Page images
PDF
EPUB

HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1966

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:58 a.m., in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Morse (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Morse, Yarborough, Randolph, and Kennedy of New York.

Committee staff members present: Charles Lee, professional staff member; and Roy H. Millenson, minority clerk.

Senator MORSE. The hearing will come to order.

Mr. KERLEY. I am delighted to have you here.

I am sorry that Dr. Babbidge is ill and cannot be here also, but I understand you will present his statement for him.

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir; I will.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Bowman is associated with you. Let the record show that our first witness will be Mr. Robert Kerley, vice president, business affairs and treasurer, University of Kentucky. Associated with him will be Mr. James Bowman, director of financial aid, Johns Hopkins University.

We are delighted to have both of you gentlemen here. I am very sorry that we have to meet so early in the morning. That is the only way we ever are going to get these hearings completed and it is important to finish the hearings to get into executive session or we will never get consideration of the bill before adjournment. So you may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF DR. HOMER BABBIDGE, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, STORRS, CONN., AS READ BY ROBERT KERLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND TREASURER, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON, KY.; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BOWMAN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL AID, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. KERLEY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee as you know, Senator, I am reading Dr. Babbidge's statement-my name is Homer D. Babbidge. I am president of the University of Connecticut and a member of the Commission on Federal Relations of the American Council on Education. I am appearing before you in behalf of the

council, whose membership represents the whole spectrum of higher education in this country. Belonging to the council are 1,194 colleges and universities and 231 education organizations.

In order to conserve the time of the subcommittee and also to underscore the broad consensus that exists in the higher education community on the legislation now before you. I have also been asked to speak today in behalf of the Association of American Colleges, the Association for Higher Education, the Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

Accompanying me today are Mr. Robert Kerley, vice president for business affairs and treasurer at the University of Kentucky; and James Bowman, director of financial aid at Johns Hopkins University. They do not have prepared statements, but are experts in their fields and will be standing by to answer any questions you may have.

SUMMARY OF POSITION

We are pleased to have the opportunity to present our views on S. 3047, the Higher Education Amendments of 1966, and on H.R. 14644. In brief our position is this: We are in general support of title I of S. 3047 but have very serious reservations about title II. We support H.R. 14644, but shall recommend in our testimony certain additions, the need for which has become apparent since this bill was passed by the House.

TITLE I OF S. 3047 AND H.R. 1464

Let me turn first to title I of S. 3047 and H.R. 14644. The council has consistently given priority to facilities construction among Federal programs affecting higher education. We simply cannot meet our commitments to the Nation's young people unless we have classrooms, libraries, and laboratories for them, as this subcommittee recognized in its leadership toward the enactment of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The need for academic facilities is no less compelling today. In fact, it has intensified. Enrollments have risen even faster than the projects of 1963 anticipated. New student aid legislation-particularly the GI bill sponsored by Senator Yarborough of this subcommitteee undoubtedly will stimulate further enrollment in

creases.

We have no way of knowing how many veterans will use the benefits provided in the GI bill to attend college. When one considers that there are 4 million eligible veterans, plus two and a half million men and women now in service, the potential increase in college enrollments could become enormous. It is my own guess-and I certainly have no evidence to prove it-that the impact of the GI bill may be greater in the graduate schools than at the undergraduate level. In other words, I feel that the GI benefits will lead to a higher proportion of students taking graduate work.

The bill before you would provide for the construction of academic facilities at approximately the same rate as during the present year. It authorizes $453 million in matching grants for undergraduate facilities, $60 million in matching grants for graduate facilities, and

$200 million in loans for both graduate and undergraduate facilities in the 1967 fiscal year.

Although it is difficult to calculate a precise figure, these amounts should result in the completion of academic facilities with a value of at least $1.5 billion in 2 to 3 years' time.

TITLE I WILL NOT MEET THE NEED AT $453 MILLION

We support title I, but at the same time wish to point out that it will not meet the need. The U.S. Office of Education estimates a need for well over $2 billion annually in new academic facilities in the coming 2 years. We believe these figures are conservative for three

reasons:

First, they do not take account of the deficit already existing in needed facilities.

Second, the Office of Education has understandably been without a reasonable basis for estimating the increasing percentage of high school graduates who go on to college.

Third, USOE is unable, as is higher education, to take account of the stimulation which will be given to college enrollment by new financial aid legislation, which I mentioned earlier.

We are not in a position to offer other figures on the actual need. We are pleased that the bill contains $7 million for administrative expenses of State commissions and comprehensive planning to determine construction needs. An up-to-date study of construction needs is itself acutely needed, and should result in more precise information than is now available.

Had we been appearing before you a year ago, it is almost certain that we would have been requesting sharply increased authorizations for all three titles of the Higher Education Facilities Act. We say this because:

First, the current rate of construction is not adequate to meet the foreseeable demands for enrollment in college at either the undergraduate or graduate level.

Second, the Higher Education Facilities Act is almost totally inoperative for many institutions because they cannot obtain the required two non-Federal dollars to match each Federal dollar.

Even with precise information on actual construction needs, we can say categorically that construction is not keeping pace with anticipated demand. Almost every piece of legislation pertaining to higher education encourages a greater percentage of young people to go to college. I have mentioned the GI bill as a stimulant to college attendance. But there are also the national defense student loan program, the work-study program, the new opportunity grant program, and indeed the Upward Bound program in the Office of Economic Opportunity. We applaud the objectives of all these programs. Our institutions want to be able to accommodate all of the young people benefiting from them.

Senator MORSE. I must ask you to take a very brief recess. I have an emergency call.

(Short recess.)

Senator MORSE. I am sorry, Mr. Kerley. You may proceed.

Mr. KERLEY. Looking ahead, we can see no alternative to asking you in future years to give us greater assistance in the building of needed academic facilities. I refer not only to much large authorizations, but a sharp increase in the Federal share so that all institutions may participate in carrying the load of increased student enroll

ments.

MATCHING REQUIREMENTS

Senator MORSE. That is the point I want to stress. As you point out on page 3 in your second point, these institutions are having difficulty getting the two non-Federal dollars to match the Federal dollar. This is true even in the so-called wealthy States.

Mr. KERLEY. That is true, sir.

Senator MORSE. To say nothing about the so-called poorer States. I think, I am not sure, but I think, it also represents a feeling that has not yet been expressed. It is one of those developing public sentiments. It is that the problem of providing higher education opportunities, as contrasted to secondary and elementary educational opportunities, places a greater obligation on the Federal Government than has been recognized. The Federal obligation derives from the mobility of adult citizens, as well as the national interest and national need to develop, to the maximum extent possible, our brainpower. There is also a feeling that so much of the tax dollar of the taxpayer, derived from individual taxpayers of the country, goes to the Federal Government, that, therefore the Federal Government should pay a larger share of the cost of education programs and other services. I think there is some basis for my feeling that these sentiments are developing when we take note of the extent to which there are those who are proposing that there be a refund to the States of Federal tax dollars. It is a proposal which is not important at this point, but having mentioned it I will go on record as saying it is, in my judgment, an absurd proposal. It doesn't represent a proper understanding of what the real tax obligations of the Federal citizen

are.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND A 50-50 FEDERAL AID SHARE

A citizen of the United States is also a citizen of his State but many people seem to think they are just citizens of a State and not U.S. citizens. That is why I think the tax rebate is a fallacious approach. It doesn't even take into account the forces outside of the State that produce the wealth which accrues to a citizen within the State.

But be that as it may, I think the national public opinion feeling to which I allude is growing. I quite agree with what I consider to be the implication of your comment on page 4 that there should be an increase I don't know whether it should be a sharp increase, that is a matter of definition-but an increase in the Federal share of educational financial assistance. I certainly do not have any evidence as yet, to be able to make an estimate as to what that Federal share should be. Certainly, I think we do know enough about the problem now so that a strong prima facie case could be made for a 50-50 share as of now, and it may be in the next 2 years-more or less-we can make a case for more than a 50-50 Federal share. I do not think you can possibly meet the construction needs of the colleges of this

country particularly the public colleges of this country, if we continue to operate on the 2-to-1 basis.

Mr. KERLEY. I agree with you.

Senator MORSE. You are just not going to get the money. Who suffers? Not the States but the students.

Mr. KERLEY. That is correct, sir.

Senator MORSE. I doubt that we can do much about the formula this year but I am not sure. At least I am not sure, Mr. Kerley, that we shouldn't make the record we are making this morning. I hope other witnesses will add to it, and I hope there will be supplied for this record supplemental memoranda from the higher education groups in the country, giving to this chairman some factual material that will support this premise you have laid down in this statement about the difficulty of getting the $2 to match the $1 Federal dollar.

I think we ought to come to grips with this fair formula problem. I am very glad that you have raised this point. I have made this brief statement to let the hearings record show for those educators who read it, the administrative officers of colleges who read it, that they, too, have responsibilities of bringing to the subcommittee factual information that will be of help to this chairman and his colleagues on the subcommittee as we ponder the question how soon should we give formal consideration to the changing of the 2 to 1 ratio as far as State versus Federal payments on college and university construction costs are concerned.

You may proceed.

FEDERAL SHARE-75 PERCENT

Mr. KERLEY. Thank you, sir.

The council has been tempted to ask for these increases this year. The only reason we have refrained is the critical nature of the times and the tight problem of the budget.

I should note here that the Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges are clearly on record as urging that the authorization for Federal sharing of the cost of undergraduate and gradutae facilities to be raised to permit a Federal contribution of up to 75 percent of the cost of the facility, and also that special attention should be given to encourage the removal and replacement-or expansion and modernization of obsolete facilities. Neither the American Council nor the other associations for which I speak are opposed to this proposal. It is purely a question of timing.

LIGHT BUDGET AND THE GREAT SOCIETY

Senator MORSE. The chairman wishes to interrupt again to say it is not for me to decide the legislative policy of the council or of any other group appearing before the committee, but I do want the record to show that I, for one, am disappointed that you did not make the request on the basis of the needs that you can prove. I do not think that the argument that you advance, that your failure to do so is due to the fact of the tight budget situation, is an adequate justification.

« PreviousContinue »