Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Congressman Griffin. We will depend upon you to help it go somewhere.

Dr. FLEMMING. Madam Chairman, may I say this: I will not only be very happy to do what you suggest and what Congressman Frelinghuysen suggests, but I will be in this area, as you know, at least until the middle of June, and I would be very happy to come back later this afternoon or I would be happy to come back tomorrow. I have agreed to appear before the other subcommittee on education Tuesday morning, but I would be very happy at any point to come back and respond to additional questions. All you need to do is get in touch

with me.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here and we wish that time allowed further questions.

I wonder if we could follow this procedure, to ask President Case and President Ellis to come up together and submit your statements and depending upon the time, we will ask questions of you. Could you do that? We will hear President Case first.

Dr. Case is president of Colgate University and is representing the American Council on Education. We are happy to have you here with us and to hear what you have to say with regard to this legislation.

STATEMENT OF DR. EVERETT CASE, PRESIDENT OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION'S COMMITTEE ON RELATIONSHIPS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Dr. CASE. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, may I say that I am so impressed with the character of the testimony of the former Secretary and the distinguished president-elect of the University of Oregon that if I were here just as an individual I would be inclined to say I subscribe to this and not take your time further. Since I am appearing as spokesman for the American Council, however, perhaps I should ask the committee's indulgence even if the testimony does sound a little bit repetitious at times.

My name is Everett Case, and I am president of Colgate University at Hamilton, N.Y. I am also chairman of the Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education, an organization with a membership of 146 educational organizations and 1,065 institutions, among them nearly all the accredited universities, colleges, and junior colleges in the United States. I welcome the opportunity to testify for the American Council before this subcommittee on the administration's proposals for assistance to higher education as embodied in H.R. 5266, the College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Act, which was introduced by your chairman on March 7, 1961.

At the outset, I should like to express on behalf of the colleges and universities our warm appreciation for the prompt and serious concern which the President, the Members of Congress, and indeed all agencies of the Government are showing for the manifest needs of education in this country at all levels. This concern is a profoundly hopeful sign. It has given new spirit and courage not only to the leaders in higher education but to the students on our campuses, and

to many other young men and women who hope for an opportunity someday to be college students.

I might just interpolate, Madam Chairman, if I may, one comment here. We speak of the needs of education in terms of the expansion of facilities. There is a sense, I think, in which this is a grave misnomer, and this sense is captured by the preamble to your bill H.R. 5266, in which it says that

the Congress hereby finds that the security and welfare of the United States requires that this and future generations of American youth be insured ample opportunity for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities.

and so forth. I think, therefore, it is proper to address ourselves to this question as one aspect or defining one aspect of national needs to which the colleges and universities are called upon to respond. We are not, by and large, seeking to expand. We have problems enough in making ends meet with our present size and enrollment, but it is because we are trying to be responsive that we are faced with these needs. That I think defines the area of Government concern, including financial concern.

I am resuming, then, the text. I am sure, Madam Chairman, that earlier witnesses have described the magnitude of the crisis facing higher education in the next decade, and indeed they have. 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. All major studies show that after traditional sources of income, including student tuition and fees, have been stretched to the limit, there will still be a large gap that can be filled only by greater support from the Federal Government.

In consequence of these expanding demands, 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," copies of which have been placed in your hands. If it is considered appropriate, Madam Chairman, we would be pleased to have this made a part of the record.

Mrs. GREEN. Without any objection, it will be made a part of the record.

(The document is as follows:)

A PROPOSED PROGRAM OF FEDERAL ACTION TO STRENGTHEN HIGHER EDUCATION The magnitude and chief characteristics of the crisis facing higher education in the next decade have been documented through numerous studies by Federal agencies, State planning commissions, and independent groups. There is general agreement that enrollment is in the process of doubling, with an anticipated increase of at least a million full-time students between 1958 and 1965 and another million between 1965 and 1970. 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. Furthermore, it is clear that the proportion of research and instruction at advanced levels will become greater and that consequently the cost of necessary buildings and equipment will increase at a higher rate than that caused by expanding enrollment alone, with a corresponding increase in general operating expenses.

A recent comprehensive study by the U.S. Office of Education1 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 will be needed between 1965 and 1970. 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.

All the major studies show that after traditional sources of income, including student tuition and fees, have been stretched to the limit, there will still be a large gap that can be filled only by greater support from the Federal Government. The American Council on Education, in consultation with its 1,200 institutional and organizational members, has been developing a general policy toward Federal support of higher education for many years. The situation is complicated for at least three important reasons. First, more than 40 agencies of the executive branch of the Government have programs that directly affect higher education. Second, at least a dozen congressional committees have authority to act on one or more of these programs. Third, these Federal programs differ not only in magnitude and scope, but also in kind and effect.

The last point is of special significance, because many Federal programs use colleges and universities merely to provide services required by the Government. Whether provision of those services depletes or augments the resources of these institutions to perform their central function of education is of no particular concern to the Federal agency. For example, the armed services have admitted for 15 years the ROTC programs constitute a drain on the resources of participating institutions, but have as yet offered no relief. Again, several of the programs in which colleges and universities participate under the National Defense Education Act have the purpose of strengthening secondary education rather than higher education. It seems clear that institutions of higher learning cannot continue indefinitely to undertake such service functions unless they receive additional support to strengthen their basic resources of staff, facilities, and general income.

It is the purpose of this statement to focus attention on proposed congressional actions that will strengthen the basic functions of the institutions. This approach does not imply lack of interest in other types of programs, a partial list of which appears on pages 9 and 10.

In determining what kinds of support can appropriately be requested from the Federal Government, the character of the existing system of higher education suggests important limitations. More than half the colleges and universities, enrolling nearly 45 percent of the students, are privately supported. All types of institutions must be expanded and improved if the essential national goal of providing for future students is to be met. Hence the American Council on Education, representing higher education as a whole, does not ask general assistance from the Federal Government in paying faculty salaries.2 Nor

1 U.S. Office of Education, "Ten-Year Objectives in Education: Higher Education Staffing and Physical Facilities, 1960-61 through 1969-70" (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1961).

2 The council considers it entirely appropriate, however, for the Federal Government to pay the full cost of the portions of faculty time devoted to federally financed programs of instruction and research and to continue the existing type of support to the landgrant institutions.

3

does it ask direct assistance from the Federal Government in meeting general operating expenses. The basic recommendations presented below deal with assistance (1) in providing housing and academic facilities, (2) in augmenting the number and improving the quality of teachers and research workers, and (3) in offering able students with limited means the opportunity of a college education.

There are priorities even among these three major types of assistance. Additional financial aid to students is advocated only as a supplement to adequate support for new buildings and augmented staff. Helping more students to demand admission to college without at the same time supplying buildings to accommodate them and faculty to teach them would merely make more serious a problem already acute.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. The Federal Government can and should provide greater financial assistance to approved institutions of higher learning for expansion and improvement of facilities

1. The college housing loan program, which has proved extraordinarily effective during the past 10 years, not only should be continued, but also expanded on a basis that will permit institutions to plan further ahead. The funds authorized last summer will almost certainly be allocated early in 1961, and applications are being received by the Housing and Home Finance Agency at the rate of approximately $350 million a year.

An additional $150 million should be authorized as soon as possible to keep the program moving forward through June 1961.

A further authorization of $1.4 billion should be made for a 4-year period, beginning July 1, 1961, with equal allocations for the 4 fiscal years.

Adequate funds should be appropriated to administer the augmented program effectively and promptly.

2. 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.

It is in the national interest that the building program of each institution reflect with integrity its educational goals and objectives. This principle should determine the criteria for eligibility set by the Government.

3. The existing program of matching grants for construction of research facilities in the health fields should be continued and expanded, and similar grants to support allied teaching facilities in these fields should be authorized.

4. The National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Defense Department, and other Federal agencies that sponsor and support research in colleges and universities should be authorized and encouraged to increase provision for the physical facilities and equipment required for such research; and additional appropriations should be made to them for this purpose. II. The Federal Government can and should provide greater assistance in increasing the supply and improving the quality of college teachers

1. Such programs as the graduate, postdoctoral, and faculty fellowship programs of the National Science Foundation should be expanded as rapidly as qualified candidates can be discovered.

3 The council considers it entirely appropriate, however, for the Federal Government to pay that portion of general operating expenses allocable to federally financed programs of instruction and research, and to continue the existing type of support to the landgrant institutions.

2. The graduate fellowship program under the National Defense Education Act should be extended for at least 4 more years, with immediate provision for awarding fellowships to alternates if the original recipients withdraw. Each institution should receive a grant of $3,000 a year for each graduate student enrolled under this program.

3. According to reliable estimates by those who have administered the present NDEA fellowship program, at least 1,500 more doctoral candidates could be accommodated in programs of instruction now offered by graduate schools. Consequently, a new fellowship program for these candidates should be established under the NDEA, in which there is no requirement that an institution have a new or expanded program of graduate instruction.

4. To improve faculty competence, another program should be established under the NDEA which would provide 1-year fellowships for college teachers who are within 1 year of completing the requirements for the doctorate. An experimental program of 500 such fellowships a year would be a signfiicant beginning.

5. There should be a substantial increase in funds appropriated for exchanges of faculty members with foreign countries and for grants to actual and prospective college teachers to study abroad. Such exchanges help American institutions to solve one of their major academic problems—broadening their instruction to include the cultures of the entire world.

III. The Federal Government can and should provide greater assistance in removing financial barriers to higher education for qualified students American colleges and universities have traditionally assumed, as part of their service to the people, heavy financial burdens in order to offer educational opportunities to students from families with low incomes. In addition to the very large benefits conferred by public institutions through low tuition and fees, the colleges and universities constitute the largest single source of undergraduate scholarships. This burden will obviously be greatly magnified by the needs of the additional 2 million students in the next decade. It is already increasing because of the necessary rise in student charges. One of the council's own surveys shows that charges for tuition, fees, room, and board, at both public and private institutions, have risen as much in the past 4 years as in the preceding 8 years or in the 20 before that.

Scholarships and loans offered by the institutions themselves and by other agencies have not kept pace, and the participation of the Federal Government has been declining as educational benefits under the World War II and the Korean GI bills draw to an end. The loan program under the NDEA has helped many families in the middle-income brackets, but qualified students at the very low income levels are finding college entrance more and more difficult. The institutions need substantial assistance if equality of opportunity in the future is to be more than an abstract slogan.

1. The student loan program under the National Defense Education Act should be continued, with certain modifications (see especially item 4 on p. 9), through its fourth year. At that time, funds in hand or on loan by educational institutions should be granted to them as permanent revolving loan funds. Additional appropriations should be made each year for grants to reimburse institutions for portions of loans forgiven under the law, to meet the needs of increasing enrollments, and to establish loan funds for institutions new to the program.

2. Recognizing the priorities indicated above, and assuming the continuance of the student loan program, a new program of 4-year undergraduate scholarships should be established, with the objective of seeking out and assisting students of high academic promise in greatest financial need.

Stipends should be variable, according to need, with a maximum of $1,000 a

year.

The scholarships should be awarded by the institutions themselves, using funds allocated in approximately the same manner as Federal student loan funds.

There should be an appropriation of $25 million for scholarships the first year, with the annual total rising to $100 million in the fourth year. These sums would provide a minimum of 25,000 new scholarships each year.

Each scholarship should be accompanied by a grant to the institution which the scholarship holder attends. A reasonable amount to defray part of the educational costs beyond tuition and fees would be half the amount of the scholarship. Additional appropriations will be needed for this purpose and for the expenses of administration.