of many of the institutions of our association. Some public insitutions are barred by State law from participation in a loan program. Others, both public and private institutions, would be reluctant to borrow because repayment of these loans must come from general funds, principally tuition charges, which already are as high as many persons can afford. We therefore favor S. 585 because it provides a dual program with alternatives to fit the needs of all types of institutions of higher education.

In urging that the Congress approve matching grants for educational institutions, we recognize the constitutional question. However, we note that a brief prepared by the legal staff of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the assistance of the Department of Justice, as requested by the chairman of the subcommittee, does not flatly state that matching grants to institutions of higher learning for academic facilities are unconstitutional. We would approve section 122 of H.R. 7215, which would make ineligible for Federal assistance any school or department of divinity and "any facility used or to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship." We believe that this is a possible approach to the question without denying grants to all private institutions, whether sectarian or not.

It is difficult for me to emphasize sufficiently the tremendous need of our colleges and universities for academic facilities. We have expanded the housing and we have received increased gifts from alumni, industry, and foundations, but there simply are not sufficient resources to build the minimum academic facilities necessary to educate the young men and women who are the greatest natural resource of our country.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be President John D. Millett of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, representing the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association.

Will you come forward, Mr. President, and take the witness chair. I cannot begin to tell you, President Millett, how appreciative this committee is to have your statement this morning. I think you know very well that the great educational associations for which you are the spokesman this morning have great influence on this committee as far as our professional judgment is concerned.

We have before us a bill which, in my judgment, is of more vital concern to our great domestic need than probably 95 percent of the people of this country have even started to comprehend. It deals with this whole matter of stopping the shocking waste of the most precious value we have in this Republic, human resources, and particularly the intellectuual potential of these human resources.

We are moving as rapidly as we can to complete these hearings so that we can get some committee action on this bill in order to try to get some action completed on higher education before we adjourn for the fall.

I am not too hopeful, but we will have the record completed and printed. We will then try, if we do not get action before we adjourn, to do that necessary job of political education at the grassroots of American between now and next January.

In my judgment, unless the people in this country, who are familiar with this educational crisis, are willing to perform their responsibilities of citizen statesmanship, and who take this problem to the voters of America and thereby to the politicians of America, we are going to continue to fall dangerously behind in this matter of training and using our national brainpower potential against that of the Communist world.

I wanted to give you this little bit of my philosophy so that you can shoot at it, so to speak, if you care to, or testify in regard to it, be

cause, as an educator myself for 21 years, I am very much upset at the shocking lethargy on the part of the Ameriacn people concerning this domestic crisis.

I do not think the American public has the slightest idea of what it is doing to itself by letting the politicians sleep on the job coming to grips with this problem.

When I think of the way the majority of the Members of this Congress have failed the American people up to this hour in regard to this educational crisis, and have failed the boys and girls and young men and women of this country, I find myself speaking with a stronger emphasis than is customary for as the chairman of a committee.

But I think we have come to the point where we must put it right up to the American people, and to put it right up to their politicians. If their politicians do not want to rise to their responsibility of statesmanship, the people ought to start telling the politicians before November 1662, that otherwise a lot of them will be returned to private life.

I know of no other answer than that. There comes a time in the Republic when a majority of the people need to get on the job to make it perfectly clear that a republic is run by the ballot box. I for once am satisfied that once the people know the facts about the situation, such facts as we have heard from the previous witness, they will be as moved as I am at this moment to do something about it.

Now, with that little lecture on my part, I am delighted to call upon you for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. MILLETT, PRESIDENT, MIAMI

UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, OHIO

Dr. MILLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in substantial agreement with the remarks you have just made.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John D. Millett, and I am president of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.

May I add this is a State-supported university of Ohio, and one of the oldest ones in the United States.

I am representing the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association, of which latter I am president.

My testimony that you have before you is dated August 9, but that date obviously should be changed to August 18.

The Land-Grant Association has 70 member colleges and universities located in each State and Puerto Rico.

The State Universities Association has 26 separated State universities as members, 2 of which are also members of the Land-Grant Association.

In November 1960, our two associations adopted resolutions published under the title "Desirable National Action Affecting Higher Education," copies of which have doubtless come to your attention. Additional copies are available should you desire them. While these resolutions cover a wide range of programs which our members believe are worthy of consideration by the Congress, I shall only speak about three of them today. They are: Federal assistance for the construction of academic facilities, a Federal scholarship program, and aid to

community colleges. These matters have come to the attention of your committee officially through the introduction of Senate bills 585 (Senators Yarborough and Clark for academic facility construction), 1140 (Senator Case for assistance to community colleges), and 1241 (Senator Hill, the administration's proposals for facilities construction and scholarships).

ACADEMIC FACILITIES

This is not the first occasion when a spokesman for our two associations has pointed to the urgent need for Federal assistance for the construction of academic facilities.

There have been important changes in the past year. College and university heads, educational organizations, and I hope the general public have become more acutely aware of just what is involved if we are to have an increase of 1 million in college enrollments in the next 5 years, and a doubling in the next 10 years. These are conservative estimates of the expansion needed to make educational opportunity available to those who can benefit from it, and whose education will benefit our society.

As a result sentiment has crystallized to the effect that substantial Federal assistance in the construction of academic facilities is essential. On this subject higher education is now able to present a united front.

Another major change is that the administration has strongly recommended a facilities program, including an extension of the college housing loan program which has already become law and for which all of us of higher education are indeed grateful. We are also most grateful for the strong interest displayed by the administration and the Congress in meeting the critical problem of facilities.

Having expressed this most sincere feeling of appreciation, I must reluctantly add that insofar as the universities for which I speak are concerned and for the majority or maybe all other public institutions-the President's proposals for academic facilities will not be very helpful because they do not go far enough.

Privately controlled colleges and universities can doubtless benefit from the proposed low-interest Federal loan program for the construction of classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and other academic facilities. For this our institutions not only have no objection but are on the contrary grateful that this important segement of higher education in the United States can be helped in this manner.

What about our public institutions, including the 94 institutions for which I speak, and which last September enrolled 981,472 students or approximately 30 percent of the total enrollment? Public institutions including junior colleges-will be expected to enroll the major portion of the increased numbers of students who will wish higher education during the next decade.. Yet few of these public institutions will be able to utilize the Federal loan program to construct academic facilities to accommodate these additional students they are expected to enroll.

Unlike dormitories or dining centers, classroom buildings are not income producing. Therefore, there will be no income with which to amortize the indebtedness. The majority of our State institutions of higher learning have no sizable endowment income which might be

utilized for purposes of debt amortization. Members of the committee are doubtless aware that in many States there are constitutional provisions or laws which debar public colleges and universities from using loans for non-revenue-producing facilities.

How then could many of our public universities use a Federal loan program for the construction of classrooms and related facilities? For all practical purposes the only way many of our institutions could repay these loans would be through the pledging of student fees. If student fees are pledged for this purpose, it can only mean that these fees must be increased, and sizably so. By increasing these fees our institutions may then obtain the classrooms and concomitantly deny to many the opportunity to use them. This we regard as a refutation of the very concept and philosophy which have governed our institutions since the founding of the Nation, namely, to provide quality education at a low cost to the student so that no young man or young woman will be deprived of an education by reason of economic circumstances.

Our State universities and land-grant colleges have already substantially increased their student charges in recent years. This has been done in order that our teachers might be provided some additional salary increment which barely recognizes the advance in the cost of living much less their contributions to and subsidization of all of society. If we are now to ask students to pay for the cost of their classrooms and laboratories as well as for their instruction, there can be little doubt many who are qualified will not be able to afford a college education. It is unlikely any Federal scholarship or student loan program could conceivably be extensive enough to care for the numbers who will not be able to afford the cost of a college education in the future if student charges keep rising.

If, as I have stated, the public institutions will be expected to accommodate the larger percentage of the increased enrollment ahead, I am convinced this cannot be accomplished without a Federal program of grants as well as loans for academic facilities. Studies have been made which clearly reveal the majority of privately controlled colleges and universities have no plans for expansion which will accommodate a proportionate share of the increase in enrollment. Indeed, many have plans for an increase of approximately 10 percent. Yet there will be an increase of more than 100 percent in college attendance in less than 10 years.

The approaching crisis in higher education about which all of us have spoken many times during the past 10 years is now at hand. In just 5 years college enrollments will increase by an additional 1 million students. Of course we cannot wait for them to arrive at our campus doors before we start building the classrooms they will need. It will be a minimum of 2 years from enactment of any Federal assistance legislation before the first building can be completed. I would say that is an underestimate instead of an overestimate, Mr. Chairman.

The American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association strongly urge that the Congress enact a financial assistance program for the construction of academic facilities which will include both loan and grant provisions. Such a combined program will enable private institutions to expand via the loan route should they not wish to accept a grant, and it will permit public institutions and many private institutions

to meet their obligations through the acceptance of grants. There will doubtless be other institutions, both private and public, that would wish to utilize grants and loans concurrently.

Mr. Chairman, our associations support a 50-50 program of matching grants for academic facilities, accompanied by a loan program. There are several ways of handling a grant program, and opinions on the best way to do it are varied. Our two associations have recommended that it be handled through grants to the States. The President's Task Force on Education recommended that it be handled by allocations on a State basis under a formula, and that representative commissions of the Hill-Burton Act type be established within each State to pass on applications for grants from all types of institutions. The task force also recommended that grants be made only for the purpose of expansion of classroom facilities for students, or to replace facilities which are in such shape that replacement or modernization is imperative in order to prevent a decline in enrollment. The two associations for which I speak have taken no formal position on this subject, but I am sure there would be a substantial consensus among them that ability and desire to expand should at least be a major criterion in making grants. Also some geographical formula for allocation of funds is an essential characteristic of a grant program. In recommending Federal grants for academic facilities, we are not unmindful of the fact that the highest priority need of colleges and universities, both public and private, is for general operational support and particularly for faculty salaries. However, there is a substantial consensus within higher education on facilities support and there is not on general operational support. Facilities support would free substantial founds for general operational support at a critical time. It should be clear, also, that in providing matching grants the Federal Government will still assume only a minor share of the cost of providing for the needed expansion of higher education.

Mr. Chairman, two members of this subcommittee, Senators Yarborough and Clark, have introduced in S. 185 legislation embodying the principle of matching grants and loans for academic facilities, and for this we are greatly appreciative. Educational groups were consulted in the drafting of this legislation. On further study of the problem, however, we are inclined as I have said previouslyto a more decentralized approach to the establishment of priorities. An adaptation of the successful pattern of the Hill-Burton Hospital Survey and Construction Act, as embodied in H.R. 7215, would provide the mechanism for such an approach.

In concluding this part of my testimony, may I stress that the time for action is now. College buildings require something like 2 years leadtime from authorization to completion, as a minimum. Enrollments in higher education were 3.5 million last fall. An increase of 1 million in the next 5 years represents about 30 percent growth. Some of this can be absorbed, in some institutions, by greater efficiency of plant utilization, by making heavier use of facilities in the summer, and by other devices. The fact remains that a drastic expansion of facilities is needed and that Federal resources are needed to make it possible. Any delay in effecting this Federal program now will, in my opinion, deny higher education to many students in the next few

years.

74150-61--20