OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN Senator MORSE. Mr. Commissioner, we welcome you and your colleagues: Dr. Samuel Halperin, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Dr. Peter Muirhead, Associate Commissioner of Education for Higher Education, and Dr. Albert Alford, Assistant Commissioner of Education for Legislation, to the witness table. As you know, Mr. Commissioner, following your testimony here today, the subcommittee will hear from representatives of higher education and public interest groups on July 13 and 14. From this testimony questions may very well develop. I shall, therefore, as is my practice, once again enroll you and your colleagues in our seminar which is designed to develop the factual basis upon which the subcommittee decision should be based. I know I can count on you for such position papers bearing on the requests as may issue from either the majority or minority side. All such papers and related data will be incorporated in our hearings record at appropriate places. If I may have the attention of counsel for a moment, I want to make very clear to counsel of the subcommittee that these hearings will be held only for 3 days to meet our requirements for public hearings, and I instruct counsel to see to it that the witnesses following the witnesses from whom we will hear this morning are limited in time-a restriction which will be strictly enforced-in the presentation of any oral statement, with the understanding that they may file whatever written supplemental statements they wish in support of their positions. So far as this chairman is concerned, we have reached that point in the calendar in this session of Congress, when I must do everything I can to complete the hearing record on the higher education legislation within the 3 days that have been set aside for this purpose, so we can have ample time for an executive discussion of the record made here. We have already a large body of material on higher education problems before the subcommittee. I see no reason or justification for a longer hearing than the chairman has prescribed. The witnesses must be notified of this, and of the fact that they have permission to file supplemental statements. Furthermore, counsel should make clear to all witnesses appearing before the subcommittee, that when we come to the executive markup of the bill, we may call upon any witnesses who have submitted a supplemental statement to supply further information, if we feel their testimony in the record shows that such additional information is needed. As to the administration witnesses we shall expect that they will give us their cooperation as they have in the past, in making representatives of the Department available to us during the markup period, to answer questions that may be raised by the subcommittee in executive session. I am now going to call on our first witness, Senator Church, for his statement. I am delighted to have the Senator from Idaho with us this morning. The record should show that he has never failed to give to this subcommittee his cooperation in helping us to present these educational bills to the Senate, reserving, as he should at all times, his duty to respectfully dissent from any recommendations that we make which do not agree with his views. He has been very helpful to the subcommittee, and I want the record to show that on behalf of the subcommittee I thank him. We are delighted to have you testify this morning, Senator Church. You may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK CHURCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO Senator CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank you for your courtesy permitting me to testify at this time. I am tempted to extemporize my statement, but as I have gone through the prepared statement, I notice that I have many figures and I think perhaps that I would be saving more of the subcommittee's time if I read it, and with your permission I will proceed on that basis. Senator MORSE. You have it. Senator CHURCH. When the first session of this Congress approved the Higher Education Act of 1965, it was with the intention of providing needed financial aid to accelerate and improve college education throughout the country. Title II of that act was designed to give incentive funds to further expand college library facilities that they might keep pace with expanding curriculum developments. TITLE II: MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT; HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 I feel certain that the relatively small base support figure approved under title II was intended to be of the greatest benefit to our smaller colleges and universities. But because of an unanticipated local fiscal situation, the careful language of one section of title II now serves to thwart the intent of Congress. That section, setting further "maintenance of effort" requirements, is depriving a worthy institution of the basic assistance grant. UNFAIR PENALIZATION While the situation specifically penalizes Idaho State University, I have been told that other schools were similarly affected but did not bring the matter to legislative attention. In essence, because of the language of the "maintenance of effort” provisions in title II, Idaho State University will lose its eligibility for the basic assistance grants, not because it failed to do enough for its library facilities, but rather, because it did too much. Section 202 provides a basic assistance grant not to exceed $5,000 but limits such grants to schools that will spend as much as the annual average amount they spent for library improvements in the 2 years prior to June 30, 1965, and also not less than the amount of the grant. INTENT REASONABLE-LANGUAGE FAULTY The intent of that language is quite evident and, I feel, quite reasonable. The institutions should be as much concerned in making the effort to improve their library facilities as is the Federal Government. THE ONE-TIME EFFORT Unfortunately, in the case of Idaho State University, the school and the State legislature were too much concerned. In the 1961, 1962, and 1963 fiscal years, Idaho State University expended an average $42,000 annually on library inventories, using the funds allocated by Idaho's biennial legislature which had met in 1959 and 1961. When the 37th session of the Idaho State Legislature convened in January of 1963, a new spirit of progress was evident. The problems of State aid to education had become acute and a determined legislature moved to meet financial shortcomings that had plagued Idaho's institutions for many years. One of the results of that determination was a one-time funding to sharply upgrade Idaho State University library inventories. After an average annual expenditure of $42,000 for the 3 preceding fiscal years, ISU was authorized to nearly double that amount in fiscal 1964, spending $86,055 on its library. Having made this drastic effort, the legislature and university had no intention of falling back upon the small sums spent prior to 1964. But Idaho is not a wealthy State and every educational dollar is precious. Accordingly, the legislature authorized $64,297 for fiscal 1965—an amount still $20,000 more than had been spent prior to the one-time upgrading effort. The 1966 fiscal budget authorized $68,547 or $24,000 more than the previous average. Quite obviously, Idaho State University is making an outstanding "maintenance of effort" within the context of section 202 of title II. But the practical effort of the surge expenditure in fiscal 1964 was to have established an average annual expenditure during the 2-year base period required by section 202 of $75,076. Then, in 1965, although still budgeting 50 percent more than in the 3 years prior to the base period, the ISU budget allowance went to $64,055 or $10,000 less than in the prescribed base period and thus, not meeting the requirement of an annual "maintenance of effort" equal to the $5,000 of the basic assistance grant. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the school had proven its intention of library improvement far beyond any implied requirement of the legislation. But because of one atypical budget year which fell in the period prescribed in section 202, Idaho State University not only could not qualify in 1966 for the basic assistance grant, but would continue to be disqualified in future years unless they received and spent continuously high amounts far in excess of the ability of the State and the university. INTENT OF CONGRESS I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that it was ever the intent of Congress to deprive or penalize a small school for making an unexpected and outstanding improvement of its library facilities. Certainly, at the time that the Idaho State Legislature appropriated the "one-shot" boost to the ISU library in February of 1963, there was no knowledge that a year later Congress would create title II of the Higher Education Act. Nor do I think, Mr. Chairman, that the dedicated people who drafted title II realized that such a situation would occur. AMENDMENT TEXT It is to solve the dilemma that ISU and other schools in similar situations have found themselves because of section 202 but without affecting those schools who do use the prescribed base period figures, that I now offer a short amendment to S. 3047, the Higher Education Act bill now before the Senate. The amendment is quite brief. It reads as follows: PART C-MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT FOR BASIC GRANTS FOR COLLEGE LIBRARY ASSISTANCE SEC. 121. Section 202(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by adding immediately after "June 30, 1965" the following: "or during the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which the grant is requested, whichever is the lesser." Thus, while retaining the original base period for those schools that find it satisfactory, this amendment would allow schools such as Idaho State University to use the 2-year period prior to the year the grant is requested in order to comply with the letter of the law in proof of maintenance of effort. It allows such schools to receive the much-needed basic Federal assistance grant under title II, while maintaining their own library budgets at a realistic and fiscally sound level and does not penalize them for doing too much in a one-time bootstrap effort, simply because that effort happened to fall in the 2 years prior to June 30, 1965. OUTSIDE SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT I have the assurances, Mr. Chairman, of both the U.S. Office of Education and the American Library Association that such an amendment is not only aceptable to them but that it is necessary in order to correct this anticipated inequity in title II as it stands today. In additional support of the amendment, I have two separate letters, from Dr. Donald F. Kline, director of development and institutional research, and from Mr. Eli M. Oboler, university librarian, both of Idaho State University. I therefore urge your subcommittee approval, Mr. Chairman, to correct an obvious inequity. Senator MORSE. The letters you have offered, Senator, will be included in the record at this point. (The letters with attachments referred to follow :) IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Pocatello, Idaho, June 7, 1966. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, MY DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: As you know from our earlier discussions, we have had some difficulty in complying with the letter of the law in relation to Title II of the Higher Education Act. This title provides for basic Institutional Assistance Grants for libraries, providing the institution can show a "maintenance of effort" and meet other requirements. Attached is a breakdown of our Library's expenditures from 1960 through 1965. You will note a steady increase in the state's effort to improve the library reources of Idaho State University. Unfortunately, we would have been unable to qualify for the basic Institutional Assistance Grant because of the unusual expenditures in 1963 and 1964. These expenditures resulted from a significantly greater appropriation from the legislature in order to assist us in the development of our library facilities. Because of our state effort we seem, therefore, to have jeopardized our ability to qualify for a Title II grant. I suspect that other institutions may have experienced similar difficulties, especially those institutions that may have received a significant contribution from private sources or, as in the case of Idaho State University, received significantly greater appropriations from the state legislature creating atypical expenditures during the two years that must be used as the base years, according to the law. You will be pleased to learn that in this instance we were able to combine our library expenditures with those in our Department of Audio-Visual Services and by increasing our budget for 1965, met the legal requirements for this year. I would strongly recommend, Senator, that legislation be drafted to amend this title of Public Law 89-329 to provide that an institution may use the 1963, 1964, and 1965 data or permit them to use the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which the grant is made, whichever is the lesser. My analysis of the legislation suggests that it is the intent of the Congress to improve libraries at institutions similar to Idaho State University. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the committee hearings, or in the recorded testimony, or arrangements on the floor of the Senate that reflects the intent of Congress. The law must, therefore, be administered rigidly, and institutions that have atypical expenditures during the "base years" are automatically eliminated from consideration. The expenditures at I.S.U. for library resources are, in my opinion, typical of this problem. Any assistance that you can give us in amending the present legislation will be most sincerely apreciated. 1 Excludes salaries and wages, travel, other expense, and capital outlay. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, THE LIBRARY, IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY, Pocatello, Idaho, June 10, 1966. Senator from Idaho, Senate Office Building, DEAR FRANK: As you have already been informed, this library has had some difficulty in matching the "maintenance-of-effort" requirements as stated in "Guidelines for Fiscal Year 1966 Only: The College Library Resources Program", as issued by the U.S. Office of Education in May, 1966, to define the requirements for getting the basic grants for library materials under Title II, Part A, Section 202 of the Higher Education Act of 1965; Public Law 89–329. According to the maintenance-of-effort requirements, (see xerox pages attached), "the applicant institution .. will expend . . . during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966 (from non-Federal funds) for all allowable library purpose expenditures in . . . an amount at least equal to the average annual amount it expended from other than Federal sources, for allowable library purposes during the two year period ending June 30, 1965. . . Also, it is required that "the applicant institution . . . will expend during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, from non-Federal funds for allowable library materials, an amount at least equal to the average annual amount it expended from other than Federal sources, for allowable library materials during the two-year period ending June 30, 1965. .." The details of what funds are excluded for matching purposes are indicated on page 5 of the attached 2 pages. |