In the 86th Congress, Vice President Johnson introduced similar legislation which received nearly unanimous approval from many college presidents. Their testimony appears in the record of hearings on "Federal Assistance to Higher Education" by the Senate Subcommittee on Education in June of 1960.

This loan program would protect colleges against losses on loans to students. It would also protect financial institutions such as insurance companies, endowment funds, and pension and welfare funds, against loss on loans to colleges for student loan purposes.

A student could get up to $1,000 a year in insured loans, with an overall maximum of $5,000. The maximum cost to the student would be 5 percent a year which includes one-fourth of 1 percent insurance premium. Repayment would start within 1 year after the student leaves school, and could continue over the following 10 years.

When a college needs outside funds for student loans, it could borrow directly from financial institutions by getting insured long-term loans-up to 20 yearsat a maximum rate of 4% percent. If the college charges one-quarter of 1 percent for administration, and the Federal insurance cost is one-fourth of 1 percent, the maximum cost to the student would be 5 percent.

The maximum insurance coverage authorized for loans by colleges to students would be $100 million and the maximum insurance coverage on loans by financial institutions to colleges and universities would also be $100 million.

I think we should bear in mind that a $1,000 loan will not cover all the costs of a year at college or graduate school. At a minimum, the total costs of fulltime education reach $1,500 at public colleges and often reach $2,500 at private colleges.

So I think it is clear that college students borrowing money under this program to finance their education will need other resources. They will need help from their families. They will have to use their own savings. But this loan program can help give them the lift which will make all the difference between entering college or giving up their pursuit of higher education.

This self-financing loan insurance program will not be a drain on the Federal Treasury. The Federal Government's only part would be to insure repayment of loans to colleges or financial institutions by college students.

Just as the Federal guarantees have made a tremendous contribution to housing construction, so Federal guarantees for student loans can stimulate a vast expansion of opportunity for young people seeking higher education in America's colleges and universities.

Some institutions of higher learning already have successful loan programs, but it is clear from the comments of many college presidents that new programs can be started and existing programs can be put on a much firmer basis if they are protected by a Federal student loan insurance program such as I am proposing.

This loan program is not competitive with the loan program of the National Defense Education Act, which should be continued and expanded. But the National Defense Education Act loan program is limited to "needy" students and it simply does not meet the widespread demand in our colleges and universities for an effective student loan program.

However, to make sure that the National Defense Education Act loan program is not cut back or allowed to expire, section 306 of my bill provides that the Federal loan insurance program will be in effect only when appropriations for National Defense Education Act are at least 75 percent of the amount authorized, and that the Federal loan insurance program will expire when the National Defense Education Act expires.

Enactment of this legislation would vastly increase the supply of funds financing higher education and would do so in a way that will cost the American taxpayer almost nothing. Furthermore, this legislation will encourage the financial institutions of this country to support urgently needed investment in human resources. This is in line with the sound insurance principle which our experience with FHA has proved can be extraordinarily successful.

I am convinced that this loan insurance program can give a tremendous boost to the cause of higher education by helping students from low and middle income families borrow money to finance their college careers. Many of these students are simply unable to pay currently for all the costs of a college education, even when they have scholarship assistance and part-time jobs.

Mr. Chairman, our needs for well-educated citizens grow larger day by day, and we can expect these needs to tax our resources even if we make a maximum

effort over the next 10 years to widen opportunities for our citizens to get higher education. But I am confident that we will meet these needs, that we will expand educational opportunities and educational facilities, if we provide essential Federal assistance for higher education.

H. G. Wells once said "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."

It is up to us to make sure that education wins this race.

Senator MORSE. I would also like to have inserted in the record at this time a very scholarly article, in my opinion, which appeared in the Saturday Review for February 18, 1961. It was written by a distinguished member of the committee, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clark, and is entitled "Higher Education Is a National Problem."

(The article by Senator Clark follows:)

[From the Saturday Review of Feb. 18, 1961]

HIGHER EDUCATION IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM

In this article, U.S. Senator Joseph S. Clark, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, states the case for increased Federal aid to higher education. In a future issue we hope to publish an equally vigorous statement of the case against increased Federal aid.

(By Joseph S. Clark)

Reasonable men cannot study American higher education in any depth without concluding that drastic steps must be taken immediately to improve our colleges and universities. These steps must include provision for a much larger and better-trained corps of professors and instructors, a very large expansion of physical facilities, and provision for the admission into college and the retention through graduate school of all high school graduates who have the intellectual capacity and the character necessary to assimilate college and graduate work.

While money alone will not solve these problems it is obvious that they are not going to be solved without a lot more money than is now available. Where is the money to come from? Some will come from the annual gifts of graduates and friends of the colleges, some from bequests of the wealthy, some from tuition paid by students, some from corporate giving, some from private foundations, and some from State taxation. But in a decade in which college enrollments will double, all this will not be nearly enough. So what have we left? Only the Federal Government.

Government is the agency which, Lincoln said, exists to do for people that which they cannot do or do as well for themselves. The National Government is the usual means by which a free people tackle a problem which is public in its character and national in its scope. We use our Federal Government to wage war, to conduct diplomacy, to guide the national economy in a score of areas. We use it to operate a nationwide system of social security, to construct great public works, and to support our industry and commerce in many different fields. It operates our post offices and our national parks. It helps build houses and clear slums. It helps build hospitals and engages in extensive welfare operations. Without it, most of the progress we have made in this country during the 20th century would have been quite impossible.

Yet whenever the suggestion arises that we use our Federal Government to tackle a new problem-any new problem--a cry of horror arises. When Federal action is proposed to help solve the crisis in higher education, the outery comes from many sides, including such strange allies as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and certain of the more lush groves of academe.

This stereotyped reaction deserves some basic attention. Why are we Americans, perhaps alone among the civilized peoples of the earth, so reluctant to use this great instrument which we control and which lies at our disposal?

Surely democratic government is a tool to be used by the people to solve their collective problems and to improve their collective lot. Yet a multitude of influential Americans regard their National Government with suspicion and hostility. One would think to hear the talk, that to turn to Washington in a time

of need would be more like surrendering to a foreign power than utilizing one's own resources. The "conventional wisdom" in America still agrees with Jefferson that "that government is best which governs least." If chaos results and problems are swept under the rug, never mind, we are the same free people who drove the minions of George III into the Atlantic.

This inbred and deep-seated distrust of government may have had sound historical roots in the 18th century, but it is dangerous indeed in the 20th. For it is only our National Government that can mobilize and direct the resources of our society when they must be mobilized. And we should all ponder whether the United States as an unmobilized society can long compete with the determined, mobilized aggressive society that confronts us today from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

This distrust of government, which has always been present in American thought, goes back to our unfortunate experiences with King George III. It was strengthened by the physical distance between the frontier and Washington, D.C. But the distrust did not break out into open warfare until the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Being unable to prevent the enactment, or later to repeal, many of the specific provisions of the New Deal, its powerful opponents set out to discredit government itself. In the publications they controlled, the fine old term "public servant" disappeared from the lexicon and the derogatory word "bureaucrat” took its place. "Citizens" became "taxpayers"-usually depicted by cartoonists as clad only in a barrel. The word "taxes" was rarely seen without the prefixed adjective "confiscatory" or "crippling" or the synonym "burden." Public spending was referred to always as a "cost," never as a benefit, and normally with the prefix "wasteful."

We have recovered a bit from the worst of the antigovernment crusade. Today thoughtful and sensitive men, such as Walter Lippmann and Adlai Stevenson and Senator Fulbright, suggest that the fiscal starvation of public services such as education is a matter for national shame rather than national pride. Yet the conventional wisdom has not been greatly modified. I speak with assurance because the propaganda output flows across a Senator's desk by the ream.

To support the thesis that the Federal Government is essentially evil and should be dismantled, a whole school of economics has grown up. We are told that the oppressive weight of Federal taxation is destroying enterprise and stifling investment, that the Federal debt is climbing out of control, and that the soundness of the dollar is threatened. We are told that the Federal Government is costly and inefficient and therefore the States should do the job-when every objective test shows that Federal employees are better selected, better trained, and better supervised on the average than State employees, and that the Federal tax system is more equitable and more efficient than State tax systems.

Since the facts lead us toward the Federal Government, let us be calm. Let us keep our heads and repeat together: "The Federal Government is not our enemy, it is our friend. It is not an alien power, it is the creature of the American people. It will do what they want it to. It is not a monster that can ignore their will."

I will not dwell at length on the objection that Federal aid will lead to Federal control of the colleges and universities. I will say only that, in my opinion, it is a myth. Surely we are wise enough to legislate and to administer so as to prevent a result we don't desire. To those who oppose Federal assistance I ask: What is your alternative? Is it not clear that the only real alternative is a second-class system of higher education?

Let us turn to the question of how Federal aid can best be provided for higher education. The absence of any widely accepted plan, up to this very moment, is to a great extent the fault of those engaged in higher education. They have made the mistake of leaving legislating to the legislators. But Government programs do not ordinarily spring full grown from the brows of Senators or Congressmen. A public need must be established. So must public awareness of that need and public support for its satisfaction. Leadership must come from people who are determined and informed. Politicians should be out in front of the people. I agree. We have a duty of leadership, but we cannot afford to get too far ahead of the people we lead, for, if we do, there is a great risk we shall be shot down from behind on election day.

I wonder whether existing organizations in the field of higher education are set up to do the needed job of working out a proper plan for Federal aid-in concert with the new administration-and then lobbying vigorously for it. In the past, they have been immobilized to some extent by internal divisions on

the basic questions, first, of whether Federal aid in any form is desirable and, second, of who if it is desirable, should get it.

Let us remember that most educators are not monks who take a vow of poverty, both for themselves and for the institutions they serve. They, too, are American citizens with the right, indeed the duty, to petition for redress of grievances and to indicate to their elected representatives how they would like those grievances redressed.

Perhaps the leadership of a new administration, committed to lifting a Nation's head out of the sand, will make the difference. Surely Abraham Ribicoff, the new Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, will give higher education priority attention.

To those who finally tackle this problem in earnest, I offer a few timid suggestions:

First. The proposal for a semiautonomous "educational foundation" patterned after that in Great Britain, with wide latitude for distributing Federal money, deserves careful and detailed exploration. So does the view that allocations by such a foundation should include both operating and facilities moneys paid directly to recipient institutions. Faculty salaries should, in my judgment, have the highest priority, academic facilities the next. When these problems are reasonably well solved it will be time to turn our attention to further scholarships and loans to students. There isn't much to be gained in substituting a slightly brighter boy or girl for one who now wins admission to college if, when the bright student arrives on the campus, there is no place for him to sit or lie down, no books or laboratories available, and not enough professors really qualified to teach him what he needs to know.

Second. The hardest thinking must be done in the field of who gets how much aid. The situation in Pennsylvania is a good illustration of the difficulty. My State has 109 different institutions of higher education, but those 109 include no public community college, no public liberal arts college, and only one State university-Penn State. State aid goes principally to Penn State, which is also a land-grant college receiving Federal aid, and to three private universities, Temple, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania, which is a reasonably well-endowed Ivy League institution with Federal Government research contracts in substantial amounts.

The 14 teachers colleges, however, are supported entirely by the State. Tuitions and faculty salaries are low, curriculum necessarily limited. Between these extremes are 91 private institutions that defy classification. Some are rich; most are poor. Some are widely renowned; others are so small that they cannot support a strong faculty or a broad curriculum. They are Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Quaker, and nonsectarian.

Frankly, I haven't the faintest idea how public aid should be distributed among such a complex variety of institutions, although I am presently serving on a Governor's commission charged with the duty of finding out. All I know is that if Pennsylvania does not substantially increase its State aid to higher education and get substantial additional help from the Federal Government, we are headed straight for trouble.

Third: Federal aid should not be limited to special projects or research, or science, or defense-related subjects. It should be across the board. It should go to the heart of the university, not just to the periphery. In the civilization of the future the natural sciences may well predominate pragmatically, as C. P. Snow has recently suggested, but the social sciences and the humanities are of equal importance, remote though the latter are sometimes thought to be from practical application to the modern world. Assuredly, man does not live by bread alone.

We have not yet solved the problem of the Federal Government and higher education but I hope we have at least answered one question: Is Federal aid to higher education necessary? For the clear answer is: "Yes."

There are other urgent questions ahead. They are the questions of how much, how, to whom, and what for. I am confident that they too can be answered. In fact, we must answer them, for the purpose of higher education in America is the staffing of freedom. If we cannot staff freedom adequately, history will again take note before the end of this century, as it has before, that an unmobilized society cannot compete successfully with one that is fully mobilized. This is a conclusion which no free American, living in the richest country the world has ever known, in a society founded on Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, can willingly accept.

Senator CLARK. Will the chairman yield?

Senator MORSE. I yield.

Senator CLARK. I think, in the interest of fairness, which I am sure the chairman will agree with, there also ought to be inserted in the record, and I would like to get a copy of, the response to the article of mine printed in the Saturday Review, by Senator Goldwater of Arizona. I like to think that I won the debate, but I am sure he thinks he did, and in the interest of objectivity I think they both ought to be in the record.

Senator MORSE. In the interest of letting the record speak for itself, I am very glad to insert the article in reply to the Senator from Pennsylvania's article. I have not seen it, but I look forward to reading it. (The article by Senator Goldwater follows:)

Is It Constitutional?

[From the Saturday Review, Mar. 18, 1961]

SR IS WRONG ABOUT FEDERAL AID

In recent years, SR editorially has taken a position in favor of Federal aid to education. In the special education supplement last month the editors began the first of a two-part debate on the subject. Senator Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, presented an argument in favor of the proposition. In this issue Senator Barry Goldwater, of Arizona, makes the case that Federal aid to education is unconstitutional.

(By Barry Goldwater)

Many people today are concerned over the problem of our educational system. I believe this concern is warranted-but not for the financial, quantitative reasons advanced by the lobbyists and pressure groups for Federal aid. It is my opinion that the ills of our educational system today are more in the nature, or quality, of our schools than in their size. And I further believe that there are questions of standards that must be decided by the parents of our children through their local school boards in their States and local communities.

For the purpose of this article, I am going to confine myself to a discussion of the argument for Federal aid to education, an analysis of the need for expanding and augmenting existing school facilities, and a proposal I believe to be the best way to approach the question legislatively.

Since the end of World War II, we have witnessed the greatest school building program ever conducted in this country. In the past 10 years alone, over 500,000 classrooms have been built, and based on the sale of school bonds for the past several years there is every reason to believe that this high rate of classroom construction will continue. In spite of the tremendous job the States and local communities have done during the past 15 years to overcome the backlog of school facilities needed in some areas-a backlog brought on by the depression, World War II, and the Korean war-the proponents of Federal aid to education are nevertheless absolutely insistent that the only way to reduce the backlog is by way of a massive infusion of Federal grants to the States.

In recent years, these same proponents have added to their propaganda the claim that teachers are not paid enough by the local school districts and that it is therefore the responsibility of the Federal Government to correct that situation as well.

It is interesting and significant to note that the demands for Federal aid to education have grown louder and more insistent as the need for expanding our school facilities diminishes. It is fully apparent that many of those promoting the idea of Federal aid to education are interested only in the element of centralized Government control and consequently refuse to recognize that the States and local communities have been rapidly solving the backlog problem in their own way and with their own money. They have seen their "crisis" selling point melt away in the face of determined local responsibility and are attempting to cover it up by adding new items to their list of needs and more power to their propaganda efforts.