERvIN'. Does not the Senator from Ala­bama also recall that on one or more occa­sions during the, late campaIgn" PresIdentNIxon stated that he was in favor of the pres­ervatIon of the neighborhood school?

Mr. ALI.EN. Yes. He still states that.Mr. ERVIN. Can the distInguIshed Sena­

tor from Alabama inform me of any actIontaken in Congress at the instance of or onthe recommendatIon of the PresIdent ofthe United States to carry into effect eitherone of those campaign promises?,

Mr. AI.I.EN. In answer to the question of thedIstInguished Senator from North Carol1na,I wHl state that I know of no InItIatIve takenby the PresIdent himself; but I will have toeicpress deep apprecIatIon to indivIdualmembers of his party for standIng With uson these princIples. We have receIved splen­dId support from many members of the.shall I say. oppositIon party In this re­gard.

Mr. ERVIN. I sha:re the gratitUde that is ex­pressed by the Senator from Alabama onthat point, and I know that the Senator.from Alabama and North Carol1na are bothdeeply grateful for ,the support we have re­ceIved from individual Senators here In theSenate of the UnIted States. But does theSenator from Alabama recall any occasIonsince President NIxon made those campaIgnpromises to the people of the South whenthe RepubUcan leadershIp. either in theSenate or in the House of RepresentatIves,has supported any bUI that was calCUlatedto prevent busing of schoolchlldren toachIeve racial balance. or to correct racialImbalance, '01', to preserve the neighborhoodschools?" ,

Mr. ALI.EN. In ansVfer to that question, IwIll have to say that the nearest approachthat the junior Senator from Alabama recallswas the' fact that in connection wIth theStennis, amendment. the distinguIshed Sena­tor fl'om PennsylvanIa. the Republ1can leader(Mr. SCOTT), produced a letter from one ofthe WhIte House people, I believe Mr. Har­lOW-lam not sure that It was Mr. Harlowbut he' pl'oduced a letter from someone overther~aying that the President was op­posed to the Stennis amendment; and an­other membel' of the group from across theaisle eIther produced a letter or reported aconversatIon with someone of equal rankover there sayIng that the PresIdent was forthe amendment. So we had conl1ictIng re­ports on that.

Mr. ERVI~. Has not the Senator from Ala~

bama. In tImes past. heard of pol1tIcianswho trIed to work both sIdes of the street?

Mr. ALLE1'l'. Not only heard of them, butobserved them.

Mr. ERVIN. I will ask the' Senator fromAlabama if the secretary of the Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare Is not anappoIntee of the President, and If that De­partment was riot created to assIst the Pres­Ident in carrying out his program.

Mr. AI.LEN. Yes, sir. I so understand.M:t'. ERVIN. I ask the, Senator from Ala­

bama if the distinguIshed mInority leaderof the Senate. the able Senator from Penn­sylvania did not read or, refer to, a letterfrom the Secretary of Health. Educat~on, andWelfare 'durlng the consIderatIon of the'Jonas 'amendment, in which the' Secretary'Of ,Health,Education. and Welfare expressed,

in SUbstance, hIs disapproval of the Jonasamendment.• Ml'.'AI.I.EN. Yes. sir; that Is true.

Mr. ERVIN. Does the Senator from Alabamaagree with the Senator from North Carolinathat all the PresIdent has to do to controla member of hIs CabInet Is to tell that mem­ber of his CabInet what to do?

Mr. AI.I.EN. I, would, say, that, the ,Presi~den,t'srequest ,WOUld probably have consld.erable inl1uenceon the CabInet member.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not one of the Whittenamendments expressly provide that the De­partment of Health. Education, and Welfareshall not use any of the funds appropriatedpy this bill to bus schoolchIldren to achievea variatIon in racial oomposition of anyschool?

Mr. ALLEN. That has been in the amend­ments In the past. I bel1eve thIs one hasbeen revised a Uttle bit at that point. Yes,sir.

Mr. ERVIN. It is sWI. In SUbstance. in theamendment?"

Mr. AI.I.EN. Yes. sir. that is correct.Mr. ERVIN. And if the President wIshed to

implement hIs campaIgn promIse he madein Charlotte, N.C .• 'to the effect that thereI!hould be no busIng to achieve a racIal. bal­ance In the schools of the country, he couldvery, well restrain hIs Secretary of Health.EducatIon. and ,Welfare from wrItIng a letteradvocatIng a course of actIon which permItsbusing. could he not?

Mr. ALLEN. I beHeve he could have consId­erable Inl1uence over hIm. yes, sIr.

Mr. ERVIN. Has the Senator from Alabamaheard of what we call the President's south­ern strategy? ,

Mr. ALI.EN, I have seen reference to thatin the press., Mr. ERVIN. Does the Senator from Alabamathink. ,that It Is a part of the PresIdent'ssouthern strategy to encourage or permIt theSecretary of Health. EducatIon, and Wel­fare to wrIte a letter to the Senate. askingthe Senate. in SUbstance. not to carry outone of the campaIgn promIses whIch thefresldent made during the campaIgn?, Mr. AI.I.EN. I do not believe that would COll­

tribute to a successful strategy along thatHne., Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. AI.LEN. I thank the distinguished Sen­ator f!'Om North CaroHna.

I wonder whether I mIght ask the d!s­tInguished Senator from North Carolina aquestion. The letter from Secretary FInch wasread by the dIstInguIshed RepubHcan leader.Of course. we all know that Mr. FInch is nolonger the Secretary. and the junior Senatorfrom Alabama Is wondering whether possIblyremorse over the ruIn and, havoc that Mr.FInch has visited on the southern schoolsystems mIght have contrIbuted to hIs resig­natIon as Secretary of the Department ofHealth, EducatIon. and Welfare. '

Mr. ERVIN. If I may make an observatIonby quotIng an expressIon of Shakespeare,without the Senato:r from Alabama losing hIsrIght to the fioor. I would Hke to say: '

"TIs a consummation devoutly to bewish'd." '

Mr, ALI.EN. I thank the ,dIstInguished Sen­ator.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. PresIdent, will the Sen­ator yield?

Mr, AI.I.EN. I yIeld.Mr. EAsTLAm>. Is there any dIfference in

the poHcles of the Nixon admInIstratIon to­ward the South from those of Pres!dentLyndon Johnson? '

Mr. AI.LEN. Does the Senator have reference'to the pUbl1c schools? '

Mf: EASTLAND. orcourse.Mr. ALLEN. I would say, in answer to that

question. that we have receIved much betterstatements and expressIons of' pollcy.

Mr. EASTI.AND. LIpservice:Mr. Ai.LEN. If the Senator woUld '.lIke to

refer, to 'it as that. We have received con~

26212 eONGRESSIONAL RECORD ~SENATE July 28, 1970siderably more expressions of looking 'withfavor on our problems under the, pesentadministration than we received under, theother.

Mr. EASTLAND. What has been the differ­ence in policy?

Mr. ALLEN. The policy might be hard todefine. Does the Senator mean the policythat has been implemented?

Mr. EASTLAND. That is right. The presentadministration is promoting school integra­tion.

Mr. ALLEN. The administration is makingtheir boast that they have desegregated moreschool districts than have ever been desegre­gated during a. like period In the past. andI believe that is correct. It certainly will beby September.

Mr. EASTLAND. What were the promises thatwere made?

Mr. ALLEN. I believe the distinguished Sen­ator from MIssIssIppI heard the dIstinguishedSenator from North Carolina outllne them,and I would refer the Senator to hIs remarks.I would hesItate to speak in that regard, asto just what he dId promise.

Mr. ERVIN. I would llke to ask the distIn­guIshed Senator from Alabama whether thewords whIch the President used durIng thelate campaign are not quite dIfferent fromthe words whIch the Department of Justiceis using in allegations it is making in com­plaints It, is fillng in the respective schooldIstricts down South.

Mr. ALLEN. QuIte different.Mr. President, we hope that relief can be

had in tIme through the courts. At one time,It looked as though there was no possibilityor hope of gettIng rellef from the courts.

In that regard, I was questioned earlierabout the ,actions of the President'and hispolicies. I feel that his appointments to theSupreme Court have been excellent-all fourof them. I might say-certainly the ChiefJustice, and JustIce' Blackmun, as well asJudges Haynsworth and Carswell who weredenIed confirmation by the Senate.

I should llke to call attention, as a possiblebasIs for some hope along this line, to a por­tion of an opinion written by Chief JusticeBurger wIth regard to some of the gray areahaving to do with the construction of theConstitution in the matter of our schools.He had this to say:

"As soon as possible, however, it is well toresolve some of the basic practical problemswhen they are approprIately presented, In­clUdIng whether, as a constitutional matter,(1) any partIcular racIal balance must beachIeved In the schools; (2) to what extentschool distrIcts 'and zones mayor must bealtered as a constItutional matter; and (3)to what extent transportation mayor mustbe provIded to achieve, the ends sought byprIor holdings of the court, and other re­lated Issues that may emerge."

Mr. PresIdent. that IndIcates a wUllngnesson the part of the ChIef Justice, and a wel­comIng on hIs part, of the acceptance ofcases for revIew by the Supreme Court touch­Ing on these problems.

Also. in a Fourth CIrcuIt Court of Appealscase, recently decided, Swann against theCharlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,the Circuit Court of Appeals for the FourthJudicial District, in commentIng on theIradoption of the rules of reasonableness. said:

"We adopted the test of reasona,bleness-­Instead of one that calls for absolutes-be­cause It has proved to be a rellable guide inother areas of the law."

They also saId:"Nevertheless, school boards must ,use all

reasonable means to Integrate the schools intheir jurIsdiction."

Certainly. we hope that the Supreme Courtof the UnIted States wlll go along with thatpolicy and that ruling.

Mr'. President, 'it seems to me that the 'twoWhitten amendments do only this: They gIve

to the southern school districts and the pa­trons of the southern school districts just asmail amount-Just a short step in the direc­tlon-of equal enforcement of the law. be­cause What is granted to the cItizens of theSouth, the patrons of the schools, is some­thIng that other areas of the country alreadyhave. There would be no need for an amend­ment if we had equal protectIon of our la.ws.If the people In the South, the patrons ofthe southern schools, had equal enforcementof the law accorded to them, equal applica­tIon of the laws. there would be no need forthese amendments. Lacking that equal en­forcement of the la.w, and in the face of adual standard for desegregatIng the publicschools throughout the country, the Whittenamendments are needed. It is to be hopedthat. for once, in the long history of theseamendments, comIng over to the Senate fromthe House, we wlllieave the amendments in­tact, that we wlll not strike them out, andthat we wlll not dllute them. as has beendone In the past.

Mr. PresIdent, I hope that the amendmentof the dIstInguIshed Senator from Marylandwlll be rejected.

Mr. PresIdent, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President. if theWhitten amendments are adopted byagreeing to the conference report, it willbe the first time that' these amendmentshave not been changed during the legis­lative process. Let us see what relief willbe afforded under them to school dis­tricts in the South by ,the executive andjudicial branches.

The PRESIDING OFFICER; The Sen­ator's time has expired.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair.The Senator from MissIssippi has been

allocated 15 minutes. 'Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President,I am

sure that most Senators recall that wehave had these amendments before us inone form or another before, and theyhave been well debated. They have ahways received a very respectable vote inthis body. I know they have been votedout of ,our subcommittee and our' fullcommittee three times, and I think per;­haps this was the fourth. This time, theseamendments have been before the Houseof Representatives, were voted into thebill and approved by the full Appropria­tions Committee of the House of :a.epre­sentatives, and caine here and were ap­proved by the full APpropriations Com­mittee of the Senate. After debate on thisfloor, however, they wer.e stricken out.

The Whitten amendments,·' as con­tained in this bill, then went back to theHouse of Representatives, where amo­tion was filed that, in~ffeet, iru:;tructedthe conferees to yield from the House'sformer position. That motion ·was tabledon a rollcall vote by an appreciable mar­gin, I have forgotten just what it was,and that is the way the situation waswhen we went to conference.

After fullest consideration. by the con­ferees of the House and tIle. f;lenate, ,theJonas amendment Was dropped, out, andthese two amendl,Ilents were put baCk in.The matter then went ba.ck to the Houseof Representatives, and this conferencereport was agreed to there by a vote of357 to 30. That is overwhelming support,Mr. President. So they come here afterfullest consideration and the utmost de­bate. They have been debated in,thepress, ,and have been . shownj;Q' havestrength. firmness,' and meaning,,' and

represent a very deflnite contribution, Ithink; to the quality of education inthose schools that are having to undergothis process of massive immediate deseg­regation.

With all respect to senators who livein other parts of the country, outside thearea that is belng thus desegregated, Iam sure they cannot realize the chaos,the confusion, the uncertainty, and theimpact of this change on the faculties,the parents, and the students. I repeat,it is a situation of chaos and confusion,and, with all defiance, the court deci­sions are conflicting. The Supreme Courthas never gone anything like as far. inmy opinon, as have some of the courtsof appeals; and the courts of appealsdecisions conflict somewhat.

These amendments are not designedto stay and will not stay the hand of thecourt, or interfere with or defeat theaction of any court, any decree or anycourt order. They are not intended forthat purpose. The courts will function asusual.

These amendments mean exactlywhat they say, and I have great expecta­tions of and great respect for the execu­tive branch of the Govelument. Ofcourse, if' this becomes firm law, theywill obey it. They cannot do otherwise.And the courts, I know, will respect it.

Mr. President, the Senator from Mary­land requested some time. I ask unani­mous consent that I may yield to theSenator from Maryland.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I wantto express my appreciation to the dis­tinguished Senator from Mississippi forletting me respond very briefly to hisremarks. He and I have discussed theWhitten amendments on a number of oc­casions, and I feel that he has stated tothe Senate very fairly and very accu­rately the position in which we find our­selves today, and the way that we gothere.

But, Mr. President, I would character­ize that position a little differently.

I think Congress is acting in this mat­ter as the old song said the kings ofFrance used to act. In some ways, we havemarched up the hill, and now we aremarching down again.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi­dent, will the Senator yield for a unani­mous-consent request?

Mr. MATHIAS. I yield.Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi­

dent, I ask unanimous consent that thetime, except for voting, on the pending'conference report be extended 'until 10minutes past 2 o'clock today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none, and itis so ordered.

Mr:MATHIAS. Mr. President, ·1 amdismayed that seCtions 209 and 210, theso..,caUed Whitten amendments, remainin the conference report. The Senate hasrejected the premise on· which, they arebased 'on three separate occasions duringthe last 7 months. On June 24, the Sen­ate stl'uck sections 209 and;nOof H.R.'16916 by a ,'ote of 47 to 33., 'Becal,lSe of, the' impending enactmentof these sections into law, I rise today

July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 26213

in an effort to clarify their legal effect.As I pointed 9ut last month, the Whittenamendment;; iIi their present form donot purport to modify constitutional re­sponsibility for dismantling dual sys­tems.

Let me quote sectionS 209 and 210 intheir entirety':

Sec. 209,No part of the funds contained inthis Act may be used':'-' '

To force anY"schopl or school district whichis desegrl,lgated, as that term is ,deftne,d intitll,l IV,o;,th,e,Civll Rights Act of 1964,PubUc Law 88--352, to, take any action toforce the busing of students;

,To force on ac<:ouIft of r,acl,l, cree~. or colorthe abolishment of any, school so desegre-gated; or ' , , •

To force the transfer or assignment of a.nystu.dent,attendirig aJiy elementa.ry ors~cond­

ary school so desegregated to, or· from aparticular school. over the protest of his orher parents or parent. '

SEC... 210. No, l?art, of funds.contained inthis Act shall be used'-

To force !:Lny school or school district Whichis desegregated as that term'is defined intitle IV of, theClvll Rights Act of 1964, Pub­Uc Law 88'-352, to take any action to forcethe busing ot stUdents;, ,.'

To require tIle aboUtihmento( any schoolso desegregated; or "

Toforce on aCcount of race,creed, or colorthe ,transfer, 0t .students to ,or from a. par­ticular, school so desegregated as a. conditionprecedent to obtaining Federal funds other­wise il.vallablEi, to' any State, school districtor school.

The key phrase here is "school orschool district which i~ desegregated asthat term is"defined ill title IV of theCivil Rights Act of 1964.": .

The relevant portion of title IV of the1964 aetreads as follows: ','

o (b) "Deseg~~gation."ml,lansthe assignmentof students to publtcschools,a,nd within suchschools without' regard to their race', color;religion, or 'national: origin, but- "desegrega­tion" shalf not mea.n the assignment of stu...dents to public schools in order to overcameracial imbalance.. , ; , :"

This 'provisiOn 'of the 196~" act, anda similar ,. provision' relating., to, :swts 'bythe Attorney Qeneral/'were iritEmded toprevent Ii'ederai agencies frotn re'tluiringthat a school district do mllJ.:e· than Iul~fill its constitutional obligation, to, de'"segregate. But they w~re hot intended asan attempt to sanction less: . ' ,

The, provision, originated' in', debate in:the. otherbo,dy, of which ,I was then aMember; in 1964: My colleague;: Repre:'sentative GRAM:ER, i;>fFlorida,' called' ourattention ,to a' newspaper article con:.cerJ;Jing a desegregati()n case in'Manhas..iset, N.Y. Helateroffered theamendmentto section 40Hb) which added the 'words"bUt" 'desegregation'shall not..nieaQ. theassignment of stucieiltS to pubiic schoolsiil order to overcome niCIafinibalahce."

RepresentativeqCRAMER explahied thatthe purpOSe of the amendment was "toprevent any sembla.nce of congressionalacceptance Of ,/ipproval of the conceptof 'de facto' si1gr'egati()h or to include inth~ defir).itio~"',of "des,E!gtegJ'~tion" 'anyba1anciil~ Of, sch)lola,ttendapc.e by mov'"ing students acrOsS school' district 'lines~ ;ley~l 9i!, 1>ercElnj;!J.lfe~, 'Y,he.recjpE!. raceOU1;Welghsanother."c, .,. ",.")lll'exp.lai~g':'sectioiV107;!li 'tJ:le pro­

pOlled 1964act;'wbich' demes 'authorityt !.. iJj~5'~!~1 i,<J ;'L-,~-; ;,''''-'----:'n.r>, ,,' 1'"

for any official or court "to issue anyorder seeking to achieve a racialbalance," Senator Humphrey stated thatthe section would "preclude an inferencethat· the title confers new authority todeal with the 'racial imbalance' inschools, and should serve to soothe fearsthat title IV might be read to empowerthe Federal Government to order thebusing of children around a city in orderto achieve a certain racial balance ormix in the schools."

This legislative intent has Jeen con­sil)tently recognized by the executive andjudicial branches. ill a letter of' July 20,1970, to the distinguished '. minorityleader, HEW Secretary Richardson re­iterates that "it -is the position of theDepartment, based upon an analysis ofthe language by general counsel, thatsection 209 and 210 would not, if en'acted,alter school desegregation requirementsunder title VI of' the Civil Rights Act of1964." ., " . ~

In a recent decision of,the fourth cir...cuit court of appeals, this interpretationwas' upheld. In dismissing an argumentthat sections 40Hb} and 407(a)(2)ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade theorder of the ,district court, the fourthcircuit stated: '

This argument misreads the legislativehistory of the statute. Those provisions arenot limitations on the power of school boardsor courts to remedy unconstitutional desegre­gatIon.' They were designed to remove anyimplication that the Civil Rights Act con­ferred new' jurisdiction on courts to dealwith the question Of whether school boardswere obUgated to overcome de factosegregation.

',TJie fifth circuit court of appeals hasagreed. In United States against Jeffer­son County Board of Education, it heldthat-' ,

Some of the difficulty in understanding the?+~tand,,its legislative history arises from thestatutory use of the undefined term "racialimbalance." It is clear however' from theheariIlgsand, debates thllt" Congress equatedth.e. term; as do the commentators with' "detactll•. segregation,': ,~h!\t' is, n~n-raciallYmotlva~ed segregation in a school system!;lased on a Single neigllborhood school for allChlldreI).,iIl.ll: defiJ;lable area: '

. The' seventh, circuit court of appealshas made a similiar holding in. UnitedStates. agaJnst. School District 151.

Indeed; upon reading the July 16, 1970,debate in, ~he. othe,r bo,dY on adoption ofthe, conference report. I find nothingwhich. derogates from this interpreta­tion: Congressmen MICHAEL, for example,the distinguislled ranking minority mem­ber of the Labor-HEW Subcommittee of,the E:o.use Appropriations CommitteeteferrEid to his statement in April that"the so-called W:hitten amendments didnot really; change basic law nor did theyreally require a change in HEW require...ments." Mr. MICHEL'S position, which wasreiterated' by CongreSsmen CONTE andCOfIEqN, went' unchallenged in 'theJIpuse debate. . ", ,,'; ", :Mi. :President, on June 24; I stated thebasi,sfo.r my oppo.sition ,to ,the Whittenamendments :'1'lle reasbnttiat these sections are objeC­tionable is ttiat their legal tedundancy willnot, be 'evident to'many Americans' who are

) ~ , ~

engaged in the process of bringing our schoolsystems into accord with the Constitution;these citizens wlll only be confused by thepassage of this latest version of the Whittenamendments. Regardless of their purpose,their effect wlll be that of further unsettllngan already difficult situation.

The administration and the President favorthe striking of this language. President Nixonrecently stressed the importance of commu­nity leaders on March 24, when he stated:

"In those communities facing desegrega­tion orders, the leaders of the communitieswill be encouraged to lead-not in defiancebut in smoothing the way of compliance, Oneclear lesson of experience is, that local leader~ship is, a fundamental factor in determinings}lcce~s or fallure.Where leadership has beenpresent; Where it has been moblllzed, whereit has been effective, many districts havefound that they could after ail desegregatetheir SQhools successfully. Where local leader­ship has falled, the community has falledand the schools and. tp.e chlldren have bornethe brunt of that failure." '

These words' of the President are measuredlind wise. We ill Congress must aidthePresi­dent in encouraging responsible leadershipby defining as clearly as possible the role ofthe Federil.l Government in helping to dis­mantle dual school systems.

In view of theincluslon of the Whittenprovisions in the conference report, Ithink wehave a responsibility to make itabundantly clear that sections 209 and210 of H.R. 16916 in no way diminish theconstitutional obligation of school dis­tricts to eliminate dual school systems orthe responsibility of ,HEW to assist inthat effort., The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator's 5 miniltes have expired.

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, will theSenator from Mississippi yield me 1 addi­tional minute?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, howmuch time dO I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from MiI)sissippi has 8 minutes.

Mr. STENNIS. I yield 1 additionalminute to the Senator fromMaryland.

,Mr. MATHIAS. Ithank the Senator.Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­

sent that the full text of SecretaryRichardson's letter of July 20, 1970, tothe distinguished minority'leader, be re­printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows: '

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCA­TION, AND WELFARE,

washington, D.C., July 20, 1970.Honorable HUGH SCOTT,U.S. Senate,Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR SCOTT; This.is in response toyour request of July 16 for a reiteration ofthe Department's views concerning the legaleffect of adoption of Sections 209 lind 210, theso-called Whitten AIIlendments, to H.R.16916, the Fiscal Year 1971 Office of' Educa­tion Appropriations Bill.

As my predecesSorj Secretary Robert H.Finch, testified before the Senate Committeeon Appropriations on April 21, 1970, and as Is~ted in my letter of June 23, 1970, to Sena­tor ''Mathias, it"ls the position of the De­partment, based upon an analysis of thelahguageby'General Counsel, tha.t Sections209 and 21'0 would not, if enacted, alter schooldesegregation requirements under Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.- Thll propOsed- provisions" neither changebasic law nor 'affect HEW regulations. The

26214 CONGRESSIONALRECORD:':SEN;ATEDepartment's obligation and commitment toconduct the school desegregation program inaccordance with the nondiscrimination re­quirements of Title VI and constitutionalstandards, therefore, would remain unaf­fected by adoption of Sections 209 and 210.

With kind regards; I am 'Sincerely,

ELLIOT L. RICHARl)SON,Secretary.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield1 minute to the Senator from Penn­sylvania.

Mr. SCOTI'. Mr. President, I agreewith the sentiments expresseQ by thedistinguished Senator from Maryland,without further reviewing them. eI amfamiliar with the letter. ' . ..',

I.believe that the Department can livewith the language and that there is,therefore, no need to presS for ,a changeor an amendment. I think we can, there­fore, accept the language, while we Wquldprefer that there be no such languagewhatever in section 209

0

or 210, as thecase may be. . ' ..." I thank the distinguished Senator fromMississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.Mr. President, how much time do I

l1ave remaining?The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen.,

atQr 'has 6 minutes.Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­

sent to have printed at this point in theRECORD the text of the two Whittenamendments together with the section ofthe Civil Rights Act to which thosel'l.mendmentsrefer. ,

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

SEC. 209. No part of the funds contained inthis Act may be used to force any school orschool district which IS desegregated as th.atterm is defined in title IV of the CIvil RightsAct of 1964. PU,blic Law 8~52, to take anyaction to force the busing of students; toforce on account of race, creed,' or color theabolishment of any school '110 'desegregated;or to force the transfer or assignment of anystUdent attending any elementary or sec­ondary school' 50 desegregated to or from aparticular school over the protest of his orher parents or parent. '

SEC. 210. No part of the funds contained Inthis Act shall be used to force any schoolor school district which is desegregated asthat term is defined in title IV of the CivilRights Act of 1964, Public Law 8~52, totake any action to force the busing of stu­dents; to require the abolishment of anyschool so desegregated; or to force onac­count of race, creed, or color the transferof stUdents to or from a particular schOOl sodesegregated as a cOndition precedent toobtaining Federal' funds otherwise availableto any State, school district or school.

[Public Law 8~52, July 2,1964]TITLE IV-DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC

EDU<;JATIONl)EFINITioNS

SEC. 401. As used In this title--(a) "Commissioner" means the Commis­

sioner of Education.(b) "Desegregation"means the assignment

of stUdents to public schools and within suchschools without regard to their race,color,religion, or national origin, but "desegrega­tion" Shall not mean the assignment of stu­dents to public schools In order to overcomeracial Imbalance.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr; President, I askunanimous consent to have printed inthe RECORD a very brief, one-columnstatement by Representative WIUTTEN, ofMississippi, which he made in the Houseon July 22.

There being no objection, the state­ment was ordered to be printed in theRECOIlD, as follows:

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sup­port of the bill.

(Mr. WHITTEN asked and was given per­mission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, on the 14thday of April 1970, the House adopted theprovisions Which I had offered, and whichhad been accepted in committee, to the b1l1making appropriations for the Departmentof Education, after refusing to strike themout by instructing the conferees by ,a vote of191 to 157. These amendments are as fol­lows:

"SEC. 209. No part of the funds containedin this Act may be used to force any schoolor school district which is desegregated asthat term is defined In title I of the CivllRights Act of 1964, Public Law 8~52, to takeany action to force the busing of stUdents;to force on account of race, creed or colorthe abolishment of any school so desegre­gated; or to force the transfer or assignmentof any student attending any elementary orsecondary school so desegrega.ted to or froma particular school over the protest of hisor her parents or parent.

"SEC. 210. No part of the funds containedin this Act shall be used to force any schoolor school district which is desegregated asthat term Is defined In title IV of the CivilRights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, totake any action to force the busing of stu­dents; to require the abolishment of anyschool so desegregated; or to force on ac­count of race, creed or color the transfer ofstudents to or from a particular school sodesegregated as a condition precedent' toobtaining Federal funds otherwise avallableto .any .state,' school district or school,"

SUbsequent to this vote, in conferencewith, the senate these provisions were re­tained and' when the matter came back tothe House, the' conference report, containingthe language, was approved by a vote of 357to 30. .

Mr. Chairman, this makes quite clear thefeeling of the Congress with regard' to ,theuse of force in the areas which these amend­ments cover, as well as the use of the powerof the purse to withhold, funds truly neededfor ellucation. which the Congres's' has pro~

vlded, in order to force schools to voluntarilydo that Which is not required by the CivilRights Act of 1964, a right not even claimedto be prOVided by ,the administration or thecourts.

After conSUltation with members of theCommittee on Appropriations, these amend­ments are not offered here because' they arequite clear and for the Secretary of HEWor other oftlclais to use funds in this b1ll,appropriated for. other P1.l.rposes, to attemptto evade the intent of the Congress MeX­pressed in these provisions of the b1ll makingappropriations for the Depart~ent of Edu­cation would be to break faith With the Con­gress and would certainly not be in linewith the reputation for integrity, which theSecretary enjoys.

After discussing this matter~thmembersof the committee, it has been decided that,whatever we have provided or shouIdprovide,we. have to rely on the good faith of, theexecutive department and the courts to carrythem out; for, If they cannot' be relied on.it is to be doubted if any langua.ge could bewritten Which could force them to leave theschools alone or parents and students alonewhere schools are, completely desegregated.as that term is defined in the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, because,after all, It Is to theexecutive department that we must look forthe carrying out, and the' Federal courts tosupport, these prov1s1ons which are set outabove and Which appear 'In the conferencereport of the b1ll making education appro­priations.

Any reading of, these provisions wouldclearly show that they are completely soundand I feel will be followed by this adminis­tration not only because of commitmentsbut because the system of education is essen­tial to any organized society; and, unless wereturn again to putting education first, asthese amendments would dO, soon we will godown the drain as have other societies inyears past.

Mr. Chairman, I thought It well to callthese facts to the attention of the Membersof the House at this time.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, with ref­erence to this amendment--it is reportedin amendment No. 38 in the report of themanagers on the part of the House--thismatter came up as a part of the $150million which was in the Senate amend­mimt to the bill. We had the Jonasamendment and the two Whitten amend­ments in the House bill. This matter WASsettled in the conference. They agreed todrop the Jonas amendment and weagreed that they would keep the Whit­ten amendments, and the amount ofmoney was split as a matter of adjust­ment, in conference, wholly within themeaning of the conference concept.There is no diminution or understandingor anything else about what they meant.They speak for themselves, of course.

Mr. President, here is a part of the rub.This amendment will do a great deal ofgood. The educators, the trUstees, theparents who are trying to keep our pub­lic schools in operation and keep thedoors open, ,Who, .aretrying to deal withcourt orders and, HEW orders, have nohope for the future. It is an overbearingsituation. They are not just integratingthe schools., They are demanding racialbalance of the faculty and the students.They do not deny it. Every judge knowsit is true. Every HEW employee knows itis" true. These coUrt decrees are based onracial balance. In effect, they say. "Downwith educatiOri'. Our goal is to have racialbalance," That is what is killing thespirit of this entire endeavor. You wlllnever get education Iaack to the foremostobjective until some kind of reality isbrought llbout, and these amendmentswill bi-ing it. You cannot be withholdingmoney and you cannot be busing childrenall over the district, from county side tocounty,. side, iIi order to bring abouttheoretic"al racial balance. It'has neverbeen required by the Supreme Court. Ithas never been required by Congress inthe Civil Rights Act. It is only requiredin the m1D.ds and the practice of thosewho are trying not only to integrate theschools and the faculties but also to bal­ance 'them, off on sOme kind of racialproportion.

This amendment is designed to stopthings short of going that far-not totry to defeat the law, but to carry outthe real purpose and spirit ,of the lawin the beginning.

I thank everybOdy for their consid­eration of this serious problem, all theway down the line. I am confident thatthese amendments will be carned out if

July 28, 1970' CONGRESSIONAL"RECORD -SENATE 26215

U.S. COMMITMENTS ABROAD ANDTHE Mll.ITARY PROCUREMENT "AUTHORIZATION BILL

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,nearly 18 months ag~n February 3,1969-the chairman of the Senate For­eign Relations Committee, Senator FuL­BRIGHT, announced on the Senate fioorthe creation of a new subcommittee, thejob of which he said would be to "makea detailed review of the internationalmilitary comIDltments of the UnitedStates and their r.elationship to foreignpolley."

As the chairman said at that time, Itwas hoped this subcommittee would de­velop facts on the "relationship betweenforeign policy commitments and them11ltary capacity to honor them."

Some month. later a distinguishedmember of the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee, Senator GoLDWATER, declaredon the Senate fioor that factual informa­tion from "an exhaustive Investigation ofthis Nation's treaty commitments aroundthe world was essential to our efforts toreach any kind of sound judgment and·legislative conclusions regarding the pro­jected level of our military expenditures."I agree with that statement, for it focuseson exactly what the Foreign RelationsCommittee had in mind in establishingthis subcommittee.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 11A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident, I ask unanimous consent thatwhen it completes its business today, theSenate stand in adjournment until 11o'clock tomorrow morning.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-,ATOR BYRD OF WEST VmGINIAON THURSDAY NEXT

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I askunanimous consent that upon the dis­position of the reading of the Journal onThursday next, July 30, 1970, I be recog­nized for not to exceed 1 hour.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OFSENATOR FANNIN TOMORROW

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident, I, aak unanimous consent that to­morrow, ppon disposition, of 'the read- •ing' afthe. Journal, the, distinguishedSenator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN) berecognized for not to exced 20 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT FROMTOMORROW UNTIL THURSDAY,JULY 30, 1970, AT 11 A.M.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident, I .ask unanimous consent thatwhen the Senate completes Its businesson tomorrow, it stand in adjournmentuntil 11 a.m. on Thursday next.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

YarboroughYoung. N. Dak.Young, Ohio

ThurrilondTowerTydingsWllliams. N,J.Willlams. Del.

NAYS-ONOT VOTING-:12

Jordan. Idaho MurphyMcCarthy RandolphMcClellan RussellMundt Smith. Ma\n"

Spong ­StennisStevensSymingtonTalmadge

DoddEagletonGoodellGore

So the report on H.R. 16916 waRagreed to.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, first,I am very grateful, on behalf of thecommittee/for the vote of confidence onthiscollference report, with no "nay"votes and 88 "yea" votes. I do not knowwhen this has ha.ppened on an' appro­priation bill of' this magnitude, but theSenator from New Hampshire and I arepleased; ,

Mr. CO'ITON, Mr. President, I join Inthose' sentiments.~r. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, be­

fore I make a motion, I am sure the Sen­ator from New Hampshire, as well asthe members of the subcommittee andthe fullcommittee will join me, In com­mending the staff for the splendid workdone OJ;l this very complicated bill. Forthe long, hard work that was done onthe bill, in the hearings, during themark-up, the fioor action, and the con­ference by Mr. Harley Dirks of the com­mittee staff and Mr. Bill Kennedy, on theminority side of the staff.

The 'PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendments in disagreement will bestated.

The legislative cllirk read as follows:Resolved, That the House recede from its

disagreement to the amendment of the Sen­ate numbered 3 to the aforesaid bill. andconcUr therein With an amendment as fol­lows: In lleu of the matter stricken and in­serted by said amendment, Insert thefollowing:

"That this appropriation shall not beavailable to pay local educational agenciespursuant to the provisions of any other sec­tion of title I until payment has been madeof 90 per centum of the amounts to whichsuch agencies are entitled pursuant to sec­tion3(a) of sald title and 100 per centumof the amounts payable under section 6 ofsaid title: Provided tUllther. That $8.800.000of this appropriation shall be, aVallable topay full entitlement under section 3(a) ofsaid title to a local educational agency wherethe number of children ellgible under saidsection 3(a) represent 25 per centum or moreof the total number of children attendIngschool at such local educational agency dur­ing the preceding year."

Resolved, That the House recede from Itsdisagreement to the amendment of the Sen­ate numbered 38 to the aforesaid bill, andconcur therein ,With an amendment asfollows:

Strike the sum. of $150,000.000 named insaid amendment. and insert in lleu thereof"$75.000.000."

Mr.- MAGNUSON. Mr. President, Imove the Senate concur In the amend­ments of the House to the amendmentsof the Senate numbered 3 and 38.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion is on agreeing to the motion of theSenator from Washington that the Sen­ate,concur in the amendments, of theHouse to the amendments of the Senatenumbered 3 and 38.

The motion was agreed to.

MansfieldMathiasMcGeeMcGovernMcIntyreMetcaltM11IerMondaleMontoyaMossMuskleNelson

- PackwoodPastore

'PearsOnPellPercyProutyProxmlreRibicolfSaxbeSchwelkerScottSmith. fil.Sparkman

AikenAllenAllottAndersonBakerBayhBellmonBennettBibleBoggsBrookeBurdickByrd, Va.Byrd. W. Va.CannonCaseChurchCookCooperCottonCranstonCurtisDoleDominickEastland

they become law and that they will helpthe situa tion and be a path in the future.Someday, the country outside the Southwill want to find its way through thisjungle of readjustment, and they' canlOOK back to this law as olie that lit thepath,and with its help they will findtheir way.

I yield back the remainder of my time.Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr~ President, I sug­

gestthe absence of a qUorum. 'The PRESIDING OFFICER, The clerk

will call the roll:The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­

ident, I ask unanimous consent that theorder for the' quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.CASE) ~ Without objection, it is soordered. '," ' .

The question is on agreeing to the con­ference report.

On this' question' the yeas and mi.yshave beenorciered, arid the clerk willcallthe roll. ' " "

The bill clerk call1fd the roll:Mr. KENNEDY. :(announce that the

Senator from Connecticut (Mr. DoDD),the Senator from Missouri (Mr: EAGLE­TON), the Sena,tor from Tennessee (Mr.GORE), the Senator from Minneapolis(Mr. MCCARTHY), the Senator from Ar­kansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN),' the Senatorfrom West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), theSenator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) arenecessaril~absent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator, from West Virginia(Mr. RANDOLPH) :would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN: I announce that theSenator from New York (Mr. GOODELL)and the Senator from California (Mr.MURPHY) are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Idaho (Mr. JORDAN)is absent on official'business.

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.MUNDT) and the Senator from Maine(Mrs. SMITH) are absent because of ill­ness.

If present and voting, the Senator fromNew York (Mr. GoODELL), the Senatorfrom Idaho (Mr. JORDAN), the Senatorfrom South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT), theSenator from California (Mr. MURPHY)and the Senator from Maine (Mrs.SMITH) would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 88,nays 0, as follows:

[No, 250 Leg. JYEAS-88

EllenderErvinFanninFongFulbrightGoldwaterGravelGrUllnGurneyHansenHarrisHartHartkeHatfieldHollandHollingsHruskaHughesInouyeJacksonJavltsJordan. N.C.KennedyLongMagnuson