Mrs. GREEN. I am glad you brought that out. Item 3 provides not less than a 2-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree. Do all the junior colleges meet this? Mr. ASHMORE. No, in the sense that some of the technical institutes, the two-year technical institute which is an extension of high school work, would not necessarily be giving a course which would lead to a baccalaureate degree. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. This concludes the hearings on H.R. 5266. We will hope to start marking up the bill next week. (Additional statement of Mrs. Green :) I am pleased to submit for the record letters I have received from higher education officials in Oregon relative to H.R. 5266. The letters are from Chancellor John R. Richards of the Oregon State System of Higher Education; President A. L. Strand of Oregon State College; President Branford P. Millar of Portland State College; President R. E. Lieuallen of the Oregon College of Education; and President Frank B. Bennett of Eastern Oregon College. (The following material was submitted for the record:) Hon. EDITH GREEN, OREGON STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, House Committee on Education and Labor, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Eugene, Oreg., March 17, 1961. DEAR EDITH: This letter is sent to reinforce the communication sent to you on March 10 by David D. Henry, president of the University of Illinois and chairman of the American Council on Education. I cannot improve upon President Henry's words in this respect so take the liberty here of repeating his last paragraph verbatim: "For the first time in history, there is broad acceptance within higher education that grants for facilities are the first need and that they are needed quickly. It would be ironic, if not tragic, if this professional opinion were ignored and millions appropriated for scholarships for individuals most of whom will get to some college without scholarship help. The issue of facilities is so vital we should let the courts decide, not our conjecture as to what they might decide. Further, we must not be deceived into thinking that aid to individuals is aid to the institutions." Sincerely. Hon. EDITH GREEN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. JOHN R. RICHMOND, Chancellor. OREGON STATE COLLEGE, Corvallis, Oreg., March 23, 1961. DEAR MRS. GREEN: I have received H.R. 5266 which provides for college academic facilities and scholarships. The loan provisions of this bill would doubtless aid many institutions all right, but do not fit the Oregon situation very well. The State system can borrow construction funds for self-liquidating buildings. For classroom and laboratories the financing would have to be out of the student building fee. Although such fees at the present time are pretty well obligated, when enrollments increase during the next few years our building-fee resources will go up sharply. Between facilities and scholarships, it seems to me that the former are more important at this time. Sooner or later, some significant aid in the form of outright grants for facilities will become necessary. To have the facilities by the time they are needed, however, implies an understanding on the part of the people and legislators which I am afraid does not yet obtain-in spite of all the pertinent data developed by the institutions and such organizations as the American Council on Education. The council has been plugging away at thi since 1953 when the demographic evidence first became available. As for Federal legislation pertaining to facilities, scholarships, etc., we are pretty much in agreement with the recommendations of the following organizations in which we hold membership: American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities, Russell I. Thackery, executive secretary, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. National Association of State Universities, Charles P. McCurdy, Jr., secretary, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. American Council on Education, Logan Wilson, president, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. These organizations, with which I am sure you are familiar, speak for the great majority of institutions and their testimony carries great weight, or should. The ACE includes many private institutions, of course, but the council and the other two organizations hold to very much the same ideas and policies. A good many of us are not very enthusiastic about any large Federal scholarship program unless preceded by measures that would bring up our physical facilities to a fair degree of adequacy to carry the load. The whole problem of education and Federal aid is beset with difficulties which Members of the Congress have reason to realize far more than any of the rest of us, but with the sincerity of purpose that obtains in the present Congress I'm sure some great good for all education will come about. Sincerely yours, A. L. STRAND, President. PORTLAND STATE COLLEGE, Portland, Oreg., March 28, 1961. Hon. EDITH GREEN, Old House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MRS. GREEN: I am grateful to you for sending me a copy of H.R. 5266 concerning Federal assistance for academic facilities and undergraduate scholarships. I would like to take the opportunity to make some comments which might be of interest to you and the Special Subcommittee on Education. I will not comment on the feasibility of fiscal arrangements, since these are properly the concern of the office of the chancellor of the State system of higher education. My comments will be of a more general nature concerning the educational problems involved. What seems to me perhaps most significant about your proposed bill is that it is not subject to some of the most difficult questions involved in Federal aid to higher education. Along with the preponderance of educators I am not concerned about undue Federal influence or interference in educational policiesthe record here is quite excellent, probably more uniformly so than in the case of State and local governments or private sources. Of serious concern, however, is the great impact of Federal aid in supporting certain areas to the neglect of others. Like many educators, I consider that the whole question of the numerous sources and kinds of Federal aid seriously needs review for its impact on the total educational enterprise and especially for the encouragement of an imbalance within scientific studies as well as an imbalance between science and other studies. Nevertheless, it seems to me that problems of this nature are not essentially involved in the construction of academic and related facilities, as proposed in your bill. Practically all colleges need them now and will need more of them in the very near future. Such facilities are least subject to ideological or educational controversy. They are also less susceptible to the danger of the creation or encouragement of academic imbalance, since decisions as to balance of need will be made by the institutions themselves, which in this case may have the opportunity to build facilities of a kind for which Federal subsidy has not previously been available to them. It will be their choice of what facilities they need assistance for. A similar situation exists in respect to the scholarships proposed. First, though, a word about the need for scholarships. The cost of education has risen in the last few years faster than average incomes or the cost of living. The upper income class can afford higher education; the middle income has not yet been priced out but is being squeezed; the lower income group is threatened. At the same time, however, society's need for higher education is rapidly and continuously increasing because of the increasing complexity of all subjects of knowledge and their practical application. The need for unskilled labor is reducing proportionally; the greatest deficiencies are in the top professional areas; between the two extremes, educational requirements are continuously increasing. It is necessary for this country to educate in depth of numbers, and to draw competence from all social quarters, both for vocational needs and for continuing awareness of the complex issues which individual citizens in society daily live with. By authorizing undergraduate scholarships which extend the opportunities for education on the basis of ability and need, the Federal Government would assist by one of the best possible means, that is, by encouraging individuals, regardless of their specific beliefs or particular educational goals. Here again, it seems to me that the aid proposed is least controversial in disowning the principle of assistance on any other grounds but need and ability. Here again there is neither undesirable Federal control of persons or educational aims and policies, nor the encouragement of academic imbalance by favoring students in particular subjects. Students will then gravitate toward those subjects in which they have greatest interest and ability, and there will not be a discouraging of interest in vital subjects such as the humanities and social studies which might otherwise be unduly neglected if emphasis were continued to be put on immediate or apparent needs predetermined at the moment as being especially in the national interest. In the judgment of many educators, the undue Federal attention to certain subject matter areas not only encourages an intellectual imbalance, but actually in the long run does not provide the best means for eliciting the best scientists or other specific personnel. The present act again, in my judgment, strikes the proper note. I have observed that spokesmen for the American Council of Education, the Association of American Colleges, the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities, and the State Universities Association, as well as former Secretary Flemming, have urged certain amendments to the bill, chiefly advocating (1) an alternative of loans or matching grants for academic facilities, and (2) the allocation of scholarship funds directly to institutions for administration. I have no strong feelings myself on either of these recommendations. In Oregon as in many other States, I believe that it might be difficult for public institutions to borrow for academic facilities, though the chancellor of the State system of higher education can provide information to this point. Concerning scholarships, we do have, of course, in Oregon a State scholarship commission with successful experience. The current legislature has under consideration an augmented program for a limited number of scholarships to individuals attending colleges of their choice, public or private. Nevertheless, whatever my own feelings and the situation in Oregon, I am inclined to consider very seriously the suggestions of these associations and officials, since their views have been generated over a period of time after extensive consultation among their constituents. In conclusion I want to say that I think the bill represents an altogether wise and farsighted purpose and program. It not only fulfills a need, but it also dramatizes it-signifying that our colleges and college-educated people are a matter of highest national concern. It is to be hoped that State, local, and private sources will be stimulated by the provisions of the bill to increase their efforts in support of higher education. I congratulate you for your part in devising and introducing the act. I wish for its success and hope you will call on me if there is any way in which I can be of assistance. Sincerely yours, BRANFORD P. MILLAR, President. OREGON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, Hon. EDITH GREEN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, DEAR EDITH: Receiving a copy of Chancellor Richard's letter to you dated March 17 prompts me to add my support to the position which he takes. For some weeks I have been concerned by the indications that Federal support for education will fail to include matching grants for construction of higher education facilities. The extreme reluctance of our State legislature to appropriate funds for needed facilities here in Oregon convinces me that adequate facilities will be provided only if Federal help is forthcoming. Despite the facts that (1) faculty office space is most inadequate, (2) we are now at the optimum level of classroom utilization established by the board of higher education, (3) the addition of new programs, so essential to a growing teacher education institution, is being hampered by lack of physical space, and (4) enrollment will continue to increase at a rapid rate, no additional building is programed for Oregon College of Education during the next three bienniums. The prospect that we will have no additional physical facilities during that period is almost appalling. Any support you may be able to give to a proposal to provide matching grants for the construction of physical facilities for higher educational institutions will be deeply appreciated. Sincerely yours, R. E. LIEUALLEN, President. EASTERN OREGON COLLEGE, La Grande, Oreg., March 23, 1961. Hon. EDITH GREEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR EDITH: I have your memo relative to H.R. 5266. I have been delighted with the strong stand President Kennedy has taken in support of public education and I am encouraged by the constant pressure and leadership you personally have maintained in the interest of education. If I understand this particular bill correctly, in the first instance it will provide the possibilities of Federal loans to schools of higher education for construction on a basis of 75 percent loan against 25 percent firm money provided from other funds than Federal loan; and in the second place, it would make money available for scholarships to deserving and needy students to be used at either private or public colleges. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the bill. If my interpretation is correct, the first part of the bill (on loans for construction) would provide help to private schools. Even though public colleges were eligible for such loans, I think it unlikely that the legislatures would use this means to relieve the plight of the public colleges. To make use of the loan potential would necessitate a grant of 25 percent of the needed amount from the State to qualify for the Federal loan and, as things stand, I fear the Oregon Legislature would not see fit to use this source of funds. I suppose it would be an unrealistic suggestion, but I have wondered if grants might be made to State schools on a grant basis rather than a loan basis. I realize that grants cannot be made to private schools because of the constitutional factor. However, the proposed loan program could be used by them. This would strengthen and relieve the State institutions which will have to carry the greater burden of providing for additional college student housing ahead. It would at the same time provide relief on the loan basis to the private schools and would tend to materially strengthen their position. I generally concur with the second part of the bill which makes scholarships available for use at either private or public schools by needy and deserving students. This can be a very proper approach and very helpful. I would caution that as a considerable amount of this is done, a great deal will need to be done in the way of new school construction to take care of the increasing number of students already anticipated plus additional ones that may be encouraged to come by the impact of the scholarship emphasis. Sincerely yours, FRANK B. BENNETT, President. (Additional statements submitted follow :) STATEMENT OF HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY I appreciate this opportunity to make a brief statement in support of my bill to establish Federal scholarships for qualified college students. It has been estimated that at least 100,000 high school graduates, of college caliber, fail to continue their education every year solely because they are financially unable to do so. It is this immense waste of human potential to which my bill, and the others before this committee, are directed. It has become a truism to state that education is our first line of defense. Our enemies have realized this long before we have. The Soviet Union has spared no effort in this regard and as a result are steadily graduating more scientists, more engineers, and more professional people than we are. If we hope to keep pace with the tremendous technological development currently taking place within the Soviet Union-and indeed we must-then we must also be willing to pay the cost of this development. Surely it cannot be believed that totalitarianism puts a higher premium upon higher education than does democracy. Education is the very lifeblood of our democratic system. We in this country have, indeed, placed all of our faith upon the education, the intelligence, and the understanding of our people. If ours is a government conducted by its citizens, then the Government can only operate if its citizens are responsibly educated and responsibly informed. We have long passed the era where a public school course in civics and a high school's emphasis on American history can meet this need. The complexities of the political process today, and the heavy burden of leadership which this Nation carries, make higher education for as many young people as possible a categorical imperative. What I am suggesting is that we need not only more physicists, more chemists, and more engineers; we need also more minds trained in the humanities. The program which I hope this committee will approve should emphasize all aspects of intellectual growth and achievement. The future of our Nation depends on it; and upon our future depends the very existence of the free world. All these considerations, in my view, make this not a local problem, but a national one. The days have long since gone when we could afford to let our minds lie fallow, if circumstances or inadequate facilities permitted this to take place, to meet the critical needs of the decades to come this Nation will need every trained mind it can possibly produce. It should not be necessary to assert that Federal aid for this purpose will not point to Federal control. The independence of our institutions of higher learning has remained sacrosanct despite the GI bill, and despite the National Defense Education Act. Many colleges and universities, indeed, refused to participate in the latter program because it contained a requirement with which academic leaders disagreed. Surely this is excellent evidence that our institutions of higher learning will brook no interference, even if the Federal Government has this in mind-which, of course, it clearly does not. Before I conclude, I should like to add one brief word about the specifics of this program. My bill is in essence similar to title II of the administration's proposal, introduced by Congresswoman Green. Under my bill, $17,500,000 is authorized for $500 college scholarships during each of the next 4 years. H.R. 5266 raises the authorization to $26,250,000 for the second year, and to $35 million for the third and fourth years. Under the latter bill each student may receive up to $1,000. There are also several administrative differences, of a relatively minor nature, and a provision in the administration bill for payments to the host college or university as well. It will obviously be up to the wisdom of this committee to determine just how much money, in the aggregate as well as for the individual scholarship, is needed. What is most essential, in my opinion, is a recognition of the principle that a national effort is desperately required, that higher education is not a luxury but a fundamental necessity, and that we must have this kind of a program if we are to meet the challenge of totalitarian doctrines as well as the responsibilities of leadership in a chaotic and troubled world. Hon. EDITH S. GREEN, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, Washington, D.C., March 22, 1961. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Education, MY DEAR MRS. GREEN: This letter is in reference to H.R. 5266, the college academic facilities and scholarship bill. First of all, I should like to indicate, on behalf of this association, our deep appreciation of the sympathetic interest indicated by the members of the Special Subcommittee on Education in the problems and needs of higher education, the |