Miss WHITENACK. May I say as a sidelight that we are very grateful for all Federal programs. There is now almost slightly over a billion dollars of support, Federal support, to various programs for libraries in many different acts of Congress, and we are very pleased with this great support. Thank you very much. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Well, I share with you the hope that we will have the signing of the Library Services Act very soon. Miss WHITENACK. We are keeping our fingers crossed for this week. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I want to thank you very much for your presentation and your attendance here this morning. (The following supplemental statement was subsequently supplied for the record :) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF CAROLYN WHITENACK The following information on the loaning out of games, playthings, et cetera, through public libraries is taken from a publication prepared for the Young Adult Services Division Pre-conference, "Two Blocks Apart" prior to the annual conference of the American Library Association in New York City, July, 1966, "Rural Library Services to Disadvantaged Youth," printed by the Kentucky Department of Libraries, Frankort, Kentucky: "Games and the spirit of play appeal to all ages; only the types of games change as a person grows older. The hopscotch or hide-and-seek of the little child is soon outgrown, but some other games always take their places. The spirit of play lives on (witness bridge, golf, and chess in the later years). Availability of sports equipment, such as softballs and bats, badminton, horseshoes, volley balls, etc. are bringing children into numerous libraries. This equipment may be checked out just as books. On their second and third visits, nonreaders who come in for the equipment are shown sports books and easy biographies of favorite sports heroes. Some become readers. This type of bait can be used not only in the library, but where library-connected programs are carried out. "Sports groups could be formed, combining the actual game with a session of talks by the players on sport books they have read. High school sports heroes might talk to the boys, coach the organized teams, referee their games, or just pitch a few balls with them. The mere presence of these boys, big in the local sports world, would be a good drawing card." From "Resources for Thoughtful Relation": (the same publication) "A supply of games, such as checkers, dominoes, Chinese checkers, anagrams, Monopoly, Scrabble, etc. should be available at the library level." In this same connection, it may interest the Commissioner to know that many public libraries loan framed pictures, projectors as well as films, phonograph records, and the public library in Grosse Pointe, Michigan has a collection of expensive power tools for loans. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That concludes our hearing for the morning. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene Thursday, July 14, 1966, at 9:30 a.m.) HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1966 THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:58 a.m., in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Morse (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Morse, Yarborough, Randolph, and Kennedy of New York. Committee staff members present: Charles Lee, professional staff member; and Roy H. Millenson, minority clerk. Senator MORSE. The hearing will come to order. I am sorry that Dr. Babbidge is ill and cannot be here also, but I understand you will present his statement for him. Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir; I will. Senator MORSE. Mr. Bowman is associated with you. Let the record show that our first witness will be Mr. Robert Kerley, vice president, business affairs and treasurer, University of Kentucky. Associated with him will be Mr. James Bowman, director of financial aid, Johns Hopkins University. We are delighted to have both of you gentlemen here. I am very sorry that we have to meet so early in the morning. That is the only way we ever are going to get these hearings completed and it is important to finish the hearings to get into executive session or we will never get consideration of the bill before adjournment. So you may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF DR. HOMER BABBIDGE, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, STORRS, CONN., AS READ BY ROBERT KERLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND TREASURER, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON, KY.; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BOWMAN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL AID, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD. Mr. KERLEY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee-as you know, Senator, I am reading Dr. Babbidge's statement-my name is Homer D. Babbidge. I am president of the University of Connecticut and a member of the Commission on Federal Relations of the American Council on Education. I am appearing before you in behalf of the council, whose membership represents the whole spectrum of higher education in this country. Belonging to the council are 1,194 colleges and universities and 231 education organizations. In order to conserve the time of the subcommittee and also to underscore the broad consensus that exists in the higher education community on the legislation now before you. I have also been asked to speak today in behalf of the Association of American Colleges, the Association for Higher Education, the Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Accompanying me today are Mr. Robert Kerley, vice president for business affairs and treasurer at the University of Kentucky; and James Bowman, director of financial aid at Johns Hopkins University. They do not have prepared statements, but are experts in their fields and will be standing by to answer any questions you may have. SUMMARY OF POSITION We are pleased to have the opportunity to present our views on S. 3047, the Higher Education Amendments of 1966, and on H.R. 14644. In brief our position is this: We are in general support of title I of S. 3047 but have very serious reservations about title II. We support H.R. 14644, but shall recommend in our testimony certain additions, the need for which has become apparent since this bill was passed by the House. TITLE I OF S. 3047 AND H.R. 1464 Let me turn first to title I of S. 3047 and H.R. 14644. The council has consistently given priority to facilities construction among Federal programs affecting higher education. We simply cannot meet our commitments to the Nation's young people unless we have classrooms, libraries, and laboratories for them, as this subcommittee recognized in its leadership toward the enactment of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The need for academic facilities is no less compelling today. In fact, it has intensified. Enrollments have risen even faster than the projects of 1963 anticipated. New student aid legislation-particularly the GI bill sponsored by Senator Yarborough of this subcommitteee undoubtedly will stimulate further enrollment in creases. We have no way of knowing how many veterans will use the benefits provided in the GI bill to attend college. When one considers that there are 4 million eligible veterans, plus two and a half million men and women now in service, the potential increase in college enrollments could become enormous. It is my own guess and I certainly have no evidence to prove it-that the impact of the GI bill may be greater in the graduate schools than at the undergraduate level. In other words, I feel that the GI benefits will lead to a higher proportion of students taking graduate work. The bill before you would provide for the construction of academic facilities at approximately the same rate as during the present year. It authorizes $453 million in matching grants for undergraduate facilities, $60 million in matching grants for graduate facilities, and $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 an emergency call. (Short recess.) to take a very brief recess. I have 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 |