It seems only fair to me that where the Government, by contract, causes a great influx of schoolchildren, whose parents do not necessarily contribute through real property taxes to the construction and operation of the schol system, it then becomes the obligation of the Government to aid substantially the areas affected.

The work done on these contracts is for the benefit of all of the people of the United States, and our local taxpayers should not bear the entire burden.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge favorable consideration to the extension of these all-important laws.

Mrs. GREEN. This concludes the hearings on H.R. 3000 and the joint subcommittee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m. the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

(The following material was received for the record :)

STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUnaga, a MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be heard and to make this statement in support of H.R. 3000, a bill which is of extreme importance to the State of Hawaii.

Hawaii has been experiencing a period of rapid growth for a decade. With the granting of statehood in 1959, our rate of growth was accelerated even more sharply. Our greatest growth has been in the tourist industry.

This is because Hawaii is a charming place. Its climate is not duplicated anywhere else in the entire United States, or for that matter in the entire world. Its visitors leave firmly convinced that Hawaii's people are the friendliest and the most pleasant in the world, and for this reason they make return visits to the 50th State. Without a doubt, in Hawaii, as in any other State, our greatest resource is its people.

As it is in the rest of the Nation, in Hawaii our increasingly complex society demands a continuous and lifelong process of learning and relearning. The demands of education call for 40 percent of our State budget and grow insatiably larger. We are not able to meet the needs of today without Federal assistance.

I believe H.R. 3000 offers an acceptable solution to many of our problems in education. Of particular interest to me is the proposed basic adult education program. As a member of the Hawaiian Legislature, I helped to set up an adult education program in Hawaii about 8 years ago. Today Hawaii spends $76,000 annually to provide basic education to 3,500 adults in more than 50 schools. This is considered far from adequate, for an estimated 15 percent of our adults 25 years and over have not had formal schooling beyond the fifth grade. The passage of H.R. 3000 will mean a minimum additional amount of $50,000 annually for Hawaii's adult education program. Small though the amount may be and inadequate to meet the needs fully, it will be a most welcome bit of assistance.

If I have any criticism to offer, it is that H.R. 3000 fails to provide Federal assistance to private schools. It appears to me that it would be only fair to provide for this assistance, for our educational system in America as presently constituted would suffer immeasurably without the facilities of the private schools. Undeniably they are an important and intgeral part of our educational setup, effecting untold savings to the taxpayer. If the committee sees fit, an amendment to correct this inequity may be in order.

Despite its shortcomings I urge your favorable report on H.R. 3000, for it provides the solution to many problems in education faced by Hawaii and surely other States.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

To upgrade the education of present teachers, to retrain teachers returning after a period of homemaking, and to train new teachers, it would be very useful if NDEA loan funds were available to part-time students.

For example, Carnegie Institute of Technology in my district in the city of Pittsburgh is planning a program under which recently certificated teachers will teach part time in one of the school systems of the Pittsburgh area and study part time to earn a master of arts degree. Since such people would not be earning a full salary, tuition would be a heavy drain on them. Under present regulations, however, they would not be eligible for an NDEA loan because they are part-time students.

An identical situation prevails for women who once taught and then left teaching for marriage and motherhood. In anticipation of being free enough of family responsibility in a few years to be able to return to teaching full time, they are seeking part-time retraining programs. As part-time students, they are not eligible for NDEA loans.

Similarly, many women who hold college degrees but not teaching certificates are thinking of preparing for teaching. While their children are of junior high school age these mothers can take one or two courses at a time and still be available when their children come from school in the afternoon. In 2 or 3 years of such a program, the mothers can get all the courses they need for certification and thus be prepared to teach full time when their children are high school seniors or when they leave for college. Since these women would be studying part time, they too would be denied NDEA loans.

In the future married women are going to be returning to gainful employment in increasing numbers after child rearing. Many of these women would become teachers if they could prepare for such a career part time while their children are still growing up. NDEA loans for part-time students would encourage them to consider teaching, particularly if the 50-percent forgiveness plan for teachers were continued.

Because of the proscription against the use of NDEA loan funds for parttime students, therefore, an important method of upgrading present teachers, bringing former teachers back, and preparing new teachers is not available to the Nation's public schools. I therefore urge the committee to consider amending H.R. 3000 to this end-that part-time students, which now constitute more than 25 percent of our total student population, may take advantage of the opportunities afforded.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for this opportunity to submit a statement expressing my support for a continuation of Public Law 874, 81st Congress, the law which provides for the payment of funds to local educational agencies for the maintenance and operation of elementary and secondary schools in areas where the activities of the Federal Government have placed added financial burdens on local communities.

Both in the 87th and 88th Congresses, I have introduced legislation that would grant Federal assistance to areas of the country in which local Federal employment installations have resulted in a vast increase in the number of schoolage children. Very often, these local school districts are quite incapable of adequately meeting the new demands on the school systems occasioned by the proliferation of surrounding Federal employment.

It is, therefore, of timely necessity that these federally impacted areas, experiencing above average school enrollment, should receive commensurate Federal assistance to meet their burgeoning costs of education.

In past years, it is heartening to note that the Congress has responded with vision and alacrity in approving measures to assist federally impacted school districts. I sincerely hope that the 88th Congress will see fit to accord similar speedy action to this most necessary of goals.

STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present my views on H.R. 3000, the proposed National Education Improvement Act of 1963.

This bill is unique in its field in both its comprehensiveness, and in its intelligent selectivity of areas in our educational structure which most need assistance and which are most eligible for improvement. A very successful precedent exists, however, for an omnibus education bill; the National Defense Education Act was passed in 1958, and its multipurpose measures have been praised ever since. But praiseworthy as its provisions may be, it should be noted that they were aimed at remedying mainly the technological shortages of our schools.

When one speaks of the responsibility for education, most often the subject is the local school district or the State education department. But I would sug gest that the responsibility lies with the people, and that we have chosen the more local political bodies as a matter of historical necessity and also as the method best calculated to leave the maintenance of responsibility with the people. It does not follow that the revenues collected by the Federal Government either should not or cannot be returned to those administrative bodies for the benefit of those who have paid the taxes. It is the minds of our children that will suffer from the refusal to so act, and collectively, it is our Nation whose intellectual development will otherwise be stunted.

H.R. 3000 recognizes the need and the importance of improving education at all levels. It will help correct, for example, the fact that in the elementary and secondary school systems in 1962 there was an excess of 1,666,711 students over the classroom capacity; it will help accommodate the 7 million college students expected by 1970, double the 1960 enrollment; it will go a long way toward making up the current additional $1 billion annually which institutions of higher education should be spending for the improvement and expansion of their physical plants. These institutions should be investing $2.3 billion annually instead of the current $1.3 billion.

The vision of H.R. 3000, and the potential of the educated energies it would unleash, can only be realized by a review of its provisions.

Title I of H.R. 3000 provides an extension of the student loan program initiated by the National Defense Education Act. Its $90 million ceiling is increased to $135 million or necessary sums, in order to meet the demands not satisfied under the previous program. To encourage a greater number of students to enter the teaching profession, up to 50 percent of the loans may be forgiven for all who become teachers.

To provide an additional source for student financial assistance, the bill provides for the encouragement of commercial loans to students, by authorizing the Federal guarantee of such loans. Still another source of financial assistance to the undergraduate is to be provided by authorizing the payment of up to 50 percent of the wages to the needy student employed on campus in work of an educational character. Graduate fellowships and summer session fellowships also begun under the National Defense Education Act, are to be increased in number, thus assuring the continuation and magnification of the number of competent teachers returning to the college and university campus.

Pleased as I am by this bill's provisions for loans to full-time students, I would encourage the part-time student who, usually by financial necessity, is restrained from undertaking a full-time course of study. In 1962 it was estimated that it cost, on the average, $1,480 for a student to attend a public institution of higher education; of this amount, it was estimated that $370 came from student earnings. This indicates to me that there is a great source of initiative among our college students, and I can find no reason to stifle that initiative or to penalize it by discriminating against the part-time student. The terms of the National Defense Education Act loan program and those of the new insurable loan program should be amended to encourage our ambitious part-time students.

Such an amendment should provide that part-time students receive the same loan and loan insurance benefits as full-time students if they meet the criteria in all other respects save the fact that they are not pursuing a full-time course of study. The Association of University Evening Colleges supports this proposal and informs me that at the present time 350.000 undergraduate and more than 40,000 graduate students are enrolled in part-time evening programs.

To deprive these students of the benefits of the proposed legislation appears to be wholly unjustified and I might point out that it is a discrimination that many of the States do not practice. In New York, for example, there is a program established to guarantee the repayment of student loans from private banks. Part-time students qualify for these loans on the basis of a formula keyed to the limits fixed for full-time students.

Title II of H.R. 3000 provides for the expansion and improvement of educational facilities at institutions of higher education, both public and nonprofit private, and provides for the development of a new program of assistance to institutions of higher education for 2-year college level programs to train semiprofessional technicians in engineering, science, and health occupations.

The modern foreign language area centers and studies program of title VI of the National Defense Education Act is to be extended, and its authorization of funds is to be increased.

Title III of H.R. 3000 is aimed at the improvement of educational quality with emphasis placed on the preparation and continuing education of teachers. Through the teacher institutes, preparation programs, cooperative research programs and specialized training programs of this bill, we will reflect the value that all of us place on the teaching profession and on its continued improvement. The extension of the National Defense Education Act programs in new educational media research and demonstration, and in the improvement in the State's collection of educational statistics, and tools available to the teacher and the school administration will be strengthened.

For the fall of 1962 the States reported to the Office of Education that there was a shortage of 121,235 classrooms in their public elementary and secondary schools. In the administration's "fact sheets" on the National Education Improvement Act, it was pointed out that teacher salaries in many of our Nation's school districts are insufficient to attract and retain good teachers.

As I said earlier, I believe the States and the school districts have performed an excellent job in the establishment and financing of our tremendous system of public education. But areas of inadequacy still exist and unfortunately these are not equitably spread throughout the United States. The administration's "fact sheets" state, "National Defense, population mobility, and our interdependent economy make these disparities cause for national concern." Title IV of H.R. 3000 accurately reflects this necessary concern.

Under title IV a 4-year, $1.5 billion program for "the selective and urgent improvement of public elementary and secondary education" would be begun. The funds would be used to increase maximum teacher salaries, raise low starting salaries and raise low average salaries in economically disadvantaged districts. The funds would also support critical classroom construction needs, caused by overcrowding, and fire and health hazards. Special projects would also be financed to improve educational quality, particularly in disadvantaged rural and urban areas. The funds authorized for teacher's salaries are to be phased out over a period of 4 years, so that in each State, the areas of most urgent need may receive the needed assistance, while the State stabilizes and develops its own resources to carry on independently after the Federal assistance comes to an end. Title IV of H.R. 3000 also recognizes the special needs and duties of our country by authorizing the 2-year continuation of titles III and IV of the NDEA, and the 4-year extension, with some equitable and purposeful modifications such as the inclusion of the District of Columbia, of the federally impacted areas legislation, Public Laws 815 and 874.

Vocational education, long an accepted and needed program in our country, is treated in title V. Today's program enrolls 4 million young people and adults in courses that train them in skills necessary to our changing economy. The bill would increase the authorization of appropriations to $73 million in 1964, and necessary sums thereafter, this Federal contribution being somewhat closer to the $206 million invested yearly by the States and local communities in the program.

Title V also authorizes a program of Federal grants for assistance in the training of teachers for America's 6 million handicapped school-age children who need special education.

Title VI of H.R. 3000 concludes the complementary program of assistance envisioned in the bill. It authorizes grants for the expansion of university extension courses, for the basic education of adults up to the level of the eighth grade, and the expansion of the Library Services Act to encompass assistance to public libraries in all areas of the States.

The importance of the continuing education of our citizens cannot be overemphasized-whether in complex skills at the university, in basic knowledge at the grade school, or in the knowledge of the world and the ages at our local public libraries.

H.R. 3000 will certainly motivate the continuance of the debate over the need or lack of need of our Nation's schools, teachers, and students. I am hopeful, however, that its new approach will foster new insights into what the United States can and should accomplish-in short, emphasize what we can do and not that what we have done is good enough.

A nation's investment in its education is its most certain means of obtaining a nationwide return in development and enlightenment of its people, and in an appreciation of the working principles of the democracy that made it possible. The argument is that which Thomas Jefferson once made in support of a proposal for student scholarship assistance: "But of the views of this law, none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty."

STATEMENT BY THE AFL-CIO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ON VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, BAL HARBOR, FLA., FEBRUARY 22, 1963

The proposed Vocational Education Act of 1963 expands the scope of present vocational education programs and offers vocational education and training in more fields to more people. This new flexibility is in keeping with the rapid developments of our technology and changes in the labor market.

By eliminating the assignment of Federal funds to specific categories of occupations, the bill offers training opportunities to practically all occupations which do not require college education. As an example, for the first time Federal grants would be available to train for office work. This all-inclusive coverage will meet more efficiently the requirements of a growing economy. But at the same time, since the Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act of 1917 will not be repealed by this new legislation, there will be due regard for the specified categories of occupations.

Another important change suggested by the Administration is that vocational education and training be built around people and their occupational needs in the labor market. Vocational education on the high school level is made available to (1) high school youth, (2) post-high-school persons, both graduates and dropouts, who are available for full-time study, (3) youths and adults, at work or unemployed, who need training or retraining in order to attain or retain a job (excluding those eligible under the Manpower Development Training Act of 1962), and (4) slow learners who cannot successfully follow regular vocational education programs. Area vocational education is proposed for the training and retraining of both youths and adults in all occupations, not limited to the training of "technicians" in occupations important solely to national defense. The AFL-CIO endorses this expansion of vocational education, including the greater availability of funds for modern equipment. It also endorses the new, broader basis for alloting Federal funds to the States. However, we must point out that there is need for clarification of a number of provisions, particularly in the following areas:

(1) The law should provide for continuing authorization rather than be limited to a 5-year period.

(2) The appropriation of $73 million for fiscal 1964 should be increased to at least $150 million. Seventy-three million dollars is not enough to carry out the expanded program set forth in the bill, and falls far below the $400 million proposed by the Panel of Consultants on Vocational Education as immediately necessary for an adequate program.