Mr. GOODELL. Do you have any comment generally on the problem of aiding those who are in this, what you might call, second class of worthy applicants but not in the very top class mentally?

Mr. JENKINS. Let me first comment on the business of motivation. I am speaking of motivation, and I am not speaking of the person who would just go to college or accept a scholarship because it was offered, but I meant the person who is reluctant to mortgage his future, so to speak, and having great ability is in a rather difficult spot to decide to spend a great deal of his time working off a debt which he incurred in going to school. This is my major address when I am speaking of motivation.

This, of course, is a large part of the problem which Mr. Plaut was addressing. The study which he talked about is something that we have been associated with in the National Student Association, as a sponsoring organization of his association. It exists on may different levels. Part of it comes from the inability at the State level or at the Federal level for these people to have scholarship grants which are available to them, or which are available for them to study in an institution which will really benefit them most significantly.

I am saying this in actually addressing two problems, one in the North and one in the South. One of the things that came out of the Hannah report, the Civil Rights Commission on Higher Education, was the distinction that many of the students who, when going to college, went to segregated colleges and received, in effect, an inferior education.

Well, now, what I am saying here is that the culturally deprived or socioeconomically deprived will have an opportunity to go to a school outside of their particular State. They will not have that limitation of a State clause and, therefore, they will get a better opportunity to secure education of real quality.

Mr. GOODELL. I certainly see that that would be one of the effects here. The previous witness went so far as to say almost, and I guess he did say, that we would be better off with no program than to just try to replace the present sources of help for the very, very talented students and that we should try to focus-I do not think he actually came to the point of saying he was opposed to this program, but he felt that we were missing the whole emphasis if we did not give it to this second run of students.

His thesis was that the first run will get there anyway; they can find ways of getting a scholarship.

Mr. JENKINS. That is why I think that the statement of President Kennedy, when he said this is to supplement and not to supplant, is important. I do not see this taking the place of these other grants.

Mr. GOODELL. Presumably what would happen if we are now taking care of the top 2 or 3 percent, just to put it right on the objective testing, making a great many more scholarships available might move it down 4 percent more, and so we take care of the top 4 percent.

This is an obvious and clear-cut way of dealing with this problem but it would appear that what Mr. Plaut wanted to do was to move into an area of giving much greater emphasis to need and not helping those in the middle group of need.

Do you have any comment on that aspect of a $4,000 limitation?

67829-61--9

Mr. JENKINS. I am not denying the need to reach these socioeconomic problems, but I am just pointing out that the increased availability of scholarships should, it seems to me, have a wider spread in the persons who would then be able to get them.

Mathematically I would concede that this is sound. I am not at this particular time addressing that issue, although I do recognize that that is a very important one. One of the statistics that he might have quoted from the beginning of this program in New York was a group of Puerto Rican Negro students who were selected from a class which was a year behind in their motivation or in their ability to read, or reading competence, and they were taken through this rather intensive program of counseling and trying to get them to aspire to a new level, and after 1 year of this type of program they succeeded in reaching 2 years beyond their grade level.

All of this is a part of the motivation of the socioeconomic deprived, and I do not see at this particular time how this can be addressed in this, except as you suggested, an experimental program which might probe more deeply into this issue. I do not at this time recommend that the entire program be incorporated in that type of action.

Mr. GOODELL. Thank you.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Jenkins.

The committee is recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the special subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 16, 1961.)

AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Old House House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Green, Smith of Iowa, Quie, Goodell, Ashbrook, Griffin, Frelinghuysen, and Kearns.

Also present: Nicholas H. Zumas, subcommittee counsel; Melvin W. Sneed, minority counsel; Wray Smith, education chief of the full committee and Betty Pryor, subcommittee clerk.

Mrs. GREEN. The subcommittee will come to order.

We have with us two members of the full committee. We are very glad to have Congressman Griffin and the ranking minority member from Pennsylvania, Congressman Kearns, present at these hearings. We are also glad to welcome former Secretary Flemming to these hearings. He accepted our invitation to appear. As you know he becomes the new president of Oregon University, and I will be delighted to welcome him to that State. I know Dr. Flemming not only has a professional interest in colleges and college students, but he also has a very personal interest. If my information is correct, you have four children who are going to be in college next year.

Dr. FLEMMING. Right.

Mrs. GREEN. We are looking forward to your testimony, Dr. Flemming, and you may proceed as you wish.

Dr. FLEMMING. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, FORMER SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Dr. FLEMMING. I would like to express to you my deep appreciation for extending to me an invitation to appear before this Special Subcommittee on Education in order to present my views on H.R. 5266, the administration's college academic facilities and scholarship bill. May I say I am very grateful to you for your words of welcome and that I look forward to becoming a citizen of the State of Oregon and participating in the work of the University of Oregon.

In presenting my views on H.R. 5266, I shall address myself first of all to Title I-Loans for Construction of Academic Facilities.

As this committee knows, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the proposed finding in H.R. 5266—

that the security and welfare of the United States require that this and future generations of American youth be insured ample opportunity for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities, and that this opportunity will be jeopardized unless the Nation's colleges and universities are encouraged and assisted in their efforts to accommodate rapidly growing numbers of youth who aspire to higher education * * *.

In the fall of 1964-just 31⁄2 years from now-there will be 750,000 more students on our campuses than were there last fall. By 1965 there will be 1 million more enrolled than were enrolled in the fall of 1960.

It is clear that the colleges and universities do not now have the facilities to take care of this increased enrollment. It is also clear that if, left to themselves, they will not have the necessary facilities by the fall of 1964 or 1965.

Unless this situation is corrected-and corrected promptly-the security and welfare of the United States will be imperiled.

The administration has responded to this threat to "the security and welfare of the United States" by making three recommendations to the Congress.

First, it has recommended that matching grants be made available for 10 years at the rate of $60 million a year to colleges and universities-both public and private-for the construction of medical, dental, osteopathic, and public health teaching facilities. In addition, it has recommended a 3-year extension at the rate of $50 million a year of the matching grant program for the construction of medical research facilities.

Second, it has recommended a 5-year authorization for the college housing program-for both public and private institutions of higher education-at the rate of $250 million a year.

Third, it has recommended in the bill pending before this committee a 5-year program of long-term, low-interest construction loans for academic facilities at both public and private institutions with an authorization ceiling of $300 million a year.

The first two recommendations are consistent with policies advanced by both candidates for President last fall. They are likewise consistent with recommendations by representatives of the educational community. They are sound recommendations. I hope that they will be accepted by the Congress at this session.

Our colleges and universities will be poorly equipped with academic facilities, however, if all the Congress does is to approve a program of long-term, low-interest construction loans for the construction of classrooms, laboratories, and the libraries.

A program of matching grants for academic facilities-available to both public and private colleges-is a "must" if our colleges and universities are going to provide both undergraduate and graduate students with adequate educational opportunities.

I cannot understand why the administration did not recommend such a program.

First of all, it is a program that has strong bipartisan support.

Former Vice President Nixon in the position paper that he issued on education during the presidential campaign included the following statements:

Just as important to a vital educational system as its elementary and secondary schools are its colleges and universities, public and private. The present Federal program of low-cost loans for dormitory construction should be continued-and greatly expanded into a program of both loans and matching grants for classrooms and laboratories and libraries as well.

He went on to say:

Matching grants to help our colleges meet the demand for rapidly increasing enrollment are especially important for this inescapable reason. Tuition charges do not begin to cover the total educational cost per student. Each new student added to the rolls puts an added burden on the operating budget. Help is needed if we are to provide adequate opportunity to the growing number of young persons, an additional million at least during the next 5 years, who want and deserve education beyond high school.

On January 6, 1961, a Task Force Committee on Education, under the chairmanship of Dr. Frederick Hovde, submitted a report to the then President-elect Kennedy and included in it the following rec

ommendation:

Although college and university enrollments are now at an alltime high, the period of greatest increase in enrollments is immediately ahead. In order to give urgently needed aid to colleges and universities (including junior colleges) to accommodate a million new students in the next 5 years, Congress should be urged to enact legislation providing for a combined program of loans and grants of at least $500 million for the first year, of which $350 million (70 percent) should be be for matching grants and $150 million (30 percent) should be for loans on the same basis as the college housing loan program. In succeeding years this program will require increasing sums annually to meet the evolving needs. Grants should be available only for construction that will accommodate increased numbers of students.

In the second place, a program of matching grants to accelerate the construction of academic facilities has strong support from the educational community.

The American Council of Education, which has in its total membership of 1,209 more than 1,000 educational institutions and 144 educational organizations, has developed a proposed program of Federal action to strengthen higher education.

Madam Chairman, I would like personally to commend the total program to the committee for its consideration. It seems to me that is one of the most far reaching and significant programs that has been presented by the educational community to the Congress, and I think that it is probably the first time that there has been a general agreement on a program on the part of all of our educational institutions as is reflected in this document.

Included in the program is the following recommendation:

A new program of federally administered assistance to institutions of higher learning, for construction of academic facilities of the kinds they require to meet their needs in improvement of quality as well as expansion of enrollment should be established, offering each institution the following options on each separate project: (a) A grant to defray up to 50 percent of the cost of construction, or (b) a low interest 40-year loan to finance such construction, the interest rate to be determined under the same formula approved for the college housing loan program.

A long-range program is recommended, with initial authorization for 4 years and with funds supplied at the average rate of $1 billion a year. A survey of member institutions by the American Council on Education indicates that of this annual amount approximately 70 percent should be appropriated for matching grants and 30 percent authorized for loans.