school construction. I do not think they really believed that, but I think they felt that they had to state it that way in order to get anything, and if anything was going to go down the drain it was teachers' salaries, which it now appears is going to happen. Nevertheless, they did have teachers' salaries up at a high priority in their request for Federal funds. Mr. CASE. Yes. Senator CLABK. Why shouldn't institutions of higher learning have the same approach? Mr. CASE. Well, I cannot speak in this respect for the schools, but I would say this: That historically, of course, there has been-I take it this is true both at the school and university level-considerable apprehension lest the Federal grants and the Federal operating grants might involve Federal control. Senator CLARK. Let me interrupt again for a second. That fear, which I personally have always felt was groundless, was overcome without too much difficulty in the public school bill by making the appropriations to the States without any Federal indication as to how the money should be spent by the States. Mr. CASE. Yes. Senator CLARK. The House bill here also sets up a system of State distribution in which the Federal Government would have no control whatever. Why would that not be equally a good answer to the Federal control question of the higher educational field? Mr. CASE. Well, let me put it this way, Senator: We felt in the American Council that there was an obligation resting on us at this point, if the program of expansion were to proceed in terms that would begin to meet the needs of our young people over the next 15 years, to achieve at long last a consensus of educational opinion with respect to the areas in which we could properly ask for aid now. And in those terms, we have succeeded in getting a consensus on facilities where we would not have succeeded in securing it with respect to the other. Senator CLARK. In other words, as in education and in politics the art of the possible is very important. Mr. CASE. Quite. Senator CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MORSE. Senator Case? Senator CASE. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Senator MORSE. On the record. He did a magnificent job in upholding the family tradition. Senator CASE. I should say this is a very distant relationship. Senator MORSE. Before I give an opportunity to Dr. Wilson and Mr. Dobbins to make any contribution they care to, I only want to say this, and you may make any comment you want to. In reply to a question put to you by Senator Javits on the federally impacted area legislation, S. 815 and 874, you agreed with him that those laws should be continued. I do, too, and I hope we can continue them. But, President Case, we have a problem. There are many Representatives in Congress who are responding to pressure from back home. It is in the form of a drive to continue Public Law 815 and 874, which affect only about one-third of the elementary and secondary schoolchildren of America. The evidence is pretty clear that there are many, many school districts in this country that, in fact, are more impacted with children than the federally impacted area school districts. They do not, however, have strong political pressure behind them. But these boys and girls are so impacted as far as their school distirets providing them with adequate facilities and an educational service is concerned that they are meeting in corridors, having classes in corridors, in basements, in gymnasiums, turning the school stage into a classroom; they are borrowing nearby warehouses. I understand in a few instances even Sunday school rooms are being made available in nearby churches for public school instruction, I want to stress, although it is Mr. CASE. Not federally supported, Senator. Senator MORSE. It is a sad commentary. Some of us are saying to our colleagues in the Congress, let us take a look also at those students. That is why we think there should not be just federally impacted area legislation extension. I am trying to sit on some of these eggs hoping that if I sit long enough we will get a hatching of something more than just a federally impacted area bill. This is as good a place as any to say to my friends of the press, assuming I have some. Although I would have a hard time proving it, the chairman of this subcommittee is in no hurry to pass a federally impacted area bill without at least a little more incubation. I want to say, to the everlasting credit of my colleagues on this subcommittee, that this is not a Senate problem, this is a House problem. I am sorry my friend from West Virginia went off the record a few moments ago, but I do think we ought to face right up to the facts. I can well understand how educators, faced with federally impacted area problems, have no doubts about the fact that we should extend that legislation. As I said in my opening remarks, however, the problem is much broader. Mr. CASE. Yes. Senator MORSE. I think in the days immediately ahead there is a need for a rallying cry to the educational banner in this country. It is needed for the sake of our boys and girls. It should be made clear to this Congress this session, and we should not wait until the next session, next January to do it, that this is the time to pass legislation to help the other two-thirds of the school population in this country not touched by the federally impacted area legislation. I suspect a large number of these school districts are in worse shape than many of those in the federally impacted areas. I also want to say this: This federally impacted area proposal poses a great political slogan, it is a political powerhouse. But a lot of these federally impacted area school districts no longer need the funds in any such degree as the school districts which have not been the beneficiaries of the so-called federally impacted installations need them. I led the fight in this committee against the administration's original proposal on Federal impacted area recommendations. The ad ministration wished to cut them back drastically. I led the fight against that at the White House, and in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I said to do so is a mistake. It is a mistake on the standpoint of the merits, and it is a mistake from the standpoint of the politics of the situation. This does not mean that I do not recognize that the administration can make a case in some instances, for a drastic tapering off. We should not forget that some of these installations have been for a good many years now, and that communities have made fiscal adjustments. We should not forget that those installations, in many instances, were established with the strong political pressure and backing of the congressional delegations from those areas, and that there was some competition for them. If you had said at the time, "All right, we will put it in Podunk, State Y, or we will put it in Crossroads, State X," let me tell you the chambers of commerce of areas from those areas would say, "Give it to us, we don't need any impacted area money at all, just give the installation to us." The local chambers know what bringing in those thousands of schoolchildren, with their thousands of parents means to the economic welfare of any community. I say to the President, I am supporting the federally impacted area bill, but I am using this subcommittee rostrum this morning to make a plea for fairplay to those thousands of schoolboys and schoolgirls not living in the impacted school districts. The children need Federal help much more than many impacted area districts. That is why in S. 1021 we asked the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare at the end of 18 months to give us an analysis of what the true facts are in federally impacted districts. I make a prediction today that the analysis, if, as, and when submitted, will sustain this administration in a good many of these areas in its program of funds curtailment. One more point on this little speech of mine should be made. I do not make such speeches often as chairman, but this one is needed, I think. I point out that in a number of these areas, which are not federally impacted and are not the beneficiaries of these Federal funds, the poor real property taxpayers are being gouged. It is a terrible thing we are doing to them. Uncle Sam pours money into other districts to help the taxpayers in those districts but the real property taxpayers in the so-called nonfederally impacted areas are paying on the real property taxes more than they should be asked to pay. S. 1021 would be of some assistance to them, in averting some future further tax increase. I close by saying to my friends in the House: Do the job you ought to do, and give us a general school education bill along the line of S. 1021, which includes federally impacted areas. We have done this job in the Senate. We have already extended Public Laws 815 and 874. I say to the taxpayers of the country, the people who are responsible for the fact that a federally impacted area bill has not yet been passed are in the House of Representatives, and are responsible for maintaining a Rules Committee power which denies the people of America majority rule in the House of Representatives. It is just that simple. As I said on the floor of the Senate the other night-and I could not get more criticism than I already have for this speech, so I will make it again the real job in the House of Representatives is to take away from those Congressmen the escape route they now have. They can go back home to say, "Well, but under the rules of the House we couldn't get the bill to the floor of the House for a vote." The answer is, change the Rules of the House of Representatives so that the people of this country can have their legislation voted on in the House of Representatives. That is my message once again to the Speaker of the House. I thought we had beaten Joe Cannonism in the House of Representatives years ago. As long as this power exists in the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives, Joe Cannonism is not dead in the House of Representatives. The problem won't be solved by politicians. It will be solved by the voters of this country. That is why I say to them get into a real crusade for once. Rally around this educational banner, and protect politically the schoolboys and schoolgirls of this country. They are not being protected by the politicians at the present time. This is quite a speech, but it needed to be made. As long as I have the responsibility in the Senate of being chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Legislation, I am ready to take the fight to the politicians. I am all through. Dr. Wilson and Mr. Dobbins, do you have anything to add to this hearing this morning? Dr. WILSON. No, except to thank President Case, and to thank you gentlemen for a very courteous hearing. Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Your prepared statement will be inserted in the record at this point. Mr. CASE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The statements referred to previously follow :) PREPARED STATEMENT OF EVERETT CASE, PRESIDENT, COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ON HIGHER EDUCATION BILLS S. 1241 AND S. 585 ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION AND THE ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (NEA) I am Everett Case, president of Colgate University. I am appearing today as chairman of the Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education. The council includes in its membership 145 educational organizations and 1,075 educational institutions, among them many of the junior colleges and nearly all of the accredited colleges and universities in the United States. I have also been authorized to speak today for the Association for Higher Education of the National Education Association, with the understanding that a supplementary written statement covering the official position of that organization on specific issues will be filed with this subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to express appreciation for the action of this subcommittee in proceeding with hearings on the program of assistance in higher education proposed in S. 1241 and related bills. This program, we suggest, should not be thought of as one designed to help colleges and universities as such, but rather as one to help our young men and women prepare for the responsibilities of increasing complexity which will be theirs and the Nation's. Members of this subcommittee have been hearing for several years, and have heard again from earlier witnesses at this hearing, descriptions of the enormous obligations which higher education must fulfill in the next decade. Numerous studies by Federal agencies, State planning commissions, and independent groups are in general agreement that enrollment is in the process of doubling. There is also agreement that colleges and universities in the next 10 years must nearly double both the number of qualified faculty members and the salaries paid them. A recent comprehensive study by the U.S. Office of Education states that by 1965 the colleges and universities of this country will have to spend $9 billion on physical facilities, and that an additional $10 billion for this purpose will be needed between 1965 and 1970. The problem deepens when it is recalled that, far from broadening the base for profitable operations as might be true of industry, the expansion of plant and enrollment typically means for the nonprofit institution a widening gulf between income and expense. Several leading economists have estimated that between 1959 and 1970 general expenditures, excluding those for capital outlays, will mount from $3.7 billion to more than $9 billion a year. To bridge this enormous operating gap without further recourse to Federal support will tax all of the ingenuity that college and university administrative officers can muster. This is why, in responding to national requests to expand our facilities, we naturally look to Government for major help in meeting new capital outlays. Recognizing the seriousness of this situation, organizations in higher education have become increasingly aware of their responsibilities to assess the needs of colleges and universities and to offer specific proposals to the Congress. The American Council on Education began last fall a series of conferences, in which there was participation by representatives of the major organizations in higher education, for the purpose of achieving as nearly as possible a consensus as to what would constitute a sound, realistic proposal for Federal assistance. Out of these conferences we produced in January "A Proposed Program of Federal Action To Strengthen Higher Education." One of the chief recommendations contained in that general statement was that the Federal Government should establish a two-pronged program for assistance in the construction of academic facilities-low-interest loans and matching grants with each eligible institution determining for itself which type of support would best meet its needs. We are gratified that S. 1241 provides lowinterest loans for this purpose. These loans are needed, are one practical way of meeting the urgent demands for additional academic facilities, and would, I am confident, be used to the full extent of the authorization of $300 million a year for 5 years. On one important count, however, we prefer the loan provisions of S. 585. since that bill would permit an institution to borrow the entire amount needed for a construction project. S. 1241 requires that 25 percent of the development cost shall be met from non-Federal sources. We are not convinced of the necessity for this limitation. It has not been required in the college housing loan program which has financed more than $1 billion in dormitory and dining hall facilities, and in which there has been not a single default. In our judgment its retention will mean that some institutions will be delayed in meeting their urgent needs for academic facilities, and it may well mean that other institutions will be prevented from making use of the program at all. For example, we know some colleges that have planned to finance buildings by the pledged annual support of industries and alumni groups; to this plan, the requirement of one-fourth advance payment would set up a formidable hurdle. We favor S. 585 for an even more important reason: that it also provides a program of matching grants. Any loan program, no matter how generous, will fall far short of meeting the needs of our institutions of higher learning. The fact is that many public institutions, for example, would be barred from the loan program by State laws, since their authority to borrow is limited to those projects which are income-producing, such as residence halls and dining halls. Some private and public institutions would be reluctant to participate because repayment of these loans must be drawn from general funds (primarily tuition) already overburdened with the rising costs of faculty salaries, equipment, and maintenance. In testimony before another congressional committee 15 months ago, I stated a position which is still firmly held by the American Council on Education: "We endorse as the answer for many institutions a plan of loans patterned after the college housing loan program, but we must emphasize at the same time that the needs of many other institutions will require a program in which grants are the major factor. We believe that a combination of these two approaches or the availability of options-may be possible as well as desirable, and we urge that these possibilities be promptly and thoroughly explored." That position has been endorsed by all the major eductional organizations directly representing |