community colleges to treat with it as a unitary problem and have a bill for higher education through community colleges.

Senator MORSE. That certainly will have that second question that the counsel will put to the Department in the memorandum.

Mr. PRIEST. Senator Javits, we have done more than passing thinking on this and we have some material developed and much more could be worked up. We do believe that now is the time to take hold of this problem in a somewhat different form than has been true in the past.

Senator JAVITS. Perhaps you would then write the chairman, Senator Morse, a letter, in which you would tell him what you think about it now so that the question can be phrased as accurately as possible for HEW.

Senator MORSE. Will you do that along with the other part of the memorandum that I have called for?

Mr. PRIEST. Yes.

UNITY OF EFFORT IN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY

Senator MORSE. I am just thinking off the top of my head, but those are, sometimes, one's best thoughts anyway. I have a responsibility, along with my colleagues on this subcommittee to face up to the problems within the educational fraternity of the country when it comes to the maintenance of unity of effort in the passage of legislation. If one were to ask me to name the one major reason why we have been able in recent years to have this breakthrough in education legislation-with the result that since the first year of the Kennedy administration we have passed more Federal aid to education legislation quantitatively and qualitatively than has been passed in the preceding 100 years should you ask me to name the main reason for that accomplishment I would tell you that it is because at long last the educational segment of our country moved forward as a united body in support of all the various pieces of education legislation. Before that the elementary-secondary school people through their national associations were not enthusiastic in supporting higher education legislation. The higher education people were not enthusiastic in supporting elementary and secondary education. There was a split involving the vocational people. There was a split between public and private school people. The result was, as I said to them, at many of their meetings, that they themselves were more responsible than any other force for not getting the legislation. In fact, it was so serious that President Kennedy called the then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. Ribicoff, now Senator Ribicoff, and the chairman of this subcommittee down to the White House. A long conference resulted in the President assigning to the two of us the job of going out through the country and speaking to the educators themselves; Secretary Ribicoff to be diplomat, and the chairman to be the hatchetman. My job was to tell the educational community of their own legislative shortcomings and to stress that unless they recognized that only in unity was there strength there was no hope of success. Lacking this unity of approach, I said I did not see much optimism for Federal aid to education. To the everlasting credit of the profession they united and we were able to get the legislation passed.

EFFECT OF A SEPARATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE BILL?

Dr. Priest, I have given you this little summary of what happened then because there is going through my mind now a question as to whether or not a separate bill for community and junior colleges might have an adverse effect on the unity that has existed among you, for there has been a remarkable support on the part of higher education officials as far as work with this subcommittee is concerned for the junior and community college development. I would not like to see that growth in any way stunted.

So I hope you give some thought to it and advise me in your memorandum whether you think such an approach may run the danger of a step backward as far as a united educational front is concerned.

Mr. PRIEST. Our intent would be to work closely with the other agencies and we would not think of ourselves in terms of mavericks breaking off and going it alone. However, the problem which continually occurs is that the comprehensive community college has a somewhat different mission for the American people than, for example, the 4-year liberal arts school. And I believe we can get together under the educational intent and work up something.

Senator MORSE. I understand that, Dr. Priest, and again I am thinking out loud. I want to say the best evidence you could give me would be an endorsement of any proposed piece of legislation by the other groups.

The Senator from Texas.

JUNIOR COLLEGES IN TEXAS

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Priest, we are very glad that you moved to Texas from California to head up this Dallas County effort. There has been tremendous advancement. I think this has been one of the most encouraging things in the field of public junior colleges in the State in 20 years.

Right after World War II, Dr. Colvert at the University of Texas, whom I am sure you are acquainted with, went around the State speaking to the program of having a public junior college within 50 miles of every boy and girl in Texas. He had great obstacles, but a great many junior colleges were formed, generally in smaller cities. Larger cities in Texas were the last to come into this program. I had the privilege of representing, in a long-drawn-out litigation, the Southwest Texas Joint Junior Colleges. It was the first multiple-county district for public junior colleges with involuntary taxes levied on it. So we took it to the Supreme Court where they finally upheld that district.

I have listened to your statement and read your paper with great interest. I congratulate you in California for having achieved public junior colleges which are tuition free-is that correct, it is tuition free in California?

Mr. PRIEST. Yes; it is, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And I was told that last year-of course, you are no longer in California-that California had 45 percent of all the public junior college students in America. That figure has been cited for public junior colleges.

Mr. PRIEST. Well, in Texas they are moving in. As you know, Dallas is a large urban area and we will have in excess of 15,000 in the

junior colleges there in the early 1970's, so our State is moving ahead rapidly.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It has been a long delayed movement in our State and I am certainly glad to see an administrator with your proven capability to lead that movement. Houston, I do not believe, yet has a public junior college, or a public junior college program. But I have listened with great interest to what you have said. I have read these figures, and if we are able in these other States to do what California has done and make tuition free in the public junior colleges I think your estimate of this doubling of enrollment from 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 in 5 years would be a modest estimate indeed. I think, should tuition be free in other States, and I have long advocated this in Texas, it would be more than doubled in 5 years if the students could get in there, if they did not have to pay the tuition. Many families cannot pay the tuition, but they would be able to go. I want to point this out. We ran into this problem in 1958 on the National Defense Education Act. I had the privilege of being the coauthor of the public junior colleges getting their legislation after most of the State legislative moneys had gone to institutions of higher learning and the local tax moneys to primary and secondary education. So in conference between the House and Senate a provision was written in, and I had the honor of being the author of that, by which public junior colleges in certain States qualified and could in any State, if they wanted to amend their laws to qualify both as a high school and as a college, get money for the student loan fund under the college provision. They could get science and foreign language money under the high-school provision. I am sure you are familiar with that. California and Texas happened to be two of those States. I think there were eight that qualified under that. And I think the National Defense Education Act helped junior colleges considerably by that dual capacity in which they were cast under that law.

I want to thank you very much for your contribution.

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR YARBOROUGH

Senator MORSE. Dr. Priest, I hope you have taken note that while you have been testifying members of the committee have refreshed themselves with coffee, although I look over at my colleague from Texas and I am not so sure he is not drinking tea. But I just want you to know that the next round of coffee will be paid for by the Senator from Texas in return for the comment that I now make, but I make it to you in all sincerity. When you go back to Texas I hope you will tell your associates in your junior-college program that there is no more ardent supporter of the community college and junior college program in this country than Senator Yarborough. He has been of great help to the chairman and to this entire committee, for he recognizes, as you pointed out in this statement of yours this morning, that this is a tremendously important trend for the benefit of the young people of this country who, without the community and junior colleges, simply would be denied an educational opportunity. And I wanted the people in Texas to know that I am indebted to him for his support.

Now, before the Senator from New York leaves, I want to give him a chance to ask any questions he may have.

Senator JAVITS. I think he answered my question. Thank you. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful to the Senator from Oregon, but I would not have him put that burden upon Dr. Priest. We are very proud to have him in Texas, and if he goes back with a speech like that he might not last very long in Dallas as president of that junior college, so I suggest we relieve him of that burden.

Senator MORSE. Oh, I charge him with it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Wait until he has been in Texas an additional 3 or 4 years.

Senator MORSE. There is no reason that the educators should not participate in statesmanship, too.

Mr. PRIEST. God and American Airlines willing, I will be in Dallas at 6:09 and I will pass the word. We do appreciate the help, Senator Yarborough.

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Dr. Charles F. Schuller, director, Instructional Media Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.

We are delighted to have you, Dr. Schuller.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman knows, I am chairman of the subcommittee on labor which is meeting on the minimum wage law, and I must go to that subcommittee. I want to say in reference to this testimony of Dr. Schuller that I am taking it with me to work on while I wait to get my quorum. I am very much interested on this question of title 6 and I do not leave through lack of interest. There is no section of this bill that I am more interested in, Mr. Schuller, than in this section.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES F. SCHULLER, DIRECTOR, INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA CENTER, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST LANSING, MICH.

Mr. SCHULLER. Thank you, Senator Yarborough.

Senator MORSE. I will be able to help you with the quorum just as soon as Senator Edward Kennedy comes to relieve me.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MORSE. You may sit down, Mr. Schuller, and proceed in

your own way.

Mr. SCHULLER. Thank you. I am going to extrapolate from my prepared statement, which the committee has, assuming that that statement will be considered in its entirety by the committee.

Senator MORSE. The chair rules that the entire statement of Dr. Schuller be inserted in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Charles F. Schuller follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. SCHULLER, DIRECTOR, INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA CENTER, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Charles F. Schuller, a professor of education and director of the Instructional Media Center at Michigan State University. At this hearing, I represent the 6,000-member Department of Audiovisual Instruction of NEA of which I was President in 1958-59. I also helped organize and served for three years, from 106-63, as President of the Educational Media Council, an organization of representatives of 15 national organizations with a primary interest in the improvement of instruction through educational technology and media of all kinds.

On June 2, 1965, I had the privilege of appearing before this distinguished Committee as chairman of a panel of prominent college and university administrators and professors representing several national professional associations and institutions of higher learning. That panel presented the case for amending the Higher Education Bill of 1965 to add provisions which subsequently became Title VI entitled "Financial Assistance for the Improvement of Undergraduate Instruction." The amendment was effectively and successfully sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Texas and supported by the honorable chairman and other members of this Subcommittee. By reason of its importance, the title has since come to be known by the names of its sponsors in the Senate and the House of Representatives and is now commonly referred to as the YarboroughCarey Program.

TITLE IV, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

The need for that Program has been borne out by its reception by the higher education institutions of the nation. Although funded only late in October of last year with a consequent delay in getting organization, regulations, and State Plans established and approved, none the less some 944 institutions in 50 states met the April 30, 1966 deadline for submitting applications for the first instructional equipment grants and 180 applications were received for CCTV equipment grants. As of the end of the fiscal year on last June 30, virtually all funds appropriated for those purposes had been allocated. I bring this fact to the Subcommittee's attention primarily to illustrate the need felt by higher institutions and their demonstrated desire to participate under the provsions of Title VI. I would indeed be remiss, however, if I did not also take this occasion to bring to the Committee's attention the outstanding and intensive work done by Mr. Muirhead and his staff in the Bureau of Higher Education of the USOE which made it possible to get the program off the ground and into effective operation before the end of the 1966 Fiscal Year.

During its first half year of operation, the validity of those provisions of the Title which were funded has been demonstrated. On the other hand, our experience of the past six months has also revealed certain problems which appear to require legislative amendment if the worthy purposes and intent of the Yarborough-Carey Program are to be effectively implemented. These problems center in those parts of Section 604 and 605 dealing with maintenance of effort.

Section 604 (b) states:

MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT

"An institution of higher education shall be eligible for a grant for a project pursuant to this part in any fiscal year only if such institution will expend during such year for the same purposes as, but not pursuant to, this part an amount at least equal to the amount expended by such institution for such purposes during the previous fiscal year. The Commissioner shall establish basic criteria for making determinations under this subsection."

One key problem with the above section lies in its pyramiding effect. At the present time, an institution wishing to participate and which spent $10,000 for a given category of instructional materials and equipment in 1964-65 must spend at least $10,000 in 1965-66 and then add an amount such as $5,000 to qualify for $5,000 in matching grants. There is a general agreement with the principle involved here and no desire whatever to remove a maintenance of effort requirement. However, in fiscal '67 under current regulations, the same institution would then have to expend $15,000 before matching support could begin. Clearly, there is an escalating effect which tends both to discriminate against those institutions which have been making a good effort in the past and to make it progressvely less possible from year to year for an institution to participate in the program. The effect of this requirement is particularly harmful to the poorer institutions and to those institutions which are not growing rapidly. I believe that requirements in Sections 202(b) and 407 (a) of the same Act permit the institution's share used to match the Federal grant to be included in the Maintenance of Effort and would regard such a change as a distinct improvement in Title VI as well.

It should be noted, also, that an institution could totally avoid the effect and intent of the Maintenance of Effort section as it now stands by simply submitting proposals every other year. In the alternate years, expenditures for pertinent equipment and materials could actually be reduced and still comply with the