3. This new approach would not require the institutions to provide one-ninth in matching funds. This would relieve institutions of an obligation which is proving more and more onerous for all and virtually impossible for some.

4. The Government's concern for careful stewardship of funds would be preserved, since the institutions would still be responsible for collections and would be liable for 10 percent of any losses incurred through failure of students to repay.

We believe that enough institutions would elect to fund their loan programs through this new approach so that the $190 million available in direct appropriations would be ample to meet the full needs of those institutions which could not, or for some reason chose not to, borrow. As I have suggested, we have studied this whole approach very carefully, and we have been unable to find any flaws in it. It makes no change whatever in the relationship between the student and the college. It changes none of the fundamental aspects that have made the NDEA program so successful. And it seems to offer the hope that full loan needs can be met without unbearable strains on the budget. We view it as an exciting experiment which should be tried out for the remaining life of the existing NDEA legislation-fiscal years 1967 and 1968. If it works, and we have every hope that it will, it might very well prove to be the ideal way to fund the program in the decades ahead. If it does not, we shall have an opportunity to review it at the time NDEA comes up for extension.

TITLE VI, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

I should like now, if I may, to turn to two matters not included in either S. 3047 or H.R. 14644. These pertain to title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965:

First, we would urge the deletion in that title of subsection (d) of section 601, which pertains to the support of State commissions administering this title. Since title I of both S. 3047 and H.R. 14644 provides authorization for funds necessary for this purpose, it seems a mistake to provide what is in effect a duplicate authorization.

Second, we have become aware of certain major difficulties in the so-called maintenance-of-effort requirements of title VI. The difficulties might be summarized as follows:

(a) It is almost impossible to determine with any precision the effort of an institution in the specific areas of this program. Institutional financial records are not kept in this way.

(b) It is too much to expect that an institution will be able not only to maintain its previous effort but also provide matching funds for the new grant-and do this every year. Yet the one way it can avoid this pyramiding effect is to purchase equipment only every other year.

We would respectfully urge that title VI, part A, of the Higher Education Act of 1965 be amended in such a way as to require only that participating institutions expend, for library and instructional purposes, in the year in which they are applying for a grant an amount equal to that spent the previous year. If it would be helpful to the subcommittee, we would be happy to suggest language for such an amendment.

This concludes our formal testimony, Mr. Chairman. We will be happy to answer any questions.

Senator MORSE. First, before I ask questions, I want to say I think it is an excellent statement. I am very glad to have it a part

of this record. It will be very helpful.

It may be necessary for counsel to call upon you or Dr. Babbidge for supplemental memorandum on any points that arise in connection with your statement.

REDUCTION IN GRADUATE FACILITIES AUTHORIZATION

Mr. Kerley, what is the basis of your support for a reduction in the graduate facilities authorizations from the present $120 million to what I understand is the proposed $60 million?

Mr. KERLEY. A reduction, sir?

Senator MORSE. Isn't that what you are proposing?

Mr. KERLEY. You mean the authorization or the funding?
Senator MORSE. Authorization.

Mr. KERLEY. I didn't know that we were. That is on the first page, I take it.

Senator MORSE. We have $120 million authorized for title II at the present time.

Mr. Morse, could you help me with my question?

STATEMENT OF JOHN MORSE, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON FEDERAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

Mr. MORSE. Yes, sir. I am John Morse, director of the Commission on Federal Relations, American Council.

Our commission wrestled with this for a long time until early spring, Senator Morse, and came to the conclusion for reasons with which you disagree that we ought this year to ask for a maintenance of construction equal to the funds authorized and appropriated last year. The same reason then pertains to our request for $60 million as opposed to $120 million that we made in our request for $460 million for title I—namely, concern for the tightness of the budget. I well understand that there are those who disagree with this, but our commission came to the conclusion that this year it ought to exercise some constraint.

Senator MORSE. You do not take the position that, as far as need is concerned, you don't need the $60 million; that you are not asking for this year?

Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; I don't think we take

WAR NEEDS AND EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Senator MORSE. You should know, Senator Yarborough, in fairness to you and the subcommittee, that the chairman expressed his disagreement with the American Council on Education in its failure to ask for the construction money that the need shows exists, because of the fact that there is a tight budget problem.

My position is that I don't propose, as far as I am concerned, to let the children, the college students of the country or the Negroes of

the country, or the poor of the country, or any of the others involved in the Great Society programs which this administration promised, pay for the war in Vietnam.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman

Senator MORSE. Let me tell you what I said because you were absent and I don't speak for the subcommittee. I speak for Wayne Morse. But I have made very clear that I think the war ought to be paid for by those who are making the money out of the war. It ought to be paid for by a tax program. It ought to be paid for in an inflation control program. It should not be paid for by the students of America and Negroes of America, the poor of America. I expressed my disappointment with the Council, in that it has yielded to what amounts to a request on the part of this administration that we not ask for the United States to carry out the Great Society

programs.

We can pay for the war, as I said, and I will vote to pay for the war but I will vote to pay for the war on the part of those that have the ability to pay for the war and not to have it paid for by the poor and the students and the Negroes of the country because that is exactly, in the view of the Senator from Oregon, what we are doing by these so-called budgetary cuts. I respectfully said to the council that they certainly had a right to form their request for funds to meet the budg etary demands for the administration. But I added that, in my judgment, to do so was not carrying out the council's obligations to the students of America who are going to be denied a college education, in this generation, because we are not building the facilities that students must have in order to obtain a college education. It isn't fair for me to sit alone and make such statements when my colleagues are absent without knowing that I have made them, and without my having given them plenty of time to respond and voice their views.

Dr. Morse and I are, in effect, on that subject when, as he very respectfully pointed out, he knows that others hold different points of view, but the council is proposing a cut from $120 to $60 million for graduate facilities although, in answer to my question, the witness admits that there is a need for those facilities.

QUESTION OF TIMING EDUCATIONAL AID

It is a question of timing, a question as to whether or not we can justify failing to build these facilities if we can make a case for building them. My judgment is we should go ahead and meet our domestic needs and require those that have the ability to pay for the domestic needs and the war, too. If we have got to the point where we can't do both then we are in a very bad way in this Republic.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, while I don't agree with all the statements the chairman has made over a period of time about the war in Vietnam, I do agree that this is no time to cut educational budgets. I think that fighting a war in southeast Asia is no excuse for denying educational opportunities to the young people at home. I think education is more important than killing people.

Over the past several years, before the war in Vietnam was escalated to the present position, I have been dismayed a number of times at educational groups coming in and testifying to a position that, I was very much surprised when they were asked about it later, they said, the Office of Education wants this.

RESPONSIBILITY OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY

I don't think that the testimony of the educational communities of America is going to be worth much to us if the educational community phones the administration and says, What do you want?" and then comes up and testifies for it.

Senator MORSE. What you are saying is if we want the testimony of the HEW we only need to call them up here?

Senator YARBOROUGH. We want HEW in here.

Senator MORSE. We want their direct testimony, too; not by proxy. Senator YARBOROUGH. We don't need the academic community taking orders from an administration, whatever administration, mine or anybody's. I support the present administration. I am a staunch party member. But I think if we have got to have an academic community that is going to represent intellectualism in this country, they can't take orders from a Government bureau and I would hate to see its recommendations based on what somebody else told them.

I had some members, not speaking of your group, gentlemen, just the academic community generally because this happened a number of times I was talking with some members representing some colleges a few days ago and they said, "Well, we wish the administration would confer with us before they send these recommendations up.' They come up and testify for it. I wish they would confer with us. They send them up and then ask us to testify.

Well, if they don't agree with what is sent up they ought to say so pointblank, and I hope the council from now on will state its views, as representing the American Council on Education, and the colleges and will tell us what you believe about higher education.

I don't mean that you have done that today. I am not talking about these particular witnesses. I am just speaking of experience. I have been on this educational subcommittee since 1958. I see a change over the years whereby more and more academic people get their guidelines from the administration in power and then come up and testify along that line generally, maybe with some subtle hints that maybe it could be improved but that is what the administration wants.

It has done that in the past on NDEA loans, on how much they need. They have requested money based on what the administration told them was available. I think in the academic community there ought to be something higher than the temporarily elected overseers of government. They ought to have a permanence and independence that is beyond government itself, and I hold faith in the academic community as something that is independent, intellectual, and courageous in the face of great obstacles and all the public opinion if they think the public opinion is wrong.

Senator MORSE. Excuse me.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Our time is running short.
Senator MORSE. I thought you were through.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have some questions I want to ask. Senator MORSE. We should close this colloquy, but Senator Kennedy of New York just walked in in the midst of this tempest in a teapot, and I wouldn't want to close it before giving him a chance to say something. But before I do, I take it for granted, Dr. Morse and Mr. Kerley, if this chairman in his individual capacity comes to the

conclusion that the facts support, which I think they will support, $120 million for graduate facilities, that the council wouldn't be too disconcerted if I offered such an amendment or urged such an amendment even if it were to be defeated?

I am so used to having that happen in the making of a record that the situation wouldn't concern me, but somebody may read the records 3, 4, or 5 years from today and come to the conclusion that this morning I was probably right and you gentlemen were wrong in your proposal to cut to $60 million. You wouldn't have any objection to my at least making that type of a record?

Mr. KERLEY. No, sir.

Senator MORSE. I intend to do so.

The Senator from New York?

Senator KENNEDY of New York. I am going to violate an old tradition of the U.S. Senate, by having been given an opportunity to speak, to say I have nothing to say.

Senator MORSE. I don't think you are going to do that very often.
The Senator from Texas!

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Just for the moment.
Senator MORSE. The Senator from Texas?

GI COLD WAR BILL

Senator YARBOROUGH. Doctor, I see you estimate that of these GI's, of the 4 million eligible veterans who go to school under the cold war GI bill, that probably a higher proportion of those will be students taking graduate work. Upon what do you base that estimate?

Mr. KERLEY. Well, as is indicated in the testimony, Senator Yarborough, we don't have data on it. It is, I guess, a largely intuitive reaction. I cannot support the statement with fact. But the growth of graduate instruction over the last several years has been substantial from nonveterans. We would expect, with reasonable logic, that this would also be true of people who avail themselves of the GI bill. Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, you say there are about 4 million. I think the data before our committee showed that of these, some 20 percent of these veterans had completed a substantial part of the work toward a B.A. degree, or a bachelor's degree in whatever category.

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Now, 80 percent had not. Would it be reasonable to think that that 20 percent that had either completed the work for a bachelor's degree or substantially toward it, that they would outnumber the 80 percent who had not-who had either not been to college or maybe went a half or one freshmen year?

Mr. KERLEY. I think it is reasonable, Senator, to say that a higher proportion of the 20 percent will pursue graduate work; I think that is the intent of the statement.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Have you had any indication from the Veterans' Administration as to what they expect?

Mr. KERLEY. I have not, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The reason I ask this question, is that the Veterans' Administration, when this bill was passed-we had then