well know the full-time employment market is also becoming more restricted. Considering these farts these students conclude going to college part time is better "baz 2ot gring at all Even with fil-tize employment these students find it difficult to pay the ration fe fall-time schooling as they usually allocate a part of their salary to helping at home. Many of these young students are married and the needs of maintaining a home of their own even further restrict their salary. Industrial aid through tuition-aid plans have done much to alleviate this problem. Unfortunately, this aid is not universal enough to alleviate the problem suficiently. Let me say. in closing, that the National Education Improvement Act of 1963 as it is now written would go far toward aiding the development of America's most valuable resource. I only plead that an important segment of that resource be also given consideration. Sincerely. JOHN P. DONOHUE, Assistant to the Dean. LAGUNA BLANCA SCHOOL, Santa Barbara, Calif., April 18, 1963. Hon. THOMAS KUCHEL Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KUCHEL: It is my understanding that S. 580 has been introduced in the Senate "to strengthen and improve educational quality and educa tional opportunities in the Nation." While I have recently been greatly con cerned over the amount of spending by the Federal Government in many areas, I sincerely believe that more assistance is required from the Government in some areas of our public and private educational programs. I am particularly interested in title I, section 105 and title III, sections 301304. Section 105 would provide an extension of the arrangement which is presently provided under the National Defense Education Act, but under the bill presently being considered, important consideration would be extended to teachers who plan to go into private, nonprofit school teaching. Under the existing law a person who borrows for college education is eligible for loan forgiveness only if he plans to enter public school teaching. Passage of this bill would not only remove the existing discrimination which discourages a National Defense Education Act borrower from going into independent school teaching, but through an additional feature would create a loan cancellation provision which would encourage and assist someone already in teaching to pursue his graduate education at any stage of his career. Under sections 301-304, an unfair discriminatory provision of the National Defense Education Act Institutes program would be removed by providing stipends on a broader subject area basis and extending benefits to teachers who do not confine their practice to public school positions. I hope that any bill passed by the Congress during this session or in a future session related to Federal aid to education will contain the provisions referred to above. The independent schools of the country have long provided a type of training which has contributed extensively to our educational system. Standards of excellence have been set, and important programs have been pioneered and evaluated through the independent schools, which have later been adopted by the public schools. It would indeed be unfortunate if their continued growth and development were compromised by the failure of national legislation to support their requirements in the same proportion as public education is supported. It is not necessary to review at this time the acute financial problems that face many independent schools. In schools such as ours we must cover our general operating expenses, as well as expenses for faculty salaries, entirely from tuition income. While some of the older boarding schools have been able to accumulate substantial endowment which defrays the cost of operation. many schools such as our have not been able to create such endowment funds as yet. I am fully aware of the perils involved in broad programs financed by the Federal Government, but if such a pattern is to continue, it is absolutely vital that education, both public and independent, be given proper support. I am "strings" attached to educational grants, and hopefully, with continued vigilance, financing will be provided on a basis which will result in the application of Federal funds with control of such funds on a local basis administered by professionals of proven discretion and ability. Your attention and interest in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, JOHN H. ADAMS, Headmaster. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis, Mo., March 20, 1963. Hon. EDWARD V. LONG, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR LONG: I am writing this letter as one of your constituents who votes for you and also from the concerned view of the head of an evening college and adult education program. The National Education Improvement Act of 1963 has many worthwhile features; it fails, however, to make any provision for the large numbers of students enrolled in part-time evening programs. Although many part-time adult students are employed full time, many of them have just as severe (or more severe) financial burdens as their younger counterparts who are attending school full time. We must recognize that continuing education is absolutely essential both for the development of this Nation and for the good of individual citizens; hence, I strongly urge your efforts to have the proposed National Education Improvement Act provide financial assistance to part-time students. Most sincerely, EARNEST BRANDENBURG, Dean. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis, Mo., March 20, 1963. Hon. STUART SYMINGTON, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR SYMINGTON: I am writing this letter as one of your constituents who votes for you and also from the concerned view of the head of an evening college and adult education program. The National Education Improvement Act of 1963 has many worthwhile features; it fails, however, to make any provision for the large numbers of students enrolled in part-time evening programs. Although many part-time adult students are employed full time, many of them have just as severe (or more severe) financial burdens as their younger counterparts who are attending school full time. We must recognize that continuing education is absolutely essential both for the development of this Nation and for the good of individual citizens; hence, I strongly urge your efforts to have the proposed National Education Improvement Act provide financial assistance to part-time students. Most sincerely, EARNEST BRANDENBURG, Dean. THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, Hon. EDWARD V. LONG, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: I am writing this letter in the dual capacity of a resident of the State of Missouri, and as financial aid officer to the students of the Catholic University of America, to ask your assistance in a matter vital to students in higher education all over America, as well as those at this university. It is the consensus among university officials, and is my own opinion, that the $90 million which Congress is authorized to appropriate in support of the National Defense Education Act student loan program is wholly inadequate. The allocation to this university is $250,000 annually, but applications on file for the coming academic year indicate that requirements will be between $375,000 and $400,000, if we are to accommodate the students. Inquiries made indicate that other institutions are having the same experience, and we are hopeful that the Congress will appreciate the necessity of increasing the appropriations substantially. As the program is now operated, the schools are helpless to process these applications until late in August, and we urgently request that steps be taken by the Congress to insure the definite allocation of funds in the second semester of each year. This would relieve the anxiety of students about whether they can return in the fall, and would formulate the matter of loans for new students, who, having been accepted for admission, are in suspense until late in the summer. As a voter in Missouri, as well as a university official directly involved with the financial problems of students, I earnestly request whatever aid you can give in this matter, which is so vital to the young people of America. Respectfully yours, Rev. GROVER E. BELL, Assistant Procurator. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, June 25, 1963. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed is a letter I have just received from the president of the University of Washington, Charles E. Odegaard. President Odegaard strongly supports the extension of the Defense Education Act and has some recommendations for amendments which he thinks would improve the effectiveness of this legislation. I would strongly urge you to give President Odegaard's recommendation careful consideration. Kindest personal regards. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senator. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As you know, the student loan provisions of the National Defense Education Act have been of major importance in helping wellqualified students develop their capabilities through university education which otherwise would have been unavailable to them. The Department of Health. Education, and Welfare tells us that the aggregate institutional requests greatly exceed the $90 million Congress is authorized by present legislation to appropri ate for fiscal 1964. We ourselves find that we have more requests from fully qualified students in need of aid than we can help under the present arrangement. Two provisions of the present law create most of the problems. One is the maximum of $90 million set on congressional appropriation; the other is the limit of $250,000 a year for any one institution. The need for these loans has proved to be greater than the funds that have been available, and the limitation per institution leads to inequity between large and small institutions. Large schools such as the University of Washington have many more fully qualified candidates for each loan available than do those institutions with limited enrollments. I would appreciate it very much if you would give us whatever help you can when these limitations of total authorization and the amount of the Federal contribution to each institution come up for discussion in the near future. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. ODEGAARD, President. NEWPORT, VT., May 1, 1963. Senator WINSTON PROUTY, DEAR SIR: I have been teaching school for 15 years. I want to go to summer To your best knowledge can I apply for a Federal loan such as is granted to Rev. GROVER E. BELL, ROSARIO GAROW. U.S. SENATE, May 24, 1963. COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Assistant Procurator, the Catholic University of America, DEAR REVEREND BELL: Thank you for your letter of May 22, presenting the need for additional funds for the National Defense Education Act student loan program. As you may recall, late last session the Senate did lift the present ceiling on total appropriations from $90 to $125 million, and put these additional funds in the supplemental appropriations bill, contingent upon passage of the authorization. Neither measure, however, was adopted by the House prior to adjournment of the 87th Congress. This year, in his education message to Congress, the President recommended lifting the overall ceiling to $135 million, eliminating the ceiling per institution, and liberalizing the forgiveness features. It is my understanding that the higher education bill recently reported by the House Education Subcommittee does not include an additional authorization; but the Senate Education Subcommittee seems to believe that chances for such an increase by the Senate are every bit as good as they were last year. With this as background, I am making your letter available to the chairman of the Senate Education Subcommittee, for consideration in connection with this aspect of proposed legislation, and will be following further developments closely with your views in mind. With every good wish. Sincerely, STUART SYMINGTON. Hon. STUART SYMINGTON, Washington, D.C. THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, DEAR SENATOR SYMINGTON: I am writing this letter in the dual capacity of a resident of the State of Missouri, and as financial aid officer to the students of the Catholic University of America, to ask your assistance in a matter vital to students in higher education all over America, as well as those at this university. It is the consensus among university officials, and is my own opinion, that the $90 million which Congress is authorized to appropriate in support of the National Defense Education Act student loan program is wholly inadequate. The allocation to this university is $250,000 annually, but applications on file for the coming academic year indicate that requirements will be between $375,000 and $400,000, if we are to accommodate the students. Inquiries made indicate that other institutions are having the same experience, and we are hopeful that the Congress will appreciate the necessity of increasing the appropriations substantially. As the program is now operated the schools are helpless to process these applications until late in August, and we urgently request that steps be taken by the Congress to insure the definite allocation of funds in the second semester of each year. This would relieve the anxiety of students about whether they can return in the fall, and would formulate the matter of loans for new students, who, having been accepted for admission, are in suspense until late in the summer. As a voter in Missouri, as well as a university official directly involved with the financial problems of students, I earnestly request whatever aid you can give in this matter, which is so vital to the young people of America. Respectfully yours, Department oF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WAYNE Morse, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., July 15, 1963. Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Thank you for your letter of June 26 requesting our comments on the distribution dates of funds for the national defense student loan program. The point Reverend Bell makes has been a plaguing one, but there has been considerable progress made in finding a solution for it. During fiscal years 1959 and 1960, is was necessary to delay notifying institutions of the availability of any funds for the next academic year until Congress had acted upon the appropriation for the program. In fiscal year 1960, it was not possible to send a notification until September which, of course, was absurdly late for the students who were dependent upon the loans to enroll for the fall term. Considerable relief was provided in fiscal years 1961 and 1962 in the appropriation acts for the Department (Public Laws 86-703 and 87-290) through an advance authority provision which made it possible, even without congressional action on the budget request, to make a portion of the funds available after May 31. The amount that could be made available could not "exceed the amount paid for the same purposes for the first quarter of the current fiscal year." In the appropria tion act for fiscal year 1963 (Public Law 87-582), the formula pertaining to the amount that could be made available remained the same but the availability date was moved up to April 1. This advance authority is not the total answer to the problem Reverend Bell presents, but it has alleviated it to a great extent. Since the enactment of the advance authority, we have been able to notify the institutions in early spring of their partial allocations which, based on the formula, have worked out to be about one-half the total amount they received after congressional action on the appropriation. With this early notification, the institutions in turn, have been able to make firm commitments to applicants for at least the fall registration period even before the spring term ends. There is one additional factor which has a bearing on the fund distribution procedure. This involves the date on which the funds are disbursed to the institutions. Reverend Bell indicates that disbursements should be made in the spring rather than in August. The reason for the present procedure is to avoid disbursing funds in advance of the time they will be used. In making applica tions for funds, institutions are instructed to base their requests on the needs for a full year. The first disbursement for all institutions is in August for the fall registration period. The remainder of the funds an institution will receive are disbursed on the basis of the type of enrollment term on which the institution operates; i.e., semester, quarter, or trimester. This disbursement pattern has been quite adequate. It will not, of course, nor will any other system, relieve the hardship for the institution that is not receiving sufficient funds to meet its needs. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS KEPPEL, U.S. Commissioner of Education. Enclosures. EXHIBIT IV [Excerpts from the 1963 "Report on the National Defense Education Act, Fiscal Years 1961 and 1962," compiled by the U.S. Office of Education] TITLE II. LOANS TO STUDENTS IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Authorization: Fiscal 1961: $82,500,000, plus this year's share of the $25 million author ized over a 4-year period for loans to help participating institutions finance their share of the loan funds. Fiscal 1962: $90 million, plus this year's share of the $25 million. Appropriation: Fiscal 1961: $58,430,000, including $700,000 for loans to institutions. Fiscal 1962: $75,145,000, including $1.3 million for loans to institutions Basis: Appropriations are allotted to the States in the proportion that the full-time college enrollment within each State bears to the total full-time college enrollment in the Nation, and are allocated, upon application, among institutions within the State according to the percentages of the State allotment which their approved requests represent. Provisions: Undergraduate and graduate students enrolled full time, in good academic standing, and in need of financial assistance and students accepted for enrollment may |