Mr. ULLMAN. Then I will proceed very briefly summarizing some of the points I have in my prepared statement.

H.R. 5266 is a good bill. I strongly endorse it.

I believed when we passed the National Defense Education Act that scholarships should have been included. I supported their inclusion, but at that time it was decided we would make loans.

Now I am very hopeful we will be able to move forward on the scholarship program. In addition, of course, I heartily endorse the loan provisions. I think the availability of low-interest loans to the educational institutions of this country is a great necessity, and that without it we cannot meet our responsibilities in this important field. Turning to my proposal, I want to make a very brief plea for community, or junior, colleges; for a 2-year college program. This is the area in American higher education in which we have seen the most dramatic activity and change in the past few years. I personally believe that this area of education is going to move forward even more rapidly in the future because of the tremendous need. I think that no other institutions provide the opportunities for immediate posthigh school education that the community colleges provide.

I think a good example of the full utilization of the junior college concept is the State of California which has progressed perhaps more rapidly in the field of 2-year colleges than any other State. There we find that approximately 80 percent of the entering college freshmen are enrolled in 2-year junior colleges.

Throughout the country the percentage is about 1 out of 4, about 25 percent, but I feel that what is happening in California might indicate what would happen nationally if we had a fully developed 2-year college program in the 50 States of the Union. The States are moving ahead. There is widespread interest and concern.

The big problem here, as everywhere, is getting money to proceed in the establishment of the construction of these college facilities.

In our State of Oregon, Madam Chairman, and in many other States, they are exploring all of the possibilities and moving as rapidly as they can, but experiencing many difficulties.

My bill provides for grants to the States on a matching basis. The initial program is for $200 million, half of which would be distributed evenly among the States and the other half according to a formula set up from both the primary and secondary enrollments, which would serve to project the measure of need further into the future. This is what we must do because of the tremendous impact which the problem of education will have in the next 10 or 15 years on American society. Madam Chairman, I will not presume upon the time of this committee with a lengthy dissertation on the importance of the 2-year college program in America. I know that this committee is well informed on this important problem.

I merely want to say that in my opinion the 2-year college fills a unique place not filled now by any other segment of education in America. It provides a unique opportunity for post-high school education, and it presents, in a way, a new and challenging philosophy of higher education.

Guidance in junior college programs is, I think, far more important than in any other higher educational program. Many of our 4-year colleges today are separating in their first semester those who should get a degree from those who should not by flunking out about 30 or 40 percent of the entering freshmen. This is one way of doing it.

The junior college program provides another way, and that is to give, in a 2-year program, two alternatives. One is the preparation for full college training, generally involving a move into a 4-year institution.

But through guidance they would also separate those who, although perhaps not qualified for an academic education, are eminently qualified for many fields of subprofessional training. As I see it, this is the great gap in American higher education today. I think it is one we will have to fill. I see no better way of doing it than through an enlightened junior college program.

I would say this, too: Many 2-year community colleges, the public community colleges, would not come under the loan program as provided by your bill. They do not have the borrowing authority. They are not established in such a way that they could benefit from the program as presented in the bill which you have before this committee.

In the event you could not move forward with a separate program, and I certainly hope you can, for 2-year colleges, I would hope some way could be devised whereby the 2-year institutions, the community colleges, could benefit from this program as presented in the legislation before this committee.

I again want to express my own personal appreciation to you, Madam Chairman, and the committee for holding these hearings. We must move forward in all fields of higher education.

The 2-year program in no way conflicts with the 4-year program. It dovetails, it seems to me. They are two differing types of institutions that fit side by side. I think the State of California has illustrated how they can work together completely. One supplements the other. The 2-year colleges in many instances are relieving the 4-year college of the great burden of affording opportunity for all young people that come from high school and separating those who are not qualified for an academic education.

In relieving them of that responsibility I think it can render them a great assistance.

By the time these junior college people finish 1 or 2 years in junior colleges they are fully able to move into the curriculum of the 4-year institutions, so the two educational segments work side by side, hand in hand.

I would hope we can envisage in the future a higher education system in this country where the 2-year institution is vastly expanded to take care of a great need that is not filled in higher education today.

Both 2- and 4-year institutions must move forward, and move forward rapidly, if we are to face up to the tremendous problem of educating the young people who are moving through our primary and secondary system today.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for your courtesy.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Congressman Ullman, for that excellent statement.

I am aware of the legal limitations in the loan program. In H.R. 5266 would you think we could put in a section dealing with grants, and would that accomplish the purpose which you seek to accomplish by H.R. 16?

Mr. ULLMAN. Madam Chairman, it would be my hope that you could do this, tailoring it to those types of institutions which could not, because of their legal basis, accept or take advantage of the loan program. I would be most hopeful this could be included in this program. I would heartily support that provision.

Mrs. GREEN. On page 5 of your bill you have the formula for distribution, one-half allotted among the States on the basis of school population and the other half allotted in equal shares.

You include enrollment in private and public schools?

Mr. ULLMAN. This is my intention, Madam Chairman. I personally feel that this is the most equitable way of making the distribution. I know there are two points of view on this important problem, but this is my personal point of view.

Mrs. GREEN. Have you a chart available showing how much would go to each State within the $200 million?

Mr. ULLMAN. Yes, Madam Chairman, I have. If I do not have it with me I wish you would permit me to send it to you.

Mrs. GREEN. I would ask it be made part of the record at this point.

(The information requested follows:)