only about $13 to $24 to the price of a new car, which is a small fraction of the savings to the consumer which results from the repeal of the excise tax on automobiles. I believe that this is a sound investment in the health of Americans, and I urge that full House action be scheduled for this bill as soon as possible.

THE WAGE-PRICE GUIDEPOSTS AS AN ANTI-INFLATIONARY WEAPON The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, in recent years the administration's economic policymakers have been faced with a critical dilemma. On the one hand, they have made vigorous use of expansionary fiscal and monetary policies in order to stimulate the economy. In doing so, however, they have withdrawn from the economic arsenal the fiscal and monetary weapons traditionally used to fight inflation. This was one of the key points raised by Chairman Martin of the Federal Reserve Board in his June 1 speech on the vulnerability of our current economic sit

uation.

The use of direct wage and price controls to contain inflationary pressures has been properly rejected. Instead, the administration has resorted to exhortation designed to encourage labor and business to act in a responsible manner in setting wages and prices. Exhortation has been reinforced by the wageprice guidelines, which specify precise figures upon which "permissible" wages and price changes are to be calculated.

The administration has thus put the burden for preventing inflation squarely on the private sector. The role of government in causing inflation has been ignored. This is evidenced by the failure to spell out noninflationary guidelines for fiscal and monetary policies that would help prevent the Government itself from acting as an engine of inflation.

Two questions arise from the experiences with the guidelines thus far. First, does this experience bear out the confidence of those who feel that the guidelines will contain inflation in a highly expansionary economic environment? Second, what would be the longrun implications for our economic system if the guidelines were applied successfully? The record of recent major labor settlements and price increases is enlightening with regard to the first question, while a recent lecture by Dr. Arthur F. Burns of Columbia University deals brilliantly with the second.

Among the recent labor settlements which have breached the administration's guidelines for noninflationary wage behavior are those between the United Auto Workers and the automobile industry. As a result of the auto industry settlements, the increase in labor costs to automobile manufacturers will run between 42 and 5 percent in each of the next 3 years. Similarly, the agreement last fall between the Communication Workers of America and the Michigan

Bell Telephone Co. called for a 5-percent boost in wages and fringe benefits.

Other recent settlements have also markedly exceeded the 3.2 percent 5-year trend productivity guidepost for wage settlements established by the President's Council of Economic Advisers. One such settlement involved the Nation's big oil companies and the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Worker's International Union; another, the big rubber firms and the United Rubber Workers; and still another, the workers in the aluminum industry.

An examination of major wage developments for the first half of 1965 indicates the general extent to which the wage guidelines are being breached. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently reported that the average wage increase provided by new settlements during the period was 4 percent. Nearly one-third of the 1.2 million workers covered by the settlements received increases of 5 percent or more. This data does not include the value of changes in fringe benefits, which in recent years have contributed a rising amount to total labor costs. Had these figures been included, the breach in the 3.2-percent guideline would have been even larger.

As a result of contracts recently concluded with the United Steelworkers, American Can Co. and Continental Can Co. raised can prices, effective May 1. Price increases on tires, stainless steel products, sulfuric acid, paper containers, certain resins, aluminum products and on copper and fabricated copper products also attest to the strength of inflationary pressures in the economy, as do the recent sharp increases in both the consumer and wholesale price indexes. Thus, recent wage settlements and selective price increases are evidence that the guideposts, while a useful theoretical concept, have thus far not proved workable in practice.

The belief that the guidelines can serve as an inflationary cure-all naturally assumes that they will be obeyed. However, as the evidence thus far indicates, it is unlikely that labor and management will be willing to base wage and price increases on national productivity trends. This will be particularly true in periods of tight labor and commodity marinflationary pressures will be most sekets or precisely at those times when

rious. Adherence to the guidelines would undermine the practice of collective bargaining and render it purposeless.

AFL-CIO President George Meany expressed his views on the subject of guide

lines as follows:

It is quite obvious that, if you are going to have guidelines on the question of wages, the question of prices, the question of the role of production, you'll have to go a little further. If we go down the road far enough, it leads to the end of free collective bargaining.

The March-April 1965 issue of the Harvard Business Review carries an article by Dr. Arthur Burns, former Chairman of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisers, in which he subjects the issue of wage and price guidelines to a searching and critical analysis.

Dr. Burns criticizes the replacement of the traditional anti-inflationary weapons of monetary and fiscal restraint with what he calls "general appeals to public responsibility" as "implemented by wage and price guidelines."

In addition to replacing the classical weapons of monetary and fiscal restraint, the guidelines have come to assume much greater significance, surpassing their This originally suggestive purpose. change is best illustrated in a comparison between the 1962 and 1964 Reports of the Council of Economic Advisers.

The 1962 report indicated that the general guideposts were only first approximations that would need to be adapted extensively "to the circumstances of particular industries." The report of 1964, on the other hand, states that the guideposts "can cover the vast majority of wage and price decisions, and, while the modifications that have been suggested earlier still apply-it must be emphasized that they are intended to apply to only a relatively few cases." Unlike the 1962 report, the 1964 discussion of the guideposts specifies the annual trend increase in national productivity and speaks of it as standard for private wage and price decisions rather than as merely a contribution to public discussion of how the national interest may be judged.

Among other inherent shortcomings of the guideposts policy are the productivity figures upon which the guideposts are based. Accurate productivity figures are first of all difficult to obtain. With regard to this point, Dr. Burns has stated:

There is, first of all, a vast gap in our statistical arsenal. To comply with the guideline for wages, businessmen would need to know the trend increase of the overall output of the Nation per man-hour. Once this highly complex magnitude had been estimated by the Government, it would presumably be subjected to outside review, revised if need be, and accompanied by a specification of the boundaries of the year (if a year be the interval) to which it would apply. All firms dealing with labor, except those newly established, would then know what wage adjustment was expected of them.

Compliance with the price guideline would be infinitely harder. For this purpose, every company would need to know the trend increase in the productivity of its own industry and how this increase compares with the trend increase of overall productivity of the economy.

Secondly, the use of productivity figures as a guide to wage determination ignores market forces which are even more pertinent. There is also the implication that the impact of a guidelines policy would fall heaviest on the larger, more highly profitable industries, where productivity gains are are an important factor. Concerning the influence of guidelines policy on smaller firms, Dr. Jules Backman, research professor of economics at New York University, has written that:

For smaller companies and industries, as

well as in local bargaining, the proposed

guidepost of productivity is of minor importance in wage negotiations. Since the other factors peculiar to the competitive situation, locality or industry (i.e., demand for firm's

product, or the supply of labor and/or capital on which the product relies) tend to have greater weight in the minds of the negotiators. Accordingly, even if the productivity standard were satisfactory in some negotiation, it cannot be used generally throughout

the economy.

Statistical evidence shows that longrun productivity trends have been upward. This means, as Dr. Burns has pointed out, that regardless of short

term considerations, such as the level of employment and stage of business cycle, observance of the guidelines will result in higher wages every year. Thus, the average wage in any year would rise by the same percentage in every firm, regardless of its own profit position or the state of the market for different types of labor.

Therefore, a profitable firm, taking the guidelines literally, would not pay as much as might be needed to attract workers from declining industries, or to

draw workers with special, highly needed skills.

To use productivity increases as a measuring rod for wage increases would tend to freeze the worker's share of the national income. As Dr. Backman notes,

this prospect would certainly not encourage union leaders to follow the guide· lines when they are committed to committed to obtaining an ever-greater share of the national income for labor.

One of Dr. Burns' most striking criticisms is that general observance of the guidelines would stifle the forces of competition. This would hold true even in industries where a few corporations dominate the market-as in the case of automobiles, steel, and aluminum. If trade unions and business firms complied voluntarily with the guidelines, they would relinquish any market power they had not yet used or that they might use in the future. The fundamental point, Dr. Burns says, is that "general observance of the guideposts would throttle the forces of competition no less effectively than those of monopoly."

A shift from our present market economy to one of voluntary compliance with the guidelines would adversely affect efficiency, the rate of growth and the rate of improvement in the general standard

of living.

The Morgan Guaranty survey for October 1964, speaks of the effects of adherence to guidelines on competition as follows:

If, in compliance with the guideposts, wage and price decisions were preset on the sole basis of productivity, these other influences which normally affect wages and prices would be rendered sterile. What then would happen to the other function they perform in the economy-namely, their vital traffic-directing role of guiding labor and

capital into the activities where they will best satisfy human wants as expressed by

the market?

In concluding his article, Dr. Burns questions the alleged advantages of the guidelines policy and expresses the fear that such a "policy may, under pressure of events, move our Nation's economy in an authoritarian direction." He writes:

To the extent that the Government relies on private compliance with its guidelines for

prices and wages, it may more easily be tempted to push an expansive monetary and fiscal policy beyond prudent limits. Besides, it may fail to resist strongly enough the political pressure for higher minimum wages, larger trade union immunities, higher farm price supports, higher import duties, more and other protective measures that serve import quotas, larger stockpiling programs either to raise prices or to prevent them from falling.

In place of wage-price guidelines, Professor Burns suggests the Government adopt its own set of guidelines to aid in forming and implementing its economic policies. He writes:

A sensible guideline for monetary and fiscal of unemployment as such, but the relation policy is, therefore, not the volume or rate between the number of the unemployed and the number of job vacancies.

Those who are interested in reading Dr. Burns' complete text will find it in the RECORD of May 11, 1965, on page

10186.

Constructive and forward-looking thinking in the area of education must be grounded on a thorough knowledge of existing programs. Many of these programs are sound, carefully written and amended pieces of legislation which should be fully utilized before we pile on new, sometimes conflicting and wasteful measures to further confuse an already complicated area. A knowledge of existing programs is also necessary to point out the areas in which Federal action may be necessary. With these objectives in mind, the Republican Task Force on Education, of which I am chairman, has recently issued a 22-page report, "The Government in Education,"

Federal

which summarizes all existing Federal legislation which affects education. This report contains the gentlewoman from Oregon's [Mrs. GREEN] earlier work in abridged form as well as all of the have been added to the statute books since her report. It is my hope that this shorter summary of educational legisla

EDUCATION

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. QUIE] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, until September 1963, no one knew how deeply the Federal Government was involved in education, how many programs it conducted which affected education directly, how much these programs cost, and how well they were accomplishing their objectives. There was no central source to which colleges, universities, schools, and communities could turn for information on the many programs for which they were eligible. There were overlapping efforts by uncoordinated agency programs. Moreover, no one knew what overall effect these programs were having on American education. Is American education becoming overly scientific, specialized, and unbalanced as a result of Federal programs? Is the Federal Government responsible for the "flight from teaching" to research? Many of these questions remain unanswered at a time when answers to them are vital and necessary for us to continue to write sound legislation in the field of education.

A great step forward in answering these questions was made in 1963, when the Special Subcommittee on Education, under the chairmanship of the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. GREEN], for the first time brought together all of the Federal programs which affect education in a 170-page booklet entitled "The Federal Government and Education," House Document No. 159, 1963. Unfortunately this valuable work, which covered educational legislation through 1962, has not been kept up to date. Since its publication major changes have been made in the programs then existing, and broad new programs have been enacted, including the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the Library Services and Construction Act, the Economic Opportunity Act, and the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965.

of Congress who perhaps have not had time to read the earlier, longer work of the Special Subcommittee on Education. I also hope that the updating of this compendium of all educational legislation will be helpful to all Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I insert this report at this point:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION

(Report of the Republican task force on education: ALBERT H. QUIE, chairman, of Minnesota; WILLIAM H. AYRES, of Ohio; HowGRIFFIN, of Michigan; EDWARD J. GURNEY, ARD H. CALLAWAY, of Georgia; ROBERT P.

of Florida; JAMES HARVEY, of Michigan;

RALPH HARVEY, of Indiana; THOMAS M. PELLY of Washington; ED REINECKE, of California; HENRY P. SMITH III, of New York; JOHN W. WYDLER, of New York; J. ARTHUR YOUNGER, Of California; WILLIAM E. BROCK, of Tennessee.)

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Higher education facilities and equipment: The main piece of legislation in this area is the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963.

Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963: The purpose of this act is to provide assistance to institutions of higher education, including graduate and undergraduate insti

tutions, junior and community colleges, and technical institutes, in providing certain academic facilities.

Title I. Grants for construction of undergraduate academic facilities Appropriations: $230 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for each of the two succeeding fiscal years. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and the succeeding fiscal year, only such sums as may be appropriated by Congress.

Twenty-two percent of the appropriations under this title is allotted to the States for

public community colleges and public technical institutes. The allotment formula takes into account the number of high school students in the State and the way the State's per capita income compares with national per capita income. If the State's per capita income is below the national average it receives a greater share than its proportion of the total number of high school students. Thus it gives a weighted advantage to States with lower per capita income.

Seventy-eight percent of the appropriations under this title is allotted to the States

for institutions of higher education other than public community colleges and public technical institutes.

(a) One-half of the funds is allocated to the States according to a formula that each State's allotment will be an amount which bears the same ratio to such one-half as the number of students enrolled in institutions of higher education in such State bears to the total number of students enrolled in such institutions in all States. Thus one-half of the funds are distributed to the States in

proportion to the number of students presently enrolled in their higher education systems.

(b) The remaining one-half is allotted among the States so that the allotment to each State will be an amount which bears the same ratio to such remainder as the number of students enrolled in grades nine through twelve (both inclusive) of schools in such State bears to the total number of students in such institutions in all States. Thus this one-half of the funds is distributed to the States in proportion to their secondary school enrollments which will soon be facing their colleges and universities.

State plan: A State plan of action must be submitted to the Commissioner by an authorized State agency. This plan must set forth certain provisions, including:

(a) A plan to be administered by a State commission.

(b) Basic criteria for determining the relative priorities of eligible projects and for determining the Federal share of the development cost of each such project other than a project for a public community college or public technical institute (unless such plan provides for a uniform Federal share for all such projects).

(c) A provision that funds will be used only for the construction specified by the act (22 percent for public community colleges, etc., and 78 percent for institutions other than public community colleges, etc.).

(d) A guarantee that every applicant will have a right to a fair hearing as to his assigned priority under the State plan.

(e) Provision for fiscal control and fund accounting, and for making of such reports as may be needed by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner is authorized to expend a maximum of $3 million during each of the first 2 fiscal years of the program for administration of the State plans approved under this title, including expenses which he determines were necessary for the preparation of such plans.

In order to be eligible for a grant, the institution of higher education (not including public community colleges and public technical institutes), must use the funds for structures, or portions thereof, especially designed for instruction or research in the natural or physical sciences, mathematics, modern foreign languages, or engineering, or for use as a library. Such construction must result in urgently needed substantial expansion of the institution's student enrollment capacity, or, in the case of a new institution, result in creating urgently needed enrollment capacity.

The Commissioner prescribes the basic criteria for the State plans of determining priorities. Special emphasis is placed on expanding undergraduate enrollment capacity.

The Federal share in eligible projects at institutions of higher education (other than public community colleges and public technical institutes), shall not exceed one-third of its total costs. For a public community college or public technical institute, the Federal share is set at 40 percent of its development costs.

Institutions of higher education apply to States and are awarded a priority under the State plan (which they may contest). The

State plan is then sent to the Commissioner for approval, but the Commission may not disapprove any State plan submitted without allowing the State agency a hearing on the plans or project. This decision may be appealed to the courts. Once funds are approved, they are awarded to the institutions in order of priority until they run out. Title II. Grants for construction of graduate academic facilities

The purpose of this title is to assist instiing graduate schools and cooperative gradututions of higher education to improve exist

ate centers, and to assist in the establishment of graduate schools and cooperative graduate centers of excellence.

Appropriations: $60 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for the succeeding fiscal year. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and the succeeding fiscal year, only those sums appropriated by the Congress.

Grants may not exceed one-third of the costs of the construction and are made with the advice of an Advisory Commission on Graduate Education set up by the act. The Commissioner and Advisory Board give special consideration to the extent that the grant will aid in a wider distribution throughout the United States of graduate schools and cooperative graduate centers. Title III. Loans for construction of academic facilities

In order to receive a loan under this title at least one-fourth of the construction cost must come from a non-Federal source, and the applicant must be unable to secure a loan from another source under at least as favorable conditions. The interest rate charged is to be one-fourth percent above the average annual interest rate on obligations of the United States. The present interest rate charge on these loans is 3% percent. Loans must be repaid within 50 years. Appropriations: For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for the succeeding fiscal year, $120 million. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and the following fiscal year, only such sums as appropriated by the Congress.

The Commissioner has the power to make rules and regulations, can sue or be sued in his enforcement of this act.

Title IV. General provisions "Academic facilities" are defined as structures suitable for use as classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and related facilities necessary (1) for the instruction of students, (2) for research, (3) for the administration of the educational or research programs, (4) for maintenance and storage, (5) for utility facilities essential to the operation of the foregoing facilities.

This definition does not include (1) any building intended for events for which admission will be charged, (2) any gymnasium, other than for the academic course in physical education, or (3) any facility to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship.

"Construction" is defined as (1) erection of new buildings or expansion of old buildings, (2) acquisition of existing structures not owned by the institution; or (3) modernizing of present facilities.

"Equipment" does not include books, curricular and program materials, and items of current operating expenses, such as fuel, supplies, and the like.

Besides the Higher Education Facilities Act, other Federal grant and loan programs for higher education facilities and equip

ment are:

(a) Grants

National Institutes of Health: Grants totaling $31,229,000 were made in 1962, mostly on

a 50-50 matching basis, for facilities for research and research training in the medical sciences and for construction of specialized resource centers.

National Science Foundation: Grants totaling $44,800,000 were made in 1962, in developing graduate research facilities and for specialized research facilities. Also $5 million was spent to help provide modern scientific equipment, mainly for undergraduate science education. All grants, except those for specialized research facilities, are on a 50-50 matching basis.

Atomic Energy Commission: By contract, it installs and retains title to reactors and accelerators in the institution's own facilities thus enabling them to write off their investment through research conducted for the

Also, $2,452,322 in direct grants for equipment to undergraduate institutions. Department of Defense: Through the Advanced Research Projects Administration it enables institutions to construct facilities limited mainly to instruction and research in materials, and to write off the cost over 10 years. Title to the facility is vested in the institution. Eleven such installations have been built at the cost of $18.2 million. Also, through ARPA, grants amounting to $10 million in 1962 were made to educational institutions for the purchase of equipment, used for materials research.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Grants totaling $6,410,000 were made in 1962 to universities engaged in research in space sciences. No matching funds are required and the grants may be used for construction.

Miscellaneous programs: Grants of approximately $5 million were made for the construction and operating costs of Howard and Gallaudet. Also $442,000 was spent to provide facilities to higher educational institutions through the area redevelopment program under the Department of Commerce, primarily to promote scientific research.

(b) Loans

Housing and Home Finance Agency: $250 million loaned at 3.5 percent interest in 1962, for the construction of dormitories and related facilities for students and faculty.

Elementary and secondary school facilities: Under Public Law 815 (discussed below), which provides for school construction in federally affected areas, $54.8 million was spent in 1962, mainly in local public school districts, but also for Indian schools operated by the Department of the Interior and for schools erected on Federal property, such as military bases.

Surplus Government property: Distributed to the States who use it for schools, hospitals, and civil defense centers. About 70 percent of the land is used for schools.

SUPPORT OF STUDENTS

Not including the National Defense Education Act loan program, Federal grants in 1962 totaled $256.5 million to 182,000

students.

Grants: In 1962 a total of 66,911 students received $110,662,000 in Federal grants (exclusive of veterans, war orphans, cadets, and military personnel). These grants were mainly for predoctoral work centered in the natural and social sciences and in engineering.

The basic stipend pattern is $1,800 for the first year, $2,000 for the second, and $2,200 for the third year, plus $500 a year per dependent. One main variation from this schedule is in National Defense Education Act, which is outlined later.

National Institutes of Health: In 1962, grants to 9,995 graduate students, totaling $35,253,000 were made for research fellowships and training grants in the basic biolog

ical and physical sciences, and in certain areas of the social sciences, and in medical sciences.

National Science Foundation: In 1962, grants to 2,749 graduate students, totaling $10,871,000 were made for study in the physical, life, and social sciences, mathematics, and engineering.

Office of Education: In 1962, grants to 5,366 students, totaling $26,675,000 were made for the training of college teachers and foreign language specialists (established by title VI of National Defense Education Act), and also $503,000 to institutions for the training of teachers of the deaf and college teachers for

the mentally retarded.

Public Health Service: In 1962, grants totaling $8,659,000 were made to 2,735 graduate students to insure professional public health personnel for the future.

Office of Vocational Rehabilitation: In 1962, grants were made to 1,941 graduate students, totaling $8,964,000 for training personnel to work with the handicapped.

Atomic Energy Commission: In 1962, grants totaling $1,325,000 were made to 261 graduate students for small fellowship programs, mainly in the fields of nuclear science and engineering and health physics.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: In 1962, grants totaling $1,866,000 were made to 100 graduate students for fellowships in space sciences and technology.

Department of the Interior: In 1962, grants totaling $200,000 were made to 17 graduate students for fishery research and oceanography.

There is also some part-time graduate work done under fellowships from the Public Health Service, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, Atomic Energy Commission, and the National Science Foundation, at a cost of $2.5 million.

Over 1,600 fellowships for full- and parttime research and study beyond the doctoral degree are awarded at a cost of $12.5 million (NIH, $9.7 million; NSF, $2.3 million; also AEC, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the Air Force).

As for undergraduate students, three agencies have $1,256,000 in fellowships to 1,960 students: The Department of the Interior scholarship program for Indians supported 650 students at a cost of $250,000; the Office of Education spent $286,000 for training teachers of the deaf; and the Department of Commerce spent $720,000 in support of students in State maritime academies.

Veterans and war orphans: Nearly 60 percent of the grants for student support in 1962 went to veterans and war orphans under three programs operated by the Veterans' Administration. These programs supported 116,000 students at a cost of $145,900,000, in undergraduate and graduate college courses, less than college-level education, and farm and job training.

(a) The GI bill (veterans readjustment training) covered 98,000 students in 1962, with over 60 percent of those covered attending colleges and universities. Veterans receive monthly allowances, but have to pay their own tuition fees and other expenses. The cost of this program in 1962 was $121,100,000.

(b) Veterans' vocational rehabilitation program provides educational and training benefits to veterans with service-connected disabilities (extended to peacetime veterans disabled in the line of duty, in October of 1962). Training covers college and belowcollege education, on-farm and job training. The VA pays the institution the full cost of tuition, fees, supplies, and equipment, and pays the veteran a monthly subsistence allowance which is combined with his disability compensation. About 5,000 participated in the program in 1962, at a cost of $3,500,000.

Recipients are mostly elementary and high school teachers, and the field receiving the most money is science, followed by modern foreign languages.

Under title XI of the National Defense Education Act, $32,750,000 was appropriated for each of the next 3 fiscal years to arrange for short-term and regular session institutes for those teaching or planning to teach history, geography, modern foreign languages, reading, and English. These institutes will also include those planning to teach disadvantaged youth, preparing to become library personnel in elementary and secondary schools, and those who are or are preparing to become educational media specialists. Persons who attend such institutes receive a stipend of $75 a week plus $15 a week for each dependent, the same amounts as are presently provided to those attending comparable NSF institutes.

The National Science Foundation, besides their institutes in scientific areas, conducts institutes in economics, sociology, and other social sciences.

CURRICULUM STRENGTHENING

Some $74,330,000 was expended through grants in 1962 for curriculum strengthening. of this amount $9.2 million went to higher

education.

(discussed above). They have a special program to train teachers to work with gifted science pupils in the secondary level. The total appropriation for these programs is $6,650,000.

The Office of Education: In 1962, this office distributed $44,120,000 to the States for the purchase of science teaching equipment, and to a lesser degree language teaching equipment. This program was established under title III of National Defense Education Act. Also, $14,385,266 was spent for improvement of counseling facilities.

RESEARCH IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

The Federal Government utilizes colleges and universities to conduct a portion of its basic research in many fields, such as defense, public health, agriculture, and space exploration.

Ninety percent of these grants are concentrated in 100 institutions of higher learning.

FEDERAL INSTITUTES OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The Federal Government operated 12 institutions of higher education, including the military academies, at a cost of $129,100,000.

FEDERALLY IMPACTED AREAS
Public Law 874

This law was enacted in 1950 to provide school districts, heavily overburdened with pupils as a result of national defense activities, with funds for current operating expenses and construction of school facilities.

Expenditures in 1962 totaled $231,293,000. All 50 States received funds; 4,100 school districts qualified in 1962. Their combined enrollment was 11 million, or about one-third of all the public elementary and secondary school children in the United States. Of these approximately 1.7 million are federally

connected.

Provides assistance for (a) school districts where revenues for schools have been reduced because of the acquisition of real property by the Government, (b) districts providing education for children living on Federal property, (c) districts providing education for children whose parents are employed on Federal property, and (d) districts where there is a sudden and substantial increase in school attendance as a result of Federal activity.

Determination

eligibility: Federally connected students are divided into three principal categories: (a) those whose parents both live and work on Federal property, (b) those whose parents either live on and work off Federal property or work on and live off Federal property, (c) those who have moved into a district in sufficiently large numbers, as a result of enlarged Federal activity or federally supported contracts, so that the district tax structure for school