providing young men and women in this community higher educational opportunities.

We are all familiar with the work that is being done at the community college level throughout the Nation. Within 10 years I think there is no doubt about the fact there will be more young men and women in this country going to community colleges than going to the so-called standard universities and colleges. Unless we provide community college training, we are going to condemn tens of thousands of young men and women across this Nation to unemployment. Unless we train them for employment in the new age of automation, they are just not going to be able to get jobs. They are not going to be hired for jobs for which they are not trained.

I have worked a good many years in the District of Columbia. I want to say that I am not going to blind myself to the obvious fact that there are thousands of young men and women in this city that could do satisfactory college work at a community level; that could do work satisfactorily in training them for employment in an automated age if we lived up to our responsibilities of citizen statesmanship.

to

As far as I am concerned it gets down to that major premise. I do not think any of us are morally justified in denying to any young man or woman in this city an opportunity to go to college if they want go to college and have the ability to do satisfactory college work. I am not at all interested-may I say most respectfully-I am not at all interested in supporting a higher education program in this country that is going to be limited to the so-called superior student. Most people know, that are familiar with my work as chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, that I hold to the point of view that the C student-the average student-the satisfactory student-is the most important student we have in American education for the reason there are so many of them. They are the backbone of our educational system. They are also the backbone of our citizenry.

So I am not at all concerned, may I say, in advance, with the attitude of the board of regents or the college administrator that wants to suggest that we try to meet this crisis by raising the level of entrance to colleges.

In my judgment in the field of education that is immoral. That is sacrificing human values and when you sacrifice human values you engage in immorality. I want the students in universities and colleges to have every possible support we can obtain for them, and I fight for them, but I am not going to support private colleges and universities at the administration level that do not recognize that we have a problem of supporting these community colleges across this land that are going to bring a type of educational service to the so-called average student so sorely needed. I do not mean to imply by that that only average students go to this college, because a good number of our superior students go there too.

But what I want to plead for again today is what caused us to have the breakthrough in 1963. How well I remember that breakthrough when there was such disunity in the educational world in this country. The then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. Ribicoff and I were assigned by President Kennedy the responsibility, back in 1962, to try to reunite the educational forces in this country into a program so that they supported all segments of the Kennedy educational omnibus bill.

With that unity we started the breakthrough, and I want to say to educators in this room this morning that you still have the obligation to remain united and to give support to the educational program that President Johnson envisions at all levels of education, from kindergarten through graduate school. You cannot do it if you permit your ranks to be split and give support to an argument that some are making in the name of economy; of simply raising the standards of our socalled standard universities and let those that cannot meet the standards go without the educational training to which they are morally entitled, and to which we, as a population, cannot afford to sacrifice economically.

This is the last comment I will make before I call on the next witness. To understand my position on education you must understand this; that when I ask for a bill that seeks expenditures for the type of college that I am seeking in the District of Columbia, I am not really asking for anything but an investment, an investment in human beings, and an investment in the economy of our Nation.

When you talk to me about legislation such as this you better be ready to talk to me with a lead pencil in your hand because what I am asking for is really a loan to the young people of this country for the future economic benefit of the Nation.

I shall put the exact figures in the hearing record later, but I want to close the explanation of my position as chairman of this subcommittee by pointing out for this record that when I am asking for a development in the type of 4-year college that I am urging for the District of Columbia, I am really asking the taxpayers to loan money to the young people of this country so they can repay into the local, State and Federal treasuries in this country, many times the cost of our investment in terms of the additional tax dollars they will be able to pay that they would not be able to pay if they did not have the college educations. It is as simple as that.

The figures are in the neighborhood of average lifetime earnings of college graduates of around $470,000 to $800,000; of a high school graduate in the neighborhood of $260,000 to $270,000; of a high school dropout in the neighborhood of $110,000 to $125,000; of the grade school graduate in the neighborhood of $90,000 to $100,000. And of course the grade school and high school dropout-if they have any income at all, if we do not support most of them in penal institutions, or on welfare or in mental hospitals or with other public funds somewhere in the neighborhood of $70,000 to $80,000.

That is the money involved. That is why this is a sound investment. I like to think about it as a loan to the young people of this country so they can have an economic opportunity and through that opportunity repay into the Treasury of the United States many times the cost of their higher education through the benefits a bill such as this would provide.

As the people in the room know, I have for years cosponsored the Yarborough GI bill which Congress recently passed. Over the years, it was vigorously opposed by the Department of Defense, and opposed by the administration. But something happened this year and Congress passed it.

This GI bill, like the first GI bill, will never cost the American taxpayers a cent. In fact, even in this room, if I asked for a show of

hands of people that sit here that are the beneficiaries of the GI bill, you would be surprised at the number of hands that would come up. Those former GI's, now doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and dentists, in all walks of American life, would not be occupying their present positions had the American people not invested the funds for the GI bill in them. That first GI bill has already more than repaid its cost by increased tax dollars that the recipients of it have been able to pay as a result of their increased earnings over what they otherwise would not have been able to earn.

The entire Senate of the United States has never failed me as chairman of the Committee on Education, since we first started to put through the Kennedy omnibus bill of 1962. In fact, I remember when we first offered that bill. It had 24 sections, and I told the President, after it had been introduced and we started the hearings that I did not think there was any chance of passing it as an omnibus bill. I said, "Mr. President, if you will let me submit it section by section or sections by sections, I will give you my assurance that during your first term in office I will get a vote on each one of the 24 sections."

He did not live to see the vote on all 24 sections, but last year we completed the last vote on the last section. Some of them were changed somewhat but none in principle, and that great educational program constitutes a breakthrough in educational legislation in this country which is greater than all, greater in import, in quality and in quantity than Federal legislation for the entire preceding 100 years.

For the 100 years before the breakthrough on the President Kennedy bill we had passed very little legislation in the field of education and that is why a great educational crisis has developed in this country. Starting with that Kennedy program, followed by the Johnson program, we are on our way, in my judgment, to meeting the educational crises that have plagued this Republic for too long a period of time. As far as this chairman is concerned, the legislation that we start hearings on this morning is an integral and important part of that overall educational program that was envisioned in the first place by President Kennedy and continued by President Johnson.

With that as an introductory statement, I call upon Mr. Muirhead and Dr. Chase to lead off as our next witnesses.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER C. MUIRHEAD, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF U.S. EDUCATION, AND DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Thank you. I am privileged to appear before you in support of the legislation which is now before the committee, S. 293 and S. 1612. Mr. Chairman, it is a particular privilege to appear before you in support of this legislation because you have so effectively championed the cause of young people all over the Nation. I can speak with particular grace on that point because I have worked very closely with you in your dynamic leadership in extending educational opportunities to young people across the Nation.

Senator MORSE. May I interrupt to say that without your help and the help of Dr. Keppel, Dr. Halperin, Mr. Cohen, Secretary Celebrezze, and Secretary Ribicoff, we simply could not have passed this legislation. You have supplied us with the facts and data essential to us.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. I think it is particularly significant that you now turn your hand and heart to lend that same leadership to help the young people in the Nation's Capital.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should now like to put into the record the statement which I have.

The President has consistently called upon the Nation to continue its historic commitment to the improvement of American education. In several messages on education, he has pointed out that higher education is no longer a luxury, but a necessity-that higher education should be made a universal opportunity for all young people. The magnificent response of this Congress will resound to the benefit of the Nation and our youth for generations to come.

The special communication from the President accompanying S. 1612 asks that the youth of our Nation's Capital be given a chance to do their best. It is my honor to speak for the President in soliciting your support and enactment of this bill. I should say there it is my honor to speak for the President in concurring in your support for this legislation.

Such action would be a further manifestation of the fierce commitment of this Congress to the principle of extending educational opportunity to all who desire it and can benefit from it.

All of our States (and most of our larger cities) have established systems of publicly supported institutions of higher education to provide educational opportunities to their residents at nominal cost. The District of Columbia is the sole exception; its citizens do not have access to the national pattern of public 4-year colleges and junior or community colleges other than the limited teacher training opportunities offered by the District of Columbia Teachers College.

The bill before you today would extend to the citizens of the District the benefits of publicly controlled and publicly supported higher education. It would create a Board of Higher Education which would plan, establish, and govern the operations of a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

With your permission I would like to give the background of this proposal and to discuss briefly the major provisions of the bill.

BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL

In June 1964, the President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia presented its report to the President. The Committee was chaired by Dr. Francis S. Chase, then dean of the Graduate School of Education of the University of Chicago and an outstanding leader in the field of higher education representing a wealth of experience and knowledge of administration and research. We are privileged to have Dr. Chase with us this morning.

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

It may be worth noting that these recommendations have the unqualified endorsement of all members of the committee which included such experienced and thoughtful scholars in the field of higher education as Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., chairman of the Corporation of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, former president of that in

stitute, and a recognized authority on science and technical education; Dr. Thomas R. McConnell, chairman, the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of California, whose experience in education includes the chancellorship of the University of Buffalo, and whose studies in the field of higher education are known internationally; Mrs. Agnes Meyer, civic leader and author, whose concern for the disadvantaged and for the advancement of education have made her a national leader, and who brought to the committee an intimate knowledge of the District of Columbia; Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit, president of Texas Southern University, who has had wide experience and national influence in many aspects of higher education, and who is a brother of President Nabrit of Howard University; Dr. George N. Shuster, assistant to the president of the University of Notre Dame, who as former president of Hunter College had firsthand experience with contributions of a public college to urban life; and Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, dean of science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and former Director, Office of Science and Technology. I should like to add, this is truly a blue-ribbon committee. Senator MORSE. It surely is.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. The members met frequently, weighed carefully the needs to be met, and analyzed critically all available and relevant information before reaching the recommendations to which this bill seeks to give effect.

The committee study, among other issues, presents higher educational opportunities available to residents of the District, employment opportunities in the District, socioeconomic factors, and the numbers of District secondary school students who could reasonably be expected to attend publicly supported institutions of higher education in the District if such institutions were to be established.

Based upon its studies and upon discussions with representatives of higher educational institutions in the District and with a number of District organizations and civic leaders, the committee recommended the establishment of both the community college and the college of arts and sciences which would be authorized by the bill now before this committee.

It further recommended that public higher education in the District of Columbia be placed under the new and separate Board of Higher Education created by this bill.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD

The bill provides for a Board of Higher Education of from 9 to 15 members, appointed by the Commissioners of the District, after consideration by the Commissioners of the recommendations of a nominating committee. In State and municipal colleges and universities, the methods of selection of the majority of the members of boards of control in 1960 were as follows, and I have a table that can be inserted in the record.

Senator MORSE. The table will be inserted into the hearing record at this point.

(The document to be furnished follows:)