Mrs. GREEN. On page 6 I notice that you specify that priority be given to those communities of a State which are geographically removed from other State colleges or universities.

Mr. ULLMAN. Yes, we have included this in the bill, in part to point up the desirability of bringing higher education within commuting distance of people.

This has met with some question among some in the more populated States where they feel that the community colleges should be developed where they are needed, and sometimes side by side with an institution of higher learning.

I am not opposed to this because I think they do have a unique function, as I have said, and that they can adequately meet that unique function even though they are side by side with a 4-year institution, and I would not object to the modification of this language. But I still believe very strongly in the concept of distribution of education rather than concentration of many institutions in one area. We have too much of that.

One of the unique advantages of community colleges particularly, and I refer again to California, and it is true in other States is that junior colleges are available on a commuting basis to almost every high school graduate in the State.

This goes side by side with my fundamental belief that within a few years, at the most 10 years, a 2-year college degree will be as mandatory as a high school diploma is today in order to move out into the economic and professional life of our country.

One of the things that would make this impossible is the tremendous burden of cost in higher education.

I know, I have a high school senior going to college next year. Someone said having a girl in college is something like being cleaned out in the stock market. This is certainly true in most of our higher educational institutions today.

We must somehow break that cost barrier by making education available so that the average American can take advantage of it. I would envisage a 2-year program where you do not have tuition, similar to our high school program today. This is the situation in California today.

In the beginning I recognize that this is perhaps not possible, but looking ahead 10 years I would think that it would be within the realm of possibility in our American society to provide that kind of higher educational opportunity and to locate these colleges within commuting distance of the graduating senior.

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Giaimo?

Mr. GIAIMO. You speak of the fact there may be some necessity for a mandatory or quasi-mandatory 2-year junior college preparatory to going out into the business world in a few years. Do you feel part of this is due to a deterioration of some sort in our high school education?

Mr. ULLMAN. No, on the contrary. I think our secondary schools are coming along, not as rapidly as I would like to see them, but they are filling their need.

In a discussion of this matter with junior college presidents the other day when they had a convention here in Washington, we talked about this very matter.

I feel that different functions are performed by the high school and the junior college. The high school function is to carry forward a broad educational program. I feel when you jump the gap and get into college this is when you define the objectives of the particular student in terms of his capacities, and this is the job that the 2-year college must perform. Their job is to find out, through guidance and personal contact, what individual capacities are, and channel them either into academic training or into subprofessional training. I feel that the high schools cannot accomplish that. I feel their purpose is to go forward the full length with the broad education. Mr. GIAIMO. Yet was that not the particular function of the high school at one time?

Mr. ULLMAN. It may have been, but in the kind of society in which we are living today, with education such a vastly more important aspect then it was 50 or 100 years ago, I think it is very essential that all individuals have the broad background that a high school education can offer, and then beyond the high school education we should get into specialization.

Mr. GIAIMO. Thank you.

Mr. GOODELL. Do I take it you prefer the method of financing through matching grants or matching loans?

Mr. ULLMAN. I have stated I am in accord with the loan program, but I feel it does not serve the total purpose. I pointed out that it is not applicable to many junior colleges throughout the country, and that we need also a matching grant program if we are to get the job done, and I think we must go forward all the way in the field of higher education.

Mr. GOODELL. I understand you feel we should direct more funds into the junior college level, or make them available at that level, in the form of grants. You do feel in doing that it should be a matching program?

Mr. ULLMAN. Absolutely. The concept of this program also is this: The State must work up a junior college, a community college program for the State that is acceptable to the secretary, then carry the program forward on a matching dollar-for-dollar basis.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I would quarrel with you that the members of this committee are as learned as you seem to feel about the community college program. We do not have very many in my State, for example, and I am wondering where most of these junior community colleges are located.

Is it not true that most of them are along the west coast of the United States?

Mr. ULLMAN. No, this is not true.

Mr. GOODELL. We have an awful lot of them in New York State, I might say to the gentleman.

Mr. ULLMAN. They exist in practically every State in the Union. I think your State, Mr. Brademas, has a little different concept than most other States. We discussed it the other day, as a matter of fact, down at the meeting of junior colleges.

In the hearings before this committee in the last Congress there is a list of junior colleges in various States of the Union. You will find they are rather widely spread throughout all the States.

67829-61--15

Mr. BRADEMAS. Have you any idea, and this may be difficult for you to answer offhand, of the percentage of students in community colleges in the United States as compared with the percentage of students in 4-year colleges?

Mr. ULLMAN. I do not have those figures, but approximately 25 percent of the entering freshmen in the 50 States now enter the 2-year junior colleges.

I might say, and it is stated in my prepared testimony, that some of the leading educators in the country now are hoping that can be raised to 50 percent as a goal within the next few years.

Mr. BRADEMAS. If your bill were to become law, as I understand it, funds could go for the construction of new community colleges as well as for assistance to existing ones?

Mr. ULLMAN. That is correct.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Your bill provides for grants for community colleges. Yesterday before this subcommittee we had a parade of distinguished educators complaining about the fact that the bill before our committee, the President's proposal, provides no grants at all for 4-year colleges but provides only for loans.

Is it not a little optimistic to try to get money for community colleges which have not yet, I think it is fair to say, made so great an impact on our country as have 4-year institutions when we cannot move quickly enough to get grants for 4-year institutions?

Mr. ULLMAN. Of course, I am an optimist when it comes to this program.

I feel that the junior college program is moving ahead much more rapidly today than the 4-year college program because it is filling what I consider to be a great gap in higher education.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Congressman Ullman, for your very helpful and interesting ideas.

Mr. SMITH. You do not visualize there is any conflict at all between your proposal and the proposal of the administration on scholarships? Mr. ULLMAN. Absolutely not. They go side by side.

Mr. SMITH. I happen to be a member of the unemployment committee which is looking into the problems caused by automation. It has been rather revealing to me to hear some of these witnesses estimate that in 20 years or so perhaps a person with a high school education will be in the category of what we call unskilled labor.

What you are trying to do is to look ahead a little bit as to the labor requirements of the future.

Mr. ULLMAN. That is right. I feel if you analyze the educational systems around the world in the developing societies you will find that most of them are moving forward to fill this gap in technical and subprofessional training.

For instance, almost half of the Russian educational effort is going in the direction of subprofessional and professional technical training. We simply are not getting that job done.

In an industrial society I think that it is urgent that we move out in that direction. This is the method, it seems to me, we should be using to fill that gap in American education.

Mr. SMITH. I know we found, also, that the potential in the way of new machines is so great that a person may train himself on a machine today, and the new machine 15 years from now is completely different.

He has to have a background necessary to shift to another type of employment. I assume you are working toward this?

Mr. ULLMAN. That is absolutely right, yes.

Mr. SMITH. That is all, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Congressman Ullman.
Mr. ULLMAN. Thank you for your courtesy.

Mrs. GREEN. The next witness is Congressman Van Zandt, who has introduced H.R. 4361.

We are very pleased to have you come before us.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. VAN ZANDT. I am James E. Van Zandt, Representative from the State of Pennsylvania's 20th District.

I have with me this morning Mr. E. L. Keller, the director of continuing education for the Pennsylvania State University. While he may not like what I am going to say, I am going to introduce him as the expert in this field.

I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague from Oregon on her excellent bill to aid institutions of higher education in financing the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of their academic facilities. At the same time, I should like to suggest two changes that would, if approved by this subcommittee and the Congress, make it possible for the Federal Government to provide aid to exactly those institutions in most need of it in our country today.

It is, I believe, fully established that much of the expansion that must take place in higher education within the next few years will have to be made within the framework of the public 2-year college. The establishment of such institutions is an extremely difficult matter, involving special problems not only of financing but also of developing satisfactory instructional programs, adequate facilities, academic accreditation, and public acceptability. All these problems are often met most easily and satisfactorily when the new institution is established as a branch of an established 4-year public institution within the State. This fact, I believe, has been proved through the record of such institutions not only in my own State of Pennsylvania but also in Ohio, Indiana, and other States.

Further, there exists today and has existed for several years a shortage of engineering aids and semiprofessional employees to help staff our industrial and economic machinery. To satisfy this need, many 2-year institutions have developed terminal associate degree programs whose graduates today number in the tens of thousands. For the health of our defense effort, as well as for that of our economy in general, the development of this type of program needs to be encouraged. I might add parenthetically that Russia has evidently understood the need for this type of personnel. In 1959, some 3,500 Russian institutions of this sort produced 250,000 graduates. During the same year, only 16,000 associate degrees of this sort were awarded in the United States. By the very nature of the type of work involved, these programs must include certain specialized subject matter that is not necessarily applicable for transfer toward a bachelor's degree.

Because this is true, the type of institution offering this sort of academic collegiate program is not eligible for aid under the terms of H.R. 5266 as presently worded. In order to correct this deficiency, I suggest that section 106 (e) (3) of Mrs. Green's bill be changed so that the term "institution of higher education" is defined, in part as one that "provides an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree, or provides not less than a 2-year program in higher education for which it awards an associate degree or a recognized equivalent certificate or which is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree."

Further, because of the special needs of education at the 2-year level, for the establishment and expansion both of associate degree programs and of branch colleges, I should like to suggest that parts A and B of title XI of H.R. 4361, a bill that I introduced February 15, 1961, to amend the National Defense Education Act, be incorporated as title III in H.R. 5266. This incorporation would provide the special encouragement necessary to stimulate the development of the type of programs most urgently needed in American higher education today.

Madam Chairman, I would like to insert in the record at this point title XI as it is written in my bill, parts A and B. That concludes my statement.

(The bill referred to follows:)

"TITLE XI-TWO YEAR PROGRAMS

"PART A-BRANCH COLLEGES

"APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED

"SEC. 1101. For the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to enter into contracts with public institutions of higher education for the establishment or expansion, and operation of two year branch colleges, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962; $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963; $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964; and $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965.

"CONTRACTS

"SEC. 1102 (a) The Commissioner is authorized to arrange through contracts with public institutions of higher education for the establishment or expansion, and operation by such institutions, during the period beginning July 1, 1961, and ending with the close of June 30, 1965, of two year branch colleges offering programs of study in engineering, the physical and natural sciences, and such technological subjects as he may determine.

"(b) Any such contract may cover not more than 50 per centum of the cost of the establishment and operation of the two year branch college with respect to which it is made, or, in the case of a two year branch college in being on the date of enactment of this title, such contract may cover not more than 50 per centum (1) of the cost of expanding the program offered in such college, and (2) of the cost of operation attributable to such expanded program.. Such cost may include salaries of teaching and administrative personnel, the cost of material and equipment used in classrooms and laboratories which are utilized exclusively by such two year branch college, and the cost of minor remodeling determined by the Commissioner to be necessary to accommodate any such material or equipment.