painstaking care and efforts, and the time and energy, obviously taken or devoted by each one of them in order to become completely familiar with and resolve properly the many and sensitive problems facing higher education today, and the able, thorough, and understanding manner in which the hearings on H.R. 3266 have been conducted. It is difficult adequately to indicate how heartwarming it was to observe such a fine example of constructive statesmanship as the hearings and the preparations for them have represented.

We would therefore hope very much that the presentation of our statement in this form, rather than in oral testimony, will not be construed as due to any lack of appreciation of the efforts of the subcommittee on behalf of higher education. The very contrary is true. Unfortunately, the bill was not available to us in time for the association to be prepared for extended discussion of our position in respect to specific provisions of the bill itself, with the exception of the question raised in the following paragraphs:

There is one respect in which we do have a definitive position in regard to the provisions of the bill in its present form, and I refer specifically to Title IIScholarships for College Students. Essentially, our concern arises from the fact that unlike title I (Loans for Construction of Academic Facilities), the scholarship program is proposed for enactment as an amendment to the National Defense Education Act of 1958. This, of course, makes applicable automatically to title II the various provisions of that act, although such provisions were enacted in a different context.

As an immediate example, the declaration of policy in the National Defense Education Act (sec. 101) would seem to indicate a considerably more restrictive purpose than the findings and declaration of policy of H.R. 5266. This may provide an undesirably restrictive and unintended coloration in the administration of the provisions of the scholarship program and also in its consideration in the future by the Congress itself. As another example, there may be some question as to whether the definition of “institution of higher education" developed for the purposes of the National Defense Education Act and in the context of loan aid (I have in mind, for example, its inclusion of "any private business school or technical institution"), is appropriate for scholarship aid, particularly as supplemented by the grant-in-aid cost of education allowance of section 228 of H.R. 5266.

Perhaps this whole matter is most sharply pointed up, however, by the fact that the enactment of the scholarship aid program as a title of the National Defense Education Act would sub silentio make applicable the disclaimer affidavit provision of clause 1 of section 1001 (f) of the National Defense Education Act. As you know this association has, as has also the community of higher education generally, strongly opposed this requirement as being undesirable in principle, inconsistent with the basic objectives, and constitutional concepts of our American heritage, productive of distrust of Government aids, and unfair to our young people who make up our college and university student community. We must object strenuously and vigorously to this kind of extension of such a requirement.

We hope and urge very much that in connection with the consideration later in this session of the proposed extension of the National Defense Education Act, your committee will recommend, and the Congress will enact, a repeal of the disclaimer affidavit requirement with respect to present programs under the National Defense Education Act. We appreciate, however, that it may not be legislatively appropriate to attempt a general repeal of that requirement in connection with the consideration of H.R. 5266. But it would seem to us in turn that the very considerations that may make it inappropriate through H.R. 5266 to attempt a general repeal of the disclaimer affidavit requirement, likewise make it inappropriate, purely because of the accident of the technical form that the bill will take in its codification subsequent to enactment, to extend a provision as unsound, and in any event as admittedly controversial, as the affidavit requirement.

We would, therefore, recommend that title II of H.R. 5266 follow the same form as title I, and that as codified it remain part of the Academic Facilities [and Scholarship] Act of 1961, rather than be made a part of the National Defense Education Act. If this proves impossible, we urge strongly that there be included in the proposed title II a provision to the effect that "The provisions of clause 1 of section 1001 (f) of the [National Defense Education] Act shall not apply to this title."

I would be less than frank, however, if I did not indicate also in this statement that a main basis of concern of the association with respect to H.R. 5266,

especially in the context of bills and proposals generally for Federal aid to education, is the issue of separation of church and state. In large degree, this concern stems from the fact that to the association this issue involves considerably more than purely legalistic implications or considerations. The question, as we see it, goes rather to the very roots of our constitutional system and political and social philosophy. It is significant to the association that the principle involved was selected by the Founding Fathers to lead the entire list of the fundamental principles and objectives constituting our Bill of Rights.

The delicate task of balancing this basic part of our tradition against the urgency of the need for aid to education has not been made easier by two additional considerations:

First. That experience, both generally and specifically with respect to Federal aids to education, has emphasized the substantial risks involved in developing and testing proposed action or programs in the limited context only of their own acceptability or desirability. The invitation that such aid programs present, and the strength they provide, for pressures for their extension or expansion in respects, and to areas, that are questionable and troublesome, also requires effective consideration.

Second. That experience, again both generally and in the specific context of Federal-aid to education, has indicated that the absence of legal challenges and adverse court decisions with respect to Federal financial aid programs can and has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. Such absence may be and often is simply due to the inability to test out such issues because of Frothingham v. Mellon, (262 U.S. 447), the 1923 case, which severely limited, if it does not in some cases prevent altogether, the possibilities for testing out the constitutionality of Federal aid programs. This is, of course, in distinct contrast to the situation in regard to State financial aids, as indicated by the decision just this past January by the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont, which held violative of the Federal Constitution, local tuition aid to students attending parochial high schools, even though public high school facilities were not being provided (Swart v. South Burlington Town School District, 167 Atl. 2d 514 (1961)).

We are, of course, aware of the great pains that have been taken in connection with H.R. 5266 and other administration bills to eliminate every possible objection to constitutionality, in order that there may be provided the urgently needed aid for education. I can tell you in all sincerity that we are deeply grateful for this. But I must in equal sincerity indicate the deep concern of the association resulting from the suggestion that apparently has been advanced with respect to the whole area of Federal aids to education, including presumably HR. 5266 and proposals that have been made for its amendment: That the constitutional issues are "debatable" and therefore for judicial consideration only. The issues are altogether too fundamental and the stakes too high to be treated in this way, and the Frothingham rule may in any case place the essential burden and responsibilty on the legislature. We can assure you of the complete support of the association in the giving of full recognition to this responsibility.

In closing let me reiterate my deep appreciation of your interest, and that of your entire subcommittee, in the problems of higher education. It goes without saying that we would be very glad to be of whatever assistance that we can in connection with H.R. 5266 or in any other way.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM P. FIDLER.

STATEMENT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States appreciates the opportunity to submit its views to the special Subcommittee on Education of the House Education and Labor Committee on higher education programs proposed under H.R. 5266.

The chamber's views on these proposals are based in part on the much larger total program in education that has been proposed by the administration, which would, we believe, materially alter the course of American education and cause the Federal Government to assume a major responsibility for directing manpower development in this Nation.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States recognizes the current importance of higher education and the need for business firms to assist colleges and universities in meeting the higher costs of rapidly increasing enrollments.

67829-61--20

The chamber believes, however, that the private sector of our economy and the State and community governments of the Nation can continue to finance institutions of higher education for all young people who have the ability and desire to continue their education beyond the secondary level.

While the programs proposed under title I and II of H.R. 5266 would authorize assistance in entirely different activities in the field of higher education, there are certain common assumptions underlying both proposals which presume to justify the differing types of assistance. It is assumed that a significant proportion of American youth who desire to and should continue their education beyond high school are now unable to do so because of either (a) their inability to finance such education or (b) the lack of college facilities in which to give them higher educational instruction.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that neither assumption is sound. On the contrary, the sheer volume of enrollment in institutions of higher education reveals that a higher proportion of American youth are continuing their education than in any other nation on earth. Even more important and uniquely American is the fact that this immense enrollment in higher education is being voluntarily undertaken by young people. Their desire for such continued training is demonstrated by the fact that over half of them are partially, and a seventh of them totally, self-sufficient in financing their higher education.

Multiple applications by high school seniors for admission to as many as 8 to 10 institutions continue to confuse the availability of educational opportunity. There are, indeed, many of the big name institutions, as in the Ivy League or the Big Ten universities, where increasingly selective measures have been instituted and many applications for admission have been rejected for diverse reasons. The pressure to get into such name institutions should not obscure the fact that literally hundreds of smaller institutions, both public and private, could accommodate far more students than are now enrolled in them. Some of the latter even have established publicity campaigns and have expanded their program of student loans and scholarships in the hope of attracting larger enrollments especially among the more brilliant students. While graduate and professional schools may currently need to be expanded, this is being accomplished by present private, State, and Federal programs. It is yet to be demonstrated, however, that local undergraduate opportunities in higher education are not keeping pace with the demand for admissions by American youth. On the contrary, many scholarships and loan funds now available to young people for this purpose are going unused. At the same time, Philip H. Coombs, program director of the education program, the Ford Foundation, recently noted the tremendous waste in current utilization of both faculties and facilities of higher education, quoting a survey of colleges and universities which "revealed that, on the basis of a 44-hour week, classrooms were used only 46 percent of the time (25 percent when measured in terms of pupil stations) and their laboratories only 38 percent of capacity." There is, therefore, in the opinion of the chamber, no justification for the assumption that Federal scholarships are needed or that the expansion of instructional facilities is not keeping pace with the undergraduate needs of higher education.

One less obvious assumption underlying this legislation should, we believe, be more clearly understood. The assertion is often made that a third of our American young people with above average ability do not go to college, with the inference that all or most of them should. The national chamber believes this to be fallacious, for it assumes that all of these young people will desire a college education and would profit more from it than from other courses of action they are now choosing to pursue. The fact is that we have always had and should continue to have large numbers of men and women of above average mentality in vocations which do not require a college degree; and conversely that there are many approaches to manpower development for vocations in the trades and in the business world other than the college campus. It has yet to be demonstrated that any American youth of high ability who has a sincere desire to continue his or her education is unable to do so. Educators have repeatedly indicated that the lack of desire to attend college and preference for immediate pursuit of some trade or technical vocation (or for marriage) amounts for the bulk of the quoted one-third of above average youth not attending a college.

While the chamber does not believe that conditions exist in higher education which H.R. 5266 assumes to justify the Federal scholarship program and loans for construction of academic facilities, it is even more concerned about the consequences that such programs would cause.

First of all, the responsibility and power that would be concentrated in the Office of Education and the judgments that would be required of the Commissioner of Education would constitute a centralization of authority about the course of higher education. The judgments required under section 103 by the Commissioner, the authority over the conditions of construction provided under section 104, through the Davis-Bacon Act, and his power to inspect and set fees for inspections, including audits, and under section 105, to make agreements to pay Federal funds in lieu of taxes, and generally to prescribe rules and regulations "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law" would give the Commissioner virtually dictatorial powers of use of loans for construction authorized by title I.

Similarly, under title II, the power of the Commissioner to regulate and control the conditions for paying scholarships and to control methods of selection of individuals to receive scholarships is virtually unlimited. We might ask upon which basis the Commissioner would find that State plans provided "reasonable assurance" as provided in section 226-a, that the individuals selected under diverse State plans were able to pursue successfully the course of studies leading to a bachelor's degree, and upon what basis would the Commissioner find "reasonable assurance" that the amount of each individual scholarship by a State commission was determined "solely on his need" for financial assistance. It is well known, for example, that officials in the Office of Education charged with preparing drafts of this bill differed fundamentally on the question of whether a Federal testing program with State quotas should be authorized as a part of the Federal scholarship program or whether the methods of selection and the definitions of need should be left to the State commissions required by the legislation. Whichever way may be chosen, the end result will presumably be the same, because great injustice either within the State or between the States will result from widely differing methods of selection. The degree of injustice which will eventuate from this proposal, if enacted, will depend upon the degree of dictation undertaken by the agencies administrating the law. Here is another illustration of the oft-quoted assertion of the late Senator Taft in regard to Federal assistance in education; namely, that "Federal aid means control or waste, there is no middle ground."

A second undesirable consequence of this legislation would stem from the specific direction under section 226 (a) (2) (A) that the estimate of an applicant's need for financial assistance "shall be determined without regard to tuition, fees, and other expenses of attendance in the particular institution of higher education chosen by the individual." That language completely removes the question of the cost of higher education from the definition of need for assistance. This, in fact, constitutes a Federal decision in the continuing controversy among higher education authorities about the extent to which tuition and fees should cover instructional costs of higher education. If the present Federal scholarship proposals under title II become law, it will presage the further decline of private higher education and the removal of responsibility from the individual for payment of the instructional costs of higher education. It will signify a decision from which there is no turning back-that higher education will be increasingly the responsibility of the State and Federal Government and not of the individual seeking the education. In other words, enactment of the legislation would accelerate the trend already evident in higher education to diminish the diversity and experimentation inherent in private enterprises in higher education.

A third potential consequence of this legislation stems from the Federal and State bureaucracy that must be established in administrating the scholarship program which it envisions. The National Defense Education Act has already shown the undesirable consequences of federally made decisions about the emphasis which should be given to the various academic disciplines. While the proposed legislation makes no mention of any preference to be given the scholars in any one field of endeavor, it authorizes establishment of a mechanism which could regulate and plan manpower development in this country whenever any subsequent Congress found it desirable to do so. This planning of manpower development could be either directly authorized, as in the NDEA's emphasis on scientific manpower, or could be indirectly introduced into the mechanism through the selection processes which would already be under the control of the Commissioner of Education and the State commissions to be set up. If the recent trend in this country toward increasingly centralized decisionmaking eventuates into an even greater amount of planning of the economy in Washington, a natural corollary to such centralized planning will be that of

identifying the manpower needed for the desired economy. This relationship between centralized influence on higher education and centralized planning of economic growth is already very much apparent in European countries. It is the basis of the Russian quota system for each faculty of every university and institute with the examination questions centrally prepared for applicants, and with overall quotas for each professional or technical vocation prescribed in the total higher educational scheme. Planned manpower development thus eventuates from Federal assumption of responsibility for the total socioeconomic growth of the Nation. This legislation could be the forerunner to such a development in American education.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, therefore, respectfully urges members of this committee not to approve H.R. 5266 because (1) no need for either program authorized in this legislation has been demonstrated, and (2) its enactment would constitute a critical step toward Federal direction of the course of American higher education. Our colleges and universities have thus far been controlled by diverse State, community, and private judgments, and through the latter, academic freedom has long been maintained in this country. The chamber seeks to keep it so.

In the event that the scholarships authorized in the present bill are converted into an expansion of the present loan program under title II of the National Defense Education Act, the forgiveness of up to one-half of the loans authorized for 5 years of teaching after graduation should be extended to all levels of education in both public and private institutions of learning that are fully accredited.

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN NURSES' ASSOCIATION

The American Nurses' Association, the national organization representing 171,000 registered professional nurses, is fully in agreement with the principle of providing Federal assistance to qualified students and to institutions of higher education. In accordance with this principle, we support the proposal embodied in H.R. 5266.

The nursing profession, along with other professions, has a great stake in the standard of education in this country. One of the major purposes of the American Nurses' Association is to improve the practice of nursing. To accomplish this goal, we must improve the educational programs which prepare nurse practitioners.

Although a limited number of programs of nursing education within institutions of higher education would share in the benefit of any action taken by this Congress to strengthen these institutions, the acute shortage of nurse leaders and the public service aspects of nursing require much more specific and more extensive Federal aid.

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Democrat, of Minnesota, and Representative Harley O. Staggers, Democrat, of West Virginia, have recently introduced legislation to fill the gap in qualified nurse practitioners by providing Federal support for construction, instruction, and scholarships in basic collegiate programs in nursing.

Nurse graduates from degree programs constitute the reservoir from which are drawn the future administrators, supervisors, teachers, consultants, and expert practitioners. Any improvement in the quality of nursing care is, therefore, largely dependent on the adequacy of baccalaureate education in nursing.

Current communications from collegiate schools of nursing all convey the urgent need for immediate action to provide Federal funds to improve and expand baccalaureate programs in nursing and to provide scholarships to qualified nurse candidates.

The problem is especially serious in depressed economic areas where, at the beginning of the 1960-61 academic year, well-qualified applicants could not enroll in collegiate programs in nursing because of the lack of funds and because scholarship aid for nursing students, compared with that available to other college students, is practically nonexistent.

The American Nurses' Association is heartened by the current congressional interest in higher education. We urge the enactment in this session of Congress of legislation to provide Federal support to meet the critical educational needs of this Nation.