much information, gather that much data, that you need $2 billion for the next 2 years, that you would want more than $450 million for this year? Mr. MORSE. Well, $450 million plus the $60 million plus the loan, because of the matching, 2 to 1 matching requirement, will release about $2 billion, just under $2 billion in construction funds. It isn't $2 billion versus $450 million. If the Federal matching—if all institutional projects were funded up to the full one-third, $450 million would still release an additional $900 million for construction for a total of almost $112 billion. Senator KENNEDY of New York. I gather from the way you have written this or the statement you made that you also don't feel that that is you say "We believe these figures are conservative." Mr. MORSE. We believe so because the Office of Education enrollment projections have run consistently below the actual enrollment figures. Senator KENNEDY of New York. I am not going to prolong the point. It seems to me that if you are not in a position to make a recommendation to the committee, a specific recommendation, and feel you haven't got enough data, even though as I say page 3 would indicate that at least there is more information than might originally have indicated, if you are not, I don't see how anybody ever expects anybody in this Congress or those who are members of this committee to try to reach any determination. I mean I think you put us in a rather difficult position. As I say, I think it is up to the responsibilities of Congress and the executive branch has got to try to work out the budgetary problems and the war in Vietnam and what our domestic problems are after we get expert advice from those on the outside, but I defer to the chairman because he was absolutely right in what he said about me 25 minutes ago. Thank you. Senator MORSE. I thank the Senator very much for his contribution. I like it much better when you talk. Senator KENNEDY of New York. I have a committee Senator MORSE. Same committee. I will be there as soon as I can. Mr. Kerley, Dr. Morse, I think if you will analyze the Federal fund available for construction Senator KENNEDY of New York. He just said he would lower it to a C. FEDERAL COMMITMENT Senator MORSE. I think if you will analyze the Federal funds available for construction, you will find that if the States did put up their $2, you wouldn't have available the Federal money to meet the Federal Government's one-third at the present time. I think that the subcommittee and the administration certainly has an obligation to be able to keep its what I consider to be a commitment in regard to its third. So I think our figure has got to be at least changed to assure that you have that drawing account if at State level you meet the State obligation, and it is no answer to me to say you are not going to meet it at State level. MATCHING FORMULA The next point I make about this is I do think the committee ought to come to grips with the formula. I completely agree with Mr. Kerley, his statement that the 2-to-1 ratio is not fair. I doubt any possibility of going to the 1-to-3 ratio. But I am not so sure that we shouldn't at least give some consideration, and I am not saying I will introduce it because I need more help from you people on supporting evidence, but after listening to you this morning, I am inclined to propose an amendment as of now of 50-50 matching formula. That doesn't stop us in the future of going to, if we can prove it, in going to 75-25. Mr. KERLEY. Right. Senator MORSE. As you said in some of your later testimony, that is the figure you prefer. So I will leave the record open on this matter, suggesting that the council submit a memorandum to the subcommittee bearing upon the matching issue. I think you have seen that if all the members of the subcommittee had been here, it wouldn't have changed. I think you have observed this morning the feeling of this subcommittee that it has a job to do on whatever the facts are, and this subcommittee has no intention to recommend less than the educational needs of the country because of a war in Vietnam. That is for the Senate as a whole to decide. But our committee obligation in the Senate is to take to the floor of the Senate the facts. It is very much-it is somewhat analogous to the situation that exists, for example, between a Senator and the Army Engineers. The Army Engineers have two bosses, the White House and the Congress. When the White House sends up its budget, prior to that it sends its instructions to its departments including the Army Engineers and tells them what the ceiling is. The corps has to submit an Army Engineers budget under that ceiling. But when a Senator—and I have done it for 21 years-writes a letter to the Army Engineers in regard to project X, for which their budget includes obviously inadequate funds, and I say: "I put to you the question-what could you efficiently and effectively spend if the money could be made available to you?" The Army Engineers never fails to give me those facts. As a result, the public works program of this country is entirely different from what it would have been had we simply accepted the Army Engineers' figures which it had to submit in response to the White House request consistent with the budget message. I think you know I feel somewhat the same way on this matter this morning. The American Council on Education is not the Army Engineers but we have got to get the facts from some source and I know of no better source on this particular limited problem than your council. Therefore what I would like to know is what I should recommend to the full committee, and to the subcommittee. I need to know the amount of money that is really needed to meet the domestic higher education needs of this country. There is no sense in prolonging it. You know what our problem is. If you gentlemen could help us, if there is any further information that subsequently you can submit by way of a memorandum I wish you would. I happen to believe that fine as the report of the council is in many respects, this morning, has shown that this area is a gaping hole in its report. I don't think the council should leave the subcommittee in this position. If you cannot supply the data, we will have to get the information elsewhere. I don't think $453 million is enough. I don't know what a figure is, but sometimes on this job you get to the point where you have to exercise intelligent guesses and my intelligent guess would be above $453 million. TRUE FEDERAL SHARE Counsel has asked me to ask the question, What is the present true Federal share, 10 or 20 percent, or what? Mr. KERLEY. Sir, we don't have data on that. The Commission plans in the States vary all over but I do think that the gathering of the data would be a very important piece of information. In my own particular case the State Commission has ruled that no one application from an institution may receive more than 20 percent of the State allocation or $1 million, whichever is the lesser. I know that in other States, the money has been spread even more thinly with maximums of half a million dollars for any one project. But we don't have data on the actual facts on the awards or recommendations by all the State commissions but it certainly would be helpful to both the entire educational community and this committee to have that data. I am sure it is available through the U.S. Office of Education but I don't have it with me. Senator MORSE. HEW you think can supply it? Mr. KERLEY. I do, sir. Senator MORSE. Counsel for the committee, I want a letter sent to the HEW asking for the information if they have it available or can make it available on this particular question as part of the record. (The information referred to follows:) MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEW SUMMARY OF GRANTS UNDER TITLE I OF PUBLIC LAW 88-204 FOR FISCAL YEARS 1965 AND 1966 Does not include additional dollars needed for projects which were received by State commissions but were not funded at all. |