OF AMERICAUNITED STATES

(iongrcssionalRccord51

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 I CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

VOLUME 116-PART 16

JUNE 24, 1970, TO JUNE 30, 1970

(PAGES 21101 TO 22354)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 197'0

June 25, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 21459

message is received today, it lie on thetable until that time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Ithank the distinguished Senator fromColorado for yielding to me.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, may Ipropound a question to the majorityleader? At what time will the Senateconvene in the morning?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Nine o'clock.Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask for

the yeas and nays on my amendment.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I yield

the floor.Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, for

the benefit of Senators, I understand thepending amendment to the education ap­propriation bill is an amendment of theSenator from New York, which wouldadd $150 million, to be used in the matterof segregation. The line item is emer­gency school assistance.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will theSenator suspend?

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSEA message from the House of Repre­

sentatives by Mr. Bartlett, one of itsreading clerks, announced that the Househaving proceeded to reconsider the bill(H.R. 11102), an act to amend the PublicHealth Service Act to revise, extend, andimprove the program established by titleVI of such act, and for other purposes,returned by the President of the UnitedStates with his objections, to the Houseof Representatives, in which it originated,and it was resolved that the bill pass,two-thirds of the House of Representa­tives agreeing to pass the same.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. In ac­cordance with the previous order, themessage will lie on the table untilTuesday

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSEA message from the House of Repre­

sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of itsreading clerks, announced that theHouse had agreed to the report of thecommittee of conference on the dis­agreeing votes of the two Houses onthe amendments of the Senate to thebill (H.R. 17399) an act making supple­mental appropriations for the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1970, and for otherpurposes; that the House receded fromits disagreement to the amendments ofthe Senate numbered 12, 20, 22, 24,51, and 62 to the bill and concurredtherein; that the House receded fromits disagreement to the amendmentsof the Senate numbered 2, 10, 15,and 50, to the bill and concurred there­in, severally with an amendment, inwhich it requested the concurrence ofthe Senate; and that the House insistedon its disagreement to the amendmentsof the Senate numbered 13 and 16 tothe bill.

OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIA­TIONS,1971

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Iask that the unfinished business from

CXVI--1353-Part 16

.last night, the education appropriationbill, be laid before the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billwill be stated.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Abill (H.R. 16916) making appropriationsfor the Office of Education for the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1971, and for otherpurposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the Senate will proceed to theconsideration of H.R. 16916.

The question is on agreeing to theamendment offered by the Senator fromNew York.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, thepending business is the amendment of theSenator from New York, which wouldadd $150 million to the education appro­priation bill for the purpose of a lineitem, emergency school assistance, andthat amendment is comparable to, or Iguess it may be exactly the same as, theamendment offered by the Senator fromMinnesota to the supplemental approprI­ation bill. Now it is pending on the regu­lar appropriation bill.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Sen­ator is correct, except it is not the same­definitely not the same.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I mean, the generalidea is the same. The $150 millionamount is the same.

Mr. JAVITS. It is $150 million. To thatextent it is the same.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Pn:sident, mayI ask the Senator from New York a ques­tion, for the benefit of many Senators?Just how much time does the Senatorfrom New York think he will take indebating the amendment?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. PresidEnt, I intend toask for a quorum call, hopefully withoutlosing my right to the floor, so Senatorsmay know we are about to discuss theamendment. I should say that would nottake over 5 minutes. I personally willspeak for not more than 20 minutes.Then we will have to see what happens.

I would like to point out to my col­league that last night I slept with all thepapers under my pillow, so I know allthat is in them, and I do not have to takemuch time. But I will do my best.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator fromMississippi wants to make some remarkson this matter, and some other Sena­tors, so I would imagine, just as a roughfigure, that we would not vote on theamendment for at least an hour. Wouldthat be correct?

Mr. JAVITS. Well, hopefully aboutthat.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Hcpefully; all right.Mr, JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unan­

imous consent that I may suggest theabsence of a quorum and regain the flooras soon as the action on it is completed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JAVITS. I suggest the absence ofa quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceed­ed to call the roll.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unan­imous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr; JAVITS.Mr. .President, theamendment which I have proposed is for$150 million, The general purpose is toutilize various authorization sections ofthe law allo::ating money under those au­th01ities which the law allows, whichwill, we believe, assist the desegregatingof. school districts which are ordered todesegregate bY law, or have within therecent past desegregated. It has beendiscussed, as to the substance of theamendment; most excellently and thor­oughly by the distinguished present oc­cupant of the Chair, the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDALE), by the Sen­ator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), bythe Senator from West Virginia (Mr.BYRD), who managed the supplementalappropriation bill, and by others, to suchan extent that I think it would be im­posing upon the Senate to go over thedetails of that argument, and I shall notdo so.

I shall try, in every way that I can, toemphasize the differences which we facenow in respect of this situation.

Mr. President, the amendment is dif­ferent from the provision which was in­cluded in the supplemental appropria­tions bill as reported by the Appropria­tions Committee both in respect of thoseprovisions which were contained in thebill. itself, in respect of authority, for­ward dating, et cetera, and in respect ofat least one of the provisos. As to theother provisos originating with the dis­tingUished Senator from Minnesota, asthese passed the test of a vote in the Sen­ate, and, indeed, were changed by thatvote, and after a rather extended debate,I have simply lifted the texts of them,with the permission of the Senator fromMinnesota, and incorporated them in myamendment.

So I would like, Mr. President, to pointout the differences.

The differences are, first, that any for­ward projection beyond the time forwhich appropriations are provided inthis bill, to wit, fiscal 1971, are not at­tempted, nor is there any effort to antic­ipate fiscal 1971. So whatever is donecannot be available after July I, 1971. Inthose respects, the amendment differsmaterially from the amendment whichwe considered the other day, so that iteliminates two parts of the supplementalappropriation bill provision which wasbefore us for that reason.

The other respect in which it differs iswith respect to the first proviso which isone of the grounds upon which the sec­tion was ruled out upon a point of orderhas been completely revised, and I shouldlike to read to the Senate the section asit is revised, and then refer back to thesection which was found inappropriateunder the Senate rules.

The proviso as revised reads as fol­lows. It is found on page 2 of amendmentNo. 737, beginning at line 2 and endingat line 7. It reads as follows:

Provided, That no part ot any funds ap­propriated herein to carry out programs un­der title II of the Economic Opportunity Actof 1964 shall be used to calCUlate the alloca­tions and proration of items under section102 (b) of the Economic Opportunity Amend­ments ot 1969.

This is a very different proviso fromwhat was contained in the appropriate

·21460 :CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,....;;. SENATE

section of the supplemental bill, whichreads as follows: .',

Provided, That no part of anyfunds"ap­propriated herein to carry out programs un­der title n of the Economic Opportunity Act.of 1964 shall be included as part of theamounts appropriated for thepurpo~e ofdetermining allocations for each purpose setforth in clauses (1) through (S)Of section102(b) of the Economic Opportunity Amend­mAlltJ'l of 1969.

The holding on Monday was that thiswas legislation in an appropriation bill­to wit, a waiver or a renunciation of agiven section of a particular act. On theother hand, the proviso as contained inmy amendment is a limitation, because itgoes to the mechanical question of "shallbe used to calculate," and that is a ma­terial difference between these two pro­visos, which in my judgment makes thenecessary difference to qualify theamendment I have submitted.

Mr. President, the other aspect of thematter which I think is very importantto consider is the utilization of this $150million. It is expected that the utilizationof the money will follow closely thesources of the authorizations which justi­fy the appropriation. The money, if ap­propriated, will be spent pursuant to theauthorities under which it is appropri­ated. These authorities are as follows:

For community development programs,which are spelled out in title II of theEconomic Opportunity Act of 1964, un­der the heading,"Urban and Rural Com­munity Action Programs," $100 million.

For personnel development programs,which are found in the Education Pro­fessions Development Act,part D, underthe heading "Improving Training Oppor­tunities for Personnel Serving '. in Pro­grams of Education other than HigherEducation," $9 million.

For major demonstrations, authoriza­tion found in the Cooperative ResearchAct, $14 million.

For drop-out prevention. authorizationfound in section 807 of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act, $5 million.

For technical assistance, found undertitle IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,$15 million.

For planning and evaluation, author­ized under section 402 of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act Amend­ments of 1967, $5 million.

And the remainder of $2,000,000, au­thorized as salaries and expenses.

Mr. President, it is the intention of theadministration to spend this money un­der those authorizations and with fidelityto those authorizations.

Another question which . troubledMembers and which Was debated hererelated to the exact concept which wasembodied in proviso (a) contained in myamendment at page 2,line 8. That provisoreads as follows:

(a) to assist Ii local educational agencywhich engages, or has unlawfully engaged, inthe gift, lease or sale of real or personalproperty or services to a nonpubl1c elemen­tary or secondary ,school or school systempracticing discrimination on the· basis ofrace, color, or national origin

-- That particular section was the sub­ject of an amendment which was ap­proved in the Senate and was the subject'of an effort to amend. the amendment

which failed in the Senate. The wordshere set forth are exactly as they emergedfrom the give and take of debate and asthey were left by the votes' 'before theMondale amendment was made obsoleteby the fact that the basic provision ofthe bill to which it was addressed wasitself stricken out on a point of order.

So that we have simply taken what the. Senate did as to that prOViso-what theSenate actuallY legislated, as it were, tothe extent that it did have rollcall votes.However, concern was expressed over it,before it was refined-and this was avery excellent suggestion of the Senatorfrom Tennessee (Mr. BAKER)-tO inclUdethe words on line 9, page 2 of my amend­ment, "or has unlawfully engaged in thegift, lease or sale of property." In otherwords, whatever retroactiVity there was,was based upon the fact that it was un­lawful.

'Let us remember that this whole ques­tion is one of discretion in terms of theuse of this money by the Secretary ofHealth, Education, and Welfare. In otherwords, even if this proviso were not inthe law, the Secretary of Health, Educa­tion, and Welfare, himself, could deter­mine that he would not afford whateverassistance he could afford under this ap­propriation to school districts which hadengaged in that practice. He did not needthe proviso to do it; but with the proviso,this is an instruction to him to proceedin that way.

It is very important, therefore, as tothe- intention of the administration inthat regard; because to those who haveconcerns about this particular part ofthe amendment, the fact that the admin­istration had a given intention with re­spect to it anyhow, so that it becomesreally a tautological question as towhether or not it is incorporated is veryimportant. So I will read a letter fromthe administration, delivered to me yes­terday, which bears on its intention, any­how, without regard to the inclusion orlack of inclusion of the proviso with re­spect to this particular matter. The let­ter is addressed to me, signed by the Un­der Secretary of Health, Education, andWelfare John G. Veneman, and readsas follows: It is available to every Sena­tor.

THE UNDER SECRETARY 01' HEALTH,EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

WaShington, D.C.Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,U.S. Senate,Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: I am writing to re­affirm this Department's assurances, given bySecretary Finch at the joint hearings con­ducted by the Senate Education Subcommit­tee and Senate Select Committee on EqualEducational Opportunities, that funds pro­vided to assist local school districts involvedin the process of desegregation will be ad­ministered in a manner consistent with con­stitutional standards and with the objectiveof achieving successful desegregation.

The Department understands ang sharesthe concern expressed in the senate aboutthe possible provision of Federal financialassistance, such as proposed in thePresi­dent's Emergency School Aid legislation, toschool district<; which have engaged In dis­criminatory and unlawful practices, includ­ing the disposition of property alld servicesto other agencies with the intent t6avoiddesegregation. I can personally assure youthat we do not intend to reward school dis-

trictswhiCh seek to circumvent the law: AlIproject applicants and applications 40raidWill. be parefully reviewed and approved 'Onlyif the Department Is fUlly satisfiedthatt~

recipient school districts are conducting theireducational .programs and -activities in alawful manner and with fUll regarcl to achiev­ing successful <;iesegregationthroughout theirschool system.

Sincerely,JOHN G, VENEMAN,

Under Secretary.

.Now, Mr. President, it seems to methat this is an important point becauseit indicates that the proViso goes no fur­ther than the intention of the Depart­ment which will have discretion anyhowin carrying out its responsibilities underthis. particular provision. .

Let me make two points and invitethe attention of the distinguished Sena­tor from Mississippi to them.

The point was made to me, Mr. Presi­dent, that a state which had school dis­tricts which had in fact unlawfully en­gaged in the gift, lease, or sale of rea.! orpersonal property or services to a non­public elementary or secondary school orschool system practicing discriminationon the basis of race, .color, or nationalorigin-to wit, a local educational agen­cy, could be ehtirely barred from partici­pation In the benefits of this particularappropria tlOl1. • . . .

I said that I.did not 50 interpret It,that U a local educational agency" meantwhat it said, th:it the intention of. theproviso would be directed to what a par­ticular local" educational agency did ordid not do.. .' ....

My understanding was that that didnot characterize a State one way or theother unless the State itself was the edu­cational agency which engaged In thispractice, and that was not. the disquiet orthe question which was addressed to me.So, '1 'I:n~erpret ~'a local .. educationalagency" to mean exactly what the wordssay, a proviso insofar as it Is a limitatIonto refer to that agency and no other interms cif the limitation which is imposedbythis particulllr amendment.

The last point I should like. to makerelates to the reason why the $150 millionis sought when .the administration, in amessage from the President on May 25,laid out a program for $1.5 billion ofwhich it was felt $500 million would comein the 1971 fiscal year. I think that wenow face a -refinement of the conceptsof the adminis~rjl,tionbased upon the at­trition of debate and discussion here. Wehavebef()reus.the fundamental conceptthat 10 Percent of .the amount whIch thePresident had requested should be madeavailable for the purpose which I havedescribed so that we might utilize thatas away ill which to determine how ef­fectively and with what end result .01'with what gifted admInistrative skllI that10 percent .of $1,5 billion .can be de­voted to this general purpose, and thatthis wlll be instructive to us and instruc­tive to the administration in determminghow much further along the rOlid we.goand in what way we do it. This makestremendous sense to me. .". .• . ..,-'I thiJ:lk it is an exc.(Hlehtdemonstra­tion of policy. We alI krlow,because thatwas the justification which was laid be­forethe committees.

June 25,1970 CONGRESSIONAL'RECORtF;' SENATE 21461Mr. Presid~nt; lask'unaniInoUscon:­

sent to have printed ,llthe. RECORD.' thetestimony on' this particUlar matter ofthe. $150 million,which testimony wasgiven before the subcommittee of theAp­propriations Committee on SupplementalAppropriations, headed by Senator BYRD.

Tl1.ere being; no objection, the testi­mony was ordered to be printed in theREcoRD,as follows:

SECOND SUPPLElII:E:N#L ,APPIl.OPRIATIONSFORFISCAL, YEAR 1970 . '

Department Of Health, Education, and wet­fare, Office oj Education, Emergency SchoolAssistance, Statement oj John G. Vene­man, Under secretary-Accompanied by:Dr. James E. Allen; Jr., Assistant Secretaryfor Education aNd U.S. Commissioner ojEducation; James W', McLane" ExecutiveAssistant to" the Secretary, Programs/Spe­cial AtJairs;James B. Cardwell, Deputy As­sistant Secretary; Budget; Wesley L. Hior­nevik, Deputy Director, Office Of EconomicOpportunity" . '., . ,

(Hearings oefore ,the Comml~tee on ApIlro­Ilrlatlons, U.S. Senate,,91st Congress, 2dsession, on H,R. 17399, al1'a,ct tnaklng sup­plemental appropriations for the fiscal yearending June 30, 1970, and for other pur­Iloses)

Assistance to Districts Facing DesegregationSenator BYRD. Under chaIlter VII of the

b111, the committee has received a late pro­posed supplemental request from the Depart­meht of Health, Education. and Welfare, Of­fice of Education. The proposed amendmentwould provide $150 mlUlon on an emergencybasis for Immedlateasslstimce to'school dis­tricts which must desegregate by the faU of1970.

As descrIbed In the President's message tothe Congress of May 21, 1970; desegregatingdistricts face urgent needs for teacher traIn­Ing, educatioIl' specIalists, .materIals, curri­CUlum revIsion, equipment and renovatIon.

The $150'mlUlonls requested under severalauthorities In order to provide as broad arange of assistance as possible for maintaIn_Ing quallty education during the segregationprocess If that can be done.

Of the $150 m11lIon, $100 mlmon Is re­quested under the authority of the EconomIcOpportunity Act of 1964. The remainIng $50ml1llon Is requested under authoritIes vestedIn the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare and the OlIlce of Education. The en­tire program of emergency school assistancewould be administered by the Department ofHealth, EducatIon, and Welfare and the Of­flce of Education. If the request Is allowed,as proposed, the $150 mllllon would be madeavallable to desegregating school dIstrIcts be­fore September 30,·1970~

The principal witness testifying on thIsItem' Is John G. Veneman, Under SecretaryDepartment of Health, Education, and Wel­fare. You'may proceed.

Implementation of CommitmentMr. VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, In his state­

,ment of March 24 on school desegregation,the PresIdent saId that he would recom­mend, expendIture of an addItional $1.5blllion over the next 2 years to assist localschool authorIties In their efforts to desegre­gate. The President Is now Implementing thiscommitment with two proposals to the Con­gress.

'1. First, he Is askIng for' a special appro­priation, under existIng authorities, to pro­vIde emergency assIstance to those' schooldIstricts that 'are now In the process ofdesegregatIhg"-or have' recently desegre­gated-particularly' those school districtsthat will be desegrating for the first time atthe beglnning of the 1970 faU term. It Is Insupport of this Item that we are appearInghere today; ( .

(2. Second. the President Is proposIng enact­ment of the Emergency School AId Act of1970 which would authorize a broad range ofsupport for school distrIcts working towardthe ellmlnatlon of both de jure and de factosegregation. The detalls of this legislativeproposal were forwarded to, the. Congress bythe President last Th,ursday, May 21.

School Desegregation -,ThIs administration Intends to do every­

,thing possIble to· assist school districts Intheir efforts to bring an end to school segre­gation. We do not belleve that enough hasbeen done to overcome the very real anddilIlc\11t problems that are encountered byschools" stUdents, teachers, parents, and thecommunity at large once' a goal or deadllnehas been set for desegregation. Up untU now,our laws, our courts, and the Federal Gov­ernment have said to school districts: "De­segregate; do It now; do It by September,"and then left the school, Its teachers, and res­Idents of the community to face the prob­lem un~ssisted. All too often, we have faUedto re.cognlze what the problems were. All toooften, we have been critical of their lack ofprogress without recognizing that In manyInstances the community and the school dis­tricts could do a better job If we were toglvethem a helping hand-If we were todemonstrate wIth something more thanwords OUr desire to bring about desegrega­tIon promptly and wIth minimum disrup­tion and turmoil.

Both the President's legislative proposaland the request for emergency appropria­tions are desIgned to provide the kind of as­sistance that we beHeve to be so Importantfor these school districts.

Financial and TechnIcal AssistanceWe are requestIng a new Rnd special ap­

proprIation, "Emergency school assistance,"that would provide financial and technIcalassistance to the 1,000 school districts thatare expected to desegregate for the first timeat the begInning of the fall 1970 term-orhave recently begun the process. These dis­trIcts Include more than 10,000 Individualschools serving over 7 mllllon students. The

. appropriation we are requestIng representsa significant amount of money-$lfiO mll­llon. This' money would be administered bythe OlIlce of Education in the Department ofHealth, Educa1;Ion, and Welfare. Except fora llmIted portion needed to finance admin­IstratIve costs associated with the program,the funds would be granted principally toIndiVidual school distrIcts committed tocarryIng out the basic process of desegre­gation. However, these funds could also begranted to publlc and private communityand clvlc organizations where It Is foundthat such organizations can more effectivelycarry out programs designed to support theImplementation of a desegregation plan.

Frankly, time Is runnIng out on us. Weare now left with llttle over 3 months to workon the many, many problems that theseschool distrIcts w11l face as they work towarddesegregation. Our objective Is to providethese school districts and others who wouldwork with them both financial and technicalassIstance between now and next fall.

Use of Emergency FundsThe problems facIng these school districts

'vary among school dIstricts. In many in­stances, If desegregation Is going to resultIn equal educational opportunity, there Isa need to ImmedIately upgrade the qualltyof the curriculum and of the teaching pro­gram of glven schools. Equallty of oppor­tunltyin many cases requires remedial train­Ing for the students who have heretoforegone to a substandard school. Many needadditional teachers, both on, a temporaryand permartent basIs. They face IncreasedadministratIve burdens and tremendousproblems of parent-teacher and communityrelations. They also need to modify existing

scliab! bulldll1gS, to', accommodate chlldrenot. different 'age" ahcigrad~. grduplngs 'or toaC90~odate,Ii .. Iarger " number. of. pupils.Th,ey lack the JuncUi to, acquire ,a clllljsroomtraller or other moblIe facilltIes which mightserve as a temporary expedient. . '

,There,ls also a'needto work lIDaglnatl'velyWith, the plU;ents and with members of theC9mmunity tp pave the way for an orderlyp~ocess. Weare yery, hopeful that by 9ffer­Ingfl.I:lanClalasslstance we can enc?urag~local cIvic and, pUbllc-sIllrlted groups to liS­sist Ihthe task of pr~Ilarlng the communitytoadjustP~ltIvelyto a desegregated schoolsystem.• ~.

Based on our experience thus far with the,title IV progx;am; of,theOlvll RIghts Act of1964, .we know. tha~.a great deal can beachieved, by passIng ,experience gained bythoSe WhO have a1reRdy gone through theIJfocess.tq the school dIstricts facing thisexperience, for' ,the first time. This by nomeans exhausts the fuB ,range of problemsor, solutions. The. justificatIon materialswhlch'vie have already furnished to you pre­sent the fuB range of the program tha.t wepropose to carry ou~ with this approprIation.How This Emergency Program Would Work

As I have already said, the Cdmmlsslonerof Education would be given the basic jobof admInIstering the program. He would dothis by making grants to school distrIcts orIn special cIrcumstances to responsible non­profit groups at ,the local level. These grantswould b~ used to finance temporary teachers,

.teacher aides, additional administrative andclerIcal staff, at the local level, counsellngstaff, teacher training, currIculum develop­ment, specIal reading programs, Includingremedial programs for the students them­selves, remodellng of fac11ltles, support for

.planning the logistics of desegregation, com­munity action and community relations ef­forts, and, finaUy" technical asslstance-as­sIstence that would be furlnshed by experI­enced Ileople from the State and local level.

We are requesting funds, under six au­thorltIes---five vested in the Commissioner ofEducation and one under the Economic Op­portunity Act. We belleve that this specialeffort has the best chance of working If weaward tl).e grants under any oraB of thesix authorities under which the funds arebeing requested.

. Importance of OEO AuthorItyWhlle on the subject of the various au­

thorities under which the program wouldbe conducted, I would llke to state the Im­portance of relying, as thIs program proposesto do, hca\1ly on the program authoritygranted' under tItle II of the EconomIcOpportunIty Act. It Is under this authorItythat we would provide assistance to re-

'model fac1l1tles. It Is under this authorItythat we would provIde financIal assistancefor the procurement of additional manpowerand direct services to schools. The severalauthorities already vested In the Office ofEducation, notably authorities under theEducation Professions Development Act andtItle IV.of the Clvll Rights Act, would serveas the basIs for assistance for teacher train­Ing, curriculum development, and technicalassIstance~ I want to emphasize, Mr. Chair­man, that we do not propose, nor would webe authorized u'nder thIs request, to financeany new construction of a school buUdlng orother facl11ty.

Administrative RequirementsFInaBy, Mr. Chairman, I would llke to say

a: word about the' need for admInistrativestaff to help carry out this program. Wewould begin Immediately to divert existing

'staff from the' OlIlce of Education for theoperation of thIs program. Once we have putIt ,In place, we would aIso rely on thIS. staffto Implement the President's new legIslativeproposal-the Emergency School Aid. Act of1970. Because we w11l be takIng these people

2.146~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE'-... ~, .,;;. .;; "'" ".. _.-.". _._, c, _ _; ,. _ r,' .•- " c.,.' , _<.

from oth!!r importa~~ Jobsw1thi~the9ffice'of EduCat1on;'..J~ will benecess$ry to replacethem, and a limited share of this reque~t:­$2.1riull1on'-is proposed to finance admin­istrative expenses in the Office of Education.

Except for the salaries and expenses por­tion of the request, the grant funds th$t'make up the bulk of the request would beavallable for obligation through septem­ber 30, 1970. We have asked for this muchtime in order to give the school districtsmaximum opportunity to organize theIr pro­posals and to get their operations underway.

I should make clear, however, that theeffort that would be financed through thesegrants will not be entirely completed by thattIme. Our objective is to have the awardsmade by that time, but they would coverlocal programs throughout the school year.

We see thIs specIal emergency 1970 appro­prIation as serving this one-time need. Theresources proposed for the remainder of 1971and 1972 in the PresIdent's March 24 messagewill be requested as part of the regularbUdget process following congressional ac­tion on the legislatIve proposal.

Mr. ChaIrman, that summarIzes our re­quest We will be glad to answer any ques­tions that the commIttee mIght have.RelationshIp of Supplemental to Total $1.5

Billion ProgramSenator BVRD. How does thIs request relate

to the new legIslation recently sUbmitted bythe PresIdent and to the amounts of $500million and $1.5 blllion that I heard about?

Mr. VENEMAN. The $150 million made avail­able through the supplemental would bededucted from the 1971 request, leavIng abalance of $350 millIon whIch would be car­ried In the authorIzIng legislation which wasIntroduced yesterday by senator Javits andSenator Pell, and we antIcIpate It will beintroduced on the House side. The remaInderof $1.5 bl11Ion will be InclUded in the fiscalyear 1972 approprIatIon request.

Program UrgencySenator BVRD. Why the hurry for the sup­

plemental now? Why can we not wait forenactment of the legislatIon presented bythe PresIdent?

'Mr. VENEMAN. We are tryIng to focus thismoney on the de jure distrIcts which havebeen ordered to desegregate by the court orhave come up wIth a desegregation planunder HEW auspices. These distrIcts willinclude those integrating for the first timethis fall as well as those that have recelltlydesegregated. ThIs would amount to, 994school districts. This supplemental appro­prIation is necessary if, we are to get themoney out during the summer months. Theschools need this time for the teacher de­velopment, the teacher aides and other itemsmentioned in my opening statement. We donot anticipate ,the Congress will be 'actingon our regular bill in SUfficient tIme to makethat money available before September.

ExpendIture of FundsSenator BVRD. You state that all of the

$150 m111Ion beIng requested w111 be grantedon behalf of school ,dIstricts that have justrecently desegregated or that will be deseg­regated for the first time next fall, and thatall of the funds will be granted between nowand that time. How can you spend $150 mll­lion effectively in such a short period?

Mr. VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I men­tioned, we are talking about 994 school dis­tricts. ThIs is about $150,000 per school dIs­trict. Within thIs total, there are about 10,­000 actual schools. Broken down further, itamounts to about $20 per pupll or about$15,000 per school.

We feel that by usIng the broad authorityof OEO and the other titles that we havethe mechanisms ,to fund a large number ofadditional projects and have the funds ex­pended judiclously between now and the be­ginning of the school year. We thInk thestructure Is pretty much there.

Senator BVRD. Please give the committee abreakdown of the $150 million. How w111 itbe expended and possibly where it will beexpended. '

Mr. VENEMAN. I can do that, Mr. ChaIr­man.

On page 3 of the budget Justification weestImate that $115 milllon of the $150 mil­lion wl11 be expended for special educatIonalpersonnel and programs; $15 million wouldbe expended for community partIcIpationprograms, and $17,900,000 would be ex­pended for equipment and minor remodel­ing.

I would emphasIze, Mr. ChaIrman, thatthere is no suggestion that thIs money beexpended for new construction of school fa­cllities. It would be used for moblle class­rooms rather than permanent construction.

We anticIpate there would be a need forapprOXimately $2.1 mllllon for Federal ad­mInIstration and technical assIstance. Wepropose to utillze InItially persons who arepresently on board In the Ofilce of Educationand transfer them Into the program. WewoUld need this money primarlly to replacethose posItions so that they would not beshort in the Ofilce of EducatIon.

BasIs for Budget RequestsSenator BVRD. How did you arrive at your

estimates with respect to each of these fourca.tegories?

Mr. VENI!:MAN. I will let Dr. Allen or oneof his staff speak to that. Pages 9 through14 of the budget justification breaks Itdown specifically as to the number of posI­tIons and the programs that we proposed tobe spending the money for. How we arrIved at$115 mIllion for specIal purposes, etc., Iw111 let the CommIssIoner speak to that.

Senator BVRD. Go ahead, Dr. Allen.Dr. ALLEN. As you know, we have had

considerable experIence In workIng wIth dIs­tricts in the South under tItle IV of the CIvilRights Act of 1964. By consUltIng with thesuperintendents and others down there wehave arrIved at these rough estimates toprOVide the kInd of assIstance this pro­gram calls for. We have had our staffs work­ing wIth the school systems in the South,and we think these are reasonable estlma.tesof what can be done.

Senator BVRD. Based on what hard facts?We don't want to appropriate $150 mil­lion on·the basIs of a. rough estImate.

Mr. VENEMAN. Mr. ChaIrman, once againwhen we break it down In accordance wIththe figures I gave a moment ago, and ,weare dealing With 10,000 IndIvIdual! schools,it comes down to about $15,000 per schoolor $20 per pupil, which puts it in betterperspective. There would not be a vastamount of money going into any particulararea.

De Jure Versus De Facto SegregationSenator BVRD. Does this supplemental deal

With de facto segregation?Mr. VENEMAN. It does not. It applies only

to the 17 Southern and border States.RelatIonship of Request in PendIng Supple­

mental for Title IV of the Civil RightsAct of 1964Senator BVRD. The blll now under consid­

eration already Includes a supplementalbudget request of $10 ml11ion, and the Houseallowance of $5 mlllion is for similar activi­tIes under title IV of the Civil Rights Actof 1964. How does that request relate to the$150 million?

Mr. VENEMAN. That particular tItle IV re­quest, Mr. Chairman, would· be for relatedprograms, many of which would be In thesame school districts; but this would be inadditIon to that supplemental request.

Mr. CARDWELL. I might also add, Mr. ChaIr­man, the title IV money is much more lim­ited in its scope. It can be used for teachertraIning. but it cannot be used for the broadrange of activItIes now being requested.

Mr. VENEMAN.It does not have the fiex!­,blllty this, partlcularpr,opOSll.l Will have.

Nonuse, of FUnds for BusIng to Overcome,R;lclal ,~mbalance

Senator B!aD. Will. ani of these funds beuSed for the purpose of brInging about racialbalance?

Mr. VENEMAN.'No';they would not be usedfor the purpose' of racIal balance, and thatis specifically stated In the budget justlft­cation. We do not anticipate . that therewould be a sIgnificant am()unt offunds usedfor busing,Mr. Chairman.

As we look at the desegregation plans thathave been put Into effect by this Department,under this admInIstration, we find that onlyabout 3 percent of the school distrIcts thathave come in wIth compliance plans have re­quIred more busing ,than preViously. Mostof them have had a reduced amount ofbusIng.

The only plase where some funds might beused for transportation is in those caseswhere the court ::las or,dered transportatIonto achelve desegregatIon and the school dis­trIct specIfically requests that some of thesefunds be used for transportation purposes.That would be for the purpose of complyingwith the desegregation order and it couldnot be used for the sole purpose of achievingracIal balance.

Senator BVRD. Is any pressure goIng to beput on school dIstrIcts to use moneys forbusing In order to deal wIth racial imbalance?

Mr. VENEMAN. I do not thInk so, Mr. Chair­man. There we would be talkIng prImarilyabout de facto situatIons. We might get intothis matter when we get into the new legis­lation. It is not an issue as far as thIs partIc­ular supplemental is concerned, but I do notthInk that we can see far enough down theroad to know 1! there wl11 be very muchpressure just for the purpose of eliminatingracIal Imbalance.

Senator BVRD. How could that be generatedat all in vIew of the verbiage of the 1964 act?

Mr. VENEMAN. That Is what I am gettIngat. There may be school dIstrIcts whIch willrequest transportation for achIeving educa­tional opportunity but not for the purpose ofelimInating racIal imbalance.AVAILABILITVOF FUNDS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30,

1970

Senator BVRD. The appropriation languagewhich you have proposed asks that exceptfor admInIstratIve expenses the funds remainavallable untU September 30. Normally funds

, in thIs bill will be for the year 1970 and ex­pIre on June 30. For that reason, let the rec­ord show Why this September 30th languageIs needed.

Mr. VENEMAN. I will let Mr. Cardwell speakto that, Mr. ChaIrman.

Mr. CARDWELL. Mr. ChaIrman, your poIntis absolutely correct. We are requestIng What,in effect, will be 1971' approprIations in a 1970supplemental. Our problem, however, is oneof timing. We met wIth both House andSenate representatives from the CommItteeson Appropriations and dIscussed With themthe best way to deal with thIs problem. Atone time, we thought that perhaps we couldadd the item or attempt to add the item tothe education blll whIch is soon to go onthe fioor of the Senate. It was decided some­what mutually that that might well interferewith and delay an effort that the Congresshas been making to get that bl11 out and getit out fast to establish that for 1971 we canindeed get a blllout on time.

We are stlll faced wIth the problem ofhavIng the mOlley avallable thIs summer. Wechose this route because It, seemed to us thatthis was goIng to be ,the first opportunityfor an appropriation act to make the moneyavallable. In order to make it available for1971, we do have to have thIs language.Without the language, we would be forcedto try to spend $150 mUllon in a,very shortperIod of time prIor to June 30th, and, frank­ly, we don't thInk we could do that.

June'25, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 21463Mr, VENEMAN. This willbe deducted'from

the $500 million requesiedln the new legis-lation for 1971. ' " " , , ,

Ctlte~ia fot Alldcatl()h 'c{Fund;;Senator B}:RD'.: What formula will. control

the distribution of these funds among theStates? ' , ,

Mr. VENEMAN. In the supplemental it wouldnot be a statewide formula. It would be basedupon the needs of Individual school districts.

In the act, there is ll. requirement that eachState would be entitled to' at least $100,000.The Commissioner cim speak to this.

Mr. ALLEN. TWo-thirds of the money goesto the States on a formula basis and a thirdIs reserved to the Secretary' to use at hisdiscretion.

Senator BYRD. Will the administrator of theprogram have complete discretion In thedistribution of funds?BaslcPollcle~ for progtam Adtnlnlstratibn

Mr. VENEMAN. He would have. The Com­missioner of Education woulc:t be approvingp,ojects according to certain criteria thatwould be established. The criteria as theyrelate to this supplemental request would re­quire that the funds be used to overcomeproblems associated witli de jure segregation.

Senator BYRD. Has the criteria been estab­lished?

Mr. McLANE. They are being establishedand should be completed within a week orso.

Senator BYRD. Supply the criteria to thesubcommittee, and Include in the record Ifpossible.

Mr. VENEMAN. As soon as.lt Is available, wewill supply It to the subcommittee.

(The criteria follows:)BASIC POLICIES FOR ADMINISTERING THE EMER­

GENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE APPROPRIATION OF$150 MILLION NOW UNDER PRELIMINARY CON.SIDERATION BY' DHEWI. ElIgibUity criteria:1. ElIglblllty for sponsorship:A. Ellgiblllty for sponsorship of project Is

limited to local education agencies (LEA's)Which are Implementing a court ordered orHEW approved plan of desegregation for Sep.tember 1970 or which have implemented aplan of desegregation during the school year1968-69 or 1969-70.

B. Public or private community or civic or­ganization, other than LEA's which are assIst­Ing a local school system in implementing aoourt ordered or HEW approved plan of de­segregation for september 1970 or which haveimplemented a plan of desegregation duringthe school year 1968-69 or 1969-70.

2. Eliglblllty for receipt of funds:A: The application mU&t submit a project

which is of sufficient comprehensiveness, size,and scope to offer reasonable assurance thatIt will succeed In meeting the problems Inci­dent to Implementation of the applicant'sdesegregation plan.

B: An application must provic:1e assurancethat Federal funds made available for anyfiscal year will De used so as to supplementand increase the level of funds that would,in the absence of such Federal funds, beavailable to the applicant from non-Federalsources for purposes which meet the require­ments of this authorization, and in no caseas to supplant such funds from non-Federalsources.

C. Sponsors of projects will be expected todemonstrate that provision has been madefor minority Lroups, parents, members of thecommunity and others at interest to partlcl.pate in a.I! organized way In the development,review and evaluation of the project.

(NoTE.-These draft criteria are being COll­sidered for purposes of administering the spe­cial $150 million appropriaton'request andare subject to change. They have not yet beenreviewed by all who might be able to contrib­ute ideas and useful suggestions. Thet do

not repr~sent the same criteria, in Whole or inpart,that maybe developed to Implement theEtnergency SChool Aid Act of 1970 or similarlegislation now under consideration by the 'Congress.)

D. In the case of sponsorship by public orprivate community., or civic, organizationsother than an LEA, a project wlll be fundedonly when it is clearly in support of theLEA plan.

II. Funds may be .used for activitieS thatmaintain and Improve the quallty of educa­tion during the desegregation process; Ex­amples of such activities are the following:

1. Special educational personnel and stu­dent programs:

A. Special personnel-Temporary teachers to provide release time

for regular' instructional personnel to par­ticipate In desegregation workshop activities.

Teachers aldes--to reduce pupil-teacherratios in order to give more attention toindividual students.

Special guidance and counsellng and test­ing staff-to assist and counsel principals,teachers, and students in order to provideeducational programs that will remedy stu­dent deficiencies.

Monitors-parents In the school commu­nity to perform services that will reducepotential behavioral problems on school busesand school grounds.

Crossing guards-to provide staff that willmaximize safety precautions for childrenwho may be taking new and different routesto school.

Administrative and clerical staff-to pro­vide additional personnel and time for im­plementation of desegregation plans, e.g.,additional month of employment duringthe summer for principals.

B. Student services-Remedial programs to prOVide specialists,

books and supplles for remediation In all sub­ject areas in which students are deficient.

Guidance and counseling-to provide ade­quate guidance and counseling staff In orderto deal with stUdent adjustment problemsresulting from the desegregation process.

Diagnostic evaluation and testing pro­grams-to prOVide diagnosticians trained toevaluate special sight, hearing and psycho­logical problems of students.

Work-study programs-to provide childrenfrom poverty level familles With speclally­designed school programs that would affordthem financial assistance so a.s to continueeducation.

Health and nutrition serivces--to providespecialized personnel and services for stu­dents haVing health and nutritiondeficiencies.

Dropout prevention programs.Student relations-to provide special pro­

grams designed to assist stUdents on prob­lems such as acceptance. behavior, dresscodes, etc. ,

C. Educational personnel development­seminars' on problems Incident to desegre­

gation-to provide training With skllls ex­perts In the area of human relations soas to minimize problems incident todesegregation.

Seminars, on teacher Interpersonal rela­tionships-to facilltate positive Interperson­al relations among educational personnelthrough training by skllled professionals Inan intercultural understanding.

Utilization of university expertise throughinstitutes and inservice programs to dealwith such problems as:

Teaching bilingual childrenTeaching children With speech and dialect

defiCienciesAttitudes and problems of teachers, par­

ents and students Involved In the desegre­gation process

Upgrad1ng basic skills and instructinalmethodologies of teachers In English, math,

sOience, social sciences. language arts, read­ing, etc.

D. Curriculum devljlopment-Utilization of expert· conSUltants to shape

and design new curricula approaches and tointroduce curriculum innovatIOns that wouldserve children with. multi-ethnic back­grounds.

New and varied instrUctional materials.ImproVed evaluation and assessment of

stUdent progress.E. Special demonstration projects­Projects. for Introduction of Innovative

InStructional methodologies which ':Wlll Im­prove the quallty of education in the deseg­gregated school:

Individuallzed Instruction.Master teachers.Team teaching.Non-graded programs.SpeciM projects Involving community

agencies and parents--to develop joint proj­ects between special-interest and civicgtQups, parents. and the' schools whichw~ld promote understanding among citi­zens. Such projects could include sponsoringcityWide and countyWide art and music fes­tivals, pUblic meetings on relevant schoolproblems (drugabuse, behaVior, etc.) ,

Exemplary instructional practlces--to op­erate pilot projects Which would demon­strate exemplary instructional practicessuitable for systemwide repllcatlon and forother school districts involved In the desegre­gation process.

F. State and lOCal planning and admin­istration-

Expand technical assistance capabl11tiesat the State education agency level-to pro­vide add!tlonal personnel to assist the localeducation agency In planning for desegrega­tion.

Temporary staff at the local level to handleadministrative detalls and clerical duties­to prOVide additional temporary staff to dealWith the logistiCS of changing from a dualto a unitary system. For example, resched­ullng of stUdents and teachers, redrawingtransportation routes, superviSion of neces­sary physical changes (moving equipment,bUllding renovation, etc.

Staff at the local level for planning andsupervising the Implementation of the de­segregation plan.

2. Community participation programs:A. Public in/ormation activities-

, Community Information programs forparents, teachers, and students--to providefactual information about the desegregationplan and school programs.

B. Community programs-School-home visitation programs----6n

activity to be performed by educational per­sonnel, to assist with dissemination of In­formation about school programs and stu­dent progress in the desegregated school.

Special parent programs-to prOVide pro­grams designed to increase parents' involve­ment with the schools' programs, I.e., PTA,Education Emphasis Week, etc.

3. Equipment and minor remodeling:Procurement and relocation of temporary

classrooms (trallers, moblle facUl ties -anddemountables) .

Procurement and relocation of equipmentand classroom furniture, including replace­ment of obsolete items.

Minor building renovation and remodelingfor general upgrading of a faciUty.

Expenditures Dependent Upon Delegation ofAuthority of Director, Oftlce of EconomicOpportunityMr. CARDWELL. We mlght point out thRt

the expenditure of these moneys by the Officeof Education, Department of Health, Educll­tion, and Welfare would depend upon thedelegation from the Director of the Office ofEconomic Opportunity, of his authoritiesunder title II-B of, the Economic Oppor­tunity Act. That, of course. would conditionthe way In Which the moneys would be spentunder that act.

Senator BYRD, 1;'ou will be able to supply~ej;e crIterIa, W1t;ll.tn ,a ,:wee~? ;.'~ ,".'.', ..-'

Mr. M'CL.wF:. By the end 'O,t ~extJveekwecerta).Illy ~houldbe able to. yes. Sir" ., ' ...•..

Mr:. VENEMAN. We are trying to bdy time.-Senator BYRD. You m1ght be buytng time

on the bill.Wllitlie newly appointed comm1t;t;ee head­

ed by VIce President Agnew have a role tnthis specific program? '

Mr. VENEMAN. Not in'thIs spec1fic program.Thts program will beadnilntstered by ,theOffice of Education. They have looked Intothe overall problems found by the educa­tional system because of either de jure ,or defacto segregation, but It Is not anticIpatedthat they would be involved in the admin­istration at all.Activities Supported Under Title U, Eco­

nomic Opportunity ActSenator BYRD. What w1ll the money avalI­

able under these prograIIlB be used for? Forexample, what wlll OEO money be spent for?

Mr. VENEMAN. It is rather imperative thatwe have that authority for this supple­mental, because we need the fiexib1l1ty.

Mr. CARDWELL. Mr. Chairman, to a largeextent the OEO money would. be used forany community participation program. Weestimate $15 mlll10n in that; category. Itwould also be used for any equIpment andminor remodeling. We have no educationalauthority to do that. .There we have an esti­mate of about $17.9 mlllion; and then pos­sibly there would be another $70 m1ll1on thatwould be used in such areas as remedial pro­grams for stUdents, guidance, counseling andtesting of stUdents, and work programs thatmight be developed at the local level topermit a student to work lind go to school.We can, provide for the record a full llstof the kinds of items that will be usedunder thatauthority.

Senator BYRD. Very well; do that, please.(The information follows:)

ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD BE -SUPPORTED UNDERTITLE II OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT

Up to $100 mlllionof the$150mlll1on sup­plemental estimate would be,spentunder theauthority of the Econom1c Opportunity Act.The inclusion of tWs, authority In the Enier~

gency School Assi.stance. rElquest ts':crIticalbecause It is the principl101 leglsla.tlve basIsfor (1) hiring .additlonal. educationa.!per­sonnel,' (2) providIng special services~ SUchas guIdance and counseUng servIces, (3 )IlUP­porting communitypartlcipatlon programsand (4) financing 'equipment; . and minorremodellng. . .,' " . , .

The' purpose of ,the Emergency Program Isto fund comprehensIve projects WhiCh, candeal with the broad range of problemll facInga school distrIct during the llesegregatlonprocess. Without thIs authority, the Emer­gency Progtam would be llmlted for the mostpart to the' support of planning actlvltles,teache,r training, currlcu}uni'revlslon andtechnlclil .MslstaI'u::e, WhiC~' can pe fU~dedunder the sev'eral office of Educationauthorities. ' . ,

Following, ,in greater detall,are the actlvI­ties which require inclusion of tne .Title IIauthority: '.' .,.,,',' •••, .'.,'

1. Special educational perso)1Ilel and stu-dent programs: $67,100,000.

The following activities would be sup..ported:"

A.- .Specialpersonne~Temporary teachers-to provide release

time for regular instructional personnel toparticipate in desegregation workshop actlvi~

ties.Teacher aides-to reduce pupil-teacher

ratios In order to give more attention to In­diVidual stUdents.

Special guidance and counseling and test­ing staff-to .assist and counsel principals,teachers, and' students In order to provide

edllcational programs that wUl remedy stu-dent deficiencies. ' ... ' .'. "

MonItors-parentS lIitheschool commu­nitY to perform services 'that w111 reduce po_tential behavioral problems on school busesand school grounds.

Crossing guards-to provide staff that wlllmaxJ.mlze . safety precautions for childrenwho may be taking new and different routesto school.

Administrative and clerical staff-to pro­vide additional personnel and time for im­plementation of desegregation plans, e.g.,additional month of employment duringsummer for prIncipals.

B. Student serl,ices-Remedial programs-to provide speclallsts,

books and supplles for remediation in allsubject areas in which students are deficient.

Guidance and counseUng-to provideadequate guidance and counseling ,staff inorder to deal with stUdent adjustment prob­lems resulting from the desegregation proc­ess.

Diagnostic evaluation and testing pro­grams-to provide diagnosticians trained toevaluate special sight, hearing and psycho­logical problems of students.

Work-stUdy programs-to provide ch11­dren from poverty level famllles with spe­cially-designed school programs that wouldafford them TInancial assistance so as tocontinue their education.

Health and nutrition services-to proVidespecialized personnel and services for stu­dents having health and nutrition defi­ciencies.

StUdent relations-to provide special pro­grams designed to assist students on prob­lems such. as acceptance, behaVior, dresscodes, etc.

2. COmmunity participation programs:$15,000,000.

The following activities would be sup­ported:

A. PUblic in/ormation activities­Community Information programs for par­

ents, teachers, and students-to provide fac­tual InformatIon about the desegregationplan and school programs.

Public 'information coordinator-to pro­vide for a .personon superintendent's staffto promote public information actiVities.

B.Oommunity progroms-'. Establishment and. support of a biracial

committee.School-home visitation programs---'an ac­

tivity to be performed by educational per­sonnel to assist· Wlthdisseminatlon of in­formation about school 'programs and stu­dent progress'in the desegregated school.

Special parent progralIlS'--to provide pro­grams designed to increase parents' Involve­ment With the schools' programs, I.e. PTA,Education Emphasis Week, etc.

Community-relations coordinator-to pro­vIde a person on superintendent's staff toplan, organize and Implement programs forstudents and. parents involved In the deseg­regation process.

Special .demonstration projects deSignedto keep communication open,bu11d under­standing and develop community suppOrt.'

3. Equipment and riUnor femodeling: $17,­900,000.Thefollowlngacti~itles would be sup-

ported: 'Procurement and relocation of temporary

classrooms (traUers, mobUe facUlties and de­mountables) .

Procurement and relocation of equipmentand classroom furnlt;ure, Including replace­ment of obsolete items.

Minor bUilding renovation and remodel1ngfor general upgrading of a facility includingpainting, modernizing, and partItioning.

(Jooperative researchSenator BYRD. What will cooperative re­

search money be spent for?

¥rt~.JtwmJ~e~1lt~oreyaluationot.~p.eseprogramsJof~o,nj:!t1l1ng,~dfor cur­riculum revIsIon. that sort of thing. .

Senator BYRD, Just insert the complete listfor the record:' L "). r.. ~: co. " "

Mr, ALLEN. It is the justification;"

ca:tiigories of schools desegregatmgSenator BYIlD. How much of these moneys

will go to districts ,desegregating under courtorder or title VI?

,Mr, VENEMAN. There are about 220 deseg­regatlngunder court order. It will all ,be.under cour,t· order or title VI. planstn this ,"particular group. How that breaks out be­tween planst.l1at· have been developedthrough HEW verslls, those that have beendeveloped by order of the court--

Mr. CARDWELL. The figure is 220 under courtorder and 496 under HEW approved plans.

Mr. VENEMAN. Two hundred and seventy­eight are the recently desegregated. group.

Senator BYRD. What about' districts de­segregating voluntarily and dlsttlcts offeringeducation In racial Isolation? How Will themoney be broken down to districts deseg­regating" under' court order or title VI andthose districts desegregating voluntar11y andthose offering education in racial isolation?

Mr. VENEMAN. The latter would not be in­volved under this supplEmiental. Under courtorder, 220, and 496 under II.EW plans, andthe balance of 278 would make up the 994that we have referred to. "

Senator BYRD. Why Is not expenditure an~

tlcipated for those districts in racial isola­tion? P.B I read the President's statement, Igather this Is one 0'1 the very Important fea-tures of his program. . .

Mr. VENEMAN.' That is'correct,- but thatwould be authorized under' the new legisla­tion. We do not plan to spend funds for thispurpose,under the supplemental request. Wefeel we shOUld have the congressional au­thority before moving In that direction. IthInk we should point out that this is sepa­rable from the new legislation. We anticipatepassage of the Administration's EmergencySchool AId Act. But in the event It dl<1 not·go. through, this wou~d not 'be wasted moneybecause this. money.1Vould be focused onthose school districts WhIch are having prob-lems 'this Summer. ' ..

JustificationSenator BYRD. We wlll place your justifica­

tion In the record at this point.(The justlficatlonfollows:)

APpnoPRI,~TJON E1;lTIl\iATE'

. Emergency' school· assistanceFor prOViding emergency assistance to de­

segregatIng school dIstricts under part D ofthe Education Professions Development Act(title V of the Higher Ellucation Act of 1965),the Cooperative Research, Act, title IV of theClvHRlghts ~ct of .l96~, .sectIon' 1107 of theEleIlleqtllrY an!! Secondlt~y;E(1ucatlon .Act of1965, section 402 of the Elementary and Sec­ondary ,Education Amendments 0'11967, andtitle II oqb~ E<;q'norilicOpportunlty Act of1964"as amended, Incluglng necessarY;lld­m~nlstratlve expeAse.t> therefor, $150,000,000to remain available untILSeptember 30, 1970: ,Provldeq,Tltat funds appropriated to carry.out programs under tItle gof the EconomIcOpportunitY.Act of 1964 shall not be subjectto those provisions of. the,E()!?nomlcOppor­tunlty Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that Eetmandatory funding levels:. Provided. further,That funds. appropriated for administratIveexpenses sliall rem'aln avallableuntil June 30,'1971." . ,

Explanation cif language changeThe proposed language Is uece,$sary 0 toes­

tab11sh the new appropriation "EmergencySchool Assistance.... The proposed language'authorizes funds. to. support the emergenoyneeds of.the\194 8ch.ool districts. which are In'the process ofdesegregatlon. .

June 25, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -.-- SENATE 21465OFFICE OF EDUCATION, EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE

AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION

1970

Presently Revisedavailable estimate Increase

Appropriation______ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ _ __ __ __ ____ _ __ __ $150, 000, 000 $150, 000, 000

OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY

1970

Presently available Revised estimate Increase

Positions Amount Positions Amount Positions Amount

Total obligations •••• • • _. _•• • •• • _ 100

$115, 000, 000 _15, 000, 000 _17,900, 000 _2,100, 000 +100

ISO, 000, 000 + 100

+$115, 000, 000+15, 000, 000+17,900, 000+2,100, 000

+ ISO, 000, 000

OBLIGATIONS BY OBJECT

Presentlyavailable

Revisedestimate Increase

Presentlyavailable

Revisedestimate Increase

$1,300, 00097, 000

313, 000207, 00042, 00077, 00014, 00050, 000

147,900, 000

150, 000, 000

$1,300, 00097, 000

313, 000207, 000

42, 00077, 00014, 00050, 000

147,900, 000

150, 000, 000Total.. _

1001297

1001297

Personnel compensation:Permanent positions c____ $1,200, 000 $1,200, 000Positions other than permanenL_________________________ lOa, 000 lOa, 000Other personnel compensalion_. _

Total number of permanent positions _Full-time eq uivalent of all other positions _Average number of all employees _

==========

Summary 01 changes1970 enacted appropriation _1970 revised estimated obllga.-

tlons $150.000,000Total cha.nges +150.000.000

INCREASES

Program:Special educational person-

nel and programs________ 115.000,000Community participatlon

programs 15.000,000EqUipment and minor re-

modelUng 17.900,000Federal admlnlstra.tlon and

technical assistance______ 2.100,000Explanation of Changes

The President, in his message of May 21,1970, to the congress of the United States.proposed the Emergency Schooi Aid Act of1970, Under the terms of this Act. fundswould be used to assist local school authori­ties in meeting special needs Incident to bothde jure and de lacto segregation.

The $150,000,000 requested In thIs sup­plemental approprIatIon. to be used underexIsting authorities. wl11 provide Immediateassistance to the approximately 994 de jureschool districts in the 17 southern and bor­der States which have recently developedor whIch must develop total desegregationplans by September 1970.

Emergency school assfstance

IntroductionOn March 24, 1970, the President of the

United States issued a statement entitled"SChool Desegregation: A Free and OpenSOCiety". In clearly establishing the pollciesof his Administration in the areas of schooldesegregation and in restating his firm dedi­cation to equal educational opportunity. thePresident added the following commitment.

"Words often ring empty without deeds. Ingovernment. words can ring even emptierwithout dollars.

"In order to give SUbstance to these com­mltments, I shall ask Congress to divert $500

million from my previous bUdget requestsfor other domestic programs for fiscal year1971. to be put instead into programs forimproving education in racially-impactedareas. North and South. and for assistingschool districts in meeting special problemsincident to court-ordered desegregation. Forfiscal year 1972, I have ordered that $1 billionbe bUdgeted for the same purposes,"

In this same message, the PresIdent dI­rected a ca.binet-Ievel committee chaired bythe Vice President of the United States todevelop plans for the effective use of such­funds as may be appropriated by Congress Inresponse to his recommendation. One out­come of the efforts of this committee and ofthe Department of Health. Education. andWelfare, has been a bill requesting Congressfor an authorization totallng $1,500,000,000over fiscal years 1971 and 1972, It was reallzed,however, that final action on these proposalscould not be completed in time to deal withthe most pressing problems of school districtswhich have been desegregating this year orare faced with desegregation in September1970. These districts have much work to doand many preparations to make this summerand are in need of financial assistance, Tomeet the emergency needs of such school dis­tricts, the President has proposed that Con­gress appropriate $150 mllllon under six eXist­ing legislative authorities to be made avall­able immediately to school districts under­going desegregation.

Dimensions of the problemIn the 17 southern and border states there

are some 4,500 school clistricts, of which 994are in the process of desegregation. TheseinclUde some 220 school districts now undercourt order call1ng for complete desegregationby this September, 496 districts, which havesubmitted are negotiating or are llkely to benegotiating desegregation plans under theDepartment of Health. Education, and Wel­fare auspices for total desegregation by Sep­tember; another 278 districts which wlll beoperatUng under total desegregation plans im­plemented in 196B and 1969,

Selection of approprIate authoritiesIn recognition of the immediate financial

needs which desegregation places upon these994 school districts, the $150 milllon beingproposed for immediate financial aid is re­quested under six existUng legislatIve author­ities which are:

1. Community development programs:Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Title

II, Urban and Rural Community Action Pro­grams. This title's purpose is to help focusavallable local, State, private, and Federalresources upon the goal of enabllng low­income famllles. and low-income individualsof all ages, in rural and urban areas, to at­tain the skllls. knowledge. and motivatIonsand secure the opportunities needed forthem to become fUlly self-suftlcient, Pre­sently funded under this authority are Head­start and Follow Through, among others.

2. Personnel development programs:Education Professions Development Act,

Part D, Improving Training Opportunitiesfor Personnel Serving in Programs of Educa­tion Other ThaIi Higher Education. Pro­grams or projects under this pa.rt are fundedto improve the quallficatlons of persons serv­ing or preparing to serve in educational pro­grams in elementary and secondary schools(including preschool and adult and voca­tional education programs) or postsecondaryvocational schools or to supervise or trainpersons so serving.

3. Major demonstrations:Cooperative Research Act. This Act au­

thorizes projects for research, surveys, anddemonstrations in the field of education,and for the dissemination of informationderived from education research.

4. Dropout prevention:

Elementary and Secondary Education Act.Section 807. This section authorizes demon­stration projects InvolvIng the use of Un­novatlve methods, systems, materials, orprograms which show promise of reducingthe number of chlldren who do not complete

21466 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION-EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE

Are clearly related and approprlate'to theneeds of school districts ,undergoing deseg-regation , _" '

Have authorization levels which are suf­ficiently above current levels of appropria­tion to permit additional appropriations.

Activities to be supportedTo minimize disruption of the educational

process and to maintain quality educationduring the change to a unitary system, a vastarray of vital activities must be supported.Teachers need to be trained and made awareof the skills reqUired to teach effectively InIntegrated classrooms. Teacher aides must beemployed and trained to maximize Instruc­tional activities for students who may need tocatch up academically. Guidance, counselingand testing programs must be redesignedand updated to serve new needs. New andinnovative instructional approaches must bedesigned, Including remedial, tutorial, work­study, and bl1lngual programs, If overall edu­cational quality Is to be maintained and en­hanced. Community information and com­munication programs that develop and buildconfidence In the public education systemand promote understanding and acceptancemust be designed, staffed and Implemented.In addition, facllitles must be modified toaccommodate school consolldatlon;

1. Special educational personnel and stu­dent programs:Presently avallable _Revised estimate :.. :.. $115,000,000Increas,e " ---------~- +115, 000, 000

The following activities would be sup­ported:

A. Special personnel-Temporary teachers-to provide release

time for regUlar Instructional personnel toparticipate In desegregation workshop ac­tivities.

Teacher aides-to reduce pupil-teacher ra­tios in order to give more attention to Indi­vidual students.

Special guidance and counseling and test­Ing staff-to assist and counsel principals,teachers, and students In order to provideeducational programs that will remedy stu­'dent deficiencies.

Monitors-parents in the school commu­nity to perform services that will reduce po­tential behaVioral problems on school busesand school grounds.

Crossing guards-to provide staff that willminimize safety precautions for childrenwho may be taking new and different routesto school.

Administrative and clerical stsff-to pro­vide additional personnel and time for im­plementation of desegregation 'plans, e.g.,additional month of employment duringsummer for principals.

B. Student services-Remedial programs-to provide specialists,

books and supplies for remediation in allsubject areas In which students are deficient.

Guidance and counseling-to prOVide ade­quate guidance and counseling. staff in orderto deal with stUdent adjustment prOblemsresulting from the desegregation process.

Diagnostic evaluation and testing pro­grams-to provide diagnosticians trained to

1. Special educational personnel and studentprograms•. __ ..... .. _. . __ .. , __ .. •. . . .

2. Community participation program ••• .. ' .. ... •3. Equipment and,minor remodeling. :. __ • __ •• _•• '" _. ._4. Federal administration and technical as-

sistance_. • ., •••• ••• __ •• • •• ___ _ lOa

Total obligations • _" ' ' • • __ •• __ ___ lOa

evaluate special sight, hearing and psycho­logical problems of stUdents.

Work-stu<lY progralIl.S--:to provide childrenfrom poverty level families With specially­designed school programs that would affordthem financial assistance so as to continuetheir education.

Health and nutrition services-to prOVidespecialized personnel and services for stu­dents having health and nutrition defi­ciencies.

Dropout prevention programs.student relations-to prOVide special pro­

grams designed to assist students on prob­lems such as acceptance, behavior, dresscodes, etc.

C. Educational personnel development­Seminars on problems incident to desegre­

gation-to prOVide training with skilled ex­perts In the area of human relations so as tominimize problems incident to desegrega­tion.

Seminars on teacher Interpersonal rela­tionships-to facilitate positive interper­sonal relations among educational personnelthrough training by skilled professionals Inan InterCUltural understanding.

Utilization of university expertise throughinstitutes and inservice programs to dealwith such problems as:

Teaching bilingual children.Teaching chlldren With speech and dialect

deficiencies.Attitudes and problems of teachers, pa­

rents and stUdents involved in the de­segregation process.

Upgrading basic skills and instructionalmethodologies of teachers In English, math,science, social sciences, language arts, etc.

D. Curriculum development-Utilization of expert, conSUltants to shape

and design new curricula approaches and tointroduce curriculum Innovations thatwould serve children with multi-ethnicbackgrounds.

New and varied instructional materials.Improved evaluation and assessment of

stUdent progress.E. Special demonstration projects­l'roJects for Introduction of Innovative in­

structional lp.ethodologles which w1ll Im­prove the quality, of educ_atlon in the de­segregated school:

Individualized Instruction.Master teachers.Team teaching.Non-graded programs.Special . projects', involving community

agencies 'and parents-to developjohit proj­ects between special-interest and ciVicgrolJps, parents and the schools which would

, promote understanding among citizens. Suchproj,ects cO,uld Include sponsoring citywideand countYWide art and music festivals. pub­lic meetings on, relevant .sch901 problems(drug abuse~ ~ehavlor,etc.). , '

ExemPlary instructional practices-to op­'erate pilot projects which' would demon­strateexemplaiy instructional practices suit­

'able for ,systemwide' repllcatfon 'and,forother school districts Involved' In the de­segregation process.

F. State and local planning and adminis­tration-

Expand technical assistance capabilities atthe State education agency level-to provideadditional personnel to assist the local edu­cation agency In planning for desegregation.

Temporary staff at the.locallevel to handleadministrative details and clerical duties­to provide additional temporary staff to deal

.. with the logistics of changing from a dual toa unitary system. For example, reschedulingof students and teachers,redrawlng trans­portation routes, ,superVision of. necessary

,physical changes (moving of equipment,building renovation, etc.).

Staff at the local level for, planning and,supervising the Implementation of the de­segregation plan.

Amount

$+115, 000, 000+15,000,000+17,900, 000

+2,100, 000

+ 150, 000, 000

Increase

Amou nt Positions

$115,000,000 _15,000,000 . __ • . __17,900,000 . __ • _

2,100, 000 +100

ISO, 000, 000 + 100

Revised eslimate

1970

Amount Positions

Presently available

Positions

their education in elementary and secondaryschools.

5. Technical assistance:Civil Rights Act of 1964, TItle IV. This

title authorizes rendering technical assis­tance to school boards in the preparation,adoption, and implementation of plan forthe desegregation of public schools.

6. Planning and evaluation:Elementary and 8econdary Education Act

Amendments of 1967, Section 402. This sec­tion authorizes grants, contracts or otherpayments for planning and evaluating anyprograms for which the Commissioner ofEducation has responsibility for administra­tion.

These partiCUlar authorities were selectedbecause they met the following criteria:

Focus on elementary and secondary edu­cation

Can be used, for student and teacher serv­ices

Are discretionary authoritiesDo not have formulas which would chan­

nel funds away from areas of greatest needAre designed to support and encourage

demonstration activitiesAre fiexlble In the range of activities which

can be approved

General StatementSchool districts will be ,encouraged to re­

View carefully the local problems antici­pated during the desegregation process, Iden­tifying programs and resources to, overcometheir problems. Funding will be based' up­on each district's needs rather than' astandard program. School districts' will berequired to carefully, plan their programsand bulld in evaluation components designedto assess the program's effectiveness In meet­ing stated objectiVes. State and Federal per­sonnel will be available to provide asslst­anee in the identification of problems, thedevelopment of program requirements, andthe management of the, program." ,The fol,owing estimates by program ac­tiVity ,represent, a rough' apprOXimation ofhow the supplemental request will be ;used. ItIs based upon the jUdgments of present .officeof EducatiOn staff who have be!ln. worj\:lngclosely with southern schopl superintendents.,Although needs will ,vary, from one, school

, district to another, It is expected thatap­provable projects will ,need to be both largeenough and oomprehenslve enough to make

,a difference. If the objective of this pro­gram-to maintain quality education duringdesegregation-Is to be realized, projects willhave to be multi-faceted. Community par-

"tlclpatlon,special personnel and services, ad­ministrative and logistical' help, and tech­

-nicalllSSlstanqe ,are all ,Important, elementsof a successful program.

A supplemeJ.+tal approprtatlon of $150 mil­lion would provide an 'average of $150,000 foreach of the approximately 1,000 eligible

,school 'districts. Assuming an average of 10schools per school <llstrict, this WOUld, mean

. about $15,009 perschoql. ,In total, the target population Includes

cabout" 7.2 Ulillion stlJdents" of whom 2.5inilllon are. min.or~tystudents, aI1d approxi­mately 335,000 educational personnel.

Jun'e25,1970 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD ._' SENATE 21467

4. Federal administration and technicalassistance: Personnel compensation and.benefits••••••.•••. _,._ •.••••.• " ....•.••._, .•_"'.'" _.., ... 100 $1,397,000 +100 +$1,397,000

Other e;:t:~~:~~ ~~::::::: ~:: :::::::::::::::-::-:-::....;-;:-;-:;-::-;.•: :-:~;.:-:-::-'----'-''-:-;~~'-'--2~,-:~~:-:~~~~-'-"-'~---;~~~-'--+..::.-:-~:.::-~~-:

2. Cotnmunlty . particIpation progra.ms: mEmt wIth the schools' programs, Le. PTA., Edu~atlon Emphasis. Week, etc.

Presently avallable_'~";..~::_::," ----------- Community-reiatloI1$ coordInator-to pro"Revised estimate_;. ~-----.;. $15,000; 000 vide a,. person on superintendent's staff toIncrease ;.._ ...... :;. .. '"~.:.,,;.. ~ .;.+15..000. 000 plan,. organize and implement programs for

The .foU0'Yin~ flctIvitles' would be sup- students and parents Involved In the desegre-ported: .....•.." .:.... ..... '. .' . gatIon process.

A. P.ublic infprmcr,tion 'activities~ Speclaldernbnstration projects designed toCommunity Information programs for par- keep communIcation open, bUlld understand­

ents, teachers. and students-to. prOVide ing and develop communIty support.factual Informa~on.aboutthe desegregatIon 3. Equipment and minor remodeling:plan and SChool progrllms. Presentlyavallable --------.---

Public informatIon coordinator-to provide RevIsed estImate__=__________ $17,900,000for' a person on superintendent·s staff to pro- Increase ••__ • ~-------- +17.900,000mote public Information activities. The following activities would be sup-

B. Community programs- .' ported:Establishment and support of a biracial Procurement and relocation of temporary

committee. classrooms (trallers, moblle facilities andSchool-home visitation programs-an ac- demountables).

tlvlty to be performed by educational per- Procurement and relocation of equipmentsonnel to .assist wIth dissemination of iDior- and classroom furniture. Including replace­matlon about' school programs and student ment of obsolete items.progress in the desegregated schoQI. : Minor bulldiIig renovation and remOdeling'. Speclalparent programs--to provide. pro~ for general upgrading of a facillty includinggrams designed'to in()reas,e parents' inyolve- painting, modernizing, and partitioning.

pllcatlons, help. them wIth devisIng educa­tIonally sound programs, help with the In­stallation of evaluation components and fi­nally. monitor projects throughout the year,helping to make modIficatIons as planschange and programs develop.

Development of program guidelines, pro­gram models and evaluation techniques.­+12 positions.

Twelve program development speciallstswlll help develop materIals whIch can beused by educatIon program spoolallsts inworkIng wIth local school officials. This willinclude Information on successful projectsin other States and communitIes. The pro­gram guidellnes and models wlll Indicate, forexample, what goes Into making a successfulguidance and counsellng program, blllngualeducation program, specIal reading program,etc. These speclallsts wlll be educators whohave a sound background in these specIalfields.D~veloping uniform grant and contract

terms and conditions.-+S positIons.Eight speclallsts wlll be required to help

develop common rules and regulations forthe award of grants and contracts. These wlllinclude such subjects as the dIspositIon andaccountablllty of equipment, determinationof allowable costs. etc. This Is an extremelyimportant task In view of the severalleglsla­tlve authorities InvolVed. It will be Importantto develop a common set of rules whIch willsatisfy all the authorities Involved.

Management and administrative over­head.-+12 positions.

The above staff will In turn require certaincentral support In both the regIons andWashington. This wlll inclUde persons inadmInistrative servIces, aecountIng, person­nel operations, and management. Eight ofthese positlonswm be In the regional offices.

It. Is Important to emphasize that whIlecertaJ.n mInimum Federal requirements onaccountab1llty of funds and other mattersmust be met by all school districts, the pro­gram assistance and development will bestrIctly optional at the discretion of localschool officIals. There is no intentIon ofhavIng the Office of Education offering gratu­Ito~ advice. It Is expected, however, thatmany schools will welcome ,whatever help Is

Communications :f)'om the PresIdentSenator BYRD. We wlll also place the ap­

proprIate and ofllclal documents received bytheC]ongress regardIng thIs request In the;record at thIs point., (Tlle docum,ents follow:) , ..

Annual. salary

207.000

313.000

(77.000)

(130,000)

42,000

77.000

14,00050,000

5 $114,42516 314,2883 58, 929

20 335,200I 16,760

14 198.6886 85,1522 23,8102 23,810I 11,905I 11,9056 59,2862 16,1781 8,0892 16,1785 36,4708 52,3843 17,5592 9,242

100 1.410,258

1,300,00097,000

Grade NumberPositions

Education program officer.. .. __ GS-15Education program specialist.._ GS-14Program analyst..;_. ... c .. GS-14Education program specialisL. GS-13Grants ,and contract specialist .. GS-13EducatIOn program specialist. __ GS-12Grants and contract specialis!.'" GS-12Education program specialisL __ GS-IIManagement analyst. .. _.. . GS-llGrants and contract specialist.. GS-ll8udgetanalysL __ . __ ... GS-IIEducation program specialist. __ GS-9

Do__ ... .. c •• __ GS-7~

Personnel staffing assistan!. ... GS-71Accounting technician.. GS-7Secretary__ .. . __ . .. GS-6

Do __ .._.. .. GS-5Clerk·typist.. _ _ __ GS-4

Do. .. __ ._._ GS-2

TotaL ,. _'''' __ ..... •

Subtotal, personnel com-pensatIon _

Personnel benefits (7.5 percent)_Travel and transportatIon of

persons (71 employees X $50per diem X 90 days) _

Transportation of things _Rent, communIcation, and utll-itles _

(GSA-lOO employees X $900lapsed 15 percent) _

(Utllltles-IOO employees X$1,300) , _PrInting and reproduction (100

employees X $420) _Other services (100 employees

X $900 lapSed 15 percent) _Supplles and materIals (100 em-ployees X $140) _Equlpment (100 X $500) _

avallable;Many of the staff Involved wlll bedrawn from the local regIon and wlll be se­lected for theIr jUdgment, maturity, andexperience as well as professIonal competence.

Even though the program funds wlll haveto be obllgated by September 30, 1970, mostprojects wlll probably continue throughoutthe school year. For this reason, a specialprovision has been included In the appro­priation language whIch wlll make funds foradministrative actIVities avallable throughJune 30, 1971. To launch thIs program assoon as possIble, It is expected that someexisting staff •.wlll be, dIverted to start upthe program. For thIs reason, It Is expectedthat the 100 new posItIons wlll be on boardfor approxImately 85 percent of the fiscalyear.

Administrative funds jor emergency schoolassistance program

Personnel compensatIon:Permanent $1,200.000

Positions other than perma-nent ~ .. 100,000

Other personnel compensa-tIon •

. Total ~____ 2,100.000Total number of permanent eIIl-ployees 100

full-tIme equIvalent of others__ 12Average .number of' aU em-

ployees 97Average cost per man year'__ $14.410

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION: AND WELFARE~OFFICE OF EDUCATION

EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE

Amount

Increase

Amount Positions

Revised estimatePresently available

Positions

" At1 amount()f $2.1 m,IUlonand 100 posi­tions is requested to admInIster. the Emer~

gency School. Assistance Program.. This. neweffort wlll requI,re.: . . "

DevelopIng' entirely .new procedureS andregulations whIch wlll allow the Otnce ofEducation to. admInIster' a unified, coordi­nated. program'.wlthin the sIx separate ,au­thorltlesunder' which 'funds are being re­quested, ThIs ~lll Include notIces to poten­tial grantees qf .the terms and condItionsunder which grants wlll be avallable, unIfiedappllcatloiJ. forllls. regulation. notices In theFederal Register; and review, approval, awardand accounting procedures.

Assisting schools and other lIiterestedpar­tIes in the development ofappllcations.

ReviewIng and 'monitorIng an. estimatedl,ODO-l,500 projects for assIstance.

ProvIding progrflm assIstance and dIssemi­nating lDiormation to hunq.reds of ,State andlocal school otnChlls,. ...,'

In additIon, to, these direct program serv­Ices, a small suppottIng staff wlll be n~ces­sary In Washington' and the regional otncesto coordinate program actiVItIes, provIde gen­eral guIdance and. other necessary admIn­Istrative 'functions . such as accounting,grants. management and personnel.

Of the 100 additIonal positions requested,82 wlll be professIonal staff and IS wlll besecretarIal and clerIcal positIons. Eighty-onewlll be located In the three southern HEWregIonal ofllces w,ith 19 In Washington, D.C.

The .addltlonal professIonal posItIons arerequired for the following specific purposes:_ Project development;, review, monitoringand evaluation.~+50posItIons.

Fifty educatIon program speciallsts wlll berequired to handle. the several phases of thesome 1,000 project appllcatlons antIcIpated.This wlll mean that each speclallst wlll behandlIng approximately 20 projects of vary­ing sIze and scope. Because of the short lead­time Involved and the uDiam1liarity o'f manyof the target sc1;l.001 d!strlcts with developingproposals, It is expected that thIs workloadwill be qulte demandIng and fully justify theadditional staff requested. Program special­Ists will need to go out and talk wIth localschool ofllclals, lDiorII). them of theassistAmceavallable. help. them, develop acceptable ap-

21468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORO ~SENATE'-"<_ ···.0 ......- ~ .. - .. ,',' ~'" ~ 0'. .• '" ~ '"", _, . ,; " ".' ,:." .j;~ . . i' ... ,.f

COMKUNICA'l:ION PB0JolTHE PBESIDEN'l: OFT.HE'" UNITED STATES ,

'l'ransnrttUng .~ prop~ed supplemental ap­.'proprlation for emergency school assistance

.for fiscal year 1970 in the amount of $150,­000,000 in bUdget authority

THE WHITE HOUSE,Washington, May 25, 1970.

The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE.8m: I ask the Congress to consider a pro­

posed supplemental appropriation for thefiscal year 1970 In the amount of $150,000,000In budget authority. These funds are neededto provide Immediate assistance to schooldistricts which must desegregate by the Fallof 1970.

These desegregating districts face urgentneeds for teachers, education specialists, ma­terials, curriculum. revision, equipqlent andrenovation. The proposed supplemental ap­propriation Is requested under existing stat­utory authorities on an emergency basis andwould be used by September 30, 1970.

Another $350 m1ll10n w111 be requested forfiscal year 1971 upon enactment of the pro­posed Emergency School Aid Act of 1970which I described In my message to the Con­gress of May 21, 1970.

The details of the proposed supplementalappropriation are set forth In the enclosedletter from the Director of the Bureau ofthe Budget, with whose comments I con­cur.

Respectfully yours,RICHUD NIXON.

Enclosure.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE P/lESIDENT,BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., May 25, 1970.THE PRESIDENT, 'The White House.

Sm: I have the honor to submit for yourconsideration a proposed supplemental ap­propriation for the fiscal year .1970 In.theamount of $150,000.000 in bUdget authority,as follows:"DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUOATION.

AND WELFARE--OmCE OF EDUCATION­EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE·

"For providing emergency assistance to de­segregating school districts Wider. part D ofthe Education PTofesslons Development·. Act(title V of the HigherEdu~tionAct of 1965) •

the Cooperative Research Act, title IV of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, section 807 of theElementary and Secondary Education Act of1965, section 402 of the Elementary and Sec­ondary Education Amendments of 1967, andtitle n of the Economic Opportunity Act of1964. as amended, including necessary ad­ministrative expenses therefor, $150,000,000to remain available until September 80,1970:Provided, That funds appropriated to carryout programs under tltlen of the EconomicOpportunity Act of 1964 shall not be SUbjectto those provisions of·· the' Economic Op­portunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 thatset mandatory funding levels: PTovlded fur­ther, That funds appropriated .foradmlnis­trative expenses shall remalnavll,ilable untilJune 30, '1971." .. , . .

The proposed supplemental appropriationwould provide funds on an emergency basisfor immediate assistance to school districtswhich must desegrate by the' Fall of 1970.

As described in your message to the Con­gress of May 21,1970, these desegregating dis­tricts face urgent needs for teacher training.e!iucatlon specialists, materials. curriculumrevislon,.equlpment and renovation.

'I'l:\e $150 m1llion is ~equestedunder severalauthorities in order to provide as broad arange of assistance as possible for inaftitaln­ing quality education durin'g the desegrega­tion process. Of the $150 million, $100 millionis requested under the,authorlty of the Eco:.nomic Opportunity Act of 1964. ·The remain­ing $50 m1ll10n is requested under authorities

vested in tbeDepartment of Health. Educa­tion, and Welfare and the omceof Education.The entire program of emergency school as­sistance would be. adDllnlsteredby tbe'De­partment of Health, Education, and.Welfareand the omce of Education. The $150 ml11lonwould be made available to desegregating dls-trlcts before September 30. 1970, '

I recommend that this proposed' supple­mental appropriation be transmitted to theCongress.

Respectfully yours,RoBERT S. MAYo,

Director.

AID TO SCHOOLS WITH FINANCIAL PaOBLEMS(Message from the. PTesldent of the United

States transmitting proposed legislationto provide financial assistance· to helpschool districts to meet special. problemsIncident to desegregation In elementaryand secondary sch'Ools, and to Improve ed­ucatlon in racially Impacted areas, 'andfor other purposes)

[MAY 21, 1970.-Message and accompanyIng papers referred to the Committee onEducation and Labor and ordered to beprinted)

To the Congress of the United States:SuccessfUlly desegregating the nation's

schools requires more than the enforcementof laws. It also requires an investment ofmoney.

In my statement on school desegregationon March 24, I said that I would recom­mend expenditure of an additional $1.5b1llion--$500 million in fiscal 1971, and. $1b1ll10n in fiscal 1972-to assist local schoolauthorities in meeting four special catego­ries of need:

",The special needs of deaegregatlng ('Orrecently desegregated) districts for addi­tional facl1ltles. personnel and training re­qUired to get the new, unitary system suc­cessfully started.

"-The special needs .of racially. impactedschools where de facto segregation perslsts­and where immediate Infusions of moneycan make a real difference in terms of ed­ucat1'onal effectiveness.

"-The special needs of those districtsthat have the furthest to go to catch upeducationally With the rest of the nation."~The financing of Innovative techniques

for providing educationally sound interracialexperiences for children in racially Isolatedschools."

To achieve these purposes. I I).ow proposethe Emergency School Aid Act of 1970.

Under the terms of this Act, the fourcategories of need I outllned would be metthrough three categories of aid:

(I) Aid to districtsnow ellmlnated de juresegregation either pursuant to direct Federalcourt orders or in accordance' with· plansapproved by the Secretary of Health, Educa~tlon, and Welfare, for special needs incidentto compliance. .. '.' .

(II) Aid to districts that wish ~o lindertakevoluntary ef'fortsto eliminate. reduce or pre­vent de facto racial isolation, With such aidspecifically targeted for those purposes.

(III) Aid to districts in Which de factoracial separation persists, for· the purposeof helping. establish speclal Interracial orintercultural educational programs or, wheresuch programs are Impracticable, programsdesigned to overcome the'· educational dls­advantages that stem from racial isolation.

In all three categories, admlnlstratlve pri­ority will be given to what I described onMarch 24 as "the special needs" of ' thosedlstrlcts that have the furthest to go tocatch up educationally with the rest of thenation." In all three, also, there w1ll bespecial attention given to the developmentof Innovative techniques that hold promisenot only of helping the children Immediatelyinvolved. but also of increasing our under-

standing .of how~hese special needs can bestbe me\;; , ,. '" ..", .

. THJ; BACKllllAVmLc'rheprocess of putting an end . to whatformerly were dellberately segregated schoolshas been long and dl1ficult. The job Is largelydone, but it is not yet completed. In manydistricts, the changes neeliel!. to prpduce de­segregation place a heavy· strain on the localschool .systems, and stretch .. thin the re­sources of thOSe districts required to desegre­gate. The Federal Government should assistin meeting the additional costsef transition.This Act would do so, not only for tbose nowdesegregating but also for .those that havedesegregated within the past two years butst111 face additional needs as a result of thechange.

The educational effects of raclaflsollition;however. are not confined to those' districtsthat prev\Qusly operated dual systems. '. IIImostof ourlarge cities, andlumany smallercommunities, housing pattern,s have .pro­duced racial separation in the schools whichin turn has had an· adverse effect on theeducation of the children. It Is In the nationalInterest that where such Isolation exists,even tllOugh It Is not of a kind that violatesthe law, we should do our best to assist localschool districts attempting to overcome Itseffects.

In some cases this can best be done by re­ducing or eliminating the Isolation Itself.In some cases it can best be done throughInterracial educational programs involvingthe children of two or more different schools.In some cases, where these measures are notpracticable or feasible, .It requires specialmeasures to. upgrade· education' Within par­ticular schools or to provide learning' ex­periences of a type that can'enlarge tbe per­spectlveof c1)Udren whose lives 1)avebeenracially circum~rlbed.. .•... .•. .. . ...

This Act deals, specifically· wlth'probiemswhich arise from racial separation, whetherdeliberate or not, and whether ,past or pres­ent., It Is clear thatracial isolation ordinarilyhas .. an. adverse effect .on education. Oon­versely; we ,also. kIiovv that desegregation ,Isvital to qUalitYeducation--;nQt .only. fromthe standpoint of raisiJig ,the acp\eyeinentlevels of the disadvantaged. but,. also fromthe standpoint of helping' all chUdieIiacb,ievethe broad-~':l,Sedhumanunderstandlngthatincreasingly is essentialAn. t()day's world.

This Act Is addressed both to helping 'over­come the adverse, effects of raclal1so1ation:and to helping attain the positive,. benelltsof integrated edlicatlon. It. .isconcerned notWith thel()ngrange, b~oad-guage needs, ofthE! educational systeIH as a, Whl)le, but ratherwith ,these special and. imme,dlate .~eeds.

,HOW·IT ,WORKS ... ,The procedures under •this Actare;de~

signed to put the money where the needs'aregreatest and where 'it ,caIl'Ino~f,e1fectivelybe -qsed, and to provide both local initiativeand Federal review hi each case. . .. Two-thirds of thefundswoJlld be allottedamong the states on, the:b.aslsofaspeelalformula. One~thirdwOl1ld be reserved for uSeby the Secretary of Health. EducatlonandWelfare for especllillyprolnlsing projectsInany eligible district. In all cases, Whether un­der the State allotment or not, the grantswould be lllade for specific indlvidualproj­ects with each. project requiring approvalby the Secretary. Appllcati0I:lforgrantswouldbe niade by local educatlonagenc1es,'witb theState given ·an opportunity to' review andcomment on the grant· a.pplicatlon,

The State . allotment formula. .. begins 'byproviding·' a basic. mlnrniliinof ,$100.000 Ineach fiscal year for each State. The remainderof formUla fun.ds for eaCh' fiscal year. wouldbe allotted among the States according to theproportion of the natlon'smlnorlty studentsin each State. with those, in districts requiredby law to desegregate and implementing adesegregation plan double-counted. This

June. 25~ 1970 CONGRESSIONAL:RECORU;'::SENA'l'E) 21~69:

double counting is designed to put extramoney where the most urgent needs are, rec­ognizingthat the~ is a priority need at thepresent time fot thff ending' of de jure seg­regation SWiftly, completely;. and In a man­ner that does not" sacrifice the quality ofeducation.

If any given,State'sallodation of fuhds' Is,not fully utUlzed'under thetermll of tb.lsAct,the remainder of; those funds would then bereallocated on the same formula basis for usein other States.

Under Category" I (de' jure, desegregating) •any district would be eliglble which is nowimplementing an approved desegregation planor which had completed implementing oneWithin two years ,prior ,to its ,application.Those not yet doing so would become eligibleupon submission "of, ilb.' acceptable plan.Funds would be available, to help; meet theadditional costs otimplementing the desegre­gation plan itseltl' and,' alSo for special pro­gramS or projects designed to make desegre­gation succeed in educational terms. '

,Under Category n (de facto desegregating),any district would be eligible it it has one ormore schools in which minority pupils nowconstitute more than half the enrol1ment,orappear likely to in, the near future. Fundscould be provided to help' oarry out a compre­hensive program for the el1mlnation; reduc­tion or prevention of raciallsolation in oneor more such schools within the district.

Under Oategory III (special programs In'raciallly impacted areas>,;' a, district would be;eliglble if it has 10,000 or more minority stu­dents, orlfminority, students, constitute" 50percent or, more, of, its pUbllc' school enroll-,ment. Funds could be provided, under, ,thiscategory' for special interracial, or intercul­tural educational programs or, where theseproved impracticable, for, unusually promis­ing pilot or <;lemoDS1irll.tlon programs designedto help overcome, the adverse educational, im-pactof racial isolatiOn. '" '

In connection ;,vit11 this Category III aid,it Is worth nothig' that such researc:h dataas Is available suggests strongly that from aneducational standpoint what matters most isnot the integrated schOOl but the integrated'classroom. This might,at first glance, seema distinction, without a difference. But it canmake a great deal" of difference' especial1ywhere fulUntegration of schools is infeasible.It mea-ns, that by arranging to have. certainactivities integrated-for example, by bring­ing stuQ:ents from.a mostly ,black school andfrom,a );Ilostly white school together for spe­cial tralniJ:>-g in a third looatlon-t1?-e educa-;tlonal benefits of integration can be achieved,at least In significant part, even though theschools themselves remain, preponderantlywhite or black. ' ,

In a nuinbEiI:of commtUlitles, experimentsare already underway or being planned witha vari~ty of illterra.clal learning ,experiences.These have InclUded joint field trips, edu­cationai exch.anges between inner-city andsuburbaI;l schools; city-wide art and musicfestivals: and, enriched curriCUla in inner­city schools that 'serve,as .a~"magnet" forwhite students In special,courses. Other in­novativeapproaches have included atti­tude training, . for "teachers; ,guidance andcounseling by lnterracial teams,and after­hour programs in which parents participated.I cite these not as an inclusive catalogue,but'merely as a few examples of the kindsof experimental apprqa.ches that are beingtried, and that give some Indication of'therange of activities that could and should befurther experimented with, ' '

Ex.a.mples of the kinds ofaetivities whichcould be funded under' all categories areteacher tra.in1ng, special remedial programs,guidance and counseling, development ofcurriculum materials, renovation of build­ings, lease or purchase of temporary class­roqms, and special community actiVities as­sociated with projects funded under theAct. '

THE 'URGENCY OF' ACTION NOW'

It Is now late in 'the' legislative year, andvery soon· It wUl be the !;>eglnning of thenext school year.

In the life of the desegregation process,the fall of 1970 has special significance andpresents extraordinary problems, inasmuchas all of the school districts which have notyet, desegregated must do so by then., Theeducational,: problems, they, confront areenormous, and the 'related problems of com­mUnity social and econoriUc adjUstment areequa.lly so. . ,

Some 220, schOOl districts are now undercourt order,caIling for complete' desegrega­tion by this september; 496 districts havesubmitted, are negotiating or are likely tobenegotiatiDg desegregation plans underHEW 'auspices for total desegregation bythis September; another 278 districts ,areoperating under plans,begun in 1968 or1969; more, th,an 500 Northern districts arenow under review or likely soon to be underreview for possible violations of Title VI ofthe Oivil Rights Act of 1964. Quite beyondthese matters of enforcement, we also mustcorne seriously to grips with the fact thatof the natiqn's 8.7 milllon public schoolstudents. of minority races, almost 50 per­cent are in school with student popUlationsmade Up 95, percent or more of minoritypuplIs.· ' ,

Desegregating'districts face urgent needsfor teachers, education specIalists, materials,curriculum x:evision, eqUipment and renova­tion.

,Teachers and education specialists for thefall of 1970 lire being recruited now. Mate­rials and equipment must be purchased thissummer to be on hand for the opening ofschool. Curriculum revision requires monthsof preparation. Oontracts for renovationmust be entered into and work commencedsoon.

Administration representatives are nowdiscussing with members of Congress pos­sible ways of making the first of the fundsfOr the purposes of this Act available whenthey are needed, which is now, through theuse of existing legislatIve authorities.

Five hundred mlIlion dollars wlll be spentin Fiscal 1971. I recommend that $150 mil­lion be appropriated under these existing au­thorities, on an emergency basis, as "start­up" money. I recommend that the remaining$3.50 million for Fiscal 1971 and $1 billionfor Fiscal 1972, be appropriated under theEmergency School Aid, Act itself. It Is thisAdministration's fIrm intention to spendthese funds-$500 million in l"lscal 1971 and$1 billion in' Piscill 1972-in the years forwhich they are appropriated.

QUALrry AND EQ'lYALrry

It money provided under this Act werespread too thinly, it would have very I1ttleimpact at all on the specific problems towardwhich it is addressed. Therefore. the criterialaid down in the Act are designed to Insureits use in a manner sufficiently concentratedto produce a significant and measurable ef­fect In those places where It is used,

This is not, and should not be, simplyanother device for pumping additionalmoney Into the pUblio school' system. Weface educational needs that go far beyondthe range or the reach of this Act. But thespecific needs the Act addresses are Immedi­ate and acute. It represents a shift of priori­ties. It places a greater share of our resourcesbehind the goal of making the desegregationprocess work, and making it work now. Italso represents a measured step toward thelarger goal of extending the proven educa­tional benefits of integrated education to allchlIdren, wherever they live.

Properly used, this $1.5 billlon can repre­sent an enormous contribution to both qual­ity and equality of education In the UnitedStates: -

With this help, the process of endlng de

jure,segregation can be brought to a swift.completion ""itl1 minimum disruption to the'process of education. It is in the interest ofall of us-;-North, and South alike-to insurethat the desegregation process is carried outin a manner that raises the educationalstandards, of the affected schools.

Beyond this, our goal is a system in whicheducation throughout the nation is bothequal and excellent; and in Which racial bar­riers cease ,toexlst. This does not mean im­posing an arpitrary "racial balance" thrOugh­outthena~lon'sschoolsystems. But it shouldmean aiding 'and encouraging voluntary. ef­forts, bY,communltie!l which seek,t? promotea greater degree of racial integration, and to'undo the e,ducational effects of racial Isola~tion.

Nothing in this Act Is Intended either top~ish or to reward. Rather, it recognizesthat a time oftr~sitlpl'1,duriIigwhich .localdistricts, bring their" practices into accord'withnational policy,is a time when a specla-lpartnership is needed between the FederalGovernment and the districts most directlyaffected. It also recognizes that doing a betterjob of, overcoming the adverse educationaleffects of racial isolation, wherever it exists,benefits not only the community but thenation.

This legislative recommendation should beread in, the context of my comprehensive'pUblic statement of March 24 on school de­seg1'~gation.In that, I dealt with questions ofphilosophy and of policy. Here, I am dealingWith, ,two aspects of the process of, imple­mentation.: aiding the desegregation p~C?cessrequired by law, and supporting voluntarycommunity efforts to, extend the social andeducational benefits of interracial education.

The Issues involVed in desegregatingschools. reducing racial isolation and pro­Viding equal educational opportunity are notsimple. Many of the questions are profound,the factors complex, the legitimate consid­erations In conflict, ,and the answers elusive.Our continuing search, therefore, must benot for the perfect set of answers, but for themost nearly perfect and the most construc-tive., . ,

Few issues facing us as a nation are of suchtranscendent Importance: important becauseof the vital role that our public schools playin the nation's life and In its future; becausethe welfare of our children is at stake; be­cause our national conscience is at stake; andbecause it presents us a test of our capacityto 'live together in one nation, In brother­hood and understanding.

The tensions and difficulties of a time ofgreat' social change require us to take ac­tions that move beyond the daily , debate.This legislation Is a first major step in thatessential direction. .

The education of each of our children af­fects us all. Time lost in the educationalprocess may never be recOvered. I urge thatthis measure be acted on speedily, becausethe needs to which it is addressed areuniquely and compellingly needs of the pres­entmoment.

RICHARD NIXON.. THE WHITE HOUSE, May 21, 1970.

A Billto prOVide financial assistance to helpIIchOol districts to meet special problemsIncident to desegregation in elementaryand secondary schools, and to improve ed­ucation in racially impacted areas, and forother purposesBe it enacted by the Senate and House 01

Representatives of the United States ofAmerica, in Congress assembled, That thisAct may be cited as the "Emergency SchoolAid Act of 1970".

PURPOSESec. 2. The purpose of this Act Is to pro­

vide financial assistance-(a) to aid local educational agencies

throughout the Nation to meet the specialneeds incident to the elimination of racial

June 25, 1970

retary on the basis of the most recent avail-able cte,ta satisfactory to him. '

ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL AssisTANCE

Sec. 5. (a) The Secretary may provide' fI­nancialassistance (through grant or con­tract) pursuant to applications approvedunder section 7-

(1) to assist any local educational agencywhich is implementing a plan of desegrega­tion to meet the addi tlonal costs (as deter­mined under subsection (c) of implement­ing such plan or of carrying out specialprograms or projects designed to enhancethe possiblllties of successful desegregation,and to assist any such agency which has.within two years prior to its applicationhereunder, completed the implementationof such a plan to carry out such programsor projects;

(2) to assist any local educational agencyto meet the addltional costs of carrying out aplan to eliminate or reduce racial isolationin one or more of the racially isolated schools(as defined in section 9(g» in the schooldistrict of such agency, or to reduce thenumber of Ininority group children in suchschools, or to prevent racial Isolation reason­ably likely to occur (In the absence of as­sistance under this Act) in one or moreschools in such district which are not raciallyisolated but have a substantial enrollmentof minority group children; or

(3) to assist a local educational agency orother public or private agency. institution, ororganization (but only through contracts inthe case of a private agency, institution, ororganization other than a nonprofit one),to carry out inter-racial educational pro­grams or projects involving the joint par­ticipation of minority group and non-Ini­nority group children attending differentschools where such minority group childrenattend racially isolated schools in a schooldistrict in which the number of minoritygroup children in average daily membershipin the publlc schools, for the fiscal year pre­ceding the fiscal year for Which such asslst~

ance Is provided, is (A) at least 10,000 or(B) more than 50 percent of SUch averagedally membership of all children, in suchschools, except that if suc!:: agency demon-,strates that, in 'theca.se of some raciallyisolated children, proVision' for such pro­grams cannot practicably be made, then tocarry out unusually promising pilot or dem­onstration programs or prOjects to overcomethe adverse educational effects of racial iso-lation upon such children. ,', "

(b) In such cases where the Secretary findsthat it would more effectively carry out thepurposes of this Act, he may make grants toany publlc or nonprofit private agency, in­stitution. or organization (other than a localeducational agency), and contract with anypublic or private agency, institution, or orga­nization to carry out programs or projectsdesigned to support the development or im­plementation of a plan. program, or projectdescribed In clause (I) 01'(2) of ,section5(a) .

(c) The amount of financial assistance toa local educational agen!ly under this sectionmay not exceed those costs which. are deter­mined by the,secretary, in accordance withregulations prescribed by him, to result in anet Increase in the aggregate operating ex-'penditures of such agency for a fiscal year.

AUTHOIUZED ACTIVITIES

Sec. 6. Financial assistance under section 5shall be available for programs or projectsinvolving activities designed to carry out thepurposes of this Act, including-:--

(a) the pr.ovision of additional professionalor other staff members (Including staff mem­bers specially trained in problems incidentto ,desegregation or to the elimination, re­duction, or prevention, of, racial isolation)and the training and retraining of staff for ,s:uch schools;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -",SENATE(b) remedlal and, other. services ,to meet

the special ,needs of children in schoolsWhich are affected by a plan described inciause (1) or (2)"of section 5(a) or are ra­cially, isolated, 'including r.pecial services, forgifted and talented children in such schools;

(c) comprehensive guidance, counseling,and other personal services for pupils;

(d) development and employment of newinstructional techniques and materials de­signed to meet the needs of racially isolatedschool children;

(e) innovative inter-racial educationalprograms or projects involving the jointparticipation of minority group and non­minority group children attt:nding differentschools, including extra-curricular activitiesand cooperative exchange or other arrange­ments between schools within the same ordifferent school districts;

(f) repair or minor remodeling or altera­tion of eXisting school facillties (includingthe acquisition, installation, 1I1odernization,or replacement of equipment) and the leaseor purchase of mobile classroom units orother mobile educational faclllties;

(g) the provision of transportation serv­ices fOr pUblic school stUdents, except thatnothing in this Act shall be construed to re­quire, nor shall funds be expended to estab­lish or maintain, the transportation of stu­dents solely to achieve racial balance;

(h) community activities, including pUb­lic education efforts, in support of a plan,program, project, or other activity under thisAct:

(i) special administrative activities, suchas the rescheduling of stUdents, or teachers,or the provision of information to parentsand other members Of the general publiC, in­cident to the implementation of a plan de­scribed in clause (1) Or (2) of section 5(a);(J) planning and evaluation actiVities; and

(k) other specially deslged programs orprojects Which meet the purposes of this Act.

APPROVAL OF APPLiCATIONS

Sec. 7, (a) An application for assistanceunder this Act may be approved by the Secre­tary only if he determin~

(1) that such application(A) sets forth a plan Which is'sUfficiently

comprehensive to Offer reasonable assurancethat it will achieve one or more purposes forwhich grants may. be made under this Act;and '

(B) contains 'such other' information,terms, conditions, and assurances as the Sec­retary may require to carry out the purposesof this Act;

(2) 'that the State educational agencygov­ernlng the school district or school districtsin which the approved program or projectwill be carried out has been given reasonableopportunity to offer recoinmeniiatlonsto theapplicant and to submit cOmments to theSecretary;

(3) in the case of an application for as­sistance under clause (3) of section 5, thatthe program or project to be aSl;isted w1l1 in­volve an additional expenditure per pupil tobe served", determined' in accordance withregulations' prescribed by' tIle' Secretary, ofsUfilclentmagnit\ldeti>' pl'()v,idereasonableassurance that the 'desired educational Im­pactwiil be achieved and that funds underthis A,ctwill not be, dispersed in,'such a wayas to undermine theireffectlveness;

(4) that 'theapplicarit hasll.dopted effec­tive procedureS,induding provisions forsuch objective measurements of educationaland other change to' be effected by thisAct as ,t,he S~crlltarJmay require, for thecontinuingevalull:tion of programs or proj­ects ,under this Act, including their effec­tiveness in achievingclell.rly stated programgoals, their Impact on related programs andupon tl1e ,'c0l!ll!l'llnity 'served, ,an,d theirstructure and mechan1sm~'for'the' deliveryof services and including, Where appropriate,

APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 3. (a) There are authorized to be ap­propriated for carrying out this Act not inexcess of $500,000,000 for the fiscal year end­ing June, 30, 1971 and not in excess of$1,000,000.000 for the succeeding fiscal year.

(b) Funds so appropriated shall remainavailable for obligation for one fiscal yearbeyond that for which they are appropriated.

ALLOTMENTS AMONG STATES

Sec. 4. (a) From the sums appropriatedpursuant to section 3 for carrying out thisAct for any fiscal year. the Secretary shallallot an amount equal to two-thirds thereofamong the states by alloting to each State$100,000 plUS an amount which bears thesame ratio to the balance of such two-thirdsof such sums as the adjusted number ofminority group children (as defined in sub­section (c» in the State bears to the ad­justed number of minority group children inall of the States. The remainder of suchsums may be expended by the' Secretary ashe may find necessary or appropriate forgrants or contracts to carry out the purposesof this Act.

(b) The amount by which any allotmentto a" State for a fiscal year under sub­section (a) exceeds the amount Which theSecretary determines will be required forsuch fiscal year for programs or projectswithin such State which meet the require­ments for approval of applications under thisAct shall be available for reallotment fromtime to time, on such dates during suchyear as the secretary may fix by regulation,to other States in proportion to the originalallotments' to such States under subsection(a) for that year but with such proportionateamount for any of such other States beingreduced to the extent it exceeds the sum theSecretary estimates such State needs and willbe able to use for such year; and the totalof such reductions shall, be similarly real­lotted among the States whose proportionateamounts were not so reduced. Any amountsreallotted to a State;pnder this subsectionduring a fiscal year shall be deemed part ofits allotment under subsection (a) for suchyear. ,

(c) For' the purpose of this section, theterm "adjusted number of minority groupchildren" for any State means a numberequal to the sum of (1) the number of mi­nority group children (as defined in section9(d) )eurolled in public schools in local edu­cational agencies in such State which arecarrying out a plan of desegregation (A)pursuant to a final order of a United Statescourt, issued within a period not to exceedthe two fiscal years preceding the fiscal yearfor which the allotment under this section isto be made, or (B) pursuant to a determina­tion of the Secretary, made' within suchperiod, that such plan is adequate to meetthe requirements of title VI of the CivilRights Act; and (2) the number of minoritygroup children enrolled in public schools inlocal educational agencies in a State. Theadjusted number of minority group childrenin each State shall be determined by the Sec-

segregation and discri~inatlon among ~:dents and faculty in elementary andondarY schools;' " '

b to encourage the voluntarY,ellmlna-( ) ed tion or prevention of racial iso­

:~~:;nrinu~ch~IS with substantial propor­tions of Ininority group students In order toimprove the quality of education availableto such students; and

(c) to aid children in elementary and sec­ondary schools to overcome the educationaldisadvantages of racial isolation by assist­ing in a concentrated manner, school dis­tric'ts with high proportions of minoritygroup students to carry out inter-racial edu­cational programs and other programs to im­prove the quality of their educational serv­ices.

21470

June 25,1970 CONGRESSIONAL ,RECORD -" SENATE 21471

comparisons witl:\< proper control' groupscomposed of persons who have not, partlcl­

, pated" in such. programs; and(5), tha~ ,the, applicant is not reasonably

able to provide, out of non-Federal sources,the' assistan{le for which the application ismade.

():» In the case ot .an appUca.tion by acombinati()n of looal, educatiOnal agencies forjointly carrying out a program or, projectunder this Act, at least one such., agencyshall ,be atf agencY'd~SCrlbed In,sectlon 5and any oneorIIlore~tlchagenclesjoiningIn such application may. be authorized to ad­minister stich program or project.

ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIESSec. 8. (a) The Secretary may, from time

to time, set, d<)-tes by which applications forgrants under. this Act shall be filed andmay prescribe an order of priOrity to befollowed In approVing such applications. Anyorder of priority so perscrlbed may give spe­cial weight to one or more categories ofapplicants or to one or D:1ore, categories ofprograms or projects' or to applicants 'Whichfall Within more than one category of need.

(b) In determining whether to makeany grant under section 50r in fixing theamount thereof, the Secretary shall takeinto account such criteria as he deems per-tinent, Including.,...... ,

(1) the relative need for assistance, tak­Ing into account such factors as the extentof racial isolation In the school district tobe served and the degree to which measur­able deficiencies in the quality of public edu­cation afforded In such school district ex­ceed those of other School districts;

(2) the relative promise which the programor project affords in carrying out the pur­poses of this Act;

(3) the degree to Which the program orproject Is likely to effect a decrease In racialIsolation In racially isolated schools; and

(4) the amount a"allable for assistance Inthe State under this Act in relation to theapplications pending before him.

DEFINITIONSSec. 9., As used in this Act, except when

otherwise specified---(a) The term "eqUipment" InclUdes ma­

chinery, utilities, and built-In eqUipmentand any necessary enclosures or structuresto house them; and Includes all other Itemsnecessary for the provision of educationalserVices, such' as Instructional eqUipmentand necessary furniture, printed, published,and audio-visual Instructional materials,and other related material;

(b) The term "gifted and talented chil­dren" means, in accordance with objectivecriteria prescribed by the Secretary, childrenwho have outstanding Intellectual ability orcreative talent.

(c) The term "local educational agency"means a public board of education or otherpUblic authority legally constituted withina State for either administrative control, ordirection, of, pUblic elementary or second­ary schools In a city, county, township, schooldistrict, or other political subdivision of aState, or such combination of school districtsor counties as are recognized In a State asan administrative agency for Its public ele­mentary or secondary schools, or a combina­tion of local educational agencies; and in­cludes any other pUblic institution or agencyhaving administrative control and directionof a public elementary or secondary school.

(d) The term "minority group children"means children, aged five to seventeen, in­clusive, who are of Negro, American Indian,MeXican, or Puerto Rican origin or ancestry.

(e) The term "nonprofit" as applied toan agency, organization, or institution meansan agency, organization pr institution ownedor operated by one or more nonprofit cor­poratlonsor assoolatlons no part of the netearnings of which Inures" or may lll\Vfully

Inure, to the benefit of any private share­holder or individual;

(f) "The term "plan of desegregation"means a plan which ha:: been approved bythe Secretary as adequate under title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act for the desegregation ofracially segregated stUdents or faCUlty inelementary and secondary schools or Whichhas been undertaken pursuant to a finalorder of a court of the United States rEl­q\llring such desegregation or otherwise re­quiring the elimination of racial discrimina­tion In an elementary and secondary' schoolsystem.

(g) The terms "racially isolated school"and "racial isolation" in reference to 'a schoolmean a school and condition, respectively,in which minority group children constitutemore than 50 percent of the average dailymembership of a school.

(h) The terms "elementary and secondaryschool" and "school" mean a school whichprovides elementary or secondary education,as determined under State law, except thatIt does not Include any education provIdedbeyond grade 12.

(I) The term "Secretary" means the Sec­retary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

(j) The term "State" means one of thefifty States or the DistrIct of Columbia.

(k) The term "State educational agency"means the State board of education or otheragency or officer primarily responsible for theState supervision' of public elementary andsecondary schools, or, If there is no suchofficer or agency, an officer or agency desIg­nated by the Governor or by State law forthis purpose;

EVALUATIONSec. 10. Such portion as the Secretary may

determine, but not more than 1 per centum,of any appropriation under this Act for anyfiscal year shall be available to him forevaluation (directly or by grants or con­tracts) of the program authorized by thisAct, and In the case of allotments fromany such appropriation, the amount avail­able for allotment shall be reduced accord­Ingly.

JOINT FUNDINGsec. 11. Pursuant to regUlations prescribed

by the President, where funds are advancedby the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, and one or more other Federalagencies, for any project or activity fundedin whole or in part under this Act, anyoneFederal agency may be designated to actfor all In administering the funds advanced.In such cases, any such agency may waiveany technical grant or contract requirement(as defined by regUlations) which is Incon­sistent with the similar reqUirements ofthe administering agency or Which the ad­ministering agency does not Impose.

REPORTSSec. 12. The Secretary shall Include In his

annual report to the Congress a full reportas to the administration of this Act and theeffectiveness of programs or projects there­under.

GENERAL PROVISIONSSec. 13. (a) The provisions of subpart 2 Of

part B and part C of the General EducationProvisions Act (title IV of Public Law 247(Ninetieth Congress) as amended by title IVof Public Law 230 (Ninety-first Congress»shall apply to the program of Federal as­sistance authorized under this Act as if suchprogram were an applicable program undersuch General Education PrOVisions Act, andthe Secretary shall have the authority vestedin the Commissioner of Education by suchsubpart and such part with respect to suchprogram.

(b) Section 422 of such General EducationProvisions Act is amended by inserting "theEmergency School Aid Act of 1970;" after"the International Education Act Of 1966;".

LETTER FROM SENATOR NELSON PROPOSINGLANGUAGE CHANGES

Senator, BYRD. Thank you, secretary Vene­man, Dr. Allen, and gentlemen.

I have received a letter from Senator Nel­son expressing some concern on this request.It wlll be placed In the record at this point.

(The letter follows:)DEAR BOB: It has come to my attention that

the Administration has submitted a requestfor a supplemental· appropriation of $150,­000,000 for the purpose of providing emer­gency assistance to desegregating school dis­tricts, and that this request Is now beforeyour Deficiencies and Supplemental Appro­priations Subcommittee in connection withthe Second Supplemental Appropriations forfiscal year 1970 (H.R. 17399).

In submitting the appropriations requestIn his letter of May 25, the President at­tached a memorandum from Director of theBudget Robert Mayo. That memorandummakes clear that of the total $150,000,000requested, $100,000 would be appropriatedunder the authority of title II of the Eco­nomic Opportunity Act. The appropriationslanguage requested In that memorandumcontains the following proviso:

"Provided, That funds appropriated tocarry out programs under title II of theEconomic Opportunity Act of 1964 shall notbe subject to those provisions of the Eco­nomic Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and1969 that set mandatory funding levels."

The above-quoted language clearly con­stitutes general legislation in an appropria­tions bill and would be subject to a point oforder on the Senate floor on that basis.

I am chairman of the Subcommittee onEmployment, Manpower and Poverty of theLabor and Public Welfare COmmittee. MySubcommittee has legislative responsib11ltyfor the Economic Opportunity Act. Since thelanguage requested by the Administration at-

, tempts to remove the earmarking provisionsWhich we Included in the Economic Oppor­tunity Amendments of 1969 (and even at­tempts to do the same for the Amendmentsof 1967), I must strongly object to Inclusionof the above-quoted proviso in the appro­priations language.

You wlll recall that, without my knowledgeor that of Congressman Carl Perkins, thechairman of the House Education and LaborCommittee, the Administration secured theInclusion of language In the conference re­port on the regular HEW-Labor-OEO Appro­priations blll which, in the relevant portion,was Identical to that set forth In the above­quoted proviso. In the Christmas rush theoffending language did not come to the at­tention of Congressman Perkins before theHouse passed that conference report. How­ever, I learned of the language before theconference report was brought up in theSenate and, although it was too late to raisea point of order against the language sincethe conference report had already passed theHouse, I nevertheless did make a motionwhich carried on a roll-call vote (With yoursupport) that the polnt-of-order languagebe sent back to the House for correction. TheHouse concurred In my Senate amendmentand the blll that finally went to the Presi­dent did not contain any such polnt-of­language.

It should be noted that the prOViso re­quested by the Administration is, by its terms,not even limited to the pending $100,000,000supplemental for the Economic OpportunityAct. It reads: "PrOVided, That funds appro­priated to carry out title II" (the languagedoes not even say: "such funds" or "fundsappropriated In this Act"). Since $1,948,000,­000 was appropriated for the Economic Op­portunity Act In the regUlar appropriationsbill, of which over half is available for titleII of such Act, the Administration seems tobe trying once again to get rid of earmark­ing--or most of the earmarking contained inthe authorizatIon bill.

21472 :CONGRESSIONALRECORD ':"""'SENATE 'June 25, 1970

"I recognize tlirt In appropriating a supple­mental of $100.000.000 for the specIfic pur­pose'requested-'assistlng schoor dIstrIcts Inthe process of desegregatIon---B. lImitatIon tothat speCific purpose may be desIrable. AprovIso phrased as B. lImitatIon, in contrastwith the general legIslative language the Ad­ministration requested. would, of course. bewithin the rules and not SUbject to B. pointof order. .

Consistent with the rules. the sectIon of theauthorizIng legIslation which sets forth the

.earmarking of funds, begins wIth the phrase:"NotwithstandIng a.ny other provision of law.

'unless expressly in limitation of the provi­sions of thIs sectIon" (sec. 102 (b) of theEconomic OpportunIty Amendments of 1969,P.l.. 91-177).. I have therefore had counsel draft suItablelanguage for your consideration to make clearthat rio part of the $100,000,000 appropriatedunder title II of the Economic OpportunityAct shall be included In the earmarked allo­catIons under section 102 (b) of the author­

·IzatIon legislatIon. The suggested languagefollows:

"Provided, That $100,000,000 of such amountIs approprIated for such purpose' under titleII of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964:Provicled further, That, In limItation of theprovIsions of section 102 (b) of the EconomicOpportunity Amendments of 1969, no part ofsuch amount shall be Included as part ofthe amounts approprIated for the purpose of

.determining allocatIons for each purpose set'forth In clauses (1) through (8) of suchsection 102(b)."

I appreciate your cooperation, both on theAppropriations Committee and In the Senateleadership, In seeking to work out problemsbetween the approprIations and legislativecommittees.

Sincerely yours,GAYLORD NELSON,

Cha.irman,' Se1late Subcommittee on Em­ployment, Manpower and Poverty.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thinkthat this represents a' laudable andprovident way iIi' which to handle thematter,. As I said, we all understand thata large part of the funds, if appropriated,·will go to districts in the 17 Southern andborder States which are under orders todesegregate or are imminently under or­ders within the recent past to desegre­gate.

I think that in terms of the publicpolicy of America, this is the most directway to deal with the situation, muchmore direct and much more sensiblethan the degree of time and energywhich we devote to deciding who is rightand, who is wrong. about whether' thereis more or less actual racial isolation orracial iInbalance, or de facto segregationin other parts of the country than il­legal segregation as produced in these17 States.

Coming as I do from one of the largeStates, and one of the great Cities ofAmerica which is constantly made theyardstick in this kipd of debate, I favorstrongly the ultimate that we canachieve practicably in progress in termsof equal educational opportunity inStates where .by tradition and the social

· order this hasbe~llthe biggest problelll'· . I do not care ,hQW invidious the Com­parison becomes thereafter., It may be­come more inVidious than it is now. Istill want to see a section of the countrybrought along into a field which is re­sponsive to thedeep feelings of many mil­lions of Americans at the earliest possibletime. " ".

'My willingness to sponsor this amend­ment, when I was asked to do so by theadministration, was sparked by my deepfeeling and conviction that progress ingiven areas in this particular area, inthe southern part of the country, isbound to be beneficial and helpful to thewhole Nation in terms of the future, interms of morality, and in terms of thepublic tranquility, as well as in the termsof the example which it can set to every­one else in the country.

I would rather emphasize the posi­tive than spend our lives debating thenegative. Therefore, this makes theseresources available in a way most help­ful for the purposes Which I feel so deep­ly and which I believe most of the coun­try feel so very deeply as well.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. onequestion, while it 18 at the forefront.To whom will this money be paid? WillHEW pay this money directly to the lo­cal school district, or will it be paid tothe State department of education?

Mr. JAVITS. I understand that itmoves to the local educational agency.school district.

Mr. STENNIS. Directly?Mr. JAVITS. That is right. ,That is

why I pointed out that there is no allo­cation formula. The provisos do not ap­ply on any formula basis. This is a mat­ter of assisting directly at the point ofthe hottest contact, as it were-to thelocal educational agency.

Mr. STENNIS. Did the Senator explainin' his remarks why there were no hear­ings? This money is based directly onthe Pre.sident's recom'mendations thatcame in,' as I recall, about the middle ofApril. 1 am advised by the Senator fromRhode Island that some hearings, I be­lieve he said two sittings. have been heldwith reference to the authorization forthe second instrument and perhaps thethird one, too. but no finalization hasbeen added. There has been a bill intro­duced, too, that sets out certain defini­tions. Why was no effort made, if theSenator knows, to hO:(,hearings, get outsome kind of direct authorization espe­cially for this type of money? I was look­ing around, Mr. President, for the Sena­tor from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL) whois chairman of that subcommittee. Iwould ask him if he were here.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President. the hear­ings on the administration bill are actu­ally being held now by the EducationSubcommittee, of which I ama mem­ber-indeed, I am the ranking 'memberof the Labor Committee of which thatsubcommittee is a part.

Undel' the chairmanship of the Sena­tor from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL), wehave received a considerable amount oftestimony already, which can very ma­terially support the very, amendment,which'is pending before the senate.

I would be pleaSed, if the Senator sodesires, to incorporate suchtestlrnony aswe have alrer.dy received-c:..which is con-siderable, in the'REcoRD. ,,'

.I have already incorporated the hear­ings held before t:le Committee on Ap­propriations. through its SupplementalAppropriations Subcommittee. Thosehearings are already n,ow in the record.

. They occurred at two hearings, at one

of which' Under Secretary Venemantestified. . , ,.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, my ques­tion was why were the hearings not heldand a. bill brought before the Senate tocover this first increment of $150 millionso that there would be some kind of pro­cedural requirements. some kind of defi­nitions. and all the basis upon which theaward was to be made?

I have just glanced at the bill thathas been introduced on the second in­crement that speaks of those schools withracially isolated conditions that would re­ceive this money.

First it talks about the segregatedschools that are being desegregated. Iknow what that means in the South. ButI did not know how that applied to theNorth because the North does not haveany, unlawful segregation there, as theSenator interprets it.

So I judge that is caused by the raciallyisolated areas, or words like that, thatapply to schools outside of the South.

Why can we not have some guidelinesor conditions or at least minimum re­quirements so that the administrator cango by them and we can go by them in ourvoting. .

Is there any reason why that shouldnot apply to the $150 million?

Mr.JAVITS. Mr. President, the billwhich I introduced is not the authorityfor this $150 million, and therefore nosuch claim is made. And I guess that Iam the best one to speak on it, as I amthe sponsor of the bill fOJ.: the adminis­tration.

'l:'he time did not allow any action onthat bill or any justificaiton under thatbill. And none is sought.

So, I refer the Senator to page 741 ofthe hearings on ,the supplemental beforethe Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if theSenator would yield, would he give methe number of that bill ?

Mr. JAVITS. It is H.R. 17399. Thatis the supplemehtal •appropriations bill,the one we considere,don Monday.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I amtalking about the JavitS bill for the sec­ond increment.

Mr.JAVITS. It is right here. It isS. 3883. It was introduced as recentlyas May 26, 1970. That is why ,1 say whatI, do about, the time factor.

I would like to .point out that the ad­ministration in ,respect of the hearingson the supplemental at page 741 of thetestimony ,presented "basic policies foragministering.theemergehcy schoolsystems appropriations ,of $150 millionnow underpreIlminaJ,'Y consideration by

..the HEW." It is that memorandum whichspelied out what was intendedto be donewith the money.

Ihavealready explalried the Ituthoriz­'ingof the {l,uthoritiesrespecting au­thorization,' ali!i,it,was rill~,de'verY clearbyt;he testimony'thatthis,would beusedeSsEmtiaU,yin l:espect of .distric,ts whichwere qnderordert<:t:desegr(')gateor hadverY recently desegregated pursuant toorder.

There was no"crelevancebetween thisand, the matter 'of racial", irribaJal1ce orracial isolationism; , . .

Mr. STENNIS: Mr. iPresident.I was

'June 25, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL: RECORD~ SENATE 21473merely" .ilIustratiijg that the s~ond ill­crement'ill' whiclf< thaareas outside' theSouth are to share does contain thecohLditions~Un.derwhichitistobeused.How­ever, in this particular one,. there are notany kind qf limitation!; or minimum re­quire~entsor anything at all th~t a Sell­ator must'gobyiilvoting, aSI see it., '

With alldtie 'deferehce, I think itnimins that the HEW could do what itpleased. . '. . ,,"

Mr.. JAVITS.'Mr.: President,' may Ipoint out, that th,e justification is a mat­ter of record. It even 'goes into the detailof the people who will be used,their posi­tion slots;'arid: their salaries. It is verydetailed.' ,".' . ,",

Might I point out, too, that the Senatorfrom Mississippi is. even more experi­enced a legislator than I am. And so heknows very well that my. bill will lookvery little like the one I have introducedwhen it finally becomes authorizationfor any appropriation.

I do not think it is relevant to importinto this particular appropriation any­thing except that this is a general char­acterization of the overall program ofthe President;' And we must state, veryproperly, that this $150 million will movealong that road and give us a pretty goodidea as to what' they are really doingand how well they are likely to adminis­ter a very much larger bill if we let themhave it. .I. i

For that reason, I consider it to be anadded benefit that we get out of actingat this time.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen­ator from New York is a master ofspeech. However, he does not specifyhow this money will be used.

The Senator referred to me as an ex­perienced legislator. He is far better andmore experienced than I. However, Ibelieve Ido have.moreexpeJ:ience ,Withreference to this process of the. desegre­gation of schools, because they 'did de­segregate Mississippi, They do not havethat experience in New York.

So we know how. that works. Theyhold the money bag and· tell someonewhat he must do and he has to do it.

Mr. JAVITS. Wilt'the Senator allowme to interrupt? One does riot have todo it if he does not want to. He does nothave to do a thing. One can be just astight and hardnosed as he likes.

Mr. STENNIS. That is notan answer,though, to providing for the improve­ment of education.'

Mr. JAVITS. I hope so.Mr. STENNIS. We are entitled to know

when we have. to deal with HEW andwhen we have to' deal with the Depart­mentof Justice. 'And now we have todeal with both of them. I have beentalking to them both today about cases.

I just find here that we do not havethese fundamental principles involved.

I want to say this about this matter,that in 'spite of the Senator's diligentwork, it is subject to a. point of order,and. at the right time I would like tomake that point'of order. However, theSenator from Louisiana is on his feetand the Senator from Alabama is also.I will not ask any more questions at thistime. " , ,c' ,. ,

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, Willthe Senator from New York tell US where

he obtains the,authority for the appro­priation of $150 million.T, Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President,l will readthe authority to the Senator. The au­thority is found at page 1 of my amend­ment, beginning at line 3 and goingover to' page' 2 where it ends in' themiddle of line 2, and it is composed ofthe following--

Mr. ELLENDER. Under the law citedby the Senator in his 'amendment, forwhat use under that law can this moneybe used?

Ml'.JAVITS. The money will be used inaccordance with the authority. It cannotbe used outside the authorities. I will beglad to read to the Senator the specifica.uthorities in each law.

Mr. ELLENDER. I have that before me.Mr. JAVITS. That is all the money can

be used for.Mr. ELLENDER. I wish to read some

language to the Senator. The law' pro­vides for community development pro-grams. ', Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ELLENDER. Very well. EconomicOpportunity Act of 1964, title 2. That iswhat the Senator is depending on?

Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is correct.Mr. ELLENDER. Urban and rural com­

munity action programs.This title proposes to help focus avail­

able local, State, private, and Federal re­sources,upon the goal of enabling low­income families and low-income indi­viduals of all ages in rural and urbanareas to obtain the schooling, knowledge,motivation. Privately funded under thisauthority are Headstart and FollowThrough. among others.

Is that what this money is to be usedfor?

Mr. JAVITS. It will be used to theextent the authorization is available forthose purposes.

The Senator, I think, read a digest.I am going to read the law. I know. Thatis a digest.

I am going to read tile law to the Sen­ator. The digest is not as good as thelaw. The Senator will find there is veryample room in this law for the purposeof expending $100 million, which is un­appropriated, for aid and for assistancein ways which will aid the desegregationprocess.

Mr. ELLENDER. But that is not thepurpose for which the law the Senatorcited was placed on the statute books.

Mr. JAVITS. There are many lawswhich may have a different motivation,but the courts have held since I was aboy that the law means what it saysregardless of our motives when it wasplaced on the books. This is one of thoselaws. I refer the Senator to the au­thorities.

I am now going to read section 102(b),authorization for appropriations in Pub­lic Law 91-177. That section reads asfollows:

NotWithstanding any other provision oflaw, unless expressly in limitation of theprovisions of this section, of the amountsappropriated pursuant to subsection (a) ofthis section , • ., the Director shall for eachfiscal year" reserve and make available not,less than • • •

So much money-

for the, purpose of local initiative programsauthorized under section 221' of' the Eco­Ilomic Opportunity Act of 1964 alld the re­mainder of such amount shall be_ allocated... ". .. ..

There is a long list of allocations re­lating to work training programs, specialimpact programs, special work and careerdevelopment programs, Head Start, Fol­low Through, comprehensive health,emergency food and· medical services,family planning, senior opportunities andservices, rural loans, migrant and sea­sonal farmworkers, and so forth."

Mr. ELLENDER. Those are the pur­poses for which this money shall be used,and not to desegregate the schools.

Mr; JAVITS.The Senator is quitewrong, for this reason. If the purposeswhich are authorized promote the de­segregation process, then the Departmentwill be able to use those resources forthose purposes which will promote thedesegregation process and the Depart­ment fully intends to do that and feelsthere is ample latitUde under the au­thorization for that purpose.

That is why it invoked that very sec­tion; it invoked others as well, but itinvoked that section.

Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand thePresident's message asking that thismoney be appropriated, he had in mindthe bill that was going to be enacted andnot existing law,

I will read from the President's mes­sage.

Mr. JAVITS. What date is ft?Mr. ELLENDER. The President's mes-

sage asked for $150 million.Mr. JAVITS. That was in May.Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, it was May 25;Mr. JAVITS. Very well.Mr. ELLENDER. This message is based

on abilIto be enacted-the bill that theSenator referred to awhile ago, which heis now handling for the purpose of hold­ing hearings-and not the law fromwhich he quoted.

I read from the President's message:I ask Congress to consider a proposed sup­

plemental authorization for $150 million inbUdget authority. These funds are needed toprovide immediate assistance to school dis­tricts Which must desegregate by - the fallof 1970. These desegregating districts faceurgent needs-

It is my understanding, and I am surethe understanding of the Senator fromMississippi that the sum of $150 millionis to be made available and to be spentunder the provisions of a bill that theSenate will consider and not under exist­inglaw.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Sena­tor having invoked an authority can­not defy its plain words. The Senatorgave as his authority the letter the Presi­dent dated May 25, 1970. That letterstates "Under existing statutory author­ity" and this is "existing statutory au­thority" and the President knew verywell on May 25 when he sent us that let­ter that there was no other statutoryauthority, under his ideas, for $155 bil­lion, except the' existing ones, and theexisting ones according. t<l his own de­partment and tHe advice he got, includ­ing the one to which I referred. title2(b) of the Economic Opportunity Actof 1964.

21474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -. SENATE

The department itself feels as follows:That the broad authority of title 2(b)

to establish sound Community actionprograms can be used to fund amongothers, the following kinds of educa­tional activities:

First. Minor remodeling .of schoolfacilities to improve the quality of physi­cal plant;

Second. Parent or community orga­nizations to assist in developing com­munity support for educational change;

Third. Administrative costs incidentto reorganization of school systems;

Fourth. Remedial materials, specialpersonnel and health and nutrition serv­ices for disadvantaged children;

Fifth. Paraprofessional assistance forclassroom teachers.

So they invoke this because this is thekind of things they believe will assist inthe educational process; they invoke thisas the President said, as existing statu­tory authority.

Mr. ELLENDER. I have no quarrel ifthe money is used for that purpose.

Mr. JAVITS. It cannot be used for any­thing else. Incidentally, I hope the Sena­tor heard me. If not, I would like forhim to read this letter from the depart­ment. A part from the letter, the amend­ment I read begins on line 2, page 1:

For assistance to desegregating local edu­cational agencies as provlded-

So the money is confined to purposesconsistent with the authorization and Ihave specified those, for the purpose ofassistance to desegregating local educa­tional agencies.

This will not be used for broad scaleantipoverty programs because that wouldbe contrary to the law as I have read it.

Would the Senator read this letterfrom Secretary Veneman. He might findit useful.

Mr. ELLENDER. Has the Senatorfinished?

Mr. JAVITS. I will yield again if theSenator wishes.

Mr. ELLENDER. Why is it that in thethird paragraph of the President's mes­sage it is stated:

Another $350 million wlll be requested forfiscal year 1971 upon enactment of the pro­posed Emergency School Act of 1970, whichI described In my message to the Congressof May 21, 1970?

That is the act or bill that the Sena­tor will hold hearings on.

Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is exactlyright. We are holding them.

Mr. ELLENDER. Will not $150 mil­lion be used in the same manner as isproposed in the legislation now underconsideration?

Mr. JAVITS. Not necessarily, becauseI do not know what that act will saywhen we get through. The fact is we donot pave any such act on the books.PresIdents can ask and they do ask butwe dispose.

I think the general idea around hereas I feel the sentiment of the Senate'is that we would like to see what theydo with the money and how they use itbefore we get into a big-scale operation,and even before we finalize the authori­zation bill on which we are holdinghearings.

So I will say to the Senator from Loui­siana that I personally consider, asidefrom the fact that it is the general roadthe President wants us to travel, that this$150 million sui generis is not necessarilybased on the administration bill, becausewe do not know what is going to happento that bill. We may change our minds.This is based on the outline of whatthey wish to do as laid down before theAppropriations Committee, which I amsure the Senator, who is very diligent,has gone over very carefully, and it isbased on the authorities which are con­tained, as the President has said, in exist­ing law.

Mr. ELLENDER. The bill the Presidentsent up, and on which hearings will soonbeheld--

Mr. JAVITS. They are being held.Mr. ELLENDER. Very well. What is

the purpose of that act? Can the Senatortell us?

Mr. JAVITS. The purpose of the act isto authorize $1.5 billion-if we pass thisamendment it will be $1.350 billion-forthe purpose of assisting in the desegrega­tion--

Mr. ELLENDER. Right.Mr. JAVITS. No; not yet. In both il­

legal and de facto segregation in schooldistricts all over the United States.

The purpose of this particular $150million is to zero in on de jure segrega­tion problems of school districts whichhave de jure school desegration situa­tions and which have been ordered todesegregate, or which have recentlydesegregated pursuant to order or agree­ment of Government departments.

It is a rather different situation.That would be inclUded in the larger

bill, but the larger bill would go to abroader area and in a different direction,in addition to which, I do not know whatis going to happen to it.

The case I make before the Senate isthat the President asks us to appropriate10 percent of what he thinks the wholeprogram requires, for its general pur­pose or its general thrust, but asks forauthority so we can get to working onthe problem as quickly as possible and,second, the experience that it will givein a very practical way.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I sim­ply wanted to try to demonstrate to mygood friend from New York that theprograms to which the money he is nowasking for would go are community de­velopment programs and personal devel­opment programs, but not to desegregate,as is being contended for by the Senator.

I do not think it was ever contemplated,or intended iInderthe law that the Sen­ator is relying upon for authorization,that the money would be used for thepurposes he is now referring to.

There is no doubt that the Presidenthad in mind that the $150 million wasgoing to be used for the same purposesthat the proposed bill the Senator ishandling will provide, and not under thelaws that the Senator cited in his amend­ment.

In asking for an expenditure of $1.5billion heretofore referred to, the Presi­dent had no intention of using $150 mil­lion of that sum to enforce de jure segre­gation and $1.35 billion to enforce de

jure and de ~actocsegregation,as is con­tendecl. by the senior ~enator from NewYork. . • .

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, in the firstplace, every lawyer finds. authority wherehe can. Years ago, when I was very activein the practice of law, I used to have aclient who made many millions of dollars,although he was hardly literate. He hada great expression. His expression was,"There's always a right way to do right:'So every lawyer, naturally, will seek au­thority where he can find it, and the fel­lows who drafted the law or wrote thedecisions may never have dreamed thatthe authority would be extended to thegiven purpose for which it was properlyinvoked.

But we do not go that far here. The factis that one of the aims of the EconomicOportunity Act is to afford better educa­tional opportunity; that the whole pointabout desegregation is that it is sup­posed to offer better educational oppor­tunity in the EconoInic Opportunity Act,for example, section 22l(a) , refers toauthority to grant financial assistance inorder to attain an adequate education.

In addition, the utilization of this par­ticular authority is locked in by the wordsof the amendment which limit it to as­sistance "for a given purpose and by therepresentation of the administration asto precisely the way in which the author­ity admittedly existing in title n-B of theEconomic Opportunity Act, if used-andthey must use it only that way-.,..will con­tribute to the desegregation of localschool districts.

I specified those, and I will repeatthem:

(1) Minor remodeling of school facilitiesto Improve the quality of phySical plant;

(2) Parent or community organizations toassist in developing community support foreducational change;

(3) Administrative cOl;ts incident to reor­ganization" of school systems; .

(4) Reme<Ual materlals,speclal personneland health llnd nutrition services for disad­vantaged children;

(5) Paraprofessional assistance for class­room teachers.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President,will theSenator yield tome for a brief ques­tion?

Mr. JAVITS. Certainly.Mr. STENNIS. The' Senator has de­

veloped his. argument, and I. would liketo call the amendment to the attentionof the Presiding Officer.

My first question is. that this is ap­propriation bill language, of course. Thefirst clause, stating the purpose, states,"for assistance. to desegregating localeducational agencies"-in other words,that is the purpose of the money thatcomes at the last---and the money re­fers to these four or five different au­thorization acts. Is that not correct,Senator?

Mr.JAVITS.Thatis correct.Mr. STENNIS. I think the Senator

has explained his .amendment, .and wehave had some colloquy. Will the Senatoryield for the purpose of testing this lan­guage;to make a point of order?

Mr. JAVITS. Certainly.Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.

That will get us down--

CONGRESSIONAL'RECORD-' SENA'tE 21475

ca~~.:,; ...J.t.~.tI.iss.';i..·TgRt.a..'.~j..v... W,N..··~.t us.• ·.. ·. down.to ..' usualfor authority. UIider the Economic. . • . Opportunity Act; to be utilized for ap-

, Mr. STENNIS. tcalltheChair's atten- . propriations in an education bill. Thetion tothe.wordirigOf th~ amendment, ' precedent, Mr. President, is the very sameand I make ,thfilPoint of order that this'" appropriation, the .Health, Education,amendmentconstituteslegislation'onan and Welfare appropriation for fiscal 1969appropril'l.tion bill, and is therefore out which became Public Law 90-557, which~f~:~~rfor .tlJ.~~OIl~\Vil1~re~sons,~mong included an appropriation fOr the Office

of Education under the heading "HigherThe wordingofthe amendment is that Educational Activities," and the appro­

it is for assistance to del;egregating local priation .. language was "and for grantseducational agencies as provided under under part (c) qf title 10f the Economicpart D, and so forth, and goes on to name Opportunity Act of 1964,as amended."the sum of $150 million. It points out on In addition, Mr. President, educationits face that it has taken this authority is clearly specified as one of a wide va­from. Tom;' Dick, i and· Harry, one au- riety of governmental activities sup­thorization bill after another. There is ported under the Economic Opportunityno common caUSe or common theme Act; and, indeed, it is widely consideredamong those different authorizations., that appropriations for the Office of

If 1 interpret itcorrectly,I notice one Economic Opportunity are, among otheris the Cooperative Research Act. As' I things, directly related to children andremember, that is in the agriculture ap- to the education of children.propriation bill. I believe there is a title Finally, Mr. President, the only thingin the agriculture appropriation bill for that the pUrPort of this amendment hasthe Cooperative Research Act..There may to demonstrate to the Senate in my judg­be another one. ment, is that there are authorizations

But anyway, one is title IV of the Civil under existing statutes-incidentally,Rights Act. Then title y of. the Higher these are the words of the President­Education Act, the Elementary and Sec- which cover activities that are germaneondary Education Act of 1965,. andso on to the pUrPose of the appropriation, anddown the line to titleII of the .Economic that there remain authorizations forOppor.tunity Act 01'. 1964,. ali;, amended.. which there has not been appropriations

My point, Mr: President, is, that ac- . within those acts.tually there I~n()authorization'yetfor Mr. President, it seems to me thatthe purpose that is stated .at the. begill- we have demonstrated that fully with re­ning of thiS. amendment. It,is a"ne\v pro- spect to the authorities which we havegram, for, a neW' purpose. The primary cited in the amendment-that is, thepUrPose here is to assist, as I understand authorization authorities for the $150it, in the desegregating of schools. They million-includillg the reference to thego to four or five differ.ent kinds of.a.cts Economic Opportunity Act, where I havehere-and I. am. going to be brief-to specified in the debate the precise activi­find theauthoritY and find the conditions ties authorized under the Economic Op­under whiCh the In0ney could be spent. portunity Act directly contributing to the

The applicant would hardly know how pUrPose of this appropriation.to make an' application and prove his For all of those reasons, Mr. Presi­case. An administrator, would hardly dent, I believe that the point of orderknow how to pass on the authority, if it is not well taken. .can be ca~ledauthority. It just does not Mr. COTTON. Mr. President--fit the purposes of tlie amendInent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair

This is just lock, stock, and barrel a will hear the Senator from New Hamp­general program. The orily reasonable in- shire.terpretatioll of it is that HEW can do Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, at thiswhat they please, and that means that point, rather than delay the Senate orthose who work at the school level will take time, may I be permitted, as bearinglargely control the disposition of the on this point of order, to file a statementmoney. which relates only to the Economic Op-

Therefore, the authorization fails be- portunity Act? I would like to file it withcause of its ambiguities and its lack of the Chair as bearing on the point, rathercertainty and lack of being specific. Until than take the time to read it.the money is more definitely authorized The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairfor the pUrPose for which it is to be spent, will accept the statement.Congress does not have the authority to The statement submitted by Mr. COT-appropriate the money" TON is as follows:

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I be Authority for OEO to furnish funds forheard before the Chair rules? speciai educational assistance currently ex-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ists under the Economic Opportunity Act.Chair will indulge the Senator. This bill provides an appropriation to carry

Mr. JAVITS. Mr, President, in the first out this pre-existing authority. The provi­place, I should like to correct the Sena- sion that this appropriation not be SUbjectedtor's reference to the Cooperative Re- to certain earmarking requirements merelysearch Act. The Cooperative. Research reflects authority of the Congress, in appro­Act is Public Law 531 of the 83d Con- priation matters, to establish the fundinglevel of authorized programs and in no waygress. Section 2(a) of that act is headed includes new legislative authority."Educational Research and Research 1. Authority for OEO to carry out specialTraining." So we are not. talking about programs of the type which would be fundedanything .jn the. agriculture .statutes. through this Appropriation Act is includedEyen Hw.e were, itwould not make any in section 222(a) of the Economic Opportu­difference; but the fact is~ that' we are nity Act. This is not~new authority beingnot. ' .. legislated in the bill before us today~its

, SecOI,ld, Mr. President, Ishould like to ~~~~ris~;:.~:~el~a:t~:nf;:tn:~~~~;h~~~cite a precedent that it is not at all tin- time.

.. , This bill merely provides the appropria­tion to carry ou~ p~ogl'ams under these pre-eXist1n~g authorities. .

3. It does so by'adding a proviso that freesthis appropriation from earmarking restric­tions added to last year's authorization act.These restrictions contemplate that· fundsappropriated under the Economic. opportu­nity Act shall be allocated among OEO pro­grams'in accordance with' a prescribed for­mula. The. proviso. here. simply relleves thefunds .to be appropriated under .this bill~

and this bill alone--from the restriction ofthe earmarking formula.. It does no more thanpermit the funds we appropriate to, be usedfor. the Pllrposes we .intend under alreadyexisting. authority. It .does not. amend theprior authorization.

4. This is a. simple matter of appropria­tions prerogative. It does not involve addinggeneral legislative authority to an appropria­tions bill, but rather the authority of Con­gress to enact appropriations in a mannercalCUlated to insure that the appropriatedfunds are used to carry out the purposes forwhich they were appropriated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does theSenator from Mississippi wish to beheard further on the poillt of order?

Mr. STENNIS. If· the Senator fromNew York will yield to me further--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair is iridulging debate on the pointof order. The Senator from Mississippiis recognized.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr; President, I am notsure' I understood.. The Senator fromNew York had thefioor, but if he yieldsto me for a staternen~

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thinkwhen a point of order is in the hands ofthe Chair, it is up to the Chair howmuch he will hear.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. And theChair wishes to indulge Senators fully.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair, andI thank the Senator from New York.

In looking at the list· of authoriza­tions in this pick-and-pack-and-pay­and-carty-away system, I find here, inthe CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD of June 24,1970, page 21218, where the Senatorfrom New York very kindly put in theRECORD the sources of these alleged au­thorizations.

First is this "Community developmentprogram." There is $100 million takenfrom that title of the Economic Oppor­tunity Act on urban and rural commu­nity action programs. Mr. President,those headings just do not match witheducation or desegregation of schools, Isubmit.

The next one there is $9 million, "Per­sonnel development programs." That isthe second item listed here. With "Com­munity development programs," that ac­counts for $109 million of the money.

The next one does have the word "edu­cation." Education Professions Develop­ment Act, part D.

Then the third numbered item ill thelist here, is Major Demonstrations, $14million, from the Cooperative ResearchAct. It says:

This Act authorizes projects for research.surveys, and demonstrations in the field ofeducation, and for the dissemination of in­formation derived from educational research.

There is no reference tbere to desegre­gation of schools.

Fourth, "Dropout prevention," ~5 mil­lion. That is the Elementary and Second-

21476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE

ary Education Act, section 807, Jluthoriz­ing "demonstratIon prQject.sJnvolVingthe use of innovatIve methodS, systems,materials. or programs .which show

.. promise of reducing the number of chil­dren who do not complete their educationin elementary and secondary schools."

The next item is "Technical assist­ance," $15 million, from the Civil RightsAct of 1964. This is the first tIme thatthe word "desegregation" is mentioned.

May I have the attention of the Sen­ate? This last item here is the only timethat the word "desegregation" is used,and still they are trying to justify the au­thorization of $150 million from all theseother items.

So I respectfully submit to the Chairthat, in spite of the good intentions ofthe Senator from New York and others,this does not fulfill the minimum legis­lative requirement."

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairis indulging Senators. The Chair is pre­pared to rule. Did the Senator fromNorth Carolina wish to be heard?

Mr. ERVIN. I wish to make thispoint--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairrecognizes the Senator to make thepoint.

Mr. ERVIN. The Senator from Mis­sissippi has pointed out that none ofthese acts which are cited in the amend­ment have any reference to educationof this nature except the Civil RightsAct of 1964. That act only authorizedtechnical assistance, an appropriation of$15 million, and certainly an author­ization for $15 million which has longsince been used up by other appropria­tion bills cannot justify an appropria­tion of $150 million.

I submit that the Chair should sustainthe point of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GRAVEL). The Chair will now rule. TheChair is ruling on two points here­flrst, that this is a new item, but that itdoes comply with rule 16, paragraph 1.The Chair will read the language in thephrase at the end of that paragraph:"or proposed in pursuance of an esti­mate submitted in accordance with law."

The sum in question is pursuant to abudget estimate that was submitted to .the Senate in Senate Document No. 91­83, and provides for that very purpose thesum of money.

As to the second facet, it is the opinionof the Chair that this is strictly a limita­tion on appropriations provided for inthis bill; The language in no way changesexisting law, nor does.it grant any newlegislative authority. It merely placeslimitations on the use of funds providedfor in this bill.

This amendment is considerably differ­ent from the one that the Chair ruled outat an .earlier date.

Mr. STENNIS. This amendment iswhat?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thisamendment is different from the onethat was ruled out on an earlier date,on the supplemental.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President---Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, do we have

the ruling?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thepoint of order is not well taken. .

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I respectthe sincerity of the Chair and the counselof the Parliamentarian. I submit, withgreat deference, that it is an erroneousruling, but I take it as a ruling and donot propose to appeal; ,

Does the Senator wish to speak furthernow?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think weought to have the yeas and nays on thisamendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. JAVITS. I am prepared to yield

the floor.Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have

some other remarks, but if other Sena­tors wish to speak at this time, I willyield the floor for the time being.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr; President, I send tothe desk three amendments and ask thatthey be printed and lie at the desk untilthey are called up. They are three per­fecting amendments to the amendmentoffered by the distinguished Senatorfrom New York. I have written them outin my own handwriting, and to 'assistothers, I will read them.

The distinguished Senator from NewYork said that this was to implement theprogram of the President. Since thePresident has expressly stated that he isopposed to the busing of schoolchildrenfor the purpose of altering the racialcomposition of schools, the first amend­ment would be this:

On Une 15, page 2, strike out the Vlord "or."On: line 19, page 2, change the period to

a semi-colon, and add the following there­after: "or (d) to finance the busing of schoolchlldren from one place to another place orfrom one school to another school, or fromone school district to another school districtto alter the racial composition of any school."

I offer this as a perfecting amendment,because the President said distinctly inan interview which he gave during thecampaign in Charlotte, N.C., that he wasopposed to the busing of children for thepurpose of altering the racial composi­tion of schools.

He has also stated that he is in favor ofthe neighborhood schools, so the secondamendment I have sent to the desk isthis:

On line 15, on page 2, strike out ,the word"or."

On line 19 on page 2 change the period toa semicolon, and add the folloWing there­after: "or (d) to deny anychlld the rightor privilege of attending the school nearesthis home Which Is open to children of hisage and educational standing."

Since the Senator from New York in­vokes title 4· of the Civil Rights Act of1964 in his amendment, the third amend­ment I have sent to the desk reads asfollows:

strike out the word "or". on line 15 onpage 2, change the period on line 19 of page 2to a semicolon, and a.dd the following wordsthereafter: "or (d) to finance any activitywhich Is inconsistent With any provision oftitle IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

I ask that these amendments beprinted and lie at the desk until called up.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will theSenator yield briefly?

Mr. ERVIN. I yield the floor at thistime.

_Mr.STENNIS.Mr. President,! had inmind as an amendment now to strike allthat part ,of the amendment '/lfter .thewords "Economic. Opportunity Act of1969"-to strike everything . beginningwith the words "provided further, thatno part of the funds contained hereinshall be used," and so forth.

I submit that that amendment couldwell come before the amendments offeredby the Senator from .North Carolina,because that leads into another aspectof the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does theSenator wish to call it up?

Mr. STENNIS. Will the Chair indulgeme for a moment?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GRAVEL). Without objection, it is soordered. .

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, it· seemsto me that the parliamentary situationnow dictates we understand .what par­ticular amendments, Hllny, the Sena­tors. who oppose my.amendment maydesire to carry forward, as' I wish totake seriously to heart the admonitionof the distinguished Senator from Wash­ington (Mr.MACNUSON) that we· havegQne over a lot of ,the ground in sub­stance and it really l1hould not be re­peated. I think I have said everything Ineed to say or should SaY, and in view ofthat admonition about the essence ofthe amendment I have proposed, and thefundamental question that it is properlyintroduced and stands up against thepoint of order which has now been de­cided, I hope Very much that the Senatorfrom Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), the Sen­ator from North carolina (Mr. ERVIN)and otp.el's interested, may go forwardwith what they desire to propose.

Mr. COTTON and Mr. STENNIS ad­dressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Mississippi is recognized.Does the Senator wish to call up hisamendment?

Mr. STENNIS, Yes, Mr. President, Ihave the floor: -I shall be glad to yieldto the Senator from New Hampshire-­

Mr. COTTON. No. Go right ahead. Ihave a parliamentary inquiry afterward.

Mr. STENNIS. All right.Mr.President, I move that the amend­

ment offered by the distinguished Sen­atorfrom New York-that everythingin the amendment be stricken out begin­ning in the· middle of the amendmentwith the words "provided further, thatno part of the funds contained hereinshan be used (a) to assist a local educa­tional agency," and so forth-thosewords and the rest of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GRAVEL). The clerk will report theamendment.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Onpage 2,1Ine7, beginning with the words

·Julle 2[j,)~70 <:;ONGRESSIONAL -!lECQRD --;~ENATE 21477~'provi(}ed further." down· to .. and In­cluding line ~~.;i0j, :';;,,~;>,', ,"

Mr. STENNIS.,Mr. President, I wantto call~pmy a,mendment'now, butfirstwill yield .to.theSen~torfrom NewHampshini' without losing ,my right tothe floor. ....,... . J.

;.The PR,ESIDINgOFFICER. Withoutobjection, the Senator from New Hamp-shireis recognized, . .

Mr,C9TTOI't Mr: President, do Icorrectly und~istand from the. distin­guished Senator from Mississippi that hewishes the. first vote to come on his firstniotioh~

.' Mr. STENNIS. To strike.Mr,COTTON. All after the words

"Provided further" on page 7--"Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.Mr. COTTON. Mr., President, if. the

Senator will permit me 1 minute---Mr. STENN!S. I yield. .Mr. COTTON. As the ranking minority

member of the SUbcommittee that han­dled this legislation, I want to make itclear that I shall support the adoptionof the essential part of the amendmentoffered by the distinguished Senatorfrom .New York. It is the strong desireof the' President of the United Statesandofthe administration. It is their viewthat it is exceedingly essential in try­ing to deal with the situation which hasarisen in some educational areas in thecountry. I do feel, however, personally,that I find myself in agreement with thedistinguished Senator. from Mississippi.To me. the part which begins, "Providedfurther," while I think t Understand itspurpose. is more or less a self-servingdeclaratIon. in my <)Pinion: It confusesand adds confusion and detracts fromthe clarity of the amendment. Therefore,my intention is. to support the amend­ment ,now offered by' the Senator fromMississippi to strike out the words "Pro­vided further" on line 7 on the secondpage of the amendment as printed. ButI shall, when the opportunity comes,most certainly suPport the first part ofthe amendment; . ' .'

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.Mr. President, if wetnay have order andattention of Senators for a few' minutes,I shallnot take a great deal of time.

Mr. President, do we have printedcopies? -

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MANSFIELD). Yes. There are printedcopies: No. 737 Is the number.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, IdlreCt attention now to

line 7 on page 2 of amendment No. 737.My amendment would strike out that

part and the part that follows. This isan emergency bill, It said, and it is puttogether by various authorizations. It hasbeen held, on the point of order, to beinvalid, so that brings us right to the is­sue that this amendment is before thisbody. It is to assist in desegregatingschools. It is to assist in places where thefunds may be needed the most and thatincludes the poor schools, those withoutadequate equipment, or which have ad­justments which!lave to. be made.

The part we. propose to strike outturns right around, then, and goes. toputting penalties on som.eolle. That isnot the way wereally go out to'trytohelp schools or p'eople and bring the

level up, It is not only putting a punish­ment on it but the language still is)."etroactive. in. application.. ~ .- I said here, the night before last, thatI would not object to some of this if itwas just to be prospective after thisbecomes law, if it does. But now we wantto go back and punish someone because,m.aybe, a school district has sold aschool bUilding 'and maybe that build­.lng was ordered closed by. HEW's plan,but if they sold that to someone to tryto,start a private school, then the man­date of the amendment .would be thatthat little distrIct would never be avail­able for any of this money.

Mr. President, that is something thathas happened in the past. And no oneexcept those who have been through itknow about the confusion, the disloca­tion, the necessity for tIle faculty, thetrustees. and everyone concerned tomake all kinds of adjustments and tryto get a new start.

The school terms were interrupted,some of them for 3 months, some for 4months, some for 5 months, some for6 months, and on up. I know of one inwhich this drastic change was requiredjust 7 weeks before the last term wasover.

If we come back here now and saythat we are legislating for the neglected,the downtrodden, the lame, and the poor.we cannot then turn around and go topestering them with these penalties andreprisals and eliminate them from be­ing eligible.

I do not know of anyone case in myState where they sold a school buildingto any group that was trying to form aprivate school. That might have hap­pened. I do not know. But I am not try­ing to protect any individual situation.There is a principle involved here.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President. willthe Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, we were

advised that on September 4. 1969, theMadden School in Leake County, Miss.,was sold to a private source for $1,500.It was a 10- or 12-year-old building on2 acres of land. It had 10 classrooms. Itwas then resold to a private segregatedschool for $10.

We have examples like this for Loui­siana and elsewhere where not onlyschools, but also school buses. desks, andtextbooks have been lent or given toprivate all white schools.

Mr. STENNIS. To what would thepenalty apply? Would it apply to theMadden School, accepting the factsstated by the Senator to be true. And I donot know and he does not know that theyare facts. But accepting that as the case.what' would happen to Madden Schoolunder the amendment?

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, per­mit me to say that the information onthis school and the others to which Imade reference is based on direct testi­mony presented by the National Educa­tion Association. That is the basis of thefacts which I presented.

The amendment which the Senatorfrom New York (Mr. JAVITS) offered in­cludes a provision which would prohibitany of the $150 million from going to a

school district which transferred publicproperty to, a private segregated schQol.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if thesefacts ai'e true, Madden School is perhapspart of the school district of that entirecounty.. Under' our system, we havecounty, school. boards, and with somemunicipal exceptions, they have jurisdic­tion throughout the county.

Madden is a very small place, as I re­call. I do not know its population.

To whom would this penalty apply­the school board or to all of that county?

.Perhaps there is no Madden School now.But to whom would the penalty apply?

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President. I wouldsay that is not a penalty. It denies a re­ward to a school district that givesaway public property to a private sourcein a way that is clearly unconstitutional.And it would prohibit such funds fromgoing to local education agencies as de­fined by the Department of Health, Edu­cation, and Welfare.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, my ques­tion is would it apply to the entire coun­ty? This school is just a small part ofthat county.

Mr. MONDALE. It would apply to thelocal education agency as defined byHEW. I am not familiar with that par­ticular school district.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. we areentitled to. know whether it applies tothat entire county or just to the MaddenSchool. I think that every Senator hereis entitled to know where that penaltywould apply.

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

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President. will theSenator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen­ator from North Carolina asked me toyield. I will yield to him first and willyield later to the Senator from New York.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, does notthe Senator from Mississippi understandby the statement ma.de by the Senatorfrom New York that this money is to beapplied for the benefit of schoolchil­dren, black and white?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes; the Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. ERVIN. So, here is the MaddenSchool, accepting the statement of theSenator from Minnesota as being cor­rect. The school is gone. The schoolbuilding is gone. And so, the little chil­dren who fall within the jurisdiction ofthe local education agency which hascontrol of the schools will be denied thebenefit of the money, even though thatlocal education agency may be composedof a different group of men at this time.The Javits amendment wilI deny themthe benefit of any of the funds to be ap­propriated for the purpose of educatingthe little black and white children in thatarea.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen­ator is entirely correct. Madden is just asmall town within a rather large popu­lous county.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President. we calmotget information as to whether this schooldistrict or the whole county is going tobe denied the benefit of the funds.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.Mr. ERVIN. That is the kind (;)f

amendment we have here. It is offered in

21418 CC>NGRESSIONAL'RECORD -:.:... SENATE 'Jiine 25,1970

the name of education for the black andwhite children in the South that.its sup­Porters profess they areso zealous about.They Will deny them the benefit of thesefunds if a local education agency hasdone these acts, even though that agencymay not now be composed of the samegroup. It might be composed of an en­tirely different group of men from theones who did the alleged wrong. The pro­ponents wiIl let the innocent suffer forthe supposed sins of the guilty.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, that is all

done in the name of education. Theamendment will deny them funds fortheir education. Is that not correct?

Mr. STENNIS. That would be the ef­fect of it. And that is why I made themotion to strike.

Mr. ERVIN. And this will be done byan ex post facto law.

Mr. STENNIS. The senator is correct.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, wiII the

Senator yield?Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will· the

Senator yield?Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I will

yield first to the Senator from Alabamaand then to the Senator from New York.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.LONG). The SenatOr from Alabama isrecognized.

Mr. ALLEN.· Mr. President, I wouldlike to ask the Senator from Mississippiif it is not a fact that if his amendmentis agreed to, it would still leave in theDepartment of Education the discretionto apply these very same limitations andprohibitions contained .in the Javitsamendment if, in their jUdgment, theyshould be applied?

Mr. STENNIS. I do not think there isany doubt whatsoever about. it, becauseit is authorization. It is as lligh as theheavens. There is no topside or bottomto it.

Mr. ALLEN. If they wanted to applythe very same limitations contained inthe Javits amendment, they could do so,even though the Senator's amendment isagreed to.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have one

further question. With respect to theWhitten amendments that we have votedon from time to time here In the Senate,is it not true that they sought to putlimitations on the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare and on the Of­fice of Education as to the use for cer­tain purposes of the funds appropriatedby that act.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is con'ect.Mr. ALLEN. And Is it not also true

_then that this amendment of the Senatorfrom New York also seeks to put limita­tions on the Department on the uses towhich the funds appropriated by this billshall be put. Is that not correct?

Mr. S'I'ENNIS. The Senator is.un­doubtedly correct. That is the effect of it.

Mr. ALLEN. And the Senate in its Wis­dom saw fit to reject the Whitten amend­ments which did place those limitationson the Department. And. would It notthen be logical that the Senate in theexercise of that same wisdom should re­,jectthese· limitations contained in theJavifs amendment?· .

Mr. STENNIS. Logic and consistencywould demand,it, yes.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I yield now to the Sen­ator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thinkthat Senators are entitled to know whatwe mean by a local education agency.I think they are entitled to know whatthis proviso means. I could give the Sen-ators my view of it. .

I think that the local education agencyreferred to in the amendment means theone who did what the amendment hopesit would not do-transfer property forservices in order to aid an unlawfulprocess.

If that is a small school board, thenthat small school board would be unableto get part of these funds.

If it is the whole State then the inhibi­tion would go to the State; if it were acounty school agency, then it would go tothe county. As to what is a local schoolagency depends on the State. As theSenator from Mississippi pointed out, theway in which the State is organized, andthe State has that duty, determines thatquestion, and that is the way it is applied.That would be the application of this pro­viso.

I think Senators are entitled to myviews on the ex post facto matter. Ibelieve, with the Senator from Tennes­see (Mr. BAKER), who unfortunately isnot in the Chamber at the present time,but who made a good point, that it isex post facto unless it is unlawful, but ifit is unlawful then it is not ex post facto,because if it is wrong when committed,that wrong continues. That is basic horn­book law. I agree with the Senator fromNorth Carolina. Whether sustained on apoint of order I would not want to do any­thing that was ex post facto so that theinnocent person who did something whenit was lawful would find himself trapped.I think the intercession of. the Senatorfrom Tennessee cures that defect.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President,could theSenator from Mississippi ask the Sena­tor from New York who is. supposed toget the benefit of this money, whetherit Is the school board or the children?

Mr. STENNIS. That isa good ques­tion. Are we legislating for the schoolboard or for the children?

Mr. JAVITS. We long ago decidedwhen the same argument was made onthe Civil Rights Act in 1957. I have beenhere a long time. We long ago decidedthat, yes, it may be that some blackchildren would be denied opportunitieswhich they might otherwise have if wedid not press this matter, but in theinterests of our Nation we decided thiswas the best policy for them and theirprogeny; and those marginal cases hadto be decided in favor of the desegrega­tion prinCiple.

I would not predict one could not finda particular instance where a blackchild, or 10, 20, or 30 black childrendid not do as well in terms ofeduca­tion, but I would warrant if one were totake a vote among black people-adultsand children alik'e--::it would .befmmdthat something .• like 100 to. 1.· or betterwould sfty they \vould;want, at long last,

if they could get it, an equal break interms of education. ~itheyerybody else.

Mr.. ERVIN, ,'Mr. President, will the~SeIllitorfrom.MissiSsipi>iYield to me soI can ask him aquestion to be asked theSenator from New 'York? .

Mr,Sn:Nms.J yield.Mr.ERVIN.'I would like to ask the

Senator from Mississippi if he will askthe Senator from New York if thi:!amendment will not .deny children ofthat· area any benefit of these funds,even though the members _of the localagency which perpetrated what it deemsto be wrong have been supplanted byother members.

Mr. STENNIS. Suppose the board didcommit a moral wrong and sold thebuilding for a nominal sum. This amend­ment would cut them down. But supposethey did it for.$10 and they are suc­ceeded by another board with the op­posite view. That is an illustration asto how this could go too far.

Mr. JAVITS. I assure the Senate thatthis amendment obtains for 1 year. It isfor $150 million,in what will be So muchbigger program. For'that period and the

·amount of money involved, consideringthe size of the problem, I do not thinkI need to Shrink from any possible in­vestigation which may be due to anindividual board, ,..',

I Will join with the Senator when welearn more about awarding any boardthat undoes what a previous board didwrong. I think we need. to go into theequities of the case. .

· Mr. STENNIS. I want to make clear·that these school districts in my State,.at least most of them are countywideand have jurisdiction ov~r ali the schoolsin the county, 15, 17,whatever the num­ber is, and some" municipalities, thelargest ones, are ·excepted. The areaschool is a relatively small school,andunder this proviso, if it were sold Ithink it would require schOOl board ac­tion, but it is very minor. At the sametime we were being ordered to close upthe building-do n9t use the school any­more, close. it up, and thecourts ordered'.'Close s~hool B, it will no longer' beused:' The court then adopts a positionwhich says that the school . shall beabandoned. I know that happened .be­cause I dealtwitb a school board to whichthat happened.. ,Of course, the .peopleacted underdistress~I am willing to havethis prohlbitiol} to any future acts: any­thing in future after ena9tment.. .Mr.TALMADO~.Mr.President, .will

the Senator yield?' .Mr. ST~NNIS,.I yield.Mr. TALMAD(JE.As Iread the amend­

ment the penaltyproyigion does not pro­vide any penalty whatever tostudents ofthe private schools but only to .those re­maining in.thepl1qliqschools. Is thatthe Senator's il'lterpre.tation? _.'

:M:r.STENl'lI8.. ~hat }sagoodpoint..It is l10t getting at the ones in the privateschopls.. . .>:.., .:. .

Mr.TAJ.,MADGE.Mr. President, willthe Senator yield furUler?·

Mr. STENNIS.) yield.Mr.TALMApG~.·It\Vouldn()t.beget­

ting at the.fljgitlves, l;lut..those who re­mail;1 ill thepUl;llic~qboolsy,stems.

Mr..STENNIS, 'I'b.at i~,yor;rect. I think

June 25, 1970,~ ,".:' "

CONGRESSIONAL RECOR,D-. S.ENATE... :; ~.." ." .. -. ,. ,'. ". '.

21479.way, Of; I cOulddr()p (c) .from my amend.,ment. . .

I yield the floor now to the SenatorfJ:OIll Minnesota. .

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President. I wouldlike to commend the Senator from NewYork for introducing amendment No.737 which seeks to add to the educationappropriations bill $150 million to assistschool desegregation efforts this summerand throughout the next school year. Iam pleased' that in introducing thisamendment, Senator JAVITS has includedthe three amendments to the emergencyschool desegregation assistance programthat I introduced l'ecently on behalf ofmyself, and 20 of my colleagues.

These amendments which now appearas sections (a); (b) ,and (c) in the Javitsamendment·are designed to· help insurethat the funds under this appropriationare not used to subsidize private segre­gated academies, and that they areequally available to school districtsthroughout thi3 Nation that are desegre­gating under legal requirement. Theyhave the endorsement of the administra­tion, the National Education Association,and the Leadership Conference on CivilRights.

Section (a) of this amendment prohib­its the funding of school districts whichengage or ,have unconstitutionally en­gagedin the transfer of property or serv­ices to private segregated academies. Itis identical to my revised amendment tothe supplemental appropriations bill thatwas adopted by the Senate on Mondaynight by a 63-19 vote.

The need for this amendment has beendocumented by many witnesses beforethe Select Committee on Equal Educa­tional Opportunity. Just yesterday, forexalnple, a: panel of attorneys associatedWith the NAACP legal defense fund de­scribed' numerous examples in whichpublic schools have given, leased, or soldschool buildings, textbooks, schoolbuses,and school equipment to segregated pri­vate academies that have been estab­lished to circumvent school desegrega­tion efforts. One of these witnesses, Mr.Melvih Leventhal of Jackson, Miss., es­timated that "between 15 and 20 per­cent of the schOOl districts of Mississippithat have been required to integratehave transferred property to privateschools." .

Section (b) of this amendment, whicb.would prohibit funds under this appro­priation from supplanting local or statefunds, is equally essential. The same at­torneys also testified about the way inwhich school districts have attempted toreduce thepublic support for the publicschools so that more funds wouldbe available to assist these privateacademies.

Section C of the amendment simplyrequires that no school distlict legally re­quired to desegregate shall be deniedeligibility under this appropriation onthe basis of its location or the source ofthe legal requirement.

I will support Senator JAVITS' amend­ment because it includes these safeguardprovisions. I hope that they, coupled withthe administration's commitment to pre­vent abuses, can help assure that fundsunder this appropriation are granted only

intent of the administration before theAppropriations Committee to limit thisprogram to the 17 States.

Some question was raised here theother night as to which 17 States. Wehave not been told. I do not know. Thisshould be a national bill, and I agreewith the Senator from Mississippi thatthis legislation should have a nationalthrust to it. I personally feel verystrongly about it.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator,but paragraph (c) is not carrying out theidea of making it a national bill.

Mr. MONDALE. Paragraph (c) wouldassure that any school district desegre­gating under a legal requiremenlr-wher­ever. the school district is located orwhether it is desegregating as the resultof State or Federal law-would be eligi­ble to apply for assistance under thisappropriation. The administration hastestified that this appropriation would berestricted to school districts desegre­gating under title VI of the Civil RightsAct of 1964 or Federal court order in the17 Southern and border States. We donot believe that school districts such asPasadena, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; SouthHolland, TIL; or Pontiac, Mich.; whichare desegregating under a Federal courtorder, or Los Angeles, Calif., which is de­segregating under a State court order,should be denied eligibility for assistanceunder this appropriation.

It is important to understand exactlywhat amendment No. 704 does, and whatit does not do. It does require that aschool district desegregating under alegal requirement not be denied eligibil­ity-in other words an opportunity toapplY for assistance-solely on the basisof either the location of that district, orthe sow'ce of the legal requirement. Itdoes not require that any school districtdesegregating. under a legal requirementaCtually receive assistance, nor docs it inany way restrict or remove the authorityof the Secretary to deny assistance to aschool district for reasons other than itslocation or' the source of the legal re­quirement. The Secretary would haveboth the authority and the responsibilityto deny funds under this appropriationto any district because its plan does notat least eliminate racial discriminationas required under the Constitution orFederal statute. This amendment wouldmerely require that that district be de­nied assistance under relevant criteriaconcerning the merits of its proposal.rather than irrelevant criteria such asthe source of that legal requirement orthe location of the district.

Mr. STENNIS. Would be eligible or in­eligible?

Mr. MONDALE. Would be eligible.Mr. STENNIS. So paragraph (c) is

to make this have a nationwide appli­cation?

Mr. MONDALE. That is right.Mr. STENNIS. I reallY did not un­

derstand it that way. As I told the Sen­ator the other night, on my motion, theAppropriations Committee struck outthe language in the report that limitedit to the South. I will support the Sena­tor in the idea of making this bill nation­wide. I did not really realize that (c)had that purpose. Perhaps the Senatorcould rewrite it or rephrase it in some

very littl~,of. this happened anywhereand I did n()tkilowofth~,incidellt theSenator brought UP.~i·_· ,,"',,'

Mr. TALMADGE. CertainlY, ,it ",ill notremedy tllesituatiol1 by sh()oting the in­nocent instead of the guilty, will it?

Mr. STENNIS. It is the, wrongapproach. '.,. ," ,.; "'. , ..,. " '•'.

I .wish to' call. attention to, •line 13,paragraph<bL which provides:','to sup­plant funding from, non-Federal sourceswhich has been reduced as the result ofdesegregation or the availabilitY of fund­ing under this head;"

There. is a classic' example of whereHEW, in making its inquiries and adjust­mentscan take care of any attempted orthreatened situation of that kind, be­cause in working this out with the schoolboard to determine the source of income,and if it is going to' be a'supplementalfund, those things are all worked out inadvance' and under' some operations ofState law there is some reduction whichautomatically happens.

In our State, appropriations by theState legislature are on the basis ofaverage'daily attendance. Those recordsare all sent in and the money is distrib­uted under the law. So here is a schoolthat would have some reduction becauseof reduced average daily attendance andit would be a question of fact if it wasprompted by any of these laws. That iswhat HEW would be doing. -,

On page 2 at line 2 it is provided,that no part of any funds appropriatedherein to carry out programs under titleII shall be used to calculate the alloca­tions (c) to carry out any program oractivity- under' any policy, procedure, orpractice that denies funds to any localeducational agency desegregating itsschool tinder legal' requirement, on thebasis of geography or the source of thelegal requirement. --

Frankly, I just could not understandthe language. I do not know what situa­tion it is designed to meet. I am glad toyield to the Senator froIll Minnesota toanswer as to paragraph-(c), if that isa part of his amendment.Mr~ MONDALE. Mr. President. I thank

the Senator from Mississippi. In a mo­ment I hope to get the floor in my ownright, but it is true that the nationwidethrust of paragraph (c) was included inthe amendments I had intended to offerto the supplemental bill. .

Mr. STENNIS. It was not included?Mr. M()NDALE. It was.Mr. STENNIS. It was?Mr. MONDALE. Yes. ,Mr. STENNIS. I am not commenting

on it how, beCause I have not understoodwhat it means.

Mr.MONDALE. May I respond to thatjust a moment?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes.Mr. MONDALE.The purpose of sub­

part (c) is to make the $150 millionprogram, for which we might appropri­ate money here tonight available toschools desegregating, under legal re­quirement regardless of their location orthe source of the legal requirement, andnot just limited to the 17, Deep Southand border States, whatever that means.

That limitation does not appear in thelegislation. It was siInply the. expressed

21480, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD":" SENATE J1titl25, 1970

to those diStricts that are making an hon­est effort to desegregate.

I sincerely hope that they will helpprevent a Federal subsidY' of paper com­pliance.

These three amendments do threesimple things:

Part (a) of the first amendment pro­hibits money under this appropriation togo to school districts which have uncon­stitutionally diverted or which are di­verting public property from those dis­tricts into private schools for the pur­pose of discrimination.

Part (b) prohibits the use of thismoney in school districts which are usingit to substitute for money that wouldotherwise be spent. It would assure thatthis money would be used to supplement,not supplant. It would prohibit fundsunder this appropriation from beinggranted to districts which have reducedtheir financial support for public schoolsas a result of desegregation.

Part (c) makes it a national bill, notrestricted specificaily to the 17 States ofthe Deep South and berder States, how'­ever they are defined by the administra­tion.

On the first point, the diversion ofproperty from public schools is not atechnicality, it is a fundamental point.In many areas desegregation is evadedby the establishment of private segre­gated, academies. Many of these com­munities have difficulty supporting thoseprivate segregated academies from vol­untarily contributed funds. The way theyare able to support these private schoolsis by obtaining, free or at reduced pricesschoolbuildings. textbooks. desks. teach~ing equipment. laboratory equipmentbus transportation, and even staff frompublic schools.

There is no doubt in my mind ,what­soever that such efforts are clearly andunquestionably unconstitutionaJ. If thereis any question at all about the existenceof these practices, may I refer to the tes-'tlmciny by the NatiOllal Education Asso­ciation of circumstances iIi which a 10­year-old school building, with 10 class­rooms. 'located on 2 acres of land-abrick building-was sold to C a privatesegregated academy for $1,500. This hashappened in other school districts~

The other. day we had testimony byattorneys bnnging civil rights suits'inthe South. They testified very. Clearlythat district after district' had pursuedthis ~licy Qf transferring public:prop­erty to private segregated academies forthe purpose of giving'publlcsupportforan unconstitutional purpose; One attor':ney said: " . '.. <, ,'c',,',

?:he trahsfer l?f textbooks 11; often .rii~de a1!the expense of students remaining in: thepubllc schools. "n-.', C'

'. Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President. will 'theSenator yield? ..: Mr. MONDALE. In iustamoment

I contiriuetoread:, 0 ," • " •• ' •

We are not'talking !lbout, just the transferof surplUS'l?lXlks•.books that are not going~o ,b~ ,USed l!S pl~ tel(tbopks.ln ,certain par­ishscl!.ooIS.~hatareIntegrat,ed in early Feb­ruary of thlB year. .,' " .'. '" :,'

SChoolchildren shOWed up and fOuIld thattheir textbooks which they'c had were lastyear'stextbooks~ They were"oldtextbooks

they had not even beenusl!d in the previoussemesters.

The new education editions had gone to pri­vate schools. Students both black and whitein the publlc schools found themselves sit­ting at desks which were far too small forthem.

The question arose where are the desks wehad last semester? The answer was theywere declared surplus and were sent or soldto prlvate schools.

The publlc school buses in this and everyother parish I know of pick up students thatgo to the private schools at houses a.ndtransfer them to the publlc schools. Theyprovide the best possible service for thosestudents going to private schools.

This testimony, which I shall not re­peat, goes on for pages and shows thatthroughout the areas in which the courtsare ordering the end of discrimination, astandar~ practice is to set up privateacademies and to substantially fundthem by the unconstitutional transfer ofpublic property.

I am glad to yield to the Senator fromNorth Carolina.

Mr. ERVIN. And the amendment doesnot do anything to deprive the privateacademies of anything, but it would denythe benefit of the funds to the childrenwho are denied admission to the privateacademies.

Mr: MONDALE. Well, it discourages apractice--

Mr. ERVIN. Well, is that not a fact?Mr. MONDALE. No, I think the char­

acterization the Senator makes is not afact. I t~ink it is the other way around.Not to dIscourage this. practice is to de­stroy the possibilities ofadecent in~t~grated public school, system in thosedIstricts. '

Mr. ERVIN. Let me, ask the Senatorone or two other questions.

Are. not these. funds approprIated' forthe ultimate. benefit of the schoolchil­dren. black and White, in the publicschools?

Mr, MONDALE. Yes.Mr. ERVIN. But this amendment would

deny the benefi,t of the funds to theblack and white children who will re­main i~ the public schools. and who maybe demed admission to the private acad­emies or be incapable financially of at­tending the private academies. It woulddeny them the benefit of these funds, noton account of any sins on their part buton account of the sins of others / ', Mr. MONDALE. May I say to' the Sen­ator~ro~ Nqrt~ Carolina, that if .thisprl;l-qtlCe IS pen:mtte~, the pubUc ,schoolchildren are going to be tl1e losers, be­cause thousands andthpusands of dol­lars worth of public property that had~een pw:chased for j;heireducation is be­mg ~iven away and sent ,to. anotherSCllool,1'lle LNE,I\. testified ,that In 'oneschool district, an estimated $55 000worth of te,xtbooks disappeared one 'dayinthe pu1?lic school.andthenextdayended up m the so-callectprivate />egre,;gated academies, Do,esthat help thoseblack and white. children?, ":M~·.ERVIN. The'bill ,does this. A~­

cordmg. to :its proponents. the privateacademIes have taken schoolbooks awayfrom them, ,and the amendIrieritof theSenatorfrom'Ne~YorkwoU1dtake themoney 'appropriated by this bill away

from them also. So the children would hethe victims coming and going.

Mr. MONDALE. There is'another 'partof this I would like to mention. Perhaps Ican do its best by quoting this attorney.'He said: .

The attitude in this district is that theprivate schools get the best transportation,they get the best textbooks. It seems as If, Inmany school districts that the aid to publlcschools is being used in a situation to drivestudents out of the publlc schools into theprIvate schools.

In other words, the extent of suchtransfers is such that the bone has beenpicked so bare the the few white studentswho have stayed back there are encour­aged to go to the private segregatedacademies. '

Mr. ERVIN. And then the amendmentproceeds to take the bone away from thechildren.

Mr. MONDALE. I would not character­ize it that way. The provision earlier to$150 million to be obligated between nowand September 30. HEW has said themoney will be concentrated-some dis­tricts well get no money in any event.Surely where money is to be obligated soquickly, and where there is not enoughmoney for all, those districts which haveshown open contempt for constitutionalrequirements ·in this manner shOUld beexcluded.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President. willthe Senator yield?

Mr. MONDALE.l yield.Mr. MAGNUSON. Iwonder if the Sen­

ator,who is chairman of the special com­mittee on this subject-and the Senatorfrom Washington is one of the members,though he has not been too diligent inhis attendance, mainly because of thissituatio~-doesthe Senator know of anyreason why the President of the Unitedstates waited until May 25 to send thismeasure up?

Mr. MONDALE. I must say that--­Mr. MAGNUSON. I know that the Sen­

ator isprpbab1y not. an.y mor~privy towhat goes on down there than I am. ButI 'Yas wondering if they notified the com­mIttee which was set up to look at thesethings. '. ,

All of a sudden. this measure comes !lP,after we had held hearings on the educa­tion appropria,tions and markequp thebill. telling everybody In the country "Weare going to get this~one early'andquickly," All of a sudden . here comesa~other proposal .witll.:whlch Ido notd~sagree, but I d.o.~ot know why theydId not go through the legislative processwith this..., '.. ' ',. '.' > •..•....

:Mr. MC>NDALli:. Penriibne tosay--Mr. MAGNUSON. Here weare with an

appropriation,bill", al1;d a good one, andwe have had it how long now? FiVe weeks,and last year everybQg.y criticIzed every­~odY else aI1~LPointip.g (fing~r .pecauseIt wa~notcOtnpl~¥JdearlY.' ,', l

,N.:owall of 9,'sUdde,~"llon:iebodY.wakes~p'downto\Vn, !!,ndsfl,y.s.···Hereis anothereducl:\tio~prqpqsal.:'..... ',' ...••..•... Now" I a!5re(",it~',vhatth~Y are, trying

to do here: I,persollally agree< with it, butI wonder 1+ ,we are "ever ~oing to get aneduca,ti0J:1 apPtoPfI~~ipn. ~m through thisc<;mgre~~:Ifw~g09",er,JWIlextweek,tr.~re wIII b~ ano,therproIJosal comingup from somebody, I do not know who.

JU1ie 25, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 21481We have been. trying to . get tWs b1ll bill. We are going to pass it early tWs The time is now under the control of

enacted, and they. carne to us after all year and we are going to do our job, and the Senator from New York (Mr.the hearings are complete; I want to make exercise our responsibility to the over JAVITS) and the Senator from Mississippithis history. They carne to us very late 52,000,000 schoolchildren of the United (Mr. STENNIS). Who yields time?in the game. I got Il call one day from States, but we· get it all signed and Mr. JAVITS. I yield 3 minutes to thethen Secretary Finch, who wanted to sealed and ready for the Senate floor- Senator from Minnesota.see me and Mr. COTTON. We had the b1ll where we get a few amendments to in- Mr, MONDALE. I say to the Senatormarked up already, and they, carne in crease some of the funding levels-but from Washington that I have used onlyand wanted our advice as to how to pro- then we always end up with this same 5 minutes of the debate time tonight forceed onthis proposal. thing where something new is proposed. myself.

Well, Senator COTTON and I said, al- Mr. COTTON. May I say that the I think this is old ground. We havemost without· even looking at one an- Senator, in his report, is adhering strict- been over it before. Everybody knowsother, "Please don't put it on our educa- ly to the facts, and I will vouch for what is involved in the proviso. It is leg­tional bill, because we are trying to get every word he says. islation we adopted the other night,the appropriation pass~d early. When a Mr. MAGNUSON. I am not criticizing when the key portion was passed over­supplemental comes along, you can word anyone about this, but I am making a whelming)y. It is supported by the Na­it so that it will be germane." little plea to get this measure over with tional Education Association, the Lead-

I suppose this wording would be ger- under the rules, so that the thousands of ership Conference on Civil Rights, andmane: I do not know. school districts, colleges and universities, by this Administration. It is the bare

I agree with the Senator. These are in the "{Jnited States, South, East, North, minimum that can be included in thisprograms I agree with, and I would not and West; can know what they might ex- measure to help assure that the moneyvote to strike it out. But I am making a pect to get next year, and make their goes for the purpose that is stated.plea in this whole. field of education for plans to educate the 52 million students I· hope very much that the Stennissome kind of orderly procedure. We'will of America. This is all I am trying to say. amendment will be rejected and that thenever get an appropriations if this keeps Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will Javits proposal, as it stands, will beup. the Senator yield to me? adopted by the Senate tonight.

Mr. MONDALE. Permit me to say Mr. MAGNUSON. I do not have the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whothat--- floor~ The Senator from Minnesota yield- yields time?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I think the action I ed to me for a question, and I made a' Mr. STENNIS. I yield 5 minutes to thewill remember most about tWs took speech. [Laughter,] . Senator from Alabama.'place recently, I do not know how long Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- Mr. ALLEN; i: thank the distinguishedago it was, but we spent 4% days on this dent, may we have order? Senator from Mississippi. Mr. President,floor, debating an authorization bill for Th~ PR~SIDINGOFFICER. The Sen- I support the Stennis amendment, which,education; $24 billion in new and ex- ate WIll be 10 order. starting on line 7 of page 2 of the printedtended authorizations. And for 4% days Mr. MON1?ALE. Mr. President, I am amendment, would eliminate the threethere was not one single voice raised or happy to YIeld to the Senator from subsections starting with the words "pro­mention made about·, the money that Montana. vided further" and continuing downwas going to be appropriated to meet that Mr. MA~SFIELl? Mr. President,.if the through the remainder o,f the amend­authorization and.to educate the kids. Senator will pe~It me, I would lIke to ment. It would eliminate subsections (a),

Here we are, all over again with the propound a un~1llmous-consent req~est, (b), and (c).same type of thing. This is pretty good which I hope WIll be acced~d to; and, Just These subsections are limitations onlanguage, as far as I am concerned. But as the Senator from Wa~hl1lgtonmade a the Department of Education They pro­we were not apprised of this when we plea, I am m.aking a plea. vide limitations on the exp~nditure ofhad that meeting. Mr.. Finch did not I.ask ~a1llmousconsent that there be funds appropriated by this act. In effect,show up for the meeting,I think because a tIme lImitation of 20 minut,:s on the they follow the same theory as thehe was in the hospit'al at that time. Stennis .amendment and 20 ~l1lutes on Whitten amendments, which were llmi-

They did ask our advice, and we said the JavIt~ .amendment, the tIme to be tations on the power of the Department'"Put it on a'supplemental bill;. we have equally dIVIded between the sponsors of of Education to spend fund' nd thcompleted action on existing authoriza- t1;te amendment and the man.ager of the Senate, in its, wisdom, turne~'d~wn th:tion. We are marking it up, trying to get bIll, or whomever he may deSIgnate. Whitten amendments, seeking to put.it along the way." .' The P~ESIDING OFFICER (Mr. limitations on the powers of the depart-

So all the 'school' districts, including LONG). WIthout objecti.on agreed to. ment. These, three subsections seek toMadden-I do not know.where Madden Mr. ERVIN. Mr. PI:esident, I object. If place llmitations on the power of theis. Is that in Mississippi? ' they vote on the JaVlts amendment, my department to spend funds

Mr. STENNIS. Yes. amendme~ts are perfecting amendments So, if. it was improper' to I1mit theMr. MAGNUSON. Allright. So all the to the JaVlts amendment. I have no o~- power of the department under the

school districts in the' United States jection to the 20 minut~s on the Sten?IS Whitten amendments, then, under thesome 24,000 or 25,000 of, them, could amendment, but I obJect ~ anything provisions of the Javits amendment, itknow. how' they could effectively plan that would cut off the time on my is just as improper to I1mit the power offor the next year und.erthe rules of the amendments. the department to expend funds. So thatgame that now exist, and they were The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the it seems to the junior Senator fromvery. happy about it. They even sug'- majority leader limit his request to the Alabama that if we adopt the Stennisgested that we not put in the $1 billion first amendment? amendIIient, we still leave the Depart­advance funding. They said they would . Mr. MA:NSFIELD. I think S?' but I am mentof Education with full power andrather have an early bill, and get it Just wait10g to see what WIll happen. authority to apply. the same I1mitationsover with under the present rules. Just the first amendment. that are now provided in the Javits

So here we are. I jUst do not under- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without amendment. No power whatsoever isstand why this happened, and why objection, it is so ordered. taken away from the department by thesomebody-as someone told me today, Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I should Stennls amendment. They will still havethey must just have wakened up down- like to respond to what I thought were carte blanche to doan:vthing they wanttown. the most appropriate remarks of the that is now permitted by law with the

The senator and his committee have Senator from Washington. funds appropriated by this bill.been pursuing this matter, and the I think the difficulty we are having So, in speaking.,for the Stennis amend-testimony has been impressive. I ap- here, in part, is that this legislation ment, we speak for giving the. depart­prove of it. But Ido not know why the should have first been sent up in the ment a free band in the expendfture ofsenator fro.m New Hampshire and 1---:- form of authorizing legislation. the, funds arid not putting limitationsmaybe we are unliicky 01:' something, I do, .. Mr; KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we on them, just as the Senate refused·to ,not knoW7we .W.ork: .hard, .we hold ex':' have order?. ' put limitations on the department as wastensive hearing~.; bundt'~ of witnesses The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- propOSed under the Whitten amend-appear, and we getwhllt I feel is a: good ate WIll'be in order. mentS.

21482, CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-, SENATE•.11,' .... , ", ',., ," .".' '., '.' ','

So, Mr. President, it occurs to me thlitwith the Stennis amendment we will havea better 'bill, we will not have .. the .de­partment hamstrung, and we will nothave the department limited in'its courseof action by these three provisions, whichcan cause much confusion, :much un­certainty, and much difficulty.

With the adoption of the Stennisamendment, the junior Senator fromAlabama would be willing to support theJavits amendment. If the Stennisamendment is rejected, then he will voteagainst the Javits amendment.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield 2minutes to the Senator from RhodeIsland.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the authoriz­ing committee did not consider thismea.c;ure, as has been pointed out by thesenior Senator from Washington. How­ever we are considering S. 3883 whichprovides for a substantially largeramount of money for this purpose. Be­cause of the so-called emergency natureof this appropriation, trying to get fundsto those schools which in good faith aremeeting problems resulting from inte­gration with the coming school year, wethOUght it advisable to accede to this un­orthodox procedure of having the matterhandled directly· by the AppropriationsCommittee. We therefore raise no ob­jection to the procedure, but we areshocked at the fact that virtually noguidelines were offered by the Depart­ment of Health, Education, and Wel­fare for the spending of this money inthe supplemental appropriations hear­ing and that it was really to be given tothem carte blanche. '

We felt that there should De some cri­teria for distribution of these funds, andfor that reason the amendments that theSenator from Mirmesota (Mr. 'MONDALE)drew up seemed .tous to supply ,what wasneeded, especially in view of 'the factthat there has been no specific authori­zation legislation.

For this reason,even thougp. we havenot had a chance to fully consider themajor bill in the authorizing committee,we support the Javits amendment. I sup­pose my position would be, that if thesetightening criteria are not adopted­meaning that there would be no guide­lines-then I think we in the authoriz­ing committee would be hard put to sup­port the $150 million, although I wouldnot make a commitment of that sort atthis time.

,The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. JAVITS. Does the Senator fromMississippi desire to yield back the time?

'Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will theSenator from Mississippi yield me 1 ad-ditional minute? '

Mr. STENNIS. I yield 2 Plinutes tothe distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I offer atthis time, for inclusion in the RECORD,pages 22 and 23 of report No. 917 of theAppropriations.' Committee. on the sec­ond supplemental. appropriation bill. Iread briefiy from the report:

Under no circumstance, are any of thefunds intended to be available to overcomeracial isolation or racial imbalance.

As indicated above, the intent of the ap­propriation is to provide a broad range of

financial and technical assistance, but thecharacter and degree of assistance reqUiredshall, in every instance, be a matter of local1nitiative and determination.

Further, the committee believes stronglythat these funds must not be used to fi­nance directly or to encourage massive orexcessive busing of students. Any trans­portation of students covered by this ap­propriation must be a part of f'ither thecourt order or the approved desegregationplan.

o From another paragraph:First, consistent with recommendations of

the administration, the funds shall be avail­able, on a project grant basis, to assist anypublic school district under either a courtorder or with an approved plan to desegregatebeginning with the school term that beginsin the fall of 1970.

I ask unanimous consent to have these2 pages printed at this point in the REO- 'ORD.

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

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE

1790 appropriation____________ NoneSupplemental budget estimate ,

(S. I>oc. 91-83) $150,000,000House allowance ~ Not consideredCommittee recommendation._ 150,000,000

The committee recommends $150 IUllUon,the same as the supplemental estimate, tomeet the additional costs which w111 be en­countered by about 1,000 school districtswhich are expected to desegregate by Sep­tember 1970. The request for these fundswas transmitted to the Senate on May 25,1970, and therefore was not received in timefor consideration by the House.

The supplemental request is the first partof the President's announced plans to ask fora total of $1.5 b111ion for thiS,purpose over thenext 2 years. The $150 million has been re­quested as a supplemental in order to makeassistance avallable--on an emergency ba­sis-this summer so that desegregating schooldistricts will be able to maintain educationalquality and mimimize disruption of the ed­ucational process during the desegregationperiod which must be underway by this fall.

Under the committee allowance, fundswould be available in the form of compre­hensive grants to desegregating-'-and re­cently desegregated-school districts for thepurpose of hiring additional teachers andteacher aides, providing guidance and ~oun­

seling and other direct services to schoolchlldren, revising curriculum, purchasingspecial equipment, undertaking minor re­modeling, supporting community .programsand financing6ther additional costs Whichw111 contribute to carrying out a successfuldesegregation plan.

The program funds requested and allowedby the committee would remain avallablefor obligation until September 30, 1970. Ad­ministrative support would be available fora full year since many of the projects fundedwould be operational during the comingSChool year and will require adminIstrativeassistance throughout this period.

A significant ,share of the appropriation,as much as $100 IUl1110n, will. be expendedunder title n of the Economic OpportunityAct. This w111 require a delegation of au­thority from the Office of Economic Opportu­nity to the I>epartment of Health, Education,and Welfare. Such delegations are allowableunder the Economic Opportunity Act. Theremainder of the appropriation, about $50milUon, will be expended under authoritiesvested in HEW and the Office of Education.Administration witnesses testified that useof these several authorities was necessary

in order to provide the broad range of serv­ices required by' desegregating school dis­tricts. They indicated that this arrangementrepresents a one-time, temporary expedientto deal with the immediate problems facedby schools this summer and that the Emer­gency School Aid Act of 1970, which was in­troduced in the Senate on May 26, WOUldfrom the basis for a more permanent futureauthority. Any further funding for assistanceto desegregation by the schools will, accord­ing to departmental witnesses, be requestedas part of the regular, 1971 and 1972 budgetsfollowing congressional action on the newlegislation.

In recommending an appropriation of $150million to be applied under so many dif­ferent authorities, the committee wants tobe certain that there is a clear record ofcongressional intent as to the purposes forwhich the' appropriation is made and themanner under which it is to be applied.First, consistent. with recommendations ofthe administration, the funds shall be avail­able, on a project grant basis, to assist anypublic school district under either a courtorder or with an approved plan to desegre­gate beginning with the school term thatbegins in the fall of 1970. Further, the schooldistricts Which have desegregated duringthe last 2 years under either a court order oran approved plan shall also be eligible. Allof the funds arc to be made avallable to dealwith problems resulting from court orders orplans to overcome segregation.

Under no circumstances are any of thefunds intended to be available to overcomeracial isolation or racial Imbalance.

As Indicated above, the intent of the ap­propriation is to provide a broad range offinancial and technical assistance, but thecharacter and degree of assistance reqUired.shall, in every Instance, be a matter of localinitiative and determination.

Further, the committee believes stronglythat these funds must not be used to financedirectly or to encourage massive or excessivebusing of students. Any transportation ofstUdents covered by the appropriation mustbe a part of either the court order or theapproved .desegregation plan.

The entire IJ'l'ogram of emergency schoolassistance would be administered. by the Of­fice of Education and the I>epartment ofHealth, Education, and Welfare.

A proviso is incorporated in this measurestating that no part of any funds appropri­ated in this measure shall. be included. aspart of the amounts appropriated foc thepurpose of determining allocations for eachpurpose set forth in clauses (I) through(8) of section 102(b) of the Economic Op­portunity Amendments of 1969. The purposeof this limitation is to make clear that thisappropriation 1s intended. to have no eirectWhatever on the earmarking, allocation, andproration of OEO funds which would be re­qUired. in the absence of this appropriation.The administration ofOEO programs wouldotherwise be seriously disTUpted in view ofthe lateness in the fiscal year. Further, It isnot the intent of this measure, in any way,to inhibit or limit the authorities vested inthe I>lrector of the Office of Economic Op­portunity under section 616 of the EconoIUlcOpportunity Ac1; With respect to the use offunds made available for carrying out pro­grams under that act. On the other hand,this language in no way changes the intentor eirect of the provisions of section 102(b)as to all other appropriations for carryingout the provisions of the Economic Oppor­tunity A,ct of 19~4.

Mr. ALLEN. So this money would beon a project grant basis.

If the prOpOsed project did not meetwith the approval of the Department,then there would be no requirement thatthe grant be approved, making the ne-

21483cessity, ,for these ,thr~e,subs\,!ctions,that,the' Steririis,llmen®1ent Seeks tOstiikeabsolutely unne·ceSSary.;,' ;"d' "'i

Mr. JAVITS',Ml'. President;'I yieldmyself 2 minutes:only becaUSe there maybe other speakers. ',"

The ,fRESIDING ,.OFFICER; (Mi.".LONG). The Senator from New York isrecognized for 2mmutes.", ""

Mr. "JAVITS. Mr., ,'fresident,. as ,.thisamendnlcnt was workeet c>ut' by the, ad,~ministration, it inchl~edtheseparticularprovisos, and it' was' worked' outfuIther 'in the, course.of' S~~ate,debateandbyvoting" Therefore, me {!lct that theamendment states what it does as a unitis as it was presented,by'theadministra­tion. That is what I have, presented tothe Sena~e, I hope that it will be cleared,and that there is no dearth ofstruct1.lre"for the utilization of the money: ' "

I mentioned. again, and refer now tothe fact that on page 741 of the hearings,on the, supplemental appropriatIon bill,the', ,a,dministration presented' its basicpOlicies as tothe $i50 million, s~Cifyingin, great' detail' what it will do with themoney. I invite the attention of Senatorsto pages 741 to 763-about 20 pages odd,and even a list of the ofticial,s wh,o willhandle the business;-:-100 })eQple re­quired, and, their salaries, so that I don~t think there isany dearthof imple...mentation., '

The reason for the provisosis'that theevidence ,taken by the Select Commit­tee on Equal Educa'tionai Opportunity,the. special cOmrnitl!ee headed, by th,eSenator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE),of which the Senator from Rhode Island,(Mr. PELL) and I are, both members,bears,01J.t the fact for, the n:eed, for theprovisos, that we would notwlSh to dothis, ~th thisIIlqney and, therefore, wehave a right to tell the HEW that wedo not wish that. That isa proper lim­itationl.lpon the eXPlmditure of' fUncia.They are matters we do not wish toleave up to the HEW. , '

The Senator from Alabama (Mr. AL­LEN) is quite right that HEW coUld, ifthey chose, do this themselves. Theseare matters, if theSenatedesires it, thatwe do not wish to leave to the HEW. Wewill decide them. That is why those Ilm­itations are there. That is why the pointof order was overruled. I respectfully,submit that I have presented to the Sen- 'ate what I consider to be the administra­tion's amendment complete in itself.Whatever arrangements or compromiseswe have made is our problem. Everyonedoes that when we consider pieces oflegislation. I ho~ it will be, in toto,sus-tained. ..

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President,will theSenator from New York yield for a ques­tion?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield.Mr. ALLEN. The Senator does not feel

that HEW has run at all behind thewishes and actions' of Congress in thematter of forcing desegregation in thepublic schools in the South, does he?

Mr. JAVITS. I aIll sorry, I did not hearthe Senator. ' ,

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from NewYork does not feel that the Departmentof HEW haS been behind the thinkingor actions-thll.t they have' run, behindthe thill.klng otCongres~tin the matter

CXVI'77"""13~I>aI1;'16

of~esegregating the public schools inthe ,South?',woUld it not be advisable tole'ave the power of fund allocation to theHE¥l? Is it not just as anxious to de­segregate the schools as is Congress?

Mr. JAVITS. I do not think it is aquestion of intent. Many people complainabout some of the things they have done,that they are taking deferments in re­spect to such plans, and others think thattheyhl;l.ve been diligent in litigation. At­torney General :Mitchell went down intothe South himself. I would not want tocharacterize, it or characterize the dualeconomy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN­NETT)'. The time of the Senator from NewYorkhas expired.

Mr. JAVITS" Mr. President, I askunanimous consent to proceed for 30 ad­ditional seconds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from New York is recognized for30 seconds. '

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, all I sayis that this is presented as a unit. Iworked it out with the administration.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, IshoUld like to ask a question of the Sena­tor from Mississippi, but first I ask forthe yeas and nays. '

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. MONDALE. Mr. Pre$ident, I want

to make one point. It is not difficult tounderstand, why ,the administrationwants these three provisions which aresought to' be stricken here. They willstrengthen HEW in its effort to make theprogram work for the purposes WhichI think all of us share.

'Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, howmuch time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BENNETT). The Senator from Mississippihas 5 minutes remaining, and the Sena­tor from New York 1 minute remaining.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if I mayhave the attention of the membership.With' all deference to everyone, it hasbeen shown here that there is no directauthorization for the purpose that thismoney is going to be used for.

This' is 'a' hodgepodge authorizationpicked up here, there, and yonder, goingback as early as the 83d Congress to findsome old, unused authorizations. Therehas never been any bill presented to anycommittee Of the Senate with testimonyon it. There has been a little testimonytaken down here with reference to thesubject matter but no bill and no reporton the bill as SUCh. This whole Javitsamendment is an amendment, that myimmediate amendment seeks to strikeout the provisos here. The first one wasthe one which was to help the down­trodden schools that do not have enoughequipment to carry out or hasten deseg­regation or going for a host of otherthings that supposedly they do not havedown there, and then we turn rightaround and put a penalty here. There issome little school, only one, which hasbeen named-a small one down in Mis­sissippi-it sold a little school buildingfor a nominal sum for a public schoolpurpose, as alleged.

The whole county school board hasjurisdiction of all the schools in thatcounty. It is the local governing au:­thority. Under the harsh terms of this

amendment, that county entirely, oranyotner county like'-situated 1:..1 the South,woUld be cut off from all this money bya mandate on a bill, as I have said,thathas not had a respectable course throughthis Chamber and in the committees,with the filing of a report and explana­tionof what it can mean.

Thus, I submit, we should strike outthese provisos, these limitations, thesepenalties, these restrictions which applyretroactively. It might be that they couldbe applied in the future, but this lan­guage goes back and' penalizes them andknocks them out because of somethingthat happened in the past, with only oneinstance proven here on this floor beforea committeee.

I just submit to the fairness of thething and in the spirit of the whole billitself, that these provisos go off at 180degrees the other way. In keeping withthe spirit of the bill itself, they shouldbe striken out. I hope, and I believe thatthey will.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, we arenot dealing with just detail. What weare dealing with is the transfer of pub­lic property to private segregated acade­mies, which is the major strategy nowbeing used to circumvent the orders ofthe Supreme Court requiring desegrega­tion. If public property, as is now thecase, continues to be diverted into pri­vate segregated academies, then thehope for a successful end to discrimina­tion and segregation will have largelyescaped us.

In one State it is estimated that sinceSeptember 1969, a significant date be­cause that is the date by which theSupreme Court ordered complete deseg­regation. the number of white privatelysegregated schools increased from 35 to100.

Mr. President, I think if we cannotstop public school systems from subsi­dizing segregation academies, at thevery least we should not reward themwith public funds for doing so.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Mississippi has 2 minutes re­maining.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I woUld liketo clarify some of the questions con­cerning the appropriation for title IIIof the Elementary and Secondary Edu­cation Act with respect to the programsof supplementary services and centersand guidance and counseling under titleIII, which arise' from' language con­tained in the committee report on page 6.

The Appropriations Committee ex­presses an expectation that $20,000,000of the appropriation of title III will beused for guidance and counseling in theStates. I think it unclear whether theCommittee on Appropriations intendedthis expectation to be a recommenda­tion that the States allot a greater pro­portion of their title III allotment forguidance and counseling or whether itis an expectation that the Commissionerof Education would enforce a require­ment that the State plans include spe­cific amounts for guidance and counsel­ing which woUld equal in the aggregate$20,000,000.

It is my hope that the committee in­tends its expectation to be a recommen-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Jurie' 25,' 1970PRESENT AND ',GIVING A LIvE pAm, AS

PREVIOUSLY RECORDEl)-CfMansfield, against.

, NOT VOTING-12Bayh McCarthy SaxbeDodd Mundt Smith. Ill.Goldwater Murphy Williams. N.J.Hartke Russell Yarborough

So Mr. STENNIS' motion to strike fromMr. JAVITS' amendment (No. 737) thelanguage beginning with the proviso online 7, page 2, through line 19, page 2,was rejected.

Mr. JAVlTS. Mr. President, I move toreconsider the vote by which the amend­ment was rejected.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I moveto lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Iwould like to propound a unanimous­consent request that there be a 10-min­ute limitation of time on the pendingamendment, the Javits amendment, thetime to be equally divided between theSenator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) andthe Senator from Washington (Mr. MAG­NUSON) .

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, reservingthe right to object--:and'I a.ssure themajority leader that I shall not object--:upon mature reflection, I have decidednot to call up my amendm~nts, becauseI do not think they could receive ade­quate consideration at this hour of thenight.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, wouldthe Senator be not averse to having avote right now?

Mr. ERVIN. No.Mr. MANSFIELD' Mr. President, did

we get that order? .The PRESIDING OFFICER. There

was no objection to a time' limitation of10 minutes,' and it iSBO ordered..

Mr.JAVITS;JMr. President, I yieldmyself 1 minute, and I yield back theother 4. We have debated the amend­ment thoroughly. I ,think every Senatorunderstands thoroughly the purposesand limitations, and so forth. A13 for me,I think the fundamental thrust of it hasbeen made clear. I believe what we are

28, doing, and we all understand it, istosee if we can go forward ina more effec­tive way by the use of ·the nioneythariotherwise. I am ready for'l1 vote.

Mr. President, have the yeas and naysbeen ordered? .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheyL, have been. ) C,' '

Mr. MAGNUSON. MI'.President,· Iyield back my time.

¥r..JAV~TS. Mr. President, I yieldback my time. '. . .,

The ;i PRESIDING '.' OFFICER."Thequestion is on agreeing to the. amend­ment of the Senator from NeW York. Alltime on the amendment has becll 'yieldedback. The 'yeal\ andi'llays have beenordered,and the 'clerk will call the 'rolL

The billcler}{ called the roll.Mr. KEN~EDY. I announce that' the

Senator 'from 'Illdiana(Mr. BAYH) theSenator fromConnecticut, (Mr:D6DD) i

the Senator from I,ndfana(Mr.HARTKE)'. the §enatOr JromMlnnesota .(Mr"Mc~

." CARTHY) ; and the senator from Georgia(Mr., Russl';LL) .are necessarily absent.' '

I' further' announce' that th~'SenatOrfrom New Jersey (Ml"; WILLIAMS) and the

MossMuskieNelson ,Packwood'Pastore .PearsonPellPercyProutyProxmireRandolphRibicolfSchweikerScottSmith. MaineStevens ,.Symington'Tydings ,Young. Ohio

SparkmanSpongStennisTalmadgeThurmondTowerWilliams, Del.YOU,l1g, N. Dak.

FanninFulbrightGurneyHansenHollandHolllngsHruskaJordan. N.C.Long ,',McClellan

NAYS-59Gra.velGriffinHarrisHartHatfieldHughesInouyeJacksonJavftsJordan, IdahoKennedyMagnusonMathiasMcGeeMcGovernMcIntyre

,MetcalfMillerMondaleMontoya

AikenAllottAndersonBakerBellmonBoggsBrookeBurdickByrd. W.Va.CaseChurchCookCooperCranstonDoleDominickEagletonFong;GoodellGore

AllenBennettBibleByrd. Va.CannonCottonCurtisEastlandEllenaerErviri

mess for a small item like that, why theYshould vote "no," vote against my amend­ment.

I! senators want to strike that fea­ture out of the bill-and I assume thesewould apply prospectively anyway-vote"aye."

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN­NETT). All time having expired, the ques­tion is on agreeing to the Stennis mo­tion to stIike. On this question the yea.sand nays have been ordered, and theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.Mr. MANSFIELD (when his name wa.s

called). On this vote I have a pair withthe Senator from Georgia .(Mr. Rus­SELL). If he were present and voting, hewould vote "yea"; if I were at libertyto vote, I would vote "nay." I withholdmy vote.

The rollcall was concluded.Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the

Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), theSenator from Connecticut (Mr. DODD),the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE),the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Mc­CARTHY), and the Senator from Georgia(Mr. RUSSELL), are necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), andthe Senator from Texas (Mr. YARBOR­OUGH) , are absent on official business.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from New Jer­sey (Mr. WILLIAMS), would vote "nay."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER>';the Senator from California (Mr. MUR­PHY), the Senator fromlllinois (Mr.SMITH) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.SAXBE) are necessarily absent.

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.MUNDT) is absent because of illness.

On this vote, the Senator from' SouthDakota (Mr. MUNDT) is pairedwith theSenator from Dlinois (Mr. SMITH). I!present and voting, the Senator. fromSouth Dakota would vote "yea" and theSenator from lllinois woWdvote ','nay".

If present and voting,. the Senatorfrom California (Mr. MURPHY) wouldvote "nay."

The result was announced~yeasnays 59, as follows:

[No. 173 Leg.]YEA8-28

dation to the states rather than an ad­ditional requirement for the approval ofState plans. If it were the latter then theauthorizing legislation and the intent ofthe Appropriations Committee would bein conflict and there would be a greatdeal of confusion in both the States andthe agency.

I understand that subsections (b) and(c) of section 131 of Public Law 91-230set forth the entire legislative authoritywith respect to appropriations for thepurpose of guidance and counseling andtesting, and that there is no discretionleft either in the appropriations acts orin the Office of Education with respectto enforced expenditures for thispurpose.

I am especially concerned with thepossibility that the Commissioner of Ed­ucation may try to implement this ex­pectation, for if he did both State andlocal educational agencies may wish toinvoke the provisions of subsections (e)and (f) of section 305 of title III, whichgrants them standing to sue if theywished to challenge such a requirementon the part of the Commissioner, and ifthe Commissioner is taken to court therewill be a state of confusion which couldprevent title III funds from being usedexpeditiously for the education of Amer­ican children.

A second concern of the authorizingcommittee arises with respect to fundsfor the National Advisory Council onSupplementary Services and Centers es­tablished under section 309 of title IIIof the Elementary and Secondary Edu­cation Act. While it is true that thelanguage of the authorizing legislationcould permit the use of funds appropri­ated to carry out title III to finance theoperation of the National Advisory Coun­cil, it was the intent of the authorizingcommittee in enacting the revision oftitle III in 1967 that the National Ad­visory Council have independent funding.

It was hoped that there would beaseparate line item appropriating. fundsfor the National Advisory Council. Sinceneither the House nor the Senate APpro­priations Committee have prOVided fora separate line item, I would hope thatit be understood that the legislation doespermit the use of appropriations for titleill ESEA for the National AdvisoryCouncil. Counsel advises' me that thelanguage of the second sentence of ESEAsection 301 and the allotment of fundsunder ESEA section 302 would permit thisprocedure. .

Thank you Mr. President.Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have

about concluded myreinarks. I think thatwe have made this matter clear. .

All we are pa.ssing on is .. the three,limitations or restdctions. And. we can·pass them to any other matter, aftel" thevote on Javits. amendment. ,It. does notreduce the money or anything of thatkind. ...>.. '.. ..'

I respectfully submit that acase hasnot been made out here. Bei;:auseof onelittle school. building, they propose toput a penalty on the entire countY. Thatcounty has about 20,000 to 25,000 peopleliving in it. I understand that the popula­tion is about 50-50 divided, colored' andwhite.' ".. '" "

If SenatOrsviant to penalize them and'anyone else that might get caught in this

21484

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD'-'. SENATE' 21485'

cation and the Nation must be broughtto an end.

I believe in the essentiality of educa­tion. Let it be an education in the normalsense, and not an education dominatedby revolutionaries who advocate thetyranny of the left or of the right.

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES

MI'. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I wishto call attention to a new program whichis proposed for inclusion in this budget.Part G of title VI of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act of 1965 pro­vides for the initiation of a program todeal with specific learning disabilities.H.R. 16916, under "Education for theHandicapped," appropriates $1 million instartup funds for this program.

I am delighted that the Senate is con­sidering this program, even though thefunding level is considerably below the$20 million authorized for fiscal year1971. ,At, least the program can getstarted with $1 million, and can be in aposition to use effectivelY larger appro­priations in subsequent years.

The establishment of this program asa separate entity will do more than sim­ply provide money to get the programstarted. It will help to estabilsh nationalvisibility and focus' on the, problems ofspecific learning disabilities. One of themajor deterrents to recognition andtreatment of specific learning disabilitieshas been the invisible nature of thesehandicaps.

In the past 4 or 5 years there has beena major breakthrough in discoveringQoth'the existence and nature of theseinvisible handicaps which: plague thou­sands of our schoolchildren, seriouslyimpairing their ability to read, write,calculate; or perform other basic skills.

It is of'major significance that theSenate recognize the need for nationalattention, research, and training in thearea of specific learning disabilities. I amconvinced that this program will more'than pay, for itself by opening the doorto restoration of the educational and oc­cupational birthright of many childrenwho might otherwise become a liabilityof society.

Mr.' MAGNUSON. Mr. President, sev­eral Senators have been asking whetherthere are going to be any more rollcallstonight, or additional amendments. Wehave a list here of eight or 10 proposedamendments, most of which will addspe­cific amounts to certain programs in thebill.

I would like to have the proposers ofthese amendments bring them up now,and if they do not, I am going to ask forthird reading. '

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I sendto the desk an amendment in behalf ofmyself, Mr. BAYH, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr.EAGLETON, Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. MURPHY.Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jer­sey, Mr. HARRIS, and of Mr. YARBOROUGH.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk proceed­ed to read the amendment.

Mr., MONDALE. Mr. President, I askunanim.ous consent that further readingof the amendment be dispensed with. ,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

1969, Which involves the use of (or the as­sistance to others in the use of) force or thethreat of force or the seizure of propertyunder the control of an'institution of higher'education, to reqUite or prevent the avail­ab1l1ty' of certain curricuium, or' to preventthe faculty, administrative officials, or stu­dents in such institution from engaging intheir duties or pursuing their studie3 at suchinstitution.

Page 11 of the committee report statesthe following:

It is the sense of the committee that when­ever a college or university closes prior to thecompletion of an academic year, and falls toprovide instruction for a comparable num­ber of days of the preceding academic year,the Secretary of Health, Education and Wel­fare shall reduce proportionately amountsotherwise payable from funds appropriatedunder this Act to such institutions.

Mr. President, I understand what istroubling many of our college students.Those who differ with Government policyare Clearly given the right to disagree byour Constitution, and this right must al­ways be protected. But, the right to dis­agree does not imply in any sense theright to destroy an institution of learn­ing; nor, does the right to disagree im­ply that .others. who hold differentpolitical views, can be prohibited fromseeking the education they desire. Wemust make perfectly clear that there is

, no relationship between intellectual free­dom on our campuses, and destruction inthe name of dissent.

Yet, many of our college and univer­sity campuses were forced to close thispast spring before the normal academicyear had been completed. Many univer­sity administrators were coerced intoyielding to the demands of a handful of'radlcal demonstrators bent on disrupting'education activities and on destroyingthe educational system and our repub­lican form of Government.

These 'radicals denied the vast ma­jority of students, in many instances whodid not take part in rebellious disorders,the opportUnity to conclude the courserequirements of their schools. The inter­ference-through threats, disorder, andviolence-of the normal conduct of ouruniversities is unacceptable and mustcease.

No country in the world offers the ed­ucational opportunities which the Ameri­can system provides. ThiS bill alone willprovide close to $1 billion for higher ed­ucational purposes. These funds will helpmake the goal of a college education areality for thousands of Americans.

The intent of' the committee regard­ing campUS disorders has been madeclear both in the committee report andin the language of the bill. College andUniversity administrators are urged totake immediate action to assure that ourfederally supported universities and col­leges will remain open throughout theentire academic year. The pursuance ofan education by our students ir. anatmosphere congenial to learning mustbe assured. The rights of the majority ofstudents-stUdents who attend ourschools for the purposes of attaining aneducation and who reject the tyrannyof the radicals-will be sustained.

The era of lawlessness and the era ofsubversionbf the best interests of edu-

MuskieNelsonPackwoodPastorePearsonPellPercyProutyProxmlreRandolphRibicotrSchweikerScottSmith, MalneSpongStevensSymington

,TowerTydingsWilliams, Del.Young, N. Oak.Young, Ohio

AllenBibleByrd. Va. 'CannonCurtisEastland

AikenAllottAndersonBakerBellmonBennettBoggsBrookeBurdickByrd, W. Va.CaseChurchCookCoopercottonCranstonDoleDominickEagletonFanninFongFulbrightGoodellGore

Senator from Texa.s (Mr. YARBOROUGH)are absent on. otlicil'l1 business.

I further annc)\lnce that, if pi-esent andvoting, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.~WILLIAMS) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER),the Sena.tor ,from California (Mr.MURPHY), the l?enator :trom Illinois (Mr.SMITH), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.SAXBE) are necessarily absent.

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.MUNDT) is absent because of illness.

If present and voting, the senator fromSouth Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) , the Senatorfrom California (Mr. MURPHY), and theSenator from Illinois (Mr. SMITH) wouldeach vote "yea:',

The result was announced-'-yeas 70,nays 18, as follows:

[No. 174 Leg.]YEA8-70

GravelGriffinHansenHarrisHartHatfieldHruska­HughesInouyeJacksonJavitsJordan. IdahoKennedyMagnusonMansfieldMathiasMcGeeMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfM11lerMondaleMontoya'Moss

NAYS-18Ellender LongErvin McClellanGurney SparkmanHolland StennisHoll1ngs Talmadge

"Jordan, N.C..Th~ondNOT YOTING-12

Bayh McCarthy SaxbeDodd Mundt Smith. nr. ,.. '" ,Goldwater Murphy Williams. N.J,Hartke Russell Yarborough

So Mr. JAVITS' amendment was agreedto.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, Imove toreconsider the vote by which the amend­ment was agreedto. , .,. Mr. SCOTT. I move to lay that motion

on the table.The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.Mr. BYRD of West 'virginia. Mr. Pres­

ident, I think it should be noted at thiStime that there was great concern amongthe members of the committee aboutcampus unrest in general, and in partic­ular, about the recent trend of temporaryand early closings of many of our col­leges and Universities.

This concern was expressed in boththe language of the bill, and in the re­port which accompanied the bill.

Section 205 of the bill reads as follows:No part of the funds appropriated under

this Act shall be used to provide'a loan, guar­antee of a loan, a grant,' the salary of or anyremunerationwhatever to, any Individual ap­plying for adm1sf;1on., attending, employedby, teaching at" or doing research at anInstitution of higher education Who .hasengaged in conduct on or after August I,

21486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD r-.SENATE JU'(l;C 25, 1970

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President. will the.Senator yield for just a moment. whileI address myself to the majority leader?'Mr. MONDALE.I yield. 'Mr PASTORE. Could we not have a

limit~tion of debate on this amendment?Mr. MANSFIELD. I would be delight­

ed? Would 10 minutes be enough?Mr. MONDALE.This is a composite

of four amendments. all directed at thesection on elementary and secondaryeducation. Ten minutes is fine by me.but I would ask--, Mr. MAGNUSON. I do not know which

amendment this is.Mr. MONDALE. I would ask Senator

CRANSTON and Senator KENNEDY whetherthey feel more time is needed.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Will the Senatorexplain so everyone can hear him whathis amendment does? The amendmenthas not been printed.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.President. may we have the amendmentread?

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President. I amwilling to withdraw my request that thereading of the amendment be dispensedwith.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill read the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

On page 2. line 22, strike out "($140.393.-,000)" and insert in lieu thereof "($150,393.­000)".

On page 2, lines 22 and 23, strike out"($29,750.000)" and insert in lie\! ,thereof"($33,750.000) ". ,

On page 3. lines 2 and 3. strike out "($1.­873.168,000)" and insert in lieu thereof"($1.898,168,000) ".

. Mr. MONDALE. Mr; President. this isan amendment which adds $25 million toa number of .titles and programs withinthe elementary and secondary educationsection of the bill.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President.would the Senator agree to a 20-minutelimitation; 10 minutes to a side?

Mr. MONDALE. I do not think we aregoing to need more than 15 minutes, butto be safe, I will ask for 15 minutes.

Mr. MANSFIELD. All right. a ,halfhour. the time to be equally divided be­tween the Senator from Minnesota andthe manager of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? Without objection, it Is so 01'-,dered.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President. this isan amendment which adds $25 million tothe elementary and secondary educationsection. appearing on page 2--,

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, may wehave order, so we can hear. the Senatorexplain his amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ate will be in order.

Mr. MONDALE. This $25 million wouldbe added to the elementary and second­ary education section, appearing on page2 and the top of page 3 of the committeebill.

It is a composite of several amend­merits, originally introduced as separateamendments. but combined in order thatwe might reciuest only one change in thetotal appropriations figure for the Ele­mentary and Secondary Education Act.The first portion is a $10 million amend-

ment. originally offered by the Senatorfrom California (Mr. CRANSTON), whichwould add $5.5 million for the supple­mental services centers'and $4.5 millionfor guidance counseling and testing. Hewill shortly describe those sections morefully.

The next is a $5 million amendmentby the Senator from California (Mr.MURPHY), and me, to bring the dropoutprevention up to the administration re­quest of $15 million.

The third section is an amendmentby Senator MURPHY to add $5 million tothe bilingual education program, andthis was joined by the Senators fromTexas (Mr. YARBOROUGH and Mr.TOWER). '

The last $5 million item is an amend­ment prepared by the Senator fromMassachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY). whichwould add $4 million to one new part Cof title V, authorizing planning and eval­uation grants to State and local educa­tional agencies. and adding another $1million to the bilingual education pro­gram, directed toward the new section706 dealing with such programs for In­dian reservation schools.

Together, those items add up to $25million.

I yield first to the Senator from Cali­fornia (Mr. CRANSTON) to explain hispart of the amendment. '

Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senatorfor yielding. I commend him for his con­cern over Federal support of guidancecounseling and testing services, which areinvolved in this amendment. I share hisconcem, and for that reason have joinedhim and other Senators in sponsoringthis amendment,WAich provides addi­tional funds for title III of the Elemen·tary and" Secondary Education Act, asamended.

Mr. President. the, 4istinguished Sen­ator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH) is theprincipal sponsor of the portion of theamendment providing the additionalfunds for ,title III of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act. Senator BAYH,who is unable to be here tonight, askedme to include in the RECORD his remarksjustifying the need for these additionalfunds. I ask unanimous consent to haveSenator BAYH'S remarks printed in theRECORD at this point.

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

ApPROPRIATIONS FOR ESEA ,TITLE IIIMr. BAYH. Mr. President, many educational

programs overlooked ):>y our colleagues 'inthe other body, have been suitably fundedin the Senate version of H.R. 16916. How­ever. I ):>elieve that there is onll area inthis blll-Tttle III of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act-which deservesparticular attention and' the amendmentwhich has been proposed would Incrllase theappropriations for this title from the SenateAppropriations Committee recommendedlevel of $140.393,000 to $150.393,000.

President Nixon signed, the ,Elllmentaryand Secondary Education Amendments of1969. into law on April 13, 1970. This legisla­tion had been deliberated by Congress forover a year and the President's signatureconcluded the efforts of Congress on thismonumental and historic piece of legislation.In this legislation, Congress consolldated intoone Title, Title m. two programs previously

funded separately in 0therpubllc laws. Thetwo programs were: , '

1. Title m of Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965-:-SupplementaryEdu­cational services and Centers.

2. Title V-A of National Defense EducationAct of 1958-Guidance, Counseling, andTesting.

Congress extended the authorization ofTitle III, as well as most of the entire Act,three fiscal years or through FY 1973. Con­gress further provided in Title III that thepurposes of each program, as previously con­tained in the two former public laws. re­mained intact in the new Title III. In a fur­ther provision Congress authorized $550,­000,000 for FY 1971, $575,000,000 for FY 1972,and $605.000,000 for FY 1973 for Title III.

The first program contained in the newconsolidated Title III--Bupplemental Educa­tional Services and Centers--has benefitedmore than 11 mlllion children In over 21,000public school districts and 2,000 non-profitprivate schools since its beginning in 1965.The projects aided by this program havehelped the dlsadvimtaged, the handicapped,the potential dropout, and talented andgifted children in schools throughout thenation.

While the number of children served bythis program has increased, appropriationshave generally decreased in recent years. Theappropriations.for year 1968 amounted to$187,876.000 when the program serviced 10million children. In fiscal 1969. when the pro­gram serviced 11,400.000 children, the appro­priations were $164,876,000. For fiscal 1970,$130,843,000 was appropriated. For fiscal1971, the Committee has recommended atotal appropriation of $140,393,000. However,of this amount, the Committee Indicatedthat it expects "that $~O.OOO,OOO wlll beavailable for support of guidance, counseling,and testing." ThUS, the recommended totalappropriation for what was Title III of theElementary and Secondary Education Act of1965 is $120,393,000.

We would hope that '$5.5 million of the$10 million Which this amendment would addto the appropriation for ESEA Title III wouldbe used by'tke States for Bupplemental edu­cational services and centers.

The guidance, counsellng, and testing pro­gram, also included In Title,III of the Ele­mentary and Secondary Education Amend­ments of 1969. is another worthwhile andexpanding program. Again~the appropria­tions ,for this program have decreased overthe years. For fiscal year, 1968, appropria­tions amounted to $24.5 million. For fiscal1969, this was reduced to $17 million and. infiscal year' 1970, the amount was reducedagain to $1,4.45 million. ,

Despite this reduction in, funding, theprogram can be credited with a number 01major achievements.

For example, the number of counselorsprOViding guidance, and' counsellng ,llervicesto public school children and youth has in­Creased sharplYt In 1958" there ,were 13,000full-time, counselorS ,for secondary schoolswith a ratio of 1 :960.!Ten years later in 1968there were 36,000 full-time secondary schoolcounselors with a ratio of 1 :450.

Moreover, suppOrt for guidance and coun­seling programs has been markedly improved.Financial support of these programs, con­sidering local and state, support, Is morethan, 27 ,times ,~eater than when federalassistance, began. And. as a result. the fed­eral share of' llupporthas decreased from44.5% in 1958 to less than 8.4% currently.There, has been a tremendous "seed money"effect in this program.

The program has also resulted in the pro­vision of more tests and testing programs toidentify interests, aptitudes, and abilities:9 million of the 45 million tests providedstudents in 1966--67 came, from this program(400,000 of thisnu:mher ,to non-pUblic schoolstUdents).

June 25,1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-' SENATE 21487Finally, the program has had a number of

other benefits,: Minimal, and ,recommendedstandards for guidance.programa 'have in­creased; quaUficatloils for state Supervisorsof GUIdance, Couns~Vng and Testing' havebeenstr'engthened;'< certifi()ation .'require­ments-for couruiellll'll have· improved, andincre!lSed attentiOll11aa been given, to coun­seling' youth' in; rural' :areas: and; the innercity.";;,,,

These significant. achieveDlents and im­provements are not sufll.cient,however. Thereare many important and serious needs,whlchmust be fulfilled. Allow me to mention justa few:

Counselor-student ratios are too high, es­peclally, in elementary;, schools where theratio is 1: 9,600 considering all schools.

In 1975, the secondary schools will need33,850 more counselors than they now havebut will be able to find only % this number;the elementary schools w11l need 27,905 morecounselors but only Ya will be found; Thesefigures are' not based on school populationsbut are practical estimates based on condi­tions Within the states. Stated another way,only 57% of the counselor need in 1975 Willbe met.

There is a great need for more trainingprograms for counselors (for ghetto, Appala­chian and other specialized areas); for train­ing programs for paraprofessionals to fillthe counselor gap; for in-service training andsupervision of existent, counselors; and forbroadened experiences in career developmentconcepts, new technology, group work, andhuman relations training.

Moreover, counselors need more training,practical experience and information in re­directing children' and, youth to specialty­oriented technical and vocational areas.

Guidance and personnel services are Inurgent need of expansion. Guidance services,because of limited funding even though e:ll:­pressly authorized in 1964 forjunior collegesand technical Institutes, have not been im­plemented sUfIlciently.

Finally, more parent programs are neededto lessen the generation gap, to increase theunderstanding of the parents as to the roleof the school in imparting information anddiscussing controversial, SUbjects.

It is clear that there is good reason to In­crease the guidance, counseling and testingprogram. Our amendment for an additional$10 million, $4.5 million of which we hopewould be made available for guidance, coun­seling, and testing, represents a very modestincrease in funding.

Section 309(b) of the Elementary and Sec­ondary Education Act Amendments of 1969provides that each State submitting a planunder new Title III must assure the Commis­sioner of Education that it w11l expend forguidance, counseling, and testing, an amountequal to 50% of the amount expended bythat State for that purpose in fiscal 1970from federal fUnds appropriated pursuant toformer Title V-A of the National DefenseEducation Act. For fiscal 1970, the Commis­sioner has allocated to all States under for­mer Title V-A of the NDEA, approximately$14 million. ThUS, when the States submittheir plans under new Title III for fiscal 1971,they must request approximately $7 millionfor guidance, counseling, and testing.

I have been assured by the OfIlce of Edu­cation that if the Committee's recommenda­tion for Title III is accepted, they will viewthe $20 million dollars recommended by theCommittee for guidance, counseling, andtesting as including the $7 mlllion dollarsmandated by the Act.

As I have indIcated, we hope that $4.5 mll­lion of the $10 million added by our amend­ment would be allocated to gUidance, coun­seling, and testing. Thus, the amendment,when taken in conjunction with the addi­tional funds recommended by the Committee,would add only $17.5 million to the $7 mil­lion mandated by Title III of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act Amendmentsof 1969.

Mr. President, the amendment if accepted,WOUld, we hope, make available a total of$24.5mlllion for gUidance, counseling and~esting-"an amount equivalent to theamount appropriated In FY 1968-and a to­tal of $125,893,000 for Supplementary Serv­Ices and Centers. The total amount of $150,­393,000 represents apprOXimately 29% of theauthorization for this consolidated title. Icertainly believe that this level of fundingis justified. '

Mr. CRANSTON. I recently reviewedthe impact of the former National De­fense Education Act--title V-A in Cali;.fornia. A 1969 Office of EducRition reportindicates that guidance and counselingprograms have increased substantially inquantity' and quality in California in thelast few years. This increase is due inconsiderable part to the "seed money"effect of former NDEA C-A: For example,in fiscal 1959 California expended nofunds under NDEA V-A from state orlocal sources. In the same year, Cali:'fornia's share of NDEA V-A funds was$322,601.00. By contrast, in fiscal 1967expenditures of State funds under NDEAV-A totaled $58,439.00 and $34.6 millionfrom local sources, even though Califor­nia's share of NDEA V-A funds rose onlyto $2.2 million. In the same period, thenumber of full-time public secondaryschool counselors rose from 2,211 to 4,032.

Former NDEA V-A was recently con­solidated with ESEA ill under PublicLaw 91-230, the Elementary and Sec­ondary Education Act Amendments of1969. Under the provisions of Public Law91-230, grants for the consolidated pro­grams are to be made by the Commis­sioner of Education pursuant to approvedstate plans. To assure continuing Fed­eral support for former NDEA V-A, sec­tion309(b) of the Public Law 91-230provides that these State plans must in­clude for guidance, testing, and counsel­ing an amount at least equal to 50 per­cent of the amount which the State re­ceived under NDEA V-A in fiscal 1970.Since the fiscal 1970 appropriation forNDEA V-A was $14,450,000.00, theminimwn,' amount which must be in­cluded in all State plans for guidance,counseling, and testing services in fiscal1971would be $7.25 million.

The Senate Appropriations Committeehas recommended $20 for these services.I would hope that of the $10 million weare proposing for ESEA III, the Stateswould use $4 Y2 million of this amount forinclusion in their guidance, counseling,and testing components of their Stateplans. Such an allocation would bring thefunds for these services to the level pro­vided in fiscal 1968 or $24.5 million.

Mr. President, I would like to commentbriefly on the testing practices of someCalifornia school districts. Some schooldistricts administer placement tests inEnglish to children whose native lan­guage is not English. The result is thatthese children are frequently, and un­fairly, placed in classes for the mentallyretarded. In some instances, these chil­dren have been retested in their nativelanguages. The retesting results havebeen dramatic. They indicate that thesechildren possess the same potential astheir English-speaking peers and that the

earlier low test scores can be attributedentirely to their inability to understandEnglish.

I have been advised by HEW that newtitle VI guidelines. recently promulgatedprohibit' the, use of Federal funds fortesting programs which are discrimina­tory. One new guideline states as follows:

(2) School districts must not assign n'a­tional orlgin"minorItygroup stUdents toclasses for the mentally ,retarded on basisof criteria which essentially measure or eval­uate English language skllls.

I am satisfied that the effective en­forcement of the new guidelines willeliminate the unfair testing practiceswhich I have described.

This leads me, Mr. President, to an­other aspect of the consolidated amend­ment which we are considering. InclUdedin the $25 million provided by thisamendment is $5 million for title VIIof the Elementary and Secondary Edu­cation Act. Title VI established a bilin­gual education program designed to meetthe special educational needs of children3 to 18 years of age who have limitedEnglish-speaking ability and who comefrom environments where the dominantlanguage, is other than English. As wasstated in the Senate report accompany­ing H.R. 514, the concern is for childrenin this target group to develop greatercompetence in English, to become moreproficient in the' use of two languages,and to profit from increased educationalopportunity.

Mr. President, I represent a State withone of the largest Spanish-speaking pop­ulations. California is also the home ofnumerous Orientals and Indians. Manychildren from homes where English is notthe dominant language do not have asufficient command of English when theyenter school to understand what is re­quired of them, The initial embarrass­ment and alienation which these chil­dren feel is often permanent, as is tragi­cally evidenced by the incredibly highdropout rate of these children. This lossis incalculable. It is therefore imperativethat we fund title Vil to the maximumpractical level.

I thank: the Senator from Minnesota.Mr. MONDALE. I yield to the Senator

from New Mexico, who will discuss brieflythe bilingual education aspects.

Mr. MONTOYA, I thank the Senatorfrom Minnesota.

Mr. President, I wish to express mysupport for this amendment, adding $5million to the bilingual education pro­gram.

As a cosponsor of the original bilingualeducation legislation, I have a strong in­terest in seeing that this program re­ceives sufficient funds to operate effec­tively. Each year since this legislationwas enacted I have appeared before theSenate Appropriations Committee, urg­ing increased amounts for bilingual edu­cation. The need for a strong bilingualprogram has been clearly demonstrated.

Spanish-speaking Americans have ahigher dropout rate and drop out fromschool earlier than any other minoritygroup. We have learned that many non­English-speaking students join the ranksof the school dropouts simply because thelanguage barrier becomes illSurmount-

21488 ,CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE

able. statistics show that school e~oll­ment of Spanish-speaking Amencansdrops significantly beginning with the14-to-15-age group, at which time only88 percent of the Spanish-speaking eli­gible population is in school, comparedto 94.3 percent of the total population.

Spanish-speaking persons 14 years andover in tlle Southwest average 3.9 yearsless schooling than the Anglos and 1.6years less than the nonwhite population.

Although Spanish-speaking Americansunder the age of 25 constitute 15 percentof all persons under 25 in the five South­western states, they constitute only 6.2percent of the total college enrollment.

These alarming statistics clearly re­fiect the immense language barriers ofthe Spanish-speaking population. Thebilingual education program could behighly successful in erasing these barriersand helping this second largest minorityin the country to become useful and con­tributing members of our society. But thissuccess is largely dependent on our will­ingness to provide this program withadequate funding.

Unfortunately, bilingual education hasnever received the funds it needs anddeserves.

The recently enacted ESEA Amend­ments of 1970 authorize $80 million forbilingual education in fiscal year 1971.Yet the President has requested a mere$21,250,000 for the program in the com­ing fiscal year.

The Senate committee has proposed$25 mUlion for bilingual education. Mr.President, this amount does not evenbegin to refiect the true need. This levelof funding will do little to prevent mostnon-English-speaking children from fac­ing a lifetime of functional illiteracy,underemployment, and minimal income

Mr. President, I would like to mentionthe history of the Bilingual EducationAct, which I think has served the greatinterest of many Spanish-speakingyoungsters in this country in the last 2years.

First, I want to thank the Senator fromWashington, who has been most sym­pathetic to this program. Last year, heincreased the appropriation above thebudget request, and this year he has donethe same, increasing it from $2L5millionto $25 million. But because of the greatneed for this type of program, and be­cause of the great service it has rendered,HEW reports that there is an~ed formore funding for this program, becausethe present funding at the rate of $25million a year is not even adequate toservice the applications that are pendingbefore HEW.

I am informed by the U.S.Depart­ment of Health, Education, and Wel­fare that a total of 56 bilingual proposalswill be funded in fiscal year 1970-48 havealready been funded, and an additionaleight will receive money this week. These56 projects will exhaust all funds appro­pliated for bilingual education in thisyear.

Because of the money shortage, thebilingual education program officialsasked that the State departments of ed­ucation be highly selective about send­ing in proposals this year and that theykeep the number down toa bare mini-

mum. Thus, for example, although theState of Texas had planned to submit300 applications, they sent only. 44 fol­lowing this request. A total of 195. ap­plications were received after the vari­ous education departments throughoutthe Nation weeded out all but thosewhich they felt to be of clitical im­portance. But enough money was avail­able to fund only 56 of these projects.

I would like to mention briefly whatbilingual education is and what it meansto the youngsters.

The distinguished Senator from Cali­fornia mentioned the dropout rate. Wehave a large Spanish-speaking popula­tion in the five Southwestern States. Thedropout rate among this population ishigher than that affecting the othersegments of our population in the coun­try, and the reason is this :

When they start in schOOl with anEnglish language deficiency, they lag be­hind in the class. They get discouraged.They feel isolated. Eventually, they dropout from school. That is what causes thehigh dropout rate among the Spanish­speaking population in this country. Be­cause of the Bilingual Education Act, wehave started projects in which we takethese children at the age of 5, beforethey start kindergarten, and we bringthem into the school, and there theylearn to speak and to read their ownSpanish language. They become proudof it; they are imbued with plide abouttheir heritage; and simultaneouslY theyare taught to read to speak the Englishlanguage, so that when they start in thefirst grade they start as equals with otherchildren.

Educators now praise this kind of pro­gram. They feel that this beginning forthese children is going to bring them upto par with the other children in theschool and that the dropout rate will re­cede, and these children will become partof the mainstream in the educationalprocess.

I wish to say, by way of commenda­tion, that the distinguished Senator fromWashington has indeed been most help­ful and sympathetic to this program.Five million dollars, which is requestedunder this amendment, is fine, but it.willnot be adequate. It will not come close toservicing the actual needs that exist tobring these deprived children into themainstream of education in the UnitedStates.

So I am hopeful that the Senate willlook with sympathy and approve this $5million increase for bilingual education.

The bilingual education office estimatesthat of the remaining 139 unfunded pro­posals, half of these would have beenfunded had the money been available.These will have to be resubmitted in thenext fiscal year.

The bilingual education annual reportsubmitted to Congress in January of thisyear states than an appropriation of $400million would be required in order tomeet all the needs. This estimate is basedon present costs and takes into consider­ation the critical need for teachertraining.

Quite obviously, the $25 million passedby the House and reported from theSenate committee is entirely, inadequate.

Besides the unmet needs cited above, anewelement·hasonly recently beenadded, .makirig .therieed for increasedfunds even 1ll0recI"Uci8.I.On May 25,1970, former' Secretary of Health, Edu­cation, and Welfare Robert Finch noti­fied over 1,000 school districts with 5 lJer­cent or more non-English-spea:.ing st.u­dents that they must set up special pro­grams to eliminate the language barriers.This policy statement would serve to enddiscrimination against national originminorities under title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964. This title prohibitsthe use of Federal funds for programsthat discriminate on the basis of l'Rce,color, or national origiri.

Those school districts, containing sig­nificant numbers of Spanish-surnamed,Chinese, and other national origin mi­norities are now required to take lJositivesteps to close the language gap.

In the past, however, the bilingual edu­cation program has never funded pro­posals for school districts containing lessthan 20 percent children who do notspeak English at home. This new policystatement, requiring funds for districtswith 5 percent or more non-English­speaking students, would place an evengreater stress on this already underfund­ed program. If we are even to begin tocarry out this new Department of Health,Education, and Welfare policy designedto end discrimination against the Span­ish-speaking and other national originminorities-and I believe we must-it isessential that we appropriate more fundsfor bilingual education.

For the reasons cited above I amstrongly in support of the amendmentadding $5 million to those funds appro­priated for bilingual education, bringingthe total to $30 million in fiscal year1971.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate tojoin in this effort to raise the fundinglevel for this immensely worthwhile pro­gram;

Mr. MONDALE. I thank the Senator.Mr. President, how much time re­

mains?The PRESIDING OFFICER. One min­

ute.Mr. MONDALE. I yield to the Senator

·from Massachusetts.Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as a

cosponsor of this amendment to add $25million to the appropriations for the Ele­mentary and Secondary Education Act,I urge its passage.

The $25 nullion represents a combina­tion and compromise of several individualproposals for additions to ESEA, and Ithink that we should be very clear onthis legislative history so the· Commis­sioner of Education will know exactlyhow we intend it to be allocated..

The breakdown is as follows: First, $10million for title III, of which $5.5 millionis for supplementary centers and services,and $4.5 million for guidance and coun­seling. Second, $4 million is for the newpart C of title V, authorizing grants toState and local educational agencies forplanning and evaluation. Thirj, $6 mil­lion for bilingual education, of which $1millionis specifically for the new section706, authorizing additional programs forschools on Indian reservations. Fourth,

June ~5, 1970 CONGRESSIONALRECORD.- SENATE~ .:.." - - .-. '. - .. \,,; , ' 21489

$5 million for title vm dropoutpreven-tlon. ' ",'The~eare all important programs, and

I feel that, passage of the amendmentwould be a substantial gain in trying tobring quality education to every Ameri-can youth.' _ . _

When we consider. that title. III wascut back by$34riullion 1n this last fis­cal year, the additions ar~ simply a par­tial step toward r~storing the level offunding in earlier years.

Mr. President, I am particularly in­terested in the $4 million allocated tocomprehensive planning and evaluation.For I am the author of the amendmentwhich Congress added to ESEA earlierthis year authorizing -$10 million ingrants to state arid local educationalagencies for comprehensive planningand evaluation.

With annual expenditures by localschool districts, now exceeding $35 bil­lion, some solid long-range planning isessential. But administrators and' edu­cators have pointed out time and againthat with. the day-to-day pressures andimmediate demands on the school budg­ets, such planning and evaluation sim­ply is not occurring at present.

Congress is about to pass close to $1.9billion for elementary and secondary ed­ucation. If that money is to be effectivelyused, we must give every assistance todevelop careful, overall planning at theState and local levels.

The $29.75 million already is containedin the bill for title V-but that figurewas arrived at before Congress passedthe new part C, as well as a new partB for assistance to local educationalagencies. I would assume that HEW willallocate the $29.75 million to take ac­count of the new authorities.

Mr. President, I also feel that the $6million addition to bilingual educationis critical.

In the Southwest, the median educa­tional level for Anzlos is 12.1. But forMexican-Americans it drops to 7.1, a gapof 5 years. In my own state of Massa­chusetts, where an estimated 7,800Puerto Rican children live in Boston,fewer than half were enrolled in schoola year ago.

This year the Office of Education hasreceived 195 new proposa~but it hasbeen able to fund only 54. From Massa­chusetts alone, 12 school districts madeapplications for new programs-but onlyone could be funded.

In addition, the problems of bilingualeducation in Indian schools are severe.Earlier this week, I introduced anamendment to add money to title VIIspecifically for Indian schools. Theamendment presently before us wouldearmark $1 million-to be added to theamounts that would otherwise go to In­dian schools under the regular title VIIappropriation.

As chairman of the Special Subcom­mittee on Indian Education last year,I was appalled at what we havediscovered:

Indian dropout rates are twice the na­tional average in both public and Fed­eral schools;

Some school districts have dropoutrates approachin:g 100 percent;

The aChievement levels of' "Indian

children are 2 to 3 years below those ofwhite students., . ,

Mr.. President, approximately $700.­000 to' $800,000 are presently going toIndian-related p1;ojects and programsunder title VII. This amendment wouldprovide an additional $1 million on topof that. The amount is insufficient, butit is a start.

Finally, the amendment would add $5million to the title VIII dropoutprogram.

Every school dropout is a potentialtragedy-for the individual and for thesociety. which failed him. I have seenestimates that lout of 3 fifth-graderstoday will drop out before completinghigh school. And the dropout rate isgoing up.

So I support an increase, and I hopethat it will be used for a broad range ofnew approaches to attack this criticalproblem.

Mr. President, everyone of these in­creases is urgently needed. The programsare sound. The needs are substantial. Thepotential returns from our Federal effortare great.

I hope that the Senate will adopt theamendment.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, theseamendments are five in a group?

Mr. MONDALE. Four.Mr. MAGNUSON. With the amend­

ment of the Senator from Massachu­setts. that would be five.

Mr. PASTORE. No. That is inclUdedin the four.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is spread overa great number of programs, particularlyin title I of the Elementary and Sec­ondary Education Act. It is hard to eval­uate just how much money we can ade­quately spend in some of these places,although we know that in the bilingualeducation, for instance-maybe weshould have more. Some people say weshould have less.

It is hard to pick an absolute figureout of here. But I know that the com­mittee was almost amazed-I neverrealized it, I am frank about it-as tohow many youngsters there were whoneeded bilingual education in this coun­try. The number runs over 5 million.I think that the Senator from NewHampshire and I would be glad to ac­cept that part of the amendment, but theSenator has sort of got us up against iton the dropouts and the guidance andthe counseling.

The House put more money into thebill over the budget and we put more inthan the House on guidance and coun­seling. I know those additions are justi­fied. There is only one counselor for1,000 high school students and the ratiofor the primary grades is deplorable. Itshould be one for every 200 or 300 pri­mary students to do the right kind ofjob.

We cannot separate the consequencesof dropouts from the guidance and coun­seling programs that are available. Theygo together. So we added $2 million overthe House for the dropout program andput more in the guidance and counselingprogram.

The amendment is reasonable whichthe Senator from Minnesota proposes,but the Senator from New Hampshire andI are in a little bit of a quandary as to

where thE;l emphasis. should be placed.They are hard to separate, if not im­possible. We heard ,some excellent testi­mony on this' and, .we would be willingto accept that part of the amendmentif the Senator from New Hampshire willagree. .,

Mr. COTTON. Before the Senatorleaves that, ~et me say that I am perfectlywilling to take this amendment to con­ference.But' we doubled the amount for

. the dropout program over1970. We add­ed $2 million on the dropouts and thenwe added $3 million on the guidance andcounseling, for a total of $5 million, andthat is over the budget of the House. Iwant to make that clear. But these areworthy amendments. If we can getawaywith it and not lUn into trouble, I agreewith the distinguished chairml),n that weshould take them to conference.

Mr/ MAGNUSON. Then the amend­ment of the Senator from Massachusettswould be included in this amendment.

I want to say for the RECORD -that Iam willing to talk with the House aboutthis question, because it is a smallamount compared to the total in thebill, but I do not view with too muchenthusiasm' these evaluation and plan-ning'things, programs down in the De­partment. All they do down there is ap­point a committee on a commission tostudy and evaluate the obvious, at thesame time, they tell the students, a,ndteachers, and educators-stand aside andwait until we complete our stUdy. Wehave a whole warehouse full of studiesdown here.

We will have to spend more money tobuild another warehouse for studies andreports. They should go about their busi­ness. Everyone is planning, evaluating,studying, and appointing commissions.There is some merit to this proposal,however, in that this would allow thestates to do their own evaluating ratherthan down at the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare and, therefore.we accept that aPlendment with thatreservation.

Mr. President, I yield back the re­mainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BENNETT). The question is on agreeingto the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I have

an amendment which I send to the deskand ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN­NETT). The amendment will be stated.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Onpage 11, between lines 19 and 20, insertthe following:

SEC. 213. No part of the funds approprIatedunder thIs Act shall be paid, as part of agrant, loan. or other financIal assIstance toany Institution of hIgher education whIchIs closed or classes suspended at any tImedurIng the regular academic year for thepurpose of allowIng students or facUlty toengage In nonacademIc polltical activItiesother than voting.

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

Mr. GURNEY. I yield.Mr. COTTON. I do not wish to usurp

the prerogatives of the leadership here,but how does the Senator feel about alimitation of time on his amendment?

'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD'-3,' SENATE 'June 25, '1970

Mr. GURNEY. That will be perfectlyall right withme. Half an hour, 15 min­utes to either side? That would be ample.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent--the Senator fromNew Hampshire and I ask that jointly­that the amendment of the Senator fromFlorida (Mr. GURNEY) have a time limi­tation on it of 30 minutes, with 15 min­utes to a side, the time to be equallydivided between the Senator from Flor­ida (Mr. GURNEY) and the Senator fromWashington.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN­NETT). Is there objection to the requestof the Senator from Washington? TheChair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, thisamendment is plain enough. What itdoes is to prevent any of the moneys inthis blll from going to colleges or uni­versities that suspend their classes orclose down their institutions during theregular academic session for the pur­pose of engaging in politics.

Following the Kent State incident andthe Cambodian uproar, we saw a greatamount of political activity from college

. campuses. Everyone here I know hadvisits from students interested especiallyin the war issue, and they started amovement which has rapidly developedinto another kind of thrust; namely, aplan to' engage· in heavy political ac­tivity this fall.

Some very interesting articles havebeen written on the subject. One waspublished in yesterday's WashingtonEvening Star about the whole movement.I will read a few phrases from it. Itspeaks of scores of such groups nowengaging or plannIng political activity,and I read:

Anotll,er survey by the New CongressMovement Indicates that 17 colleges Witha total enrollment of 100,000 have agreedto a fall recess allowing students to partic­Ipate in polltlcs. American University, Brown,City College of New York, Cornell, Haver­ford, Holllns. MIT, Oberlln, Princeton, Vas­sar and the University of Pennsylvania areamong tll,e 17. Eleven others-Stanford,Notre Dame, University of Chicago, Clark,DUke, Johns Hopkins, Michigan State, Syra­cuse, Wellesley, Columbia and Sarah Law­rence--are expected to announce such a re­cess in the future.

Mr. President, so the problem is there.It shows what is intended. It poses agreat many serious questions which havebeen the subject of speculation in manynews comments in recent days. I wish Ihad time-the hour is late and I do not-­to go into them at some length. Manyeditorials have been written. One of themost interesting articles was pUblishedin the Washington Post not too long ago.I will not read it all, just cite some ofthe questions raised by this proposedpol~tical activity:

Are private colleges and universities thatappear to lend support to political activitiesrisking challenges to their vital tax-exemptstatus?. When campus author.ltles alter or shorten

academic calendars, are they inviting de­mands or even lawsuits from some studentsor their families for at least partial tuitionrefunds?

ce.n students and. professors plunge Intopolltlcal work if they are receiving aid fromthe government or private foundations?

I might point out that in Florida, atthe University of Miami, when there wasa recent shutdown over the Kent Stateand Cambodia affair, the president of theuniversity actually did shut down theuniversity and two law stUdents sued inFederal court to have it reopened, andthe judge so held. There were manyother lawsuits around the country wherethis happened, so that the lawsuit ques­tion is raised as a serious problem, whichhas already happened.

I continue to read:Finally, does the current surge of political

activity pose any threats to academic free­dom-that cherished right to hold and voiceone's Individual beliefs without fear ofreprisals?

Many papers and editorials have edi­torialized on that particular point. Ithink that one of the most interesting Ihave read was brought to my attentionby the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.YOUNG), who had it printed in theRECORD yesterday or today.

This incident involves the Universityof North Dakota which faced the prob­lem.

I will read the editorial from a NorthDakota newspaper. It sums up the wholeproblem very admirably. This was anaction taken by the dean's council, facul­ty members, and students in dealing withthe controversial subject' of whether thisparticular university would shut downthis fall. . . '

It reads in part:"The University of North Dakotarecog­

nizes the Importance of, and encourages,participation by Individuals In the polltlcal,social, and economic affairs of the com­munity, state and nation," the policy state­ment says. Wll,lle we respect the deep con­cern of IndiVidual faCUlty members and stu­dents about events and Issues which havebrought Increasing turmoil to our nationand tll,e concomitant desire to partiCipateactively In tll,e fall elections, we must em­pll,aslze the distinction between Involvementof an Individual and Involvement. of tll,eUniversity as an institution. The Universityaffirms its traditional concern for the well­being of tll,e society; at the same time Itmust remain outside the political arena.Adjustment of tll,e academic calendar Inorder to free stUdents, faculty, or otheremployees to engage In political activity isnot consistent with the foregoing affirma­tion.

In explanation, the statement says, inpart:

In tll,e first place when a stUdent enrollsIn the University and pays his tUition andfees, the University Is legally committed to apublished calendar, with provision for cer­

'tain kinds of exceptions; tll,ere Is tll,e impliedcommitment by tll,e University to delivercertain educational experiences. The calen­dar does not disallow politically-related pro­grams, e.g., a seminar at ;Bismarck duringthe legislative session taught on a non-par­tisan basis. Other kinds of regular and an­nounced scll,eduled class and field workprograms may be arranged.

The fundamental issue Is the corporateInvolvement of the University and any ac­tions tll,at might involve instit'Utional polltl­cal commitments. Sucll, actions mlgll,t createa picture of Institutional political unanim­Ity which would not represent the views ofall members of the University community.

There Is tll,e danger that the Universitycould evolve toward a kind of political or­thOdoX:y, wnlch In certain circumstances

might even Inhibit and discourage· the ex-pression of other opiniOns. .

That is what the editorial or statementsaid in part regarding this very proposi­tion.

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

Mr. GURNEY. I yield.Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I.would

like to ask. the distinguished Senatorfrom Florida with reference to the lan­guage of his amendment, when he refersto, "which is closed or classes suspendedat any time" is it the intention of the dis­tingUished Senator to include only thatclosing or suspension of classes that oc­curred hereafter?

Mr. GURNEY. The Senator is correct,hereafter.

Mr. CURTIS. I thank the Senator.Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, in read­

ing the summary or the statement of pur­pose of the University of North Dakota,it seems to me that it sums up the prob­lem.

I do not know any Member of the Sen­ate-certainly not this Member-who Isopposed to .political activity on the partof students. As a matter of fact, I havehad college students and high school stu­dents in every one of my four campaignsfor Congress who worked very actively inmy campaign. And I spoke on the collegeand high school campuseS and encour­aged the students to engage in politicalactivity.

What I think is wrong and what theeditorial comments in many of the lead­ing newspapers of the country and agreat many people who have set theirminds to this problem think is wrong isthat the university itself should cOm­mit itself in the political arena, becauseonce it does that it opens cans of allkinds of worms.

It opens up all kinds of hostile feelingsagainst the university. And this Is not thesort of a place where we should haveofficial attitudes taken by the universi­ties and academic communities to hurlthe institution as such into the politicalarena.

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

Mr. GURNEY. I yield.Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the Sen­

ator's amendment refers to the "regularacademic year." I take it that would notrefer to the summer sessions. The Sen­ator is talkingmore in terms of what weordinarily understand as the fall semes­ter, trisemester, starting in Septemberof the school year and generally runningon until Mayor early June?

Mr. GURNEY. In answer to the ques­tion of the Senator, I would say thatwouldnormally be the case. I think thatsorrie universities, of course, are not onthe old system of two semesters. Theyare on the three-semester system. Ifthat is their regular system, and they arein full session during the summer season,of course it would apply to them.•

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, there Issome talk on the part of a very few col-

,leges and universities, .as I understandit, that there might be an adjustment in:the academic year, whereby instead ofclasses starting in September and run-

,n1ngstraightthrough until the end of

June 25, 19?O CONGRESS~ONAL RECORD - SENATE 21491the first semester in January or Febru­ary, the school year might start in Sep­tember and then along about the mid­dle of October there would not be anyschoolfora couple of weeks for the pur­poses of enabling the faculty and stu­dents to participate.in the fall campaign.Thenr after .the campaign, along .aboutNovember 5, classses would resume.

I wonder if such an arrangementwould constitute a "regular. academicyear" or if this would. be a device forevading the intention of this legislation.

Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, in an­swer to the Senator's question, I wouldsay that if that were part of the regularlypublished academic year, a recess at aparticular time, as the Senator has said,thEm it would not fall within the purviewof this amendment.

If, on the other hand, a college oruniversity had an academic year start­ing October I, and its Christmas vaca­tion starting December 15, then a cessa­tion of the classes for a period of timeto engage in political activity would bea violation of the amendment.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator seems tosay that in the situation I described that,if in apublication it was indicated thatclasses would start for the fall term, letus say, on September 20, and from theperiod October 20 through November 5there would be a "recess" and thenclasses would resume on November 5 andcontinue on until the end of the semes­ter on February I-if that is the way itwas handled, it would not be violativeof his proposed amendment.

Mr. GURNEY. The Senator is correct.As I understand the question of the Sen­ator, if those at the university under­stood that that recess was part of theacademic year, then it would not be aViolation.

If I may continue, one most interest­ing thing that happened in my officeduring the visits of the many studentsin the past several weeks, and more par­ticularly 2 or 3 weeks ago, when studentswho came to my office, was that I hadseveral who complaim'ld to me about theirparticular colleges and universities shut­ing down and· depriving them of aneducation. .

They did not complain about the stu­dents who wanted to take off on theirown· time and come to Washington totalk to their Senators and Representa­tives. But they did complain bitterly be­cause the college presidents and facultyand a few universities in some instanceshad simply closed down the college oruniversity arbitrarily.

These students who were complainingwere not able to continue their academiccurriculum and that was what theywanted.

I think that a great many studentsfeel that way. As a matter of fact, I thinkthat a great majority of them feel thatway and that a great many faculty mem­bers also feel that way.

It may· be that a great majority ofthose stUdents should be protected. Thevarious lawsuits which have been filedaround the country make it appear thatway. Having lawsuits filed by stUdents tokeep their schools open so that they maycontinue going to college is indicative ofthe kind of students I am speaking of.

OX\7I--1355-Part 16

I would hope that the very seriousquestion which is obviously beingraised-tests, tax status, academicstandards, the right of students whowant to continue their education-andall of these matters have been raised bya lot of very serious-thinking peoplearound the country in the past 2 or 3weeks in answer to some of the proposalsto close down our colleges and universi­ties this fall.

I hope the Senate will agree with meand vote for the amendment.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, Iyield such time as he may require to theSenator from New Hampshire.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I sym­pathize with the motives my friend fromFlorida has in offering the amendment.He was kind enough to discuss it withme. However, Mr. President, I do wishto say this.

In committee the Senator from NewHampshire offered an amendment. Thatamendment was not pointed in any way,shape, or form to colleges or to studentswho participate in political campaigns.The thing that bothered me was closingdown the colleges and universities beforethe year was up and not giving instruc­tion. The amendment the Senator fromNew Hampshire had in mind was simplyto provide that those colleges that didnot run approximately the same numberof total weeks in the year that they ranthe year before this, in a normal year,would suffer a correspondingly propor­tionate decrease in Federal funds. Thecommittee, and I trust its judgment, wasagainst inclUding the provision in thebill. They did consent to a recommenda­tion by the committee in the reportagainst the practice of closing down col­leges and not giving instruction.

In the matter of closing colleges andletting students participate in campaigns,I must say frankly to my friend fromFlorida I woUld feel that I was a hypo­crite if I voted for or supported theamendment, because shortly after theCambodian incident, when all these stu­dents in groups and droves descended onWashington, I resolved to set aside 5 daysand sit down and talk with every groupthat came in, no matter what State theycame from. I am glad I did. I was hereover that weekend. It was an extremelyinteresting experience. There were somestudents who presented difficulties, butmany of them presented some extremelychallenging, logical and reasonable ideas.I think it was a good thing for them tofeel they had come to see me in my of­fice and that they could have their say.

To every one of those groups that camein I said to them when they talked aboutour system being wrong and that therehas to be a revolution, and that sort oftalk, I told them to look at my State ofNew Hampshire and what happened UPthere in the presidential primary whenthe students went out from the collegesin New Hampshire, and probably fromcolleges outside of New Hampshire, andadministered a stunning defeat to thePresident of the United States, by carry­ing the primary for EUGENE MCCARTHY inthe flrst primary in the country.

I said to them. "That shows what you

can do. If you want to bring your idealsto pass, do it within the sYstem, do itwithin the framework; you can do it; yoUcan go from door to door and talk topeople. No matter whether you are oldenough to vote, no matter what yourvoting age is, you have your influence,"

If I were a candidate for office I wouldhate to have stUdents of the colleges ofthe State of New Hampshire going upand down the street telling people notto vote for COTTON. I cannot imagine agroup I woUld be more fearful of unlessit were the rural mail carriers. I havealways had a fear of them. [Laughter,]

Mr. President, this amendment ispointed at the very thing I am compelledto believe it should not be pointed at. Idid feel the practice of shutting downthe colleges at the end of the year andletting everybody out, promoting themwithout examinations and refusing in­struction to those who might want tostay and receive instruction was wrong.I felt that shOUld be taken into con­sideration in the grants offered, but thatwas purely in the discretion of the Sec­retary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

I will say to the Senator from Florida,while I recognize his complete sincerity,and much can be said for his position,and even though I represent his side ofthe committee, I cannot possibly supporthis amendment and I hope that he wouldnot push the amendment to a rollcallvote.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, as a

matter of fact, this matter of limitingfunds or denying funds, or obtainingfunds was discussed at some length in ourcommittee. While I agree with the Sen­ator from New Hampshire, I sympathizewith the Senator from Florida who isproposing the amendment. I am afraidwe would be setting a bad precedent herebecause there is no connection betweenthe spirit which motivates us in makingthese grants and what we are trying tostop. As a matter of fact, I think we areimpinging a little on the administrationof the colleges and universities. Thiscould lead to abuses and affect the freeflow of education at the community levelas well. I do not think we shoUld stop theflow of funds to stifle any actiVity thatmight be considered political. In the longrun that might come back to haunt us.

I thank the Senator for yielding.Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I

agree with the Senator from New Hamp­shire and with the Senator from RhodeIsland. I appreciate what the Senatorfrom Florida is trying to do, but cannotsupport him.

Mr. President, the people he talksabout, who do those things on campus oroff campus are a small minority. Somecall them militants, and they will go theirway no matter what. They will just leaveclasses and leave the schools. What Iwould like to do is encourage those whoare the majority to take an active part inthe democratic process. No one ever sug­gested in all these discussions that weclose any school at any time. The tax­payers pay for the education and thestudents go there for an education, andthat is what we all want.

21492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-·'·SENATE

But if someone felt he wanted to get·a small amount of time off and the elec­tion is on Tuesday, on Wednesday, hewould say, "Can I have Friday off if Imake it up?" This is all that most of theplans provide from the Princeton planon.

I think this will be a great program.Then they cannot come back and say, asmany of these young people said to us re­cently, that they have been excludedfrom the process. Once they have goneout they cannot come back and say theywere excluded because they were part andthey will take some pride in the part theyplay. We should encourage that, particu­larly after the House and the Senatehave just voted 18-year-olds the right tovote.

The people who would destroy propertyor violate the rights of others are notthe ones we are talking about. They area small minority numberwise, believeme. We are trying to reach the vast ma­jority of students so that they mighttake part in the processes of democracy.When they do, it will be found that theywill become excellent citizens.

I yield back the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

BENNETT). All time having been used oryielded back, the question is on agree­ing to the amendment of the Senatorfrom Florida [putting the question].

The amendment was rejected.AMENDMENT NO. 654

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I call upmy amendment, No. 654, which is alsosponsored by the Senator from Massa­chusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senatorfrom New York (Mr. GOODELL), theSenator from Michigan (Mr. HART), theSenator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS),the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WIL­LIAMS) , the Senator from Ohio (Mr.YOUNG) and the Senator from NewMexico (Mr. MONTOYA).

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield for a unanimous-con­sent request at this time?

Mr. NELSON. I yield.Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will

the Senator agree to a limitation of 15minutes on each side?

Mr. NELSON. I have no objection, ifthe Senator from New York (Mr.GOODELL)--

Mr. MAGNUSON. Or less?Mr. NELSON. Let us say 15 minutes.

The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.KENNEDY) does not seem to be on thefioor. I will take probably 5 minutes.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Is that satisfactory?Mr. GOODELL. Yes.Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that debate on theNelson amendment be limited to 15minutes on each side, to be equally di­vided between the Senator from Wis­consin and the Senator from Washing­ton.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask forthe yeas and nays.

The· yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the

Senator suspend until we get theamendment reported?

The amendment ·offered by the Sena-

tor from Wisconsin for himself and otherSenators \\'111 be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read theamendment (No. 654) as follows:

On page 5, line 16, strike out "$30,800,000"and insert in lieu thereof "$40,800,000".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yieldmyself 4 minutes. The amendment to theEducation Appropriations Act, H.R.16919, that Senators KENNEDY, GOODELL,and I have introduced-amendment No.654-would add $10 million to theTeacher Corps appropriations so that wecan make a modest start on three hewprograms authorized by Congress thisyear: A Student Teacher Corps, a cor­rection program for young offenders andan Indian reservation program.

Each of these programs has been care­fUlly tested through pilot projects andenjoys wide support in the educationcommunity.

Congress added these programs andincreased the authorization for theTeacher Corps by $44 million-from $56to $100 million-this year after the Pres­ident had sent up his budget. The act wasnot signed into law until April. Thereforethe administration had no opportunityto take the new authorizations into con­sideration when making up their budget.We are grateful that the full administra­tion request for the Teacher Corps hasbeen approved both by the House andSenate Appropriations Committee thisyear. I want to take this opportunity tothank the chairman of the HEW Ap­propriations Subcommittee, SenatorMAGNUSON, for his strong support for theTeacher Corps over the years and tothank the Appropriations Committee forappropriating the full administration re­quest for the Teacher Corps, $30.8 mil­lion. However, we believe that the crisisin education is so serious, and the oppor­tunity that the Teacher Corps offers tous for engaging young Americans inworking constructively on this problem isso great, that weshould move forward asrapidly as possible in expanding theTeacher Corps to fulfill itS promise.Therefore we have proposed this modest$10 million amendment to make a starton these three programs fQr which Con­gress authorized an additional $44 mil­lion this year.

Let me speak briefly about the Stu­dent Teacher Corps program.

THE STUDENT TEACHER CORPS PROGRAM

The concept: We cannot afford to waitanother 10 years to provide decent edu­cation to. the young children of poverty.Yet to do the job now requires finding avast supply of people able and willingto work in our hardest pressed schools.That supply exists in high schools andcolleges where bright and dedicatedyoung Americans are searching for waysto make a genuine contribution. TheTeacher Corps has demonstrated thattheir learning skills can be turned intoteaching skills if the course work, andservice programs are carefully built.

The proposal: We .propose a nationalprogram to .. bring carefully ·selected,trained, and dedicated college and highschool and junior high school stUdents

to work in tutorialpro~arosin our Na­tion's poverty schools by establishing a·Student Teacher Corps,based on theTeacher Corps' exiJeriencer.nd structure.

Background: Studies of existing tutor­ing programs demonstrate that careful

. training, a .strong program structurewithin the school system, and close co­operation with parents and communitygroups are essential if student tutorialprograms are to be effective. The TeacherCorps, enacted by Congress in 1965, haswon strong local support and the en­dorsementof the National EducationAssociation and the American Federationof Teachers. It is now carrying out a pro­gram with about 2,UOO members in 135school districts in 40 States. It has dem­onstrated that college stUdents can betrained to be effective tutors in teams ledby experienced teachers. The StudentTeacher Corps Act builds on both thatexperience and that reputation.

How it would work: Student TeacherCorps tutors will work with regularTeacher Corps programs. Proposalswould be developed at the local level byschools and universities working in co­operation with community members andwith the approval of the State depart­ment of education. The Federal Govern­ment would pay training, administra­tive costs and 90 percent of compensa­tion. After training, Corps, memberswould serve in the schools in teamsunder a leader from the school system.Kinds of members would incl~de:

COLLEGE VOLUNTEER. TUTORS

College students would volunteer, betrained, and serve in teams in schoolsunder the supervision of team .leaders.It is hoped regular course credit at theuniversity could be arranged for, theirtutorial services.HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TUTORS

Recent programs have had greatsuc­cess using high school students frompoverty schools-often high school stu­dents with learning problems them­selves-to tutor younger children. Re­sults show that both· high school stu­dents and younger children learn wellunder the programs. '

ADULT VOLUNTEERS

Parents and others from the localcommunity, and people from the largercommunity would be trained and workeither part time or full time in tutorialteams. Those working full time wouldbe eligible for subsistence level pay, onthe scale of regular Teacher Corps in­terns. Others would be compensated forexpenses as volunteers. High school stu­dents would be paid only for· work doneoutside ,of school hours.• Many collegestUdents working as tutors would be eli­gible for college work-study progrl'!-ms.

Before cIosittg,l llskuqanimous con:­sent to place in the RECORD two editorialsfrom theWashingt()q Postconce111ingthe Teacher Corps. and the appropria­tions amendment before .the Senate.

1'here being no objection, the editorialswereorpered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:[From the Washington Po.st; Apr. 28, 1970)

A DOMESTIC PEACE. CORPS IN EDUCATION

President Nixon. signed into law earllerthismonth a major .. new program ·approved by

June; 25, 1970, CONGRESSIONAV'RECORD-', SENATE 21493Congress to expand and strengthen the work;of ,the" Teachers<.Corps., It ""ould, enable' thatusefU\a.nd im,agina"\;iveagencytotap the re­sourCIlS ofgene~~ity,,,nd good will lying solargely Unused among the nation's youth; itwould 'give college graduate!!, high school andcollege'stlidi!lfts'and "othefila' chance to. helpdisadvantaged inner cltychildren overcomethe handicaps; which so ,often. thwart theirhopes fqredu<Ja,ti0Il,'BJlt J;he program, nowauthorized, h~ I;tlll,<tti bEl funded. Appro­priati0A llea;ri,ngl!)fff"AurrentfY in pro~essbefore ,aSeD.llte.approp~latiol1SI;,ubcommit~

tee; ynless it deals, with the Teacher Corpsa great. dealiri()regenerotisly than the Househas done, the whole promising program'willamount to little' more than another promise .broken.

The Teacl:1er Corps as originally conceivedoperated to improve educational opportuni­ties for poor ,children by helping colleges to,;train teachers and helping schools to improve'the way teachers are use,d. It was a boon atonce to young college graduates who wantedto make teaching a· career and to the over-

, burdened staffs of inner city schools.A bipartisan group led by Senator Gay­

lord Nelson and Rep. William Steiger intro­duced a StUdent Teachers Corps bill last yearWhich, now that it has been enacted, enablesthe agency to attract volunteers to serve dur­ing the school year, under the direction oftrained teachers, as tutors and instructionalaides both in schools and. in the communi­ties, many of, them 'without any compensa­tion',some witbliving allowances in muchthe manner of the Peace Corps and VISTA.This seelnB in close accord with a hope ex­pressed by President Nixon during his elec­tion campaign for ','a, national TeacherCorps' which would bring carefUlly selectedcollege and high school students into actionas tutors in core-city schools."

The Teacher Corps authorization signedby the President approved the expenditureofi\llOO million for fiscal year 1971. But be­fote the, new .authorization had been ap­proved, the administration fixed a bUdgetamount of only i\l30.8 million for the agency.This is' precisely the amount Which theHouse granted. It will suffice at best to fi­nance only the old program-and that on 6mllagerbasis. There is a superb opportunityat hand to enlarge the Teacher Corps' contri­bution to urban life. It would be a shame toI~t this h\lpe die aborning.

[From the Washington Post, May 24, 1970)FuNDING THE TEACHER CORPS

, The TeaChe~COl'psneeds more money if itis to do what Congress has told It to do. Thelast chance it has to get that money willcome tomorrow or the, next day when theSenate votes on an appropriation measurefor the Office of Education. Senators Nelson,Kennedy and Goodell have proposed anamendment to increase the funds availablefor Teacher Corps progralnB by $10 million.. Once a stepchild of the administration, the

Teacher Corps now seems to have been madea fullfledged member of the famlly. The ad­ministration' proposed to give it an allow­ance of $30.8 mlllon for the fiscal year ahead,and the Hopse of Representatives grantedthis sum without a murmur. The senate Ap­propriations Committee approved the sameamount in the bll1 now before the Senate asa whole. But in the meantime-in the periodsince the budget requests were framed­Congress voted to enlarge the Teacher Corps'responsibillties., Those responsibilities can bedischarged only with added money.

Last month Congress passed the Nelson­Steiger bill to create a StUdent TeacherCorps which would operate to, train and su­pervise college stUdents, high school stUdentsand neighborhood people for service in tu­torial 'prograrnsto help inner i:1ty children.The .idea Is', a 'marvelously imaginative and·practical one. It, would give a big boost toyoungsters in culturally deprived, and dis-

advantaged, homes-:-a. measure of the headstart President Nixon has sald is so vital toeducation. And at the same time it could beimmensely, valuable in giving the stUdentsserving as tutors a chance to put their en­ergies and ideals to constructive use.

Another bill passed by Congress authorizesthe Teacher Corps to help universities setup progr61n8 aimed at preparing teachers towork with young offenders in reformatories ,and prisons. This seems another immenselyconstructive'undertaking. So is still anotherproposal approved by Congress telllng theTeacher Corps to provide interns and teamleaders for work on Indian reservations.

These programs ca.n produce rich socialdividends. Having authorized them, Congressnow needs to finance them. The TeacherCorps is ready and eager to get going.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wouldlike also to place in the RECORD certainexcerpts from reports of the Committeeon Labor and Public Welfare concerningthe Teacher Corps written over thelast 2 years, regarding the status of theTeacher Corps.

There being no objection, the excerptswere ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:REPORT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS

OF 1968--SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR ANDPuBLIC WELFARE

D.-INDEPENDENT STATUS OF TEACHER CORPSIn drafting the Teacher Corps legislation

in 1965, the committee took care to specifythat the Director would be equal in paylevel to the then current rate for bureau

,chiefs. It was the committee's intention thatthe Teacher Corps be independent withinthe OJIlce of Education reporting directlyto the Commissioner.

The committee intended th.at the TeacherCorps not be an ordinary teacher educationprogram. It recognized th.at the TeacherCorps needed maximum possible independ­ence and vis!bllity if its fuU potential asa recruiter of new teachers and an innova­tor in teacher education was to be reached.

,ThiS is the way the program worked untilthis March when it was placed within thenew Bureau of Education personnel develop­ment.

During the early years of the program,when funding was uncertain. the TeacherCorps was operated first as a Task Force andthen was attached to the Bureau of Elemen­tary and Secondary Education. The commit­tee understands that during this period theTeacher Corps, in effect, reported directlyto the Commissioner. Now, however, thecommittee understands that the TeachersCorps has been made an ordinary divisionof the new Bureau of Education PersonnelDevelopment.

The committee is concerned that with theseverely limited independence of a divisionin a bureau in the OJIlce of Education muchof the promise of the Teacher Corps as con­ceived by this committee may be lost.

REPORT ON ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDU­CATION AMENDMENTS OF 1969--8ENATE COM­MITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

STUDENT TEACHER CORPSSection 804 of the bill amends title V-B-l

of the Higher Education Act of 1965, whichauthorizes the Teacher Corps. The amend­ments-

(1) authorize a now component, the Stu­dent Teacher Corps,

(2) adjust the salary rate for members ofthe Teacher Corps, and

(3) increase the authorization of appropri­ations for the program.

In recent years college students have vol­unteered by the tens of thousands for tu­torial progralnB. However, these progralnBhave often lacked the careful training, selec-

tion and integration into school progralnB andcommunity life essential for success in teach­ing children from poverty homes.

A new movement has also begun that uses,high school, junior high school, and in somecases even elementary school puplls fromthe higher grades in tutoring their youngerschool mates. Careful research shows tha.tsuch tutorial progralnB are very successful,both for tutor and tutee.

These, amendments are designed to providean opportunity to expand these programsatthe local level in conjunction with localTeacher Corps projects.

The Teacher Corps is a suitable vehiclebecause its present structure requires uni­versities, school systems and communitygroups to work together in designing and op­erating innovative training and teaching pro­grams under local control.

Already a number of innovative programsinvolVing both adult and young pupll tutorshave been developed as part of ongoing'Teacher Corps programs. This new legisla­tion wlll provide the legislative authoritynecessary to carryon this work in the 80projects now supported by the Teacher Corpsand in the new projects that the increasedauthorization would make possible.

The amendment also increases the au­thorized ceillng for the pay ofregular Teach­er Corps members to $90 a week. The presentlevel of $75 a week has been ruled taxableincome by the Internal Revenue Service sinceTeacher Corps interns are paid by localschools systems (With 90% federal funds)for more than half time work. In severallarge cities the resulting take-home payafter deductions amounts to $50 to $60 Bweek. When Congress established the $75 perweek rate, the amount was thought to becomparable to the non-taxable stipends un­der other teacher training programs. It Isnot mandatory that all Teacher Corps in­terns should be paid at the higher rate, butin cases where the costs of living are highthe Commissioner would have the discretionof reimbursing school systems for compen­sating teacher-interns at rates up to thehigher figure.

With respect to compensation for the stu­dent tutors the amendment provides thattutors and instructional assistants shall becompensated at rates consistent with thepractice under comparable work study pro­grams.

In commenting on the Teacher Corps In itsreport on the Higher Education Amendmentsof 1968 the Committee reasserted its inten­tion that the Teacher Corps be operated inthe Office of Education as an independent"Corps" program. In this report the Com­mittee again emphasizes that this was andis the Congressional intention in setting upthis special program.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President. as thisreport language makes clear, the TeacherCorps was designed to be a Corps, thatis to sayan independent program onthe model of the Peace Corps; a programwith a spirit of innovation very hard toachieve in ordinary bureaucratic pro­grams no matter how efficiently run. Itwas the intent of the committee in draft­ing this legislation that the TeacherCorps be as independent as possible with­in the Office of Education, reporting di­rectly to the Commissioner. Two admin­istrations have seen fit not to operatethe Teacher Corps as it was intended butrather to place it within a regular bureauwithin the Office of Education. I wantto take this opportunity to state that Ibelieve this to be a mistake. It is notonly contrary to the intent of Congressbut, more important, detlimental to theconcept of the Teacher Corps itself anda great handicap for the program.

21494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE, JurU325, 1970

mitted to the Teacher Corps by· variousorganizationS and universities in severalStates and 10 new programs can' bestarted this' year. However, unless thisamendment is passed, funds will not beavailable to implement these programs.

The Student Teacher Corps and theIndian program have also clearly dem­onstrated on a pilot· basis their poten­tial for improving neglected. groups' inour society. The funds to be provided bythis amendment will be of .critical im­portance in expanding tlie success real­ized thus far. The Student Teacher Corpsprogram will enable the Teacher Corpsto train alld use volunteer tutors fromcolleges, schools, und communities aspart of regular Teacher Corps teams.This program will give direction to amovement of recent years in which tensof thousands of college students havevolunteered for tutorial programs to aidchildren of poverty homes. High school,junior high school, and even elementaryschool pupils from higher grades havealso established tutorial programs foryounger school mates. In its pilot proj­ects the Teacher Corps has tested andproven the beneficial results of theseprograms to tutor and tutee alike. Withthis permanent authorization now estab­lished, the necessary direction and train­ing can be offered to expand and improvethe delivery of these services. The $4 mil­lion provided by this amendment is es­sential to the needed implementation ofthis program.

The ESEA amendments also providedthat up to 5 percent of the members ofthe Teacher Corps could be assigned toelementary' and secondary schools oper­ated for Indian children by the Depart­ment of the Interior. The $2 million pro­vided by this amendment will expand theIndian reservation program pioneered onthe Navajo and Hopi reservations in Ari­zona arid Sioux reservation in Nebraska.This was set up to improve reservationschools, while training young Indians forcareers in education. The Teacher Corpsapproach, based on the concept of en­couraging .Indians to train themselves,has shown promise of tremendous suc­cess in this area.

Mr. President, I wish to commend theSenate Appropliations Committee forrecommending an increase of $390 mil­lion over the House passed level. I regretthat this amount is not higher. When Iwrote to the Appropriations Committee,urging them to increase the Senate fundsover the House level, I stated my firmbelief that it is not in our national inter­est to place excessive budgetary restraintson our education programs. I once againreiterate that belief today. There are fartoo many authorized educat!onprogramson the statute books with no funds to op­erate and too many more which are in­adequately funded far'. b~low authorizedlevels. No 'matter how many programswe pass, unless we appropriate the moneyto bring them to life, they aremere1¥rhetorical devices.

I believe that these Teacher Corps pro­grams can make a contribution to thebetterment of our society in areas whichhave too long suffered from. undue ne­glect. It is my hope that the Senate willjoin with us and appropriate the neces-sary funds. :

However, the original budget requestdid not include funds for three innova­tive and vitally needed programs whichwere newly authorized by the Congressin the Elementary and Secondary Edu­cation Act amendments-Public Law 91­230-approved on April 13, 1970, afterthe budget was submitted. Neither theHouse nor the Senate AppropriationsCommittee have provided funds for theseprograms either. These three new pro­grams are: Corrections education, Stu­dent Teacher Corps, and assistance toIndian children. It is our intention thatof the $10 lnillion to be provided by thisamendment, $4 million would be spent .for the corrections education program,$4 million for the Student Teacher Corps,and $2 million for the Indian program.

In addition to their common legislativeorigin, each of these programs has beenproven successful in projects conductedby the Teacher Corps on a pilot basis.Congress has recognized the value ofpermanently authorizing these threeprograms; it shoUld now fUlfill its re­sponsibility by providing the means for amodest start in implementing them.

Of particular interest to me is theopportunity afforded by this amendmentto provide $4 million for the TeacherCorps corrections education program.With the cosponsorship of 10 Senators,I introduced the amendment to the Ele­mentary and Secondary Education Actwhich established this program on a per­manent, nationwide basis a few monthsago.

I introduced that amendment becauseof my deep concern over the need to im­prove our correctional system. It is ashocking fact that up to 75 percent ofthe offenders released from confinementin prisons, jails, juvenile training schools,and probation and parole organizationscommit new crimes. and return to con­finement. Our corrections system doesnot correct. For young offenders particu­larly, these institutions offer an unpar­alleled opportunity to obtain a graduatedegree in crime.

The Teacher Corps program providesa sound and viable means of changingthis shocking situation. Its basic objec­tive is to encourage colleges and uni­versities and local school systems toestablish and expand specialized pro­grams of teacher training for assistingin the rehabilitation of juvenile delin­quents and youth offenders in penal in­stitutions and community-based cor-'rectional facilities. It is designed to en­courage young people to make educationin the corrections field a permanentcareer choice-a step we should havetaken long ago. It also will complementthe efforts of other Federal, State, andlocal agencies to provide better educationprograms for juvenile delinquents andyouthful offenders.

The Teacher Corps has demonstratedthe success of this program in four pilotprojects undertaken since 1968 in theStates of New York, Illinois, Connecticut,and Georgia. The results of these pilotefforts are clear proof of the TeacherCorps' ability to initiate effective reformsin an area so crucially related to our na­tional well-being. Presently, there are asignificant number of corrections edu­cation proposals which have been sub;..

Consider, for instance, the question ~fstaff The Teacher Corps is now a di­visio~ of a line bureau in the Office. ofEducation. As such it must compe~ \Ylthother divisions for scarce staff posItIOnsand administrative expense funds. As aresult the Teacher Corps staff has beencut from 61 in 1968 to 47 today, whileits program has increased from $17 mil­lion to $30.8 million. The story on ex­pense funds is similar. I do not seek tocriticize anyone. It is the administrativearrangements that are at fault. Thegreat success of the Teacher Corps de­spite this organizational handicap is atribute to the program and to its ad­ministrators and especially to the spiritof young Americans who continue to ap­ply for the difficult Teacher Corps serv­ice at the rate of nine applications forevery position available.

The Teacher Corps has now provenitself to be enormously effective. It hasalways had the enthusiastic support ofthe education community, the NationalEducation Association, and the AmericanFederation of Teachers. It has earnedthe support of local school officials andof university people who were initiallysomewhat suspicious of the idea. It con­tinues to have very strong support amongyoung college students. I understandthat the Teacher Corps and Peace Corpsand VISTA each year send a joint mail­ing to college seniors and that the Teach­er Corps gets as many ressponses to themailing as both VISTA and the PeaceCorps combined.

I want to take this opportunity tourge the administration to take full ad­vantage of the opportunity that theTeacher Corps represents. Not only do Isuggest that the Teacher Corps be madeas independent as possible, but that theadministration request for next year thefull $100 million authorized by Congressfor the Teacher Corps program. Noproblem that we face is more serious thaneducation for the children of poverty.Nothing is more desperately needed bythis Nation than opportunities to involveits young people constructively in deal­ing with its social problems. At a timewhen we seek to reach out to young peo­ple to provide them with ways of express­ing their social concern through avenuesof peaceful and constructive change, theTeacher Corps offers a tested and provenopportunity. I hope that the Senatorswill support the amendment before themthis evening, and I hope that the admin­istration will join with us in providingan opportunity for the Teacher Corps tofulfill its promise.

I yield the fioor to the Senator fromNew York (Mr. GOODELL).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Howmuch time does the Senator wish?

Mr. GOODELL. Two minutes.Mr. President, I rise to urge that the

Senate pass this amendment-co­authored by Senators NELSON, KENNEDY,and myself-to provide an additional $10million for the Teacher Corps.

I am extremely pleased that the Houseand the Senate Appropriations Com­mittees have allowed the full budget re­quest of $30.8 million for the TeacherCorps in H.R. 16916. This is certainly awell-deserved vote of confidence in a pro­gram which is now a. proven success.

J1:tne. 2.5, 1970 CQ:NGRESSIONALRECORD-.••SENATE 21495Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the

senator yield?Mr. GOODELL. Mr. President, I ask

for 1 additional minute, and I yield tothe Senator from Texas.

Mr. TOWER.. I understand this wasauthorized subsequent to the adoption ofthe budget by the administration.

Mr. GOODELL. That is correct.Mr. TOWER. Has there been any ad­

ministration comment on the proposedamendment at all since that time?

Mr. GOODELL. Not to my knowledge.I do not think there is opposition.

Mr. TOWER. There is no administra­tion position?

Mr. GOODELL. There is no adminis­tration opposition, to my knowledge. Ihave talked WIth administration officials,and I find no opposition to the basic ap­proach authorized. I do not speak interms of appropriating the funds.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yield tothe Senator from Massachusetts.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Howmuch time?

Mr. KENNEDY. May I have 3 or 4minutes?

Mr. NELSON. I yield 4 minutes to theSenator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Iwould just like to add my voice, as a co­sponsor of the amendment, in supportof the amendment. I think it is impor­tant in the concern of this great bodyand the administration in the field ofeducation.

One of the most impressive facts aboutthe Teacher Corps is that 86 percent ofthe Teacher Corps graduates stay in thefield of education. One of the greatneeds in the field of education is stilltop quality teachers in poverty-areaschools. The Teacher Corps has been oneof the most impressive recruiters as asource for individuals who remain in thefield of education. Seventy percent ofthose who have been involved in theTeacher Corps have continued to teachin the poverty areas of this country.

Therefore, I think this is the very min­imal kind of support if weare to get peo­ple who are interested- in the educationfield in these difficu1t and challengingareas; namely, in the poverty areas.

I think one of the most challengingstatistics is that only one in eVery nineapplicants is accepted, even though theyqualify for other reasons, and are ac­tUally permitted to join the TeacherCorpS. In other words, only one out ofnine individuals in this country who areinterested in participating in the TeacherCorps and' in teaching In the povertyareas-and who will undoubtedly con­tinue in the field ofeducation-is allowedto enroll, because of the limitation of theresources for providing training underthis program.. We know the dimensionsof the needs of the Teacher Corps inIndian reservations and among juvenileoffenders and other student teachers.

I feel the committee has done an ad­mirable job in trying to allocate the nec­essary resources for the Teacher Corps.I would hope that additional resourcescould be made available, pecause I feelthey are essential in terms of educationalexperience, particularly in attractingyoung people to the field of educationand, second,. this attracting young and

old alike in the difficult and challengingurban and rural poverty areas of ourcountry in the field of education.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me.Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I reserve

the remainder of my time.Mr. COTTON. I yield myself 5 minutes,

Mr. President.Mr. President, on behalf of the com­

mittee, I just want to call attention tothe fact, first, that we were very muchimpressed with the testimony on theTeacher Corps. In the early years of thisscrapping about the Teacher Corps, Imust admit that I was something of askeptic. I am not any longer. We were allimpressed by it. The distinguished Sen­ator from New York said that he hadtalked with people downtown, or peopleconnected with the administration, whoraise no objection. I have talked withthose who are charged officially with thebudget, and there is some objection bythem on this matter, for this reason:

Last year, the Teacher Corps was partof another line item. It had $21,737,000,or about $22 million. This year, the Bu­reau of the Budget itself, at the requestand urging of HEW and of the admin­istration, increased that amount bynearly $10 million to $30,800,000.

The House of Representatives took thebudget figure. The Senate took the Houseand bUdget figure, and we did this also:We made it a line item, so that, for thefirst time, the Teacher Corps has beenraised to the prestige of a line item, andhas been given the full budget estimate,which is a $9 million jump over last year,to start with.

After all, there is much merit in thesuggested amendment. I think if a roll­call had not been demanded, with thisamount involved, we might well havetaken it to conference, and perhaps ob­tained a little more from the House; butwe are getting to the point where, if weare going to be frozen into positions byrollcalls, I simply have to remind thesenate of one thing:

The Senate bill is now over the budget$850,597,OOO-almost a billion dollarsmore than the bUdget estimate. It isover the House figure by $540,367,000;and it is over fiscal 1970 by $703 million,without counting the last couple ofamendments that have been added to it.

Mr. President, this is not in the natureof a threat, because I have no knowledgeand do not represent in any sense theadministration, and have no knowledgefrom anyone within 10 miles of the Pres­ident of the United States, but we knowWhat happened la.st year, and Senatorswill remember that the distinguishedSenator from Washington, who I thinkshould be credited as being one of themost diligent and dedicated supportersof these humanitarian programs, said inhis open,ing remarks that our commit­tee increased the budget, increased theHouse figure, and gave to this educa­tion appropriation every cent that wefelt we could give it in safety, withoutincurring serious risk of going to anotherveto, another delay, going until Novem­ber or December before the school dis­tricts know what money they are goingto get, and traveling the pathway thatwe traveled last year. I am not justify-

ing the President's veto, because I sup­ported the bill; I am simply talking facts.

If we keep on Increasing it-we haveincreased it $150 million by the amend­ment of the Senator from New York; wehave increased it some more by addingother additional amounts and if, by aseries of roUcalls, the Senate chooses topad this up farther, I am afraid, Mr.President, we will run into trouble, be­cause your committee has been very, verygenerous, in going almost a billion dollarsover the budget.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will theSenator yield me 4 minutes?

Mr. COTTON. Certainly.Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thor­

oughly support the statement just madeby the distinguished Senator from NewHampshire. Our committee is not a unitinsupporting this program through theyears, but this year the two leaders of thecommittee, the Senator from Washingtonand the Senator from New Hampshire,strongly insisted that we support theentire bUdget estimate, which was over$9 million more than the appropriationfor last year. By looking at page 13 ofthe report, Senators will see that as aresult of this increase in appropriations,2,200 new corps teachers would be ableto be trained and put to work.

Furthermore, Senators will see that inorder to make this program stand by it­self, our two leaders recommended thatthis be made a line item and taken awayfrom general teachers' instruction mat­ters, which involved a great many othermatters which sometimes ate into thisprogram.

We followed those two recommenda­tions; we put in the more than $9 mil­lion addition to what the Bureau of theBudget had put in, and for the first timein this program, we supported the fullbUdget request. We are going along, ingood faith, to support this program. andto enable it to serve this 2,200 new teach­er training effort. That may not be wise,but the committee decided to do that,and laid aside any personal doubts wehad had in order to do it.

I respect the good motives of thosewho offer this additional increase, butI do not think it is wise. I do not thinkit gives credit to the two leaders of thiscommittee, who went into this mattervery strongly, and were able to sell thesetwo very great changes to the commit­tee as a Whole, one stepping up the pro­gram by between $9 million and $10 mil­lion, the second providing for the train­ing of 2,200 new teachers; and the thirdthing, which I think is a matter of greatimportance also, making this a line item,so that it will stand by itself and willhave a greater prestige, and give greaterpromise than it ever has before.

I hope very strongly that the argu­ment of the Senator from New Hamp­shire will be upheld, and this amend­ment will be rejected.

Mr.. NELSON. Mr. President. howmuch time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator has 5 minutes. The Senator fromWashington has 6 minutes.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, let mesay again as I say in my prepared re-

21496 CbNGRESSIONAL'·RECORD·_··BENATlf! Jurfe" 25, 1"970',

DISPOSITION" OF CERTAIN,' FUNI;>SAWARDED TO THE TLINGIT ,ANDHAIDA INDIANS OF ALi\SKA BY 1\_JUDGMENT" ENTERED i,BY,,';I'HECOURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THEUNITED STAT~ONFERENCEREPORTMr. McGOVERN. Mr.President,'I

submit a report from 'the committee. ofconference on the disag~eeing votes ofthe two Houses on· the' amendment ofthe Senate to the bill, H,.R.12858, to pro­vide for the disposition of certain fundsawarded to the Tlingit and Haida In­diansof Alaska by. a judgment enteredby the Court of 'Claims against theUIlited States. I ask unal1imous consentfor the present'· consideration' of thereport.. . .. ,.. ', ", .. .

The . PRESIDING, 'OFFICER (Mr.BENNETT) . The' hiport' will be read forthe information of the Senate:

MossMuskieNelsonPastorePellProutyProxmireRandolphRiblcoffSchwelkerScottStevensSymingtonTydings

PackwoodPercySmith, Maine'SparkIilan'SpongStennisTalmadge.ThunnondTowerWIlliams, Del.Young, N. Oak.

AndersonBayhDoddEastlandGoldwaterHartke

So Mr.agreed to.

AllenAllottBakerBellmonBennettBibleBoggsByrd, Va.CookCooperCottonCurtisDole

AikenBrookeBurdickByrd, W, Va.CannonCaseChurchCranstonEagletonFangFulbrightGoodellGoreGravelHarrisHart

I 'fUrther' annou'nce: that,'iiilresSeD.tand voting, the senator from New "Jer-'sey (Mr. WILLIAMS), and 'the, Senatorfrom Texas (Mr. YARBOROUGH) wouldeach vote "yea.". .' .• ... .

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) ,the Senator from California (Mr.Mm­PHY) , the Senatoifrom IlIinois(Mr.SMITH) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.SAXBE). are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Soutl1Dakota (Mr.MUNDT) is absent because of illness.

The Senator from Maryland (Mr.MATHIAS) and the Senator from Kansas(Mr. PEARSON) are detained' bn'officialbusiness.

If present and voting,the Senator fromSouth Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) and the Sen­atorfrom Illinois (Mr. SMITH) wouldeach vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 46,nays 37, as follows:

[No. 175 Leg.]YEA8-46

HatfieldHoll1ngsHughesInouyeJacksonJavltsJordan, N.C.KennedyMagnusonMansfieldMcGeeMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMondaleMontoya

NAY8-37DominickEllenderErvinFanninGriffinGurneyHansenHollandHruska 'Jordan, IdahoLongMcClellanMIller

NOT VOTING-"-17Mathias SaxbeMcCarthy' Smlth;m.Mundt Williams. N.J.Murphy YarboroughPearson Young, OhioRussell' "

NELSON'S amendment was

These are good programs, but here;again, they are programs that did notshow up in any recommendations. I thinkthat they should be funded. Perhaps itis wise to try it now and see whether theHouse will go along with it in conference,because there may not be another chancethis year. It is difficult to know just whichis the right amount, because the pro­grams that have been discussed are notliterally Teacher Corps programs in thesense that we first began the 'TeacherCorps. .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired.

Mr. NELSON. I yield time to theSenator.

Mr. MAGNUSON. They have been au­thorized by the Congress and the Presi­dent. So I am hopeful that the Senatewill vote its will on this, and the Senatorfrom New Hampshire and I will see whatwe cando.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, how muchtime do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourminutes.

Mr. NELSON. I yield myself 2 minutes.I want to emphasize once more that

this $10 million appropriation is for threeprograms that we discussed and approvedin both Houses of Congress this year.One of them involves Indian education,an opportunity for training Indians sothat they can do the work on the reser­vations, where help is desperately needed.One is for education work with juvenileoffenders who are sentenced to jail forless than a year. Another one is to trainhigh school kids so that they can partic­ipate in tutoring those who are in schoolwith them.

All three programs have been tested;all three have been successful. It is atremendouslY important investment. Ithink this is the kind of investment thatwe ought to make, in helping people whoare unfortunate, in providing oppor­tunity for young Americans to serve theircountry. In helping local schools andprisons do a better job.

I yield to the Senator from New York(Mr. GoODELL) whatever time he maydesire. .

SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yield

back the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time

on the amendment has been yielded back.The question is on agreeing to the

amendment of the Senator from Wiscon­sin. On this question the yeas and nayshave been ordered, and the clerk will callthe roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll. "

Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that theSenator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER­SON), the Senator from Indiana (Mr.BAYH) , the Senator from Connecticut(Mr. DODD), the Senator from Missis-,sippi (Mr. EASTLAND) , the Senator fromIndiana (Mr. HARTKE), the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MCCARTHY), the Senatorfrom Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL), and theSenator from Ohio (Mr. YOUNG) arenecessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) andthe Senator from Texas (Mr. YAR­BOROUGH) are absent on official business.

marks, how grateful I amior the great'support that has been given to this pro­gram by the Appropriations commitf:ee.I am well aware of the support whichthe Senator from New Hampshire hasgiven it. C

Moreover, the Appropriations Com­mittee funded the total amount of theadministration request, about $9 millionmore than it was last year.

My only point was that we authoredthese three additions to the programafter it was too late for the administra­tion to take a position on funding them.

Mr. President, I would be prepared toask, if the Senator from Washingtonwould take the amendment, unanimousconsent to withdraw the request for arollcall.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, Iask the Chair to put the question on theamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the request of the Senatorfrom Wisconsin?

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, Iobject.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I am ready to yieldback the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does theSenator from Wisconsin yield back theremainder of his time?

Mr. NELSON. The unanimous con­sent request for the withdrawal of therollcall has been objected to.

Mr. COTTON. Then let us not yieldback our time.

Mr. MAGNUSOr-,". Who objected to it?The PRESIDINL"" OFFICER. The Sen­

ator from Colorado (Mr. DOMINICK).Mr. MAGNUSON. How much time do

I have, then? "The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

ator has 6 minutes.Mr. MAGNUSON. Six minutes; I yield

to the Senator from New Hampshirewhatever time he needs.

Mr. COTTON. I just want to add onething. Among other things, we restoredthe impacted area funds which mean somuch to so many districts in this coun­try. We restored them completely. TheHouse put some of them back in. Weincreased over the House by $248.8 mil­lion, a quarter of a billion dollars. Ifwe keep chipping away on programs onwhich we have tried to be as generousas possible, somewhere along the linethis has to be cut down. I sincerelyhope-knowing how my school districtsfeel, and I think the school districts· ofmany others Senators-that we will nothave to cut it down by yielding to theHouse and cutting down the impactedarea funds, which· are the only fundsthe districts can take and spend as theydesire, without strings on them. fromWashington. That is why I think it isso important.

I am sorry about the objection to theroll call vote, because I think we mighthave gotten a little more from the House.This is a good program, and we are go­ing to do the best we can. But if we haveto have the roll call vote, I sincerely hopethe Senate will not force us into a sit­uation which will cause us to run intotrouble somewhere along the line and gothrough what we went through last year.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, Iyield myself one-half minute.