$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. WHO PAYS FOR THE WAR? I think the American people are entitled to know what the administration's representations in regard to a tight budget situation mean to the Great Society programs. This is a part of the Great Society program and this is one further evidence that, of course, the students in America are paying for part of the war in Vietnam. The poor in America are paying for part of the war in Vietnam. The Negroes in America through the denial of the rights they are entitled to receive now, not tomorrow, and which they are going to insist on now and not tomorrow, are paying for the war in Vietnam. But industry isn't paying for the war in Vietnam. The profit takers aren't paying for the war in Vietnam. Labor isn't paying for the war in Vietnam. You only need to look at the inflationary demands of a striking union at the present time that is paralyzing the air transportation of the country. I want to make these comments. You know there is much more I can say on the subject. The American people ought to know that the administration's budgetary policy is of its own making and that it is not telling the American people who is paying for the war in Vietnam. Now, we are in the war and it has got to be paid for and, of course, when it comes to the matter of paying for the war, I shall vote for paying for the war, although I am completely opposed to the war. But I don't think those in this country who are underprivileged and those in this country that need educational facilities so that they can have an education should be paying for the war. I think those making blood money out of the war should be paving for the war. Therefore, and I speak respect fully as you know, I think the American Council has made a great mistake in not making its full case before this subcommittee in paying for the cost of the true educational needs of the country. You have a perfect right to follow the policy that you follow, because honest and sincere men disagree with my views as to what ought to be done in connection with this war. We ought to be on a war economy. We ought to have price controls. We ought to have wage controls. We ought to make very clear to the American people that, if we are going to fight this war, in which we never should have been engaged in the first place, then it ought to be paid for from tax dollars derived from those that are benefiting from the war. Certainly it should not be paid for by denying the college students in this country or the potential college students in this country the facilities that they need to get an education. UGLY REALITIES OF WAR FINANCE This is a great issue in America and I am through making what some will call a political speech in this hearing. It is not. I am just calling the attention of the American people to some ugly realities that they want to run away from because many people are waving the flag into tatters and thereby paying disrespect to the flag and that includes the leaders of my administration. So I could good naturedly say to you, Mr. Kerley, I couldn't let you get by with that observation without filing a caveat of objection, for you to take back to the American Council on Education. I didn't expect the council to have conducted itself that way. It ought to have stood up and been counted. THE NEED FOR FACILITIES We have needs for the facilities and the council ought to have shown the needs for the facilities and told us how much money is required for the facilities rather than, in my judgment, indirectly surrendering to the administration by agreeing that we can postpone the Great Society programs. We can't afford to postpone them. I never make a statement that witnesses aren't always welcome to rebut. Anything you wish to say you may say and then proceed with your manuscript. Mr. KERLEY. Thank you, sir. ACADEMIC FACILITIES FOR 1967 In summary, we support the proposals for academic facilities for fiscal 1967. We note that the bill proposes that authorizations for future years shall be based on "such sums as may be necessary." We would suggest that this wording be changed to read "such sums as the Congress may hereafter authorize by law." This would give us an opportunity to come back to you next year with a clearer picture of needs both for total construction and for the Federal share. Should the subcommittee decide to authorize specific sums beyond fiscal 1967, then we would suggest the following amounts: Fiscal year Fiscal year 1969 Title I. $750, 000, 000 $1, 000, 000, 000 120, 000, 000 TITLE III AND PARTICIPATION SALES ACT We are unable to suggest authorizations for title III because of uncertainty over the impact that the Participation Sales Act of 1966 might have. However, we are certain that borrowing for academic facilities will increase in proportion to the grants provided. We feel it unwise at this time to suggest figures for any of the three titles for fiscal 1970 and 1971. We would prefer to await an up-to-date assessment of needs and to gain some experience with the new GI bill before projecting figures that far in advance. TITLE I, PART B, DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS As to part B of title I, there can be no question about the need to strengthen our so-called developing institutions, particularly those whose student bodies are made up largely of Negroes who have been prepared in inadequately supported, previously segregated secondary schools. The American Council enthusiastically supported title III when the Higher Education Act of 1965 was considered, and it still |