The student assistance programs are designed to enable more individuals to pursue a higher education. But this expansion of opportunity will require more academic facilities to accommodate rising enrollment. It is the purpose of the higher education facilities program to meet this need. Under this program, almost $1.1 billion has been appropriated in 1965 and 1966, the first 2 years of the program, and in 1967 we are requesting appropriations of $723 million. This request will support over 1,200 grants for construction projects at public community colleges, technical institutes, and other higher education institutions. The 1967 budget will also provide for about 250 construction loans. In extending the legislation, we are proposing to change the character of the construction loan program to decrease the Federal capital contribution through the use of the private credit market in the sale of loan participations.

FUNDS FOR LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

Expansion of Federal aid to higher education has been rapid and dramatic-in the programs of the Office of Education, from $164 million appropriated in 1964 to over $1.2 billion requested in the 1967 President's budget. It is because of this recent and tremendous growth that we are not requesting in 1967 the relatively small amount in annual fund authorized and specifically earmarked for the landgrant colleges. They will, of course, continue to participate in our higher education programs.

Senator HILL. You realize, of course, they are strongly protesting the denial of these funds. They have had them since 1862. When that act, the Morrill Act, first passed, Buchanan vetoed it and then, Abraham Lincoln became President of the United States and he signed it. Senator BARTLETT. How much money is involved?

Senator HILL. $11,950,000.

Mr. CARDWELL. They would continue to receive the permanent appropriation. The $11,950,000 is the actual cut.

Senator COTTON. I can only speak for the New England area, but I assume that the objective of all of these various programs is to place higher education in the reach of more of our youth. Now, our landgrant colleges have been able to furnish a college education for our young people at less cost than they would pay in private institutions even though private colleges and universities are highly endowed. It seems to me a little inconsistent and we are losing sight of the main object which is to make higher education and college education available to more and more of our youth.

To cut out this sum that has been traditionally and historically established for our land-grant colleges, because you can go there at less cost than you can go to other institutions, it seems to me that that is hitting where it hurts the most and it is penny wise and pound foolish.

Mr. GARDNER. Senator, I certainly feel strongly about the contributions that these institutions make to higher education. I have said many times publicly that these are a vital, important part of the higher educational American scene, and I fully recognize the great tradition of the land-grant colleges and universities.

These same institutions will be receiving many, many times the amount of money they receive in land-grant aid through other channels, an it was in terms of this recognition that through newly developed programs aimed at new objectives these institutions were receiv

ing even larger funds, that we felt that during a tight budget year it was perfectly appropriate to curtail this program.

REQUEST TO BUDGET BUREAU

Senator HILL. Did you formally ask the Bureau of the Budget for this amount?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes.

Senator HILL. When you use the word "we" you mean more the Budget Bureau rather than the Department?

Senator COTTON. The land-grant colleges gained from the general program only their proportionate share, if they gain that, depending somewhat on the facilities-proportionate share along with all of the private institutions, so that the cutting of this comparatively small amount is a blow at the land-grant college that is still holding down its tuition and still furnishing educational opportunity at less cost than many if not most of the privately endowed institutions. Is that not correct?

Mr. GARDNER. It would be a blow but the funds that come through these other acts will be a real gain to those same institutions and will strengthen them in very important ways.

Senator COTTON. My point is if you cut out this comparatively small but traditional amount that goes to land-grant colleges, then of necessity you are not reducing but perhaps forcing the land-grant college in its charges to students to come a little nearer to the private institutions.

In other words, our own land-grant college is facing a problem of higher tuition right now, and this is another straw to help break the camel's back to make it necessary and they are striving not to do it. But there is no use trying to convert you because I suspect you are already converted.

FUNDS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE, ALABAMA AND ALASKA

Mr. GARDNER. I notice, Senator, that New Hampshire will receive about $2 million under the Higher Educational Facilities Act of 1963. Senator COTTON. But the reductions of other funds, exclusive, of course, of this fixed, comparatively small amount, are likely to be around $250,000.

Mr. CARDWELL. We have shown they would lose $164,000.
Senator HILL. What about Auburn University in Alabama?
Mr. CARDWELL. Auburn University would lose $149,610.
The University of Alaska would lose about $165,000.
Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question?

I assume that land-grant college aids are receiving a dollars every year from this program. In a noncompetitive world-and now it will become competitive-they will have to compete with these other landgrant colleges and private institutions for this bigger amount of money to which you referred. Is there any grave danger that a land-grant college will be cut off and will not be able to get as much money as it had before?

From what you said, I inferred that there was a probability or a certainty, whatever the case may be, that it will receive more money than this program gave it. Is that or is that not correct?

Mr. GARDNER. That is correct.

Senator BARTLETT. If this provision were not eliminated then it would get the amount of money now received plus a chance at the other?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. Specifically, and I don't want to take too much time, what are the other programs or one or two of them under which the land-grant college is expected to make up for its losses, and in the case of mine it is $164,000?

From what source are they going to get that $164,000 back in addition to what they have been receiving? What would be the program? Mr. GARDNER. Do you mean over and above?

Senator COTTON. Aecording to your figures they are going to lose $164,000 and you suggest, however, that that will be made up for or more than made up for by other Federal sources.

Mr. GARDNER. One program that has not been a part of their past experience will be the Higher Education Act of 1965 which will get underway.

Senator COTTON. How is the amount of that money determined and what is it given to them for?

Mr. COHEN. In the case of higher education facilities, there is in the 1965 act an expansion of the 1963 legislation, so it would be used substantially for the same purpose.

Senator COTTON. And those purposes are what?

UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC FACILITIES

Mr. HuITT. Under the new program which extends the 1963 act, Senator, there will be authorizations of $460 million for undergraduate academic facilities. This would include buildings and things of that kind. In addition, there would be $60 million for graduate academic facilities, and $300 million in loans for construction, so this is a total of over $800 million.

Senator COTTON. If it is for facilities, that means buildings and equipment?

Mr. HUITT. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. So there again in the impacted areas you are replacing certain payments that they can use for their running expenses and use to hold down their expenses by earmarked funds that they only use for new or renovating or expanded physical facilities.

Mr. KELLY. There is a whole series of authorizations, Senator Cotton, and it is hard to tick them off at your fingertips, but I would like to include them.

AUTHORITY FOR OTHER ASSISTANCE

They go beyond the facilities. We have the authority to help and assist in the establishment of their libraries. We have authority to assist in a whole series of efforts, such as moving in the area of continuing educational programs.

With respect to some of the smaller and the more economically hard pressed institutions, we have authority to assist them as developing institutions to bring them up to an acceptable level.

There is authority to develop teacher programs for the Teacher Corps activity and then for certain specialized programs in such areas as foreign language, mathematics, and science.

What I would like to do if I might is just enumerate a little further. One of the problems we have in responding to your question is telling how much a given institution will get is that the land-grant funds are provided by a specific formula so we know that a given institution will get so much money. These new authorities establish a competitive relationship in which the institution must come forward with an application and a program.

However, there is a distribution in equity by States, and State commissions will review and act upon the applications, so we have a reasonable certainty that this will result in aid for these same institutions, but we can't give you a precise figure until after the fact.

HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES

Senator COTTON. The point that disturbs me is this: If a landgrant college, particularly one that is fairly large and long established, so it is not a case of developing a small, struggling institution-the land-grant college is able to avail itself and does avail itself of these programs, it means new buildings, expanded facilities, libraries, but the money does not go into the hand of the colleges to help them hold down the tuition and expenses of a student.

This amount that is being cut out, small as it is, can be used for the housekeeping expenses that will enable them to continue to hold down the cost to the student.

In many instances, when you put money in and have new facilities, new buildings, expanded laboratories, more library facilities, that is fine. They are holding out more benefits for their students, but actually you are increasing their overhead because they have to maintain and staff those new facilities while this money, small as it is, goes right into the spot where it is needed to give boys and girls from poor communities and from poor families a college education a little less expensive than they are going to get at Harvard, Yale, or any of the big private institutions, and I just think we are cutting it where it hurts the

most.

FUNDS NOT COMPLETELY OFFSETTING

Mr. KELLY. There is a certain truth to your statement that these are not completely offsetting funds. But it is true that if an institution is given student aid, if they are permitted to award scholarships and establish work-study programs, this is in lieu of their having to put their own resources into this kind of student assistance.

When you assist them in construction of needed facilities, this means that they are either able to do something they would not otherwise be able to do or they would have to put funds into this that would have to be recovered in some way.

Simply stated, you either are going to have inadequate library facilities for the student or the institution's resources are going to have to go into their library. The library will be paid for either by the State putting up the funds or the student putting up the funds. That is why I say that with the amounts of money involved, there is a high degree of offset, though as you have indicated, it is not a precise offset.

Senator COTTON. And the student aid is attributed to the more needy students.

Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HILL. Go ahead, Senator Cotton.

TUITION INCREASE

Senator COTTON. We are up against the situation where our State university finds itself compelled to raise its tuition by $100. I do not know how many students they have, but it is a fairly large number. In fairness, I want to add the Governor and the legislature are kicking the ball back and forth as to who is to blame for not giving additional money to the running expenses of the college, so there is local blame there.

But right at this point along comes a situation where they lose $167,000 more under this particular program that they have depended upon and it goes into the pot to hold down the tuition to furnish education to those students.

Now, with the exception of your statement about student aid that would go to certain individuals-and I am not decrying those benefits, I welcome them--but many of those benefits that they are going to receive presumably to offset this decrease is likely to add to their overhead annual cost, because if you build a new building you have to have a janitor and you have to staff it and you have to take care of it, If you expand your laboratory it means more personnel. If you increase your library it means more personnel, and the place that screams-when little Johnnie Jones from a remote community, from a poor family is trying to go to college and is finding out what it is going to cost, the tuition and the cost of the student is where it bites, and here we are expending all of this money to make college education available to more, and then, in this comparatively small amount, we are cutting out a traditional allocation that goes right straight to the purpose of making it available to students from poorer backgrounds. There is no need to prolong this.

Thank you.

Senator HILL. You may proceed, Mr. Secretary.

LIBRARY PROGRAMS

Mr. GARDNER. The Higher Education Facilities Act provides assistance for the construction of college and university libraries; the 1965 Higher Education Act authorizes aid for purchasing library books and materials, training professional librarians, and conducting research and demonstration projects to improve library services.

We are requesting a 1966 supplemental to initiate these library programs, and the 1967 budget calls for greatly increased support, providing for about 2,700 grants for library resources, 800 traineeships, and 70 research and demonstration projects.

We are requesting substantial increases in 1967 for two other programs under the Higher Education Act. The first of these is the new program of grants to States for strengthening community service. programs of institutions of higher learning in order to assist in the solution of community problems-in much the same way as land-grant institutions have demonstrated their ability to deal with the problems of the farm. In 1967 we plan to involve 250 higher educational institutions in this program.