this very subcommittee 2 or 3 years ago opposing separate legislation for any particular category, whether it would be junior colleges or something else, and I remember giving the committee at that time a map of Indiana which was the State that I know, illustrating that the needs vary in different States and urging the keeping together of all higher education legislation. Let me say I am speaking as an educator and not as a representative of AAUW when I say that, because I don't know that they would reach agreement on that, but I have a very strong feeling that we do not need and should not have this separate type of legislation.

Well, I think we are still talking about title I.

NEW GI BILL

I think I read the paragraph on increase in enrollments. I might say one other think in connection with this. Our registrar's office tells me that we already see the evidence on enrollment of the new GI bill.

At this point we also wish to call the attention of the subcommittee to the constantly increasing demands made upon our colleges and universities by rapidly growing community action programs provided for in recent congressional action. In addition to the normal business of educating college age individuals—and incidentally there isn't any such thing as a typical college age person nowadays in higher education ever-increasing Federal research programs must also be kept in mind for they are an additional and expending burden upon both the facilities and the faculties of higher education institutions. They certainly contribute to the need for an increase in construction of graduate facilities.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF COLLEGES

Let me interpolate here referring again to my own university, Indiana University, because this is the university I know. I could probably list quickly a dozen or so of these special sorts of community responsibilities but just to mention a couple-training of Peace Corps people which is not a part of our regular academic operation, training of Headstart people to be used in communities all over our State, last summer and again this summer.

In our statement to this subcommittee last year, we spoke to the importance of strengthening developing institutions, particularly at the undergraduate level. One of our greatest concerns in AAUW over the past two decades has been that the Nation's schools be assured “an adequate supply of competent and qualified faculty at all levels." We believe programs aiding these institutions in improving both their faculties and their administrative procedures are invaluable. We have some doubt that the $30 million requested for extension of assistance to developing institutions will be adequate to achieve the progress which should be made in fiscal 1967.

STATE-BY-STATE SURVEY OF EXISTING INSTITUTIONS

We suggest the urgency of a State-by-State survey of predicted enrollments and of existing facilities in order that realistic appropriations be requested for the next several years. We believe provision

of facilities and student assistance programs to be of equal importance with provision of teachers. Therefore we must support a student loan program. The reports from our members who have been involved in the implementation of student loan programs of the National Defense Education Act leave no doubt about its success.

Senator MORSE. I only want to break in, Dean, to say I completely agree with that observation.

Dr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

CHANGES IN NDEA

We are doubtful that the changes proposed in S. 3047 to substitute for the NDEA program a loan program carried out through commercial channels, should be made so suddenly.

May I interpolate here again to say that we believe we are seeing some evidence, my colleagues and I-I am speaking not for the AAUW now and not for higher education in general-we have serious doubts as to whether the private sector will ever pick up all that is needed in loans. This is only one of our reasons for believing that the NDEA loan program should not be dropped.

The guaranteed loan program of Public Law 89-329 has not been in effect for a long enough period to make judgments about its usefulness. We in AAUW would like to postpone any recommendation from the association on extensive and rapid expansion of this type of program until more experience with subsidized interest programs has been reported upon.

And let me again personally emphasize this point of view. I happen to serve in Indiana University on the scholarship and financial aid committee which is the committee which sets the policies under which we administer these various programs and I know I reflect the point of view of this committee and of my own institution as well as of the AAUW.

We were pleased to see that the House-passed bill omits the proposal for a shift of NDEA student loan programs to federally guaranteed loans financed from private sources. We have indicated in other parts of this and earlier statements before this committee the association belief in the importance to this country of making a college education financially possible to students capable of undertaking college level and graduate work. Therefore we are pleased that the House action leaves in effect the existing program or at least we understand it has, which provides $190 million for student loans in fiscal 1967.

I do most sincerely thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to make a statement and would be delighted to attempt to answer any quesions that you might want to ask. I jotted down a note or two during the previous testimony that I would like to refer to. I think one point was not mentioned by anyone in talking about the problems created by requiring matching funds in substantial amount for money for facilities building and expansion. I think it is clear that-in fact, we have a summary that was prepared I think for the House committee that shows that $225 million more was requested in fiscal 1965 than was available.

The point I think that has not been mentioned, is that this is a deceiving figure because many institutions, I believe which could use

fully employ such funds made no request at all because they were not able to raise the matching money, and I think that point was overlooked. I think estimates such as this tend to deceive us on the conservative side.

Senator MORSE. I want to thank you, Dean Roberts, for your statement. It is very helpful. The record should show that I would agree with the position taken by the association that NDEA should be continued as the House continued it.

I support pursuing the development of the loan program through the commercial banks and other commercial loaning institutions.

But, I surmise, you were not aware when you prepared your statement of the additional recommendation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that was clearly discussed this morning and which witnesses discussed yesterday. It is a proposal which seems to have a great deal of merit whereby HEW, as I described at the time their witnesses appeared, will act as the loaning institution or the banker for the educational institutions. The notes or certificates of the loans made go over to FNMA along with the other Federal certificates. I think a prima facie case was made for the proposal but I want to be sure to get the view of all the qualified people who have appeared before us. Therefore if you care to, and counsel can supply you with a copy of the proposal, I would be very glad to have a supplemental statement filed by you on this proposed amendment by HEW. It would make possible a sum over and above the presently authorized $190 million. The evidence seems to be clear that students will need more than $190 million, and that the banks aren't going to supply all of it. I think that is clear. I think we ought to have the benefit of your judgment in regard to the feasibility of that plan. You can file your reactions to it in a supplemental statement if you

care to.

(The following supplemental statement from the witness was subsequently received:)

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT (FILED AT THE INVITATION OF THE CHAIRMAN) TO STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 AND OF TITLE III OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 BY EUNICE C. ROBERTS ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

Let me make it clear at the outset that this supplemental memorandum to the earlier statement presented by me to the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee is presented as an individual and not on behalf of the American Association of University Women. This is because the appropriate committee of the AAUW has not yet discussed the specific item which is the concern of this supplemental statement.

NEW HEW PROPOSAL FOR NDEA

The new proposal made by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as a proposal for a substitute Title II of S. 3047 (concerning student loan programs) is the subject of this memorandum.

I have consulted with several of my colleagues here at Indiana University. which is the institution I am best acquainted with. It appears to us that it would be helpful to institutions not to have to find and provide the 9 per cent of funds they now must provide under the present NDEA loan program. My own institution, for example, has already borrowed several hundred thousands of dollars on which we are paying interest in order to provide our share of NDEA loans.

On the other hand, whether in the long range institutions would be helped presents some questions the answers to which we do not have in the material concerning the proposal presently available to us. These would involve questions such as terms of repayment of student loans, whether interest would be free to the institutions, what interest rates would be, and what discounts would be necessary to make paper salable in the private sector of the economy-and others. Answers to many of these questions would be necessary before a firm opinion can be expressed.

It would seem that a "sales participation" program such as this might be very helpful as a supplement to NDEA loans in their present form. It would seem that the details referred to above and others could be satisfactorily worked out to this end.

I should like to record my strong opposition (shared, I think, by my colleagues here at the University) to any proposals such as the HEW proposal, if it were viewed as an eventual replacement for the present form of NDEA loans. One of the primary functions of public institutions of higher education-indeed, of the total higher education enterprise in general-and of federal legislation in aid of higher education is to make it possible for the needy but able student to secure education to the highest level which his interest and ability make possible. Financing of loan programs entirely through the private sector is likely to make more difficult, if not impossible, providing loans to the truly needy student for whom primarily they are designed.

Thank you for the opportunity to file this supplemental statement.

Senator MORSE. This closes our hearing on Higher Education Amendments of 1966. The record should show that the Chair has already ruled that we may call upon any of the representatives of the organizations that appeared before us for supplemental memorandums, if they care to file them, that we will undoubtedly ask HEW for a whole series of memorandums and letters that can be used by the committee in the markup of the bill and can be used by the committee representing the position of the Department when we write our report on the bill.

I want to say to counsel that I would like to have the hearings printed at the earliest possible date, for I am desirious of having markup sessions on this bill immediately following the markup sessions on the secondary and elementary school bill which I hope to complete early next week.

I am going to close the record. The supplemental statements, if they do not get in in time, can be used by the subcommittee as exhibits that the committee can use. I shall close the official record 1 week from today at 5 p.m. Thank you very much.

At this point I will insert in the record statements and letters from various individuals who were unable to appear.

(The material referred to above follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

The AFL-CIO is pleased once again, to assure the Education Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee of its continuing concern for the needs of higher education. This subcommittee has demonstrated repeatedly its imaginative understanding and its deep concern for the problems and the opportunities connected with the massive increase in students participating in higher education. The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the constant improvements in the national Defense Education Act-all initiated by this subcommittee-have been landmarks in constructive legislation.

In considering S. 3047, the Education Subcommittee is engaged in the useful process of reviewing the progress of these laws and considering possible ways of improving them.

66-396-66- -19

CONTINUE NDEA

We urge you, in considering these matters, to support the continuation of the National Defense Education Act student loan program. In this and other regards we endorse the House version of the bill. The AFL-CIO actively supported the new program of federally insured student loans with subsidized interest which was adopted last year as a part of the Higher Education Act of 1965. We believed then, and we believe now, that this is a good program which meets many needs not otherwise covered by the various existing student aid programs.

The AFL-CIO did not consider, however, the guaranteed loan program to be a substitute for the long established NDEA loan program. The NDEA loans are particularly useful as a form of assistance for young people from low income and working class families. These young people usually experience great difficulty

in obtaining loans from commercial sources. Moreover, the guaranteed loan program is new. So far, lending institutions have been hesitant about putting it into operation, and there has been far too little experience to warrant making it the single federal student loan program. We therefore urge your committee to continue the NDEA loan program, thus bringing S. 3047 into harmony with the House bili.

INCREASED AUTHORIZATION FOR HEA

The AFL-CIO also welcomes the increased authorization for the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, included in the House bill. The loans and grants made possible under this Act have been of invaluable aid in the expansion of college and university facilities, the development of new community colleges, and the construction of new graduate school facilities. Success of the program more than justifies continuing it; it justifies expanding it considerably. Every year that the program has been in operation, application for grants have exceeded the available funds. The reason is not difficult to find. Everywhere applications from prospective students outrun the available space, and countless institutions are meeting the situation by raising their entrance requirements to a "B" or even an "A" average in high school.

This shortage of facilities will become increasingly serious in the next few years. The high birth rate of the 1940's is just beginning to affect the colleges. Until now, enrollment increases have resulted primarily from the increasing proportion of young people continuing their education beyond high school. Today, however, there is a much larger college-age population than at any time in the past and this college-age population will continue to grow for many years to

come.

COLD WAR GI BILL

There is still another pressure which necessitates a continuing and expanded program for the construction of higher education facilities. The 89th Congress has at last passed the Cold War GI Bill. The AFL-CIO actively supported this legislation for many years and we are gratified that it is now law. It is simple realism to recognize that this legislation will create still new demand for space in institutions of higher education. Thousands of veterans who might not have seriously considered attending college will be encouraged to do so by the promise of the GI Bill. Our colleges and universities must have the facilities to fullfill this need.

These growing pressures for admission to colleges and universities should not be regarded as an onerous burden; they should rather be regarded as an unparalleled opportunity worthy of the nation's most creative and imaginative efforts.

We therefore urge this subcommittee to support the increased federal expendi tures for construction of facilities for higher education, as already incorporated in the House bill.

OPPOSED TO $30 MILLION "SALES PARTICIPATION PLAN" FOR NDEA

We have read with interest the proposal for a $30 million loan authorization to expand NDEA funds made by U.S. Commissioner of Education Harold Howe II in his testimony to the subcommittee on July 12. This suggestion is a frank acknowledgement that the present NDEA authorizations are too low to meet the need of low income students. The inadequacy of the NDEA funds is aggravated by the difficulties students are facing in obtaining the guaranteed bank