When we had the National Defense Education Act up before us, we had a Federal scholarship program, and the question of whether payment should be made was thoroughly discussed. In the preamble of the bill itself it says that one of the reasons for this thing is to provide or hold out to students the prospect of national recognition of their promise. If you are going to deprive them at the outset from being recognized as National scholars or Federal scholars, it seems to me you are very sharply limiting the usefulness of the legislation.

Mr. RIBICOFF. My feeling is this: We want to educate as many of our youth as possible. I would say that it is a great privilege to go to college. I would say that any parent who has the financial means to send his son or daughter to college should be glad to pay whatever the tuition costs are. I can't imagine any parent making a greater investment for his child, if he has the means, than to send his son or daughter to college.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not talking about that at all, Mr. Secretary, not the dollar amount. It seems to me you have just mistaken entirely what I said. I said I see no reason why someone who is financially able to go to college is deprived of the distinction of being a national student.

Mr. RIBICOFF. This bill would provide for that distinction.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thought you said you would change the language to prevent that.

Mr. RIBICOFF. To make it clear, this bill would provide that that person would receive an appropriate certificate that he was a national scholar.

Now, I think what bothered Mrs. Green, as I understood her question, was that this could be interpeted to mean that the college where this student went received $350, and I think I said to Mrs. Green that we could probably change the language in such a way to clarify any doubt, but a person who passed this examination and didn't need the money would be given a certificate from the commission to the effect that he or she was a national scholar.

Mrs. GREEN. I think I have the floor. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Secretary, I would like to make a suggestion that might be helpful to the Department. I suggest that you take a look at the national scholarship program at Harvard, if it is not out of order to look in that direction this year, and I am sure that my friend from Princeton, Mr. Frelinghuysen, will forgive me. I know that in the national scholarship program at Harvard students may compete for the honor of receiving the scholarship, and if they don't need the money the scholarship is granted without stipend. Perhaps you will find some help in taking a look at that program as you try to work out this not altogether cosmic problem.

Mr. RIBICOFF. This is exactly what we have in mind to do, and therefore I think what you are aiming for, and I think the gentleman from New Jersey is aiming for, will be accomplished. There would be this certificate where this young man or woman would be certified that he was a national scholar even though he did not receive a national stipend.

Mr. FREYLINGHUYSEN. Not the stipend, Mr. Secretary. I agree that the one with no financial need should not get the stipend. I am puzzled by the one who needs some money. Does he get something

less than the $1,000? institution?

Does that result in a pro rata distribution to the

Mr. RIBICOFF. No. The State scholarship commission will make the decision as to what this young man or woman should receive, any amount up to $1,000. Once a scholarship is awarded, irrespective of the sum, the college or university gets $350 with every scholarship. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Could I ask one more question for clarification's sake? I don't mean to pursue it. It seems to me we have confused the two things again. With every stipend, you mean, not every scholarship. If a scholarship went without the stipend, with every award of a stipend, no matter how small, there would be a stipend to the institution?

Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You said scholarship. It is not a scholarship. Mr. RIBICOFF. A scholarship may or may not carry a stipend. If it is not clear, I am sorry.

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Secretary, when the competition is limited to high school seniors, would this encourage a great many to take the examination on the basis that at some future time they might need the money, even though they did not need it at that time? Am I right that if they competed in the examinations and qualified for a scholarship they might not have financial need during the freshman year or during the sophomore year, but during the junior year they might. Now, if they pass up the chance of taking the examination during their senior year, they would pass up the chance of being awarded any money at any time during the 4 years in college.

Mr. RIBICOFF. I would say the intention is that there would be the interpretation of their relative need by the State scholarship commission, but they would have to enter the competition in their senior high school year if they thought that at any time during their 4 college years they might need the money, and then they could apply to the State scholarship commission for an allocation in their junior college year if they didn't need it in their freshman and sophomore year, provided that they qualified competitively as national scholars in their senior year in high school.

Mrs. GREEN. One other question and then I will recognize the gentleman from Connecticut. I remember well the debate on the floor of the House when we were considering the National Defense Education Act that the scholarship title was knocked out of the bill. Has the Department given any consideration to a student returning to his Government some service for the scholarship which he has received? I am thinking specifically of the discussion that is now taking place in regard to a possible Peace Corps here at home, a reverse Peace Corps, that our college graduates might be asked to give 2 years of service with the street gangs of New York or with a settlement house or migrant labor camp, or on an Indian reservation. Has the Department considered asking any return from those students who receive scholarships?

Mr. RIBICOFF. No; they haven't. It is our feeling that we want as large a reservoir of as highly educated people as we can find, and we would imagine that this group of people will be people of all types and all personalities and all characteristics. There are some that automatically will do so and some won't, and it isn't intended that we

start allocating because even some of the services that you might want of them they might not be qualified to give, and you might not want them to be qualified. We do think that ability and knowledge and scholarship is a worthy end in itself.

Mrs. GREEN. The gentlemen from Connecticut.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Secretary, again it is a pleasure to welcome you here, not only as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but as the former great Governor of our State of Connecticut. Is it the intention of the administration or your Department that scholarships shall be available in all areas of accredited education?

Mr. RIBICOFF. The objective is to provide for those who desire to obtain a bachelor's degree.

Mr. GIAIMO. One of the complaints that I have received, and I think that many people have, is the fact that a great impetus was given to the problem of the Federal Government getting into education because of the great advances in scientific progress by the Russians, and because of the fact that education, besides being good in its own right, is necessary for defense purposes. Now, are we going to be limited by this concept?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Well, I would say that what we are doing now is just the opposite. We are not limiting it to any concept. We recognize that education is worthwhile, but education takes many forms. We have programs where we emphasize the sciences and we emphasize languages, but this is a recognition that an educated person is worthwhile for a society to have no matter in what field he or she might choose to spend their lives or what field they might decide to go into. Mr. GIAIMO. Would we be committed to the belief that although it is good to have progress in the scientific fields, it is also necessary to have progress in other educational facilities and training in the liberal arts field?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Absolutely, Congressman Giaimo.

Mr. GIAIMO. I have one other question on the question of loan facilities. I believe you set forth the fact that we would be short $2.9 billion by 1965, and then you mentioned the various building programs, including the housing and domitory programs which are before another committee, and then I believe you concluded by saying that with all that the Federal Government would be paying for only $1 out of every $3 needed by 1966. Is that right?

Mr. RIBICOFF. That is what it comes to; yes, sir.

Mr. GIAIMO. Can you tell us where the other $2 will have to come from?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Well, the other $2 will come from alumni, from industry, from charitable foundations, from individuals, from the States, from the localities. I mean, it isn't the intention that the Federal Government do the whole job. We think that this is a contribution that has to be made and that the sources where colleges and universities have looked to in the past will be able to supply the other two-thirds.

Mr. GIAIMO. Didn't you also say that even projecting all those figures, that they would still be short?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Yes; but I don't think we can solve all the problems. I think we are making about as important an impact as we can expect to make at this time.

Mr. GIAIMO. The point I am trying to make, then, is that even with this effort by the Federal Government there is still going to remain a problem to be solved; isn't that so?

Mr. RIBICOFF. There will still be a gap.

Mr. GIAIMO. So that this further accentuates the seriousness of this problem in higher education?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Yes; you have put it very well, Congressman Giaimo. Mr. GIAIMO. Do you feel that we can afford not to have this type of legislation this year?

Mr. RIBICOFF. I would say that with each passing year the problem becomes more acute. It would seem to me that the sooner you start the better off we are as a Nation and as a people, and I would agree with you that we can't afford to wait any longer.

Mr. GIAIMO. Is there any reasonable alternative to Federal aid in this field?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Well, with each passing year the gap gets larger and larger, and to that extent fewer of our young people have their talents developed to the fullest capacity for the Nation and for themselves.

Mr. GIAIMO. Is it your experience that because of the shortages of facilities and institutions of higher education that the young people are having greater difficulty getting into them today?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Both. I mean, the shortage of facilities and the lack of funds make it impossible for many of our institutions to take as many qualified applicants as otherwise they would like to take.

Mr. GIAIMO. Is this resulting in the fact that only the top students are able to get into college?

Mr. RIBICOFF. In some places. I don't think you can make this categorical statement. I would say that there are always some colleges and universities that get more applications and they could be more selective, but many other students in the middle groups do get into college. I do think that many of the qualified people, if they had scholarships, would attend college who otherwise aren't attending college.

Mr. GIAIMO. And, of course, if we have the scholarship program, which would undoubtedly take care of the top students academically, this would then create room, so to speak, for the, let's say, B students, or those who were not in the top category academically, to obtain loans, is that the purpose?

Mr. RIBICOFF. I would say it still depends on how many applicants you have and what the capacity is. I think generally colleges and universities will still take the top people of the graduating class, and they will keep bringing in, depending upon the facilities, they will keep going down to the B grades or the C grades, depending upon what capacity they may have.

Mr. GIAIMO. On page 5 of your statement you mention that the erosion of quality has already begun. Can you enlighten us a bit on that?

Mr. RIBICOFF. What it means is the number of Ph. D.'s, the number of people that go on to graduate school, keeps getting proportionately smaller because of the inability to handle the cost. That is what we are talking about in referring to the erosion of quality.

The point is made by Dr. McMurrin that it wasn't so long ago that 40 percent of the college faculties had Ph. D. degrees. Now, Dr. McMurrin says, only 20 percent of our college faculties have entering Ph. D. degrees, which indicates that we haven't as many of our faculties and teachers going on to graduate work because they don't have the money. They go into debt, and they have to get out and make a living because of the squeeze on their financial resources.

Mr. GIAIMO. Thank you.

Mrs. GREEN. We are glad to welcome to the subcommittee, the ranking minority members of the full committee, Congressman Kearns from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Brademas.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I would like to express my appreciation for your statement, which I think is one of the most lucid statements of the situation in higher education that I have heard.

One of the facts about the President's proposal that strikes me most strongly is how modest it is. I recall reading last month the columnist, Roscoe Drummond, a highly regarded middle-of-the-road columnist, who said:

President Kennedy has submitted to Congress a prudent and carefully conceived aid to education bill which should win maximum Democratic and Republican support.

Then I notice also, in doing a little research on this problem, that a number of organizations which are centrally concerned with higher education have called for far more Federal assistance and Federal support for higher education than the modest proposal that you have set forth to us here.

I know also that a number of university educators are disappointed that the program has not called for grants for academic facilities in addition to loans. At least this is my impression.

The Task Force report to President Kennedy, which was headed by a distinguished educator from my State, President Fred Hovde of Purdue University, who, I believe, Madam Chairman, is to appear before our subcommittee shortly, called for both loans and grants for academic facilities, and I think for at least $500 million the first year whereas the administration program calls for only $300 million. The American Council on Education, to cite another example, asked for both loans and matching grants for academic facilities to the tune of about a million dollars a year.

Last year I attended the 17th American Assembly at Arden House in New York State, which had a generally moderate to conservative composition among the participants, and I was struck by the fact that they also called for grants for academic facilities.

The Association of American Colleges, which has a traditionally conservative outlook, has also called for grants in addition to loans. Now, the only reason I offer these observations, Mr. Secretary, is not to quarrel with the proposal you have set before us, but only to suggest, as my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Giaimo, has suggested, that even if this program is enacted into law, we may still fall short of meeting the needs in higher education. I would conclude this somewhat rhetorical question by asking if you would not agree that this bill represents the minimum that we must achieve if we are to get the job done for higher education?