to a State-supported institution, but if a private institution will provide the education for that child, with the State providing some amount of money less than $1,000, then it becomes cheaper for the public payroll to provide this sustenance to the student or to the institution. In that event it is cheaper for the taxpayer to send him to a private institution, even if you have to pay $998, rather than to the State one.

So I am afraid we are shifting quality away from public control rather considerably. However, it does seem to make this type of thing take on a national scheme for me.

Mr. Dellenback, do you have some questions of Dr. Hill?
Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you again for your comments, Mr. Hill, on the value of what has taken place. I am particularly glad to hear-because I think I would agree with you that this kind of dialog within the educational community is very valuable and you as well as prior witnesses have made the point that this has taken place and we hate to see it stopped at this point.

Are you aware of the fact that reports which have been issued so far and which are being held up at the moment are not necessarily the regulations, they are a report on the picture.

Now the last draft of the report, it is my understanding, also includes some proposed regulations, but I would be in strong agreement with the point that you have made that it is important that this be gotten out so that before they do become finalized there is chance for additional input.

If we find ourselves, when they are ready to move forward in OE, with only the discussion to date and the fait accompli so far as the regulations are concerned, we might find that much of what has taken place is less valuable than we had hoped for.

But against that background may I ask what your opinion would be as to why States should go forward with 1202 commissions if there is going to be no money under title X?

Mr. HILL. I have written to the Secretary and the Governor of our State has written to Mr. Weinberger making a very explicit point. about this, and that is if you have to pick out one primary function and value of a 1202 commission-it is in the total spectrum of planning back at the State level-where you bring around one table all of these diverse interests. I do not think that is diminished at all by the fact that there is no funding under title X.

I think the statement being made in Commissioner Ottina's letter, which said in a sense "there is no need for these because there is no funding," is one that we felt we had to question. There is funding. The $3 million per year that up to this point has supported the Facilities Commission is available for this purpose.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you think those $3 million would be available for this kind of a commission?

Mr. HILL. It is my understanding that they will be.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So you in part predicate your hopes for 1202 commissions not in direct funding under 1203 or direct funding under title X. but under the $3 million that is in the budget?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. I believe we could begin while there are still things that could be done. The Facilities Commissions have given their support. I think that same suport would be helpful in the beginning of 1202 commissions, because they work so closely with the facilities Commissions. But I would very much hope that before funding occurs under title X, there are 1202 commissions.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So to make the point clear-and I think that is an important point because I think OE has expressed itself to the contrary so far you feel it is important to move forward with the 1202 commissions even without there being title X money and, if you will, even without there being 1202 money actually made available. Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I think that is an extremely important point and I think to bring that clearly to the attention of OE is one of the important things that must be done at this particular time.

Mr. HILL. I would be very happy, Mr. Chairman, to provide copies when I get home of the statement that we have made in support on this very specific point.

[The following document was supplied by Mr. Hill:]

Hon. CASPAR WEINBERGER,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, Hartford, Conn., March 9, 1973.

Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, The White House, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SECRETARY WEINBERGER: We were recently informed that the U.S. Office of Education has suspended "all activity relative to establishment of the Section 1202 State Commissions" authorized by the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. This is indeed an unfortunate circumstance and I appeal to you to have the suspension ended as soon as possible.

In his letter of March 7, 1973 notifying us of the this suspension, Acting U.S. Commissioner of Education John Ottina cites as the chief reason the fact that "the Federal Buget for F.Y. 74 provides almost no functions for the Section 1202 State Commissions to perform." However, President Nixon's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1974 contains $3 million for these Commissions, presumably to carry out their chief function which is comprehensive planning for higher education as authorized by Section 1203 of the Amendments. This assignment alone is sufficient reason for starting the Section 1202 Commissions as soon as possible.

The Federal Government has been supporting comprehensive planning for higher education for the past several years. This support was authorized by the Higher Education Facilities Act and planning has been chiefly concerned with facilities needs. A broader scope of planning is authorized by Section 1203. It is very important that this planning continues and that the staff competency which States have acquired for such planning should not be diminished or lost completely.

In addition to $3 million for Section 1202 Commissions, President Nixon's Fiscal Year 1974 budget recommendation contains $15 million to support projects and programs for improvement of postsecondary education. Also, $10 million has been appropriated in the current fiscal year for such projects and programs, and proposals are now being solicited. Before they are approved by the U.S. Office of Education they must be reviewed by the Section 1202 State Commissions. There was a good reason for requiring such reviews-namely to provide that the projects and programs selected for support would best meet the needs of the States. If the Section 1202 Commissions are not established, they cannot conduct the reviews and grants for the improvement of postsecondary education cannot be awarded (Section 404 (b) of the General Education Provisions Act).

By starting out with the two functions which President Nixon has recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 1974, Section 1202 State Commissions will be in a much better position later on to take on the other functions for which they are slated than they will be if their establishment is delayed until they have to take on all functions at once.

Section 1202 State Postsecondary Education Commissions will be of great benefit to the States and the National Government. By helping to get them established as soon as possible, you will be providing a valuable service to the American people.

Sincerely yours,

WARREN G. HILL,

Chancellor.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Let me ask a question about that aspect of your reason that deals with meeting around the table though. There is nothing to prohibit any State from doing that within its own structure and framework without any higher education amendments or education amendments of 1972 at all, is there?

Mr. HILL. That is correct, and we do.

Mr. DELLENBACK. But all the States do not?

Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Then why do we need 1202 commissions to have this? Why don't we just need enlightened State educators and systems within each individual State to have this type of discussion?

Mr. HILL. Maybe they are in very short supply, sir.

Mr. DELLENBACK. We know this is not true in either Connecticut or Oregon, and we can say we are sure it is not true in Michigan or North Carolina or New York.

Mr. HILL. I think there has been a lot done in many States or most States in the last decade in trying to bring groups together. What really happens at the State level is not just an educational matter, but a political matter as well. I think there has to be at times encouragement given for particular organizations for format or procedures so that you move ahead.

Now all of the work that went into those guidelines in that background paper for the 1202 commission, I think, was extremely helpful because everybody was reading the same thing.

I know we can work together at the State level and do. I am concerned that we not create 1202 commissions—and we are very close to one in my State-by chance in the structure we currently have. I do not wish to finalize that unless we have the Federal regulations, because I think it would create problems of having to go back and correct or change to comply with them. That is in response to someone's earlier comment rather than yours.

But your question says, may States and those agencies and people who are within them do valuable things without there being 1202 commissions. Certainly. However, I think we would do it better with a Federal cog and Federal support for this context, much more than we have ever had in the past.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So even though the 1202 section of the law was not intended to create the die from which all commissions would automatically be stamped out, all alike unto each other, you feel its existence in the law has proved a valuable catalyst to get States to move already, and once it is finalized it will be even more valuable in getting States to move.

Mr. HILL. You say it so much better than I said it. I appreciate it. Mr. MILLARD. May I add a comment to that? I think it would not be fair to say the States have not moved. As a matter of fact over the last 12 years the number of agencies that have been created, I think, have indicated clearly this is the idea that the States will follow whether there is 1202 or not. The problem, though, is a somewhat different one and I think it needs to be in some respects isolated.

Mr. Harrison's question earlier is, I think, relevant to it. Given that 40-some States do at the present have some agency with responsibility for planning, most of the States at this point do recognize the need for a more inclusive aspect of the planning process. The question, the problem at this point, is a peculiar one in terms of the sequence of events. Now four States, as you noticed, have actually passed legislation without the guidelines available.

In two cases these are States in which the legislature is biennial, in which if they did not do it-in one case it was a 60-day legislative session-if they did not do something at this legislature, it would be 1975 before any action could have been taken. The problem is this.

In a great many States, North Carolina and otherwise, if action is taken at this point and if the guidelines do come out subsequently as a result of whatever kind of funding there may be, and if the Commissioner does have the prerogative of recognizing what I believe is the language of the law, recognizing the appropriate commission, a good deal of the work that has been done could be undone very quickly and the States would be in an even more difficult situation than they are now.

I would be willing to wager that instead of the 9 and 4 you would have pretty close to 50 States that would have acted if the direction had been clear.

But they don't want to be caught. It is much more difficult to undo legislation or undo gubernatorial action after the fact in light of changed guidelines, than it is to do it with the guidelines present. We have pushed hard, as Dr. Friday has indicated, as ACE and others have, for flexibility in this matter. But it becomes very important that somewhere along the line the recognition of this flexibility be official.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Let me make one more comment and then ask a brief question in connection with it.

Some early drafts of this task force report have talked in terms of the need for adequate representatives from minority groups, from women, from ethnic sources, and so on. There is even a suggestion that affirmative action be required in the appointment of commission members.

Do you have a brief comment that you might make on that in reference to the question of whether that might not disqualify boards without which that kind of qualification might otherwise be adequate under the statute and regulations? Is this a desirable feature in your mind at this point?

We will leave longer comments for a future time, but would you have any brief comments now?

Mr. HILL. I think what exists in the law is desirable. I think the fact that it is clear that you can either use existing boards or create new ones, amend them, provides a flexibility that is needed here. But I do not think that higher education through the seventies is either going to have the public understanding or support that it should have unless we make more determined efforts to provide the kind of board and planning structure than we have in the past.

I am not speaking about Connecticut. Fortuitously we are very close to that in our board representation now. I have no problem with it. My earlier concerns were that we were going to wind up around the table with a lot of people that were on the payroll of all these various institutions, and I thought that was wrong but I think it has been corrected.

Mr. DELLENBACK. But you do not feel in Connecticut any requirement relative to representation of racial or minority or women or affirmative action in this regard would cause any difficulty with your 1,202 commissions.

Mr. HILL. I am not trying to be oblique. There are very few things struck off by the hands of mortal men that cannot cause problems somewhere, but I do not see this as a major problem in our State. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDREWS. Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. ANDREWS. Our concluding witness is Darrell Holmes, president, East Stroudsburg State College.

I believe you know Dr. John Caldwell very well. It is a pleasure to have you here.

STATEMENT OF DR. DARRELL HOLMES, PRESIDENT, EAST

STROUDSBURG STATE COLLEGE

Dr. HOLMES. Thank you and it is a pleasure to be here. Incidentally, the incoming president of the land grant group is Dr. Dowdy. Another gratuitous fact, Al Whiting is the president-elect of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. So we are two North Carolina-related national organizations at the present time.

We are looking forward to being at Boone this summer for a council of presidents to meet in a seminar to try to study the problems of higher education. I would like to introduce my wife, who is Mrs. Holmes, who is here. You see, we had the foresight to represent many interests.

I am Darrell Holmes. I am president of East Stroudsburg State College, and I am here today to represent the 421 public institutions of higher education comprising the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. These institutions enroll more than 4 million students and offer comprehensive education opportunities in or near over 100 American cities as well as in scores of rural communities where they often are the community's sole source of opportunity for post-secondary education.

Mr. Chairman, a number of the points which I have made in this document have already been made and with your permission I would simply like to summarize some of the salient features. We generally agree with those points which have been made by the previous witnesses and in the interests of your time and to possibly handle any