Section 101 is superb. But I would add a paragraph after line 6 of page 6: "So cirtical have become the problems of education beyond the high school in this Nation, so critical have become the problems having to do with pure research undertaken primarily by college and university professors, that assurance of national survival requires strong measures and unstinted financial support of our institutions of higher learing. This support must come from all possible sources and in no wise should Federal support be restricted because of any peculiarity or distinguishing characteristic of the college and university." Section 102 is good. I would like to see it strengthened by this additional phrase:

"Nor shall any Federal agency through threats to withhold Federal aid or by any action, positive or negative, cause to be altered the complete academic freedom of any educational institution."

May I ask the chairman of the committee at that point whether or not he thinks that would be a good addition to section 102.

Mr. McGOVERN. I think this is an excellent addition, Mr. Elliott, one that would strengthen the bill.

Mr. ELLIOTT (continues reading).

Section 103, I would alter as follows:

Under (c) add at top of page 8, at beginning of line 1, "capital and."

Under (d) make line 5 read: "Science teaching facility."

Section 201 is O. K.

Section 202 is O. K.

Section 203 should be altered by the following addition:

"Institutions of higher learning admitting recipients of these national-defense scholarships shall receive, in like manner, for the unrestricted use of the institution, an amount equal to that awarded to the holder of the scholarship."

Section 204, I do not like. Engineering and architecture are now 5-year courses in many of our better schools.

Mr. McGOVERN. Could I interrupt the witness there?

With reference to the doctor's suggestion that an amount equal to the scholarship be awarded to the university accepting such students, presumably that kind of assistance would be made available to churchrelated schools as well as the public-supported colleges.

Am I correct?

Mr. ELLIOTT. From what it appears in this statement, I would gather that that might be true.

Mr. McGOVERN. I suppose that would bring us into the controversial theme of the separation of church and state at that point.

Mr. ELLIOTT. That certainly is one of the questions of great magnitude that our committee will have to consider. I personally feel that we ought to have some testimony in that field, some direct testimony, and I am very sorry that Dr. Williams could not be here so that we might ask him that question directly. [Reading:]

Furthemore, in schools such as mine, where most of the students are married and working their way through college, this section will, in effect, eliminate most of those who deserve most to be helped. I, therefore, must urge you to eliminate this section. I suggest that you substitute a section stating that the scholarship stipend is limited to an amount not exceeding $1,000 per year, nor totaling more than $5,000, and that the recipient will carry the equivalent of a minimum load of 12 semester hours each semester.

Section 205, I would alter as follows:

Change the last clause of (c), lines 10 and 11, page 12, to read: "Demonstrated every prospect of meeting college-entrance requirements."

I suggest this because of the time factor involved in all of this. Actually, I think the scholarship students should be selected during the junior year or as soon thereafter as possible.

Certainly this must be accomplished no later than the first semester or term of the senior year. Administrators of the program, the students, the high schools, and the colleges, all will need many months to prepare for this scholarship program.

Mr. McGOVERN. I think that is another excellent suggestion, Mr. Elliott, that would strengthen your bill.

Mr. ELLIOTT (reading):

The rest of title II, I like.

I am not offering any adverse criticism of title III. It has one excellent provision, that of section 304 (8) which makes the whole title worthwhile. These two observations, though, seem pertinent:

We now have short-term loan funds which are not fully utilized by the students; perhaps they would accept long-term loans, but generally they do not want to borrow money for education purposes. But if something drastic is not done soon, our private and church supported colleges and universities are going to be forced to double and in time to triple present day tuition charges. The Federal loan fund as set forth in title III then may become quite significant. I need hardly add that raising tuition, like establishing arbitrary entrance controls would do American education in this critical era absolutely no good, but it looks now as though we are going to do both.

Does America know that we must double our higher educational facilities (and faculties) during the next 8 years, just to hold our own?

Title IV is worth having, but does not come to grips with the twofold problem of faculty salaries and teaching and research facilities. I'd prefer transferring its proposed $25 million to title V, part B, which is by all odds the most significant feature of your bill.

Title V is important and I hope is enacted with revisions as follows: Its entitlement should read "Science Teaching and Research Facilities." Section 551 should be revised so as to authorize a far greater appropriation for teaching and research facilities. I do not know how much this should be. I offer this as one line of reasoning:

If my university, which teaches 0.4 percent of the college students in America-13,000 of 3 million-needs at least $16 million right now for science, engineering, and technology facilities only, the sum needed by all schools for these purposes must be considerable. I will not say $4 billion, because mine is a young university and has received no tax money for facilities, whereas this is not the case with older tax-supported schools.

But I will say that even the State and locally supported schools are all hard up, though perhaps not so much so as is my university. I therefore offer 75 percent of $4 billion as an approximation. (Somewhat bearing on my reasoning here is the fact that almost three-quarters of our colleges and universities are nontax supported. This is a fact which must not be lost in any argument about church-related schools receiving Government aid. We are not considering religion or race or sex in this bill; we are considering science and this Nation's posture vis-a-vis the scientists of Communist Russia.)

Mr. McGOVERN. In that connection, I notice the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clark, suggested the time has arrived when we ought to take another look at the historical principle of the separation of church and State and perhaps this abstract principle ought to give way at least in part to the need for more support for education right across the board.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I was not aware that that suggestion had been made. I happen to be one, myself, who holds pretty tightly to the principle of separation of church and State, but in making that statement I am quoting myself and not our witness here who evidently holds somewhat different views about that. [Reading:]

Seventy-five percent of $4 billion is $3 billion. This would be spent over a 6-year period, but this should not be at the rate of $5 million per year. The colleges and universities should enter into construction and equipment contracts totaling some $1 billion the first year and they must know that they are going to receive the other $2 billion during the following 5 years.

Section 552, lines 10, 11, and 12, should be made to read:

"(Will be used for the acquisition and maintenance of science teaching and research facilities including all branches of science (except the medical sciences), and including also engineering and the education of technicians, plus mathematics and foreign languages, (2) in which *

Section 553 (a), page 32, lines 25 and the following, should be changed to read:

"Number of "full-time equivalent' students carrying undergraduate and/or graduate work in institutions of higher education in such State bears to the total number of 'full-time equivalent' students carrying undergraduate and/or graduate work in institutions of higher education in all the States. For purposes of this section the Commissioner shall determine the number of these 'full-time equivalent' students such data as may be satisfactory to him and in such manner as to be fair to all institutions of higher education."

Section 554, I do not like at all, and strongly recommend its elimination or a substitute for it.

I realize full well the efficiency of matching provisions in many legislative areas. Surely the Federal Government can use this instrument for goading local agencies into action which they should have taken independently. But we are facing an extreme emergency situation in education and scientific research. And this matching device is no way to get local action toward support of things academic. Even if it were, the problem of timing is such that the whole purpose of title V, part B, likely would be defeated by inclusion of this section as written. Tax-supported institutions would have to get State legislation and in some cases constitutional amendments adopted. (Note the case of what has happened in Alabama). Private institutions and church-related schools would have to put on "National defense education drives," and the boards of trustees of very few of them would dare to undertake such an order to accomplish what you ask for in section 554. We are struggling now against overwhelming odds just to hold our own.

Buildings and facilities must be maintained. Someone must pay for heat, utilities, janitorial service, repairs, and replacements. No college should accept the donation of any capital improvement without an additional gift amount to 50 percent of the cost of the improvement, which additional gift should be invested and the returns from such investment be earmarked for maintenance. Else in the final analysis the faculty salary budget must be cut in order that maintenance funds may be provided. A failure to recognize this circumstance has contributed enormously toward reducing American higher education-including research-to the deplorable position in which it now finds itself. Your bill must avoid that costly mistake.

I strongly recommend, therefore, that in lieu of what you have in section 554 you consider the following:

"The United States Government recognizes that the recipient institutions will experience additional expenses in supplying and maintaining these new or improved facilities. It expects the supporters of the institution to supply additional funds from local or other sources for these purposes."

You wonder why I didn't suggest also a similar revision of section 505. Perhaps I should do so, and you may very well consider such. But there is a difference between the public's willingness to support the public grade schools and their neglect of institutions of higher learning. At least the public already has come partially to grips with the quantity problem in elementary and secondary schools; that need is being resolved without Federal prompting. But the Nation already has waited too long even to recognize that there is in higher education a gigantic quantity problem of considerably greater relative proportion than has been faced in the grades-as a higher and higher percentage of an accelerating number of high-school graduates seek admission to college. And this quantity problem is matched only by the quality problem, as the Nation all too quickly is losing its standing in a survival-of-the-fittest world.

Section 555, I would amend by adding immediately following "the Commissioner" in line 23, the phrase:

"Upon recommendation of the National Advisory Council on Science and Education established in accordance with the provisions of title XIII, section 1302.” As for title VI, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Surely many of our elementary and secondary schoolteachers are weak in languages, mathematics, and the sciences. Summer school may help some of them to learn something of the subject they teach. I doubt that they will learn much in extension courses. The University of Houston has abandoned extension work, except for 3 or 4 social science courses, as being academically inferior to residence work. Perhaps languages and mathematics can be taught off campus, but certainly not advanced courses in science.

But if I am not enthusiatic about title VI, I surely am about title VII. It, coupled with title V, part B, with revisions, makes your bill what it purports to

be, a prospective National Defense Education Act. I would strengthen the provisions of this title.

Go back to what I stated in the first part of this long letter-to the thoughts having to do with the professor and pure research. Add applied research, including engineering, and technical institute educational programs to those thoughts. I then conclude that if the Federal Government will give us the teaching and research facilities we need, and provide us with the fellowships we can handle the universities receiving funds equal to what the fellows receive so that we may hold our professors and develop more of them-then not only will our people be able to win the critical arms race with the Russian scientists, we will prove even to them that democracy will triumph over communism. For given this kind of Federal support in the scientific areas, the colleges and universities somehow will be able to handle the less expensive social science and humanities areas of learning. I think I need hardly add that we've got to move fast and without stint.

This all-important prospect and the terrifying alternatives are really what bring me to support of Federal aid to education.

Section 701, excellent.

Section 702, I would not limit the number of fellowships in this bill to 1,000 and then 1,500 additional per year. The figures should be at least 10 times

these numbers.

I would add to line 13 of page 14:

"except upon strong recommendation of the graduate division of the institution the fellow shall have been attending."

Section 703 is O. K.

Section 704 is O. K.

Section 705 needs revision. In the first place, the financial needs of the fellows will vary greatly. We should make this fellowship money go as far as possible. The best judges as to the financial needs of the student as well as of his scholarship and whether or not his research may have a bearing upon national defense, or the advancement of knowledge is the graduate faculty. I would, therefore, suggest that the stipend appropriations be lumped for distribution as the institution of higher education should see fit, with a top limit of $3,000 to go to any fellow. To this appropriation must be added at least 50 percent of the total, preferably 100 percent, to cover the cost to the school of educating this graduate student.

Section 706 is O. K.

Section 707 is O. K.

Now, you have left out something of great importance. If you are going to broaden the base of graduate education and research and thus get a requisite amount of it done, then you are going to have to inspire and assist the poorer institutions, public and nonpublic, to offer the doctor's degree in languages, mathematics, and the various sciences. Without some provision in your bill to insure wide distribution of these fellowships, and the 50 percent additional to cover costs, the chances are that the prospective fellows are going to try to jam into a few institutions which have already highly successful programs. To be sure, during the first year, and maybe for several years these older institutions, of necessity, are going to have to carry most of this burden.

I hope you don't mind my offering the case of my own young university as an example of what can be done. Currently we offer the doctorate in three areas only, none of which bears upon national defense. But our faculties in the foreign languages, mathematics, chemistry, physics, geology, biology, and in several fields of engineering, are all rarin' to go with doctor of philosophy programs. They already offer the master's degree, and most of them, all of the graduate faculty with two exceptions, themselves hold doctor's degrees. (The national average of those holding the doctorate now has dropped to below 37 percent.) Some 175 institutions of higher learning here and overseas have produced our faculty. Collectively they represent the sum total of academic proficiency. Given some addition to their numbers, facilities for teaching and research-including additions to our library holdings-plus these graduate assistants, and Uncle Sam will have one more strong entity working purposefully for our national survival.

And let me add this: Houston, the eigthth largest city in the Nation, in recent weeks has become conscious of its deficiencies in high school programs. The school board is begging the university for help. Some school authorities are now becoming convinced that the brilliant youngster must be identified in the lower grades, given special training, and sent to a "university high school of

98049-58-pt. 3-4

science" (which would be built contiguous to our campus) whose curriculum and faculty would be dovetailed with those of the University of Houston (to which school 8,000 local high-school graduates go).

Needless to say, the university is doing all it can to further this end, but it, itself, is woefully lacking in facilities and doctor of philosophy programs in the sciences to carry this program to fruition.

Here is a great American city, which in a sense represents American progress and American weaknesses. All of the Nation's urban communities and all of the Nation's States must bound into action now. I think they know it, but they lack the spark to set them into action.

Your bill, greatly strengthened, can supply that spark. But what I am saying here is that the combustion must be evenly distributed, and your bill right now does not assure that.

I suggest, therefore, a section 708 as follows:

"The distribution of these fellowships shall be based upon formulas which shall assure widespread encouragement and assistance to all institutions which may be enabled to expand their graduate programs in the foreign languages, mathematics, and the sciences, pure and applied."

The Commissioner would have to work out the formulas. I would suggest that initially he would ascertain the total moneys available for this program. He would then ascertain how many graduate degrees of all kinds each institution had granted during the 10-year period which ended in August 1957. The proportion of this latter figure to the total appropriation would give him guidance in corresponding with the institution to let it know how much money wass availble for fellowships and educational costs during the fiscal year ending June 30,

1959.

The institution would be asked to let the Commissioner know what amount it was in position to accept. Moneys not usable by some institutions would be distributed among those which could award fellowships.

The distribution of these fellowships would be expected, or course, to change during each of the following years as new facilities and expanded faculties made this possible. The guiding principle of the Commissioner in working out his formula would be the expansion of the widest scale possible of the instruments for the advance of scientific knowledge.

I don't know whether you would like to get into the bill all of what I have written in the preceding paragraphs, but I'd like to see those provisions spelled out.

I have no objection to title VIII.

I have no objection to title IX.
I like title X.

I have no particular objection to title XI, but point out that there is already a national honor society, and in that grading standards are so different school by school and section by section, this would be hard to administer justly. Then, too, I think this is not quite in keeping with the dignity of Congress. When I think of Congress handing out honors, I think of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I am not enthusiastic about title XII. I would far prefer seeing enacted a title which gives recognition to the necessity of producing highly skilled technicians who are not engineers, but who are capable of independent work, of operating complex machines, of being shop foremen, and of relieving our misused engineers and scientists so that the latter may do more important scientific work. There should be produced at least six technicians to every engineer, some say a dozen. But our technical institutes are producing very few indeed. You will be interested in knowing that Georgia Tech and the University of Houston are the only schools in the South which operate both a college of engineering and a technical institute accredited by the Engineers' Council for Professional Development. The latter are not vocational education schools. Entrance requirements for the 2-year program leading to the associate in science diploma are the same as those leading to the various bachelor's degrees in science, engineering, and architecture.

The Soviet Union has some 3,000 of these technical institutes; we have less than 100. Our stress on vocational training needs to be completely reoriented. I will not comment on title XIII.

Well, Carl, this has been a long letter. I suppose I could shorten it, but this would take time. Furthermore, I am at home recovering from this heart attack