in the field of higher education in the States, so that you are not forced to take programs that are, say, dreamed up by high-turnvoer people in planning activities downtown who then come up and present them to our Subcommittee on Higher Education-the other subcommittee on which I serve- and then are sent out to you in the form of guidelines, so that really you don't participate in fullness or to a large degree in the early advocacy and programs in your own field. Do you think the Conference would help to make this more realistic?

Mr. BROADWAY. I think the White House Conference, through extended involvement, through early planning would represent the idea that it would be the culmination of a great series of activities and events occurring at the State level. It is important that we involve State planning to a greater extent than we have in the past; that greater coordination and better forms of coordination between the Federal and State planning efforts takes place. I think there is a good deal of rhetoric about this, but it is often very difficult to achieve.

Mr. CAREY. I notice of late that White House Conferences are being less a tea party and more and more are producing widely divergent points of view. Witness the White House Conference on Hunger, which I think was very well organized by Dr. Jean Mayer. And when the hungry people got together and determined what they wanted in the way of nutrition, it resulted in what I think are highly potent and long term recommendations which were directed right to the President.

Do you see that happening in education also? Is it possible that the White House Conference might rear up on its front legs and decide to kick out and form some guidelines and priorities that it would sug gest to the executive branch and the Congress as we go forward and try to do the planning for you?

Mr. BROADWAY. That is entirely possible, and it would seem to me that would be a goal of the Conference.

Mr. CAREY. It would then be something that we haven't had even in 1955 and 1965, but possibly need in 1972?

Mr. BROADWAY. That is right. I think the broader the spectrum of Americans that you involve in the Conference the greatest your possibilities are for that to occur.

Mr. CAREY. Isn't it true, also-I am not trying to be partisan or in any way critical-that higher education, to a greater degree than elementary and secondary education, is getting truly a black eye in the public image because of the episodes that take place among a relatively limited number on campuses and around campuses and that it would serve to better identify the goals of the sound basis of higher education if the Conference were moved up on the timetable while we are still going through this period of relative unrest in our colleges?

Mr. BROADWAY. I completely concur with that comment. The preponderant news covering higher education lately in the press has been of a negative sort. It seems to me that a White House Conference with particular emphasis on making postsecondary education more broadly available to the American reople might have a tendency to let us look at some aspects other than those which make good headlines.

Mr. CAREY. The Conference should provide for inclusion of persons not necessarily active in the field of education but possibly those who

should better understand the mission of education. I am thinking of some of the blue collar people whose sons are in higher education but, I would say, find it very difficult to understand the mission of their own children.

Mr. BROADWAY. Yes.

Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Broadway.

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Quie.

Mr. QUIE. In the previous conferences, did the greatest emphasis and concerns center around elementary and secondary education or do you feel that the higher education had an adequate voice?

Mr. BROADWAY. I wouldn't comment that it was inadequate but I do think the emphasis was with elementary and secondary education. I really wouldn't suggest that this conference have a prime emphasis on higher education but rather be equally disproved throughout the various segments. But I think we ought to turn the spotlight a little bit brighter on that particular aspect, because we are now reaching the stage where it is more and more a requirement in our society that students who finished high school pursue some form of post secondary education. The emphasis you place in this particular bill on higher education is quite appropriate and that aspect of our educational structure has been kept in the corner long enough and we should bring it out at this level.

Mr. QUIE. Do you see from this legislation, however, a greater recognition of higher education than was the case of previous Conferences? Mr. BROADWAY. I would hope so.

Mr. QUIE. For some reason or other, the White House Conference on Children and Youth was divided into one on children and one on youth. My own feeling is that we have a desperate need now to look at our educational picture in toto. And I believe it was Mrs. Davenport who mentioned continuing education which means even beyond what we now look at as higher education and post secondary education. What would be your reaction if somebody suggested dividing this up into two Conferences?

Mr. BROADWAY. My immediate reaction to that would be rather negative. I agree with you that we should be looking at the entire spectrum of education, taking a total look at where we are going with this entire process, extending, as Mrs. Davenport indicated, into con tinuing education for adults. And I think we would have a tendency to lose the thrust of the White House Conference by dividing it up into various categories, elementary or secondary or higher educa tion or post secondary. I would hope that it would be one conference dealing with the entire subject and the entire spectrum of it.

Mr. QUIE. The elementary and secondary education people have al ways dealt through the State department of education in the States. I still feel it is a State responsibility, and somebody said once that education is a local function, a State responsibility and a Federal concern, which is probably going to continue on to the future.

However, higher education has not been the case because the private institution once played the dominant role. What kind of problems do you see in the statewide planning for education, expecially in the State where at least a majority of the institutions of higher education are private, nonpublic supported?

Mr. BROADWAY. Most of the State planning and coordinating bodies which exist in the country now are concerned only with tax-supported institutions. But in their overall planning for higher education, they take the private section into account. They have no governing control over private institutions but they do take into account the particular place they (private higher education) occupy within the educational spectrum of a particular state.

I think a White House Conference would serve to unify that particular effort and to provide those coordinating groups with some added strength to work with the private institutions. It seems to me that any State body charged with the responsibility for coordinating higher education in the State that doesn't take into account the private sector as well as the public one is really looking at only a portion of the package. Most of us recognize that.

There is a strong national organization of statewide coordinating directors. They certainly would be an appropriate group to have appear before you and testify before this committee.

Mr. QUIE. So far as I recall, there are two areas where the State coordinating committees operate, and one is the Higher Education Facilities Act, which is a construction of facilities, and the other one is community education, title I of the Higher Education Act. You are speaking of the possibility of that same type of coordinating committee having the responsibility of planning for most of the other aspects of Federal assistance.

Mr. BROADWAY. Most of the coordinating groups that you are discussing are in some way related to an overall larger planning body. It varies a great deal among States. You may go all the way to the board of regents concept or in some States you are dealing with a purely voluntary operation, as you do in several of the States in the Northeast. But with the exception of one State, all do have some group generally charged with coordinating responsibilities. The White House Conference could serve to provide some impetus to bring that function together.

Mr. QUIE. What is that one State?

Mr. BROADWAY. Indiana, as I recall.

Mr. QUIE. I get the implication from your testimony that that would be your recommendation and hope to have that fostered by the White House Conference?

Mr. BROADWAY. Yes.

Mr. QUIE. Thank you.

Mr. CAREY. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I don't believe I have any questions, Mr. Broadway. But I want to thank you for your testimony in support of this bill. Mr. BROADWAY. Thank you very much.

Mr. CAREY. This concludes the hearings on the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Illinois. The record on the legislation will remain open for 15 days for any additional statements and views that may be indicated to the subcommittee.

The subcommittee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

(The following statements were submitted for the record:)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

The American Council on Education has studied H.R. 17772 and has discussed the bill with other national associations of higher education. We wish to commend Representative John Erlenborn and other co-sponsors for having introduced the bill and the chairman of the subcommittee, Representative Pucinski, for bringing it under active consideration.

This is additional evidence of the continuing and broad concern that the sponsors and the committee have long exhibited for the welfare of education at all levels. The scope of the proposed White House Conference, as defined in the bill, is so comprehensive that the outcome of the conference could conceivably be a new blueprint for education in the last quarter of the century. Whether the outcome would indeed be that would depend, as has so often been the case in past conferences, on the degree to which the conference successfully grapples with the issues and the degree to which the conference both reflects and is accepted by American public opinion. This can be determined only in retrospect.

Our concern is largely one of timing. Within the next few months there wili be a number of White House conferences—especially those on children and youth-which must inevitably explore many of the topics identified as the agenda in H.R. 17772. Whatever the outcome of these conferences, it would seem wise to allow time to study and digest them before moving toward still another conference.

There is another reason why we question the timing of the proposed conference. Within the next year or two Congress must extend and revise basic legislation for higher education which will require decisions on the nuts-and-bolts of Federal assistance. How shall the disadvantaged be helped? How will colleges and universities be supported in this high-cost enterprise? How shall education be kept within the reach of the middle-income student-what mix of grants, loans, and work-study can and should the Federal government provide? How can liquidity be maintained in the private loan market? What direction should Federal aid to post-secondary education ultimately take?

These are fundamental questions which must be answered by the education committees of Congress. The committees are uniquely suited to this task. They have heard virtually everything there is to be said on these subjects. We cannot recall a time when the education committees in both the House and the Senate have heard more extensive testimony on a greater variety of proposals than in this second session of the 91st Congress. It is hard to believe that any interested group, or indeed individual, has been denied an opportunity to be heard. What is left is the process of section-by-section legislation-or argument and accommodation, of consideration of interests, of recourse to more facts where that is necessary-which is the peculiar genius of the Congressional standing committee. We have confidence in this process. We believe that all the energy of all in higher education should be devoted now to helping that process work.

When the basic legislation has been overhauled and the long-considered ideas used or discarded, it will be time again to provide a stage for the free flow of wide-ranging ideas. It will be time to pose new problems and propose new solutions. A White House conference might then indeed set the frame of discussion for another decade at least.

Under these circumstances we believe that if still another White House Conference is indicated-as it may well be the date for it should be set at middecade, say 1975, when we will have a better opportunity to assess where we are and where we are going. In the words of Mr. Erlenborn, as he introduced H.R. 17772, "Our [Committee] spends more than half its time on matters dealing with education. I believe all people understand that it has a pervading and expanding role in our society." We believe this too. We also believe that the Committee's concentration on this topic has prepared it to take the next moves. After that must come the review or reappraisal of assessment. If at that time a White House conference is deemed the proper mechanism, it should be called. But we doubt whether action and assessment can be carried on simultaneously, and we believe that action now is imperative.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

The American Library Association an educational organization of 30,000 professional and lay members, supports the convening of a 1972 White House Conference on Education, as provided for in HR 17772.

Education is so central to the economic, social and cultural advancement of the United States, that it is most appropriate that it should be the topic of discussion not only among the State and localities but also at the highest level of government. Members of our Association participated in the previous White House Conferences in 1955 and 1965, and found these meetings and the resultant recommendations for action very useful. The urgent need for education to keep pace with rapidly developing technology and the changing patterns of society makes it desirable to hold another conference in the near future.

The issues mentioned in HR 17772 as topics for consideration are crucial to the success of our educational system. In addition, we should like to suggest that a sixth item be listed in Sec. 2(a): discussion of the locus of responsibility and the means of financing education at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels. Although more money is not the only answer to our difficulties in education, adequate financing is one of the basic problems which must be solved along with many others.

We approve of the emphasis in HR 17772 on involvement of citizens at the local and State levels. Support from parents and community leaders is essential in any attempt to improve the education of your youth. However, we feel that not less than one-third of the members of the National Conference Committee should be educators. In addition, we urge that at least one of those Committee members be a librarian. The school media center and the academic library are an integral part of formal education, while the public library serves the continuing education needs of out-of-school youths and adults.

532