Mr. ANDREWS. Would you care to add anything? We welcome you here.

Mr. HOLMES. No.

Mr. ANDREWS. Are there any others who have anything for the good of the cause?

Mr. HARRISON. In your concluding remarks, Dr. Holmes, you have emphasized we are certainly a long way from any agreement on what the guidelines and final regulations should say.

Mr. HOLMES. That's right.

Mr. HARRISON. But you do agree with the other witnesses we have had before us that the revised issues paper ought to be disseminated? Mr. HOLMES. Very definitely.

Mr. HARRISON. It is suggested that its release at this time would confuse higher educators because they would have two sets of guidelines and they would not be able to distinguish between them. Would you have any problems with that?

Mr. HOLMES. No. I think in the first place it would only add to existing confusion. In a second place our business, the business of higher education is being able to deal with different points of view. It is much better to have the information out and discussed.

Mr. HARRISON. You think you could cope?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes.

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much again for coming.

We will be meeting here tomorrow again in the same room.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene on the following day, Thursday, April 12, 1973.]

STATE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSIONS

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives O'Hara, Dellenback, Erlenborn, Kemp, and Huber.

Staff present: Jim Harrison, subcommittee staff director, Elnora Teets, clerk, Rosanne Aceto, assistant clerk, William Cable, counsel, full committee, and Dr. Robert Andringa, minority staff director.

Mr. O'HARA. The Special Subcommittee on Education, House Committee on Education and Labor, will come to order.

Before proceeding with our witnesses today, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the room of Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, who is a member of the Legislature of the State of Hesse in the West German Republic and who is chairman of its Education Committee. I hope that Dr. Schwarz-Schilling will give us some advice on how to conduct this subcommittee after he has watched us in operation today.

On March 29 this subcommittee invited Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Casper Weinberger to testify in these hearings or to send someone empowered to speak for him at these hearings having to do with the creation of 1202 commissions.

He has chosen to send a gentleman who is a familiar figure at the witness table and will no doubt become more so in the future.

The Department's position on the issues before us will be presented by Dr. John R. Ottina, Commissioner-designate of the U.S. Office of Education, who is accompanied today by Peter P. Muirhead, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, and John D. Phillips, Chairman of the Task Force on State Postsecondary Education Commissions, which prepared the paper which we are going to be discussing today.

Before proceeding further, I should mention to and about Mr. Phillips that his name has been mentioned a great many times in the preceding days in these hearings. In every case the mention was a laudatory one.

The higher education community, Mr. Phillips, is filled with people who think you have done a superb job on the two drafts of the section 1202 issues paper.

94-977-73- -8

(109)

I realize you should share that credit with the other members of the task force but I have to note it was John Phillips and not the task force who received the laurels from our earlier witnesses that I am passing on this morning.

This is the third session this subcommittee has held on the Department's refusal to carry out section 1202 and the implications arising there from for other sections of the Higher Education Act of 1965, notably title X.

Our first witnesses have been either expert witnesses testifying as to the background and history of section 1202 or spokesmen for education associations, spokesmen with various attitudes toward how section 1202 should be carried out.

The American Association of Junior and Community Colleges to the surprise of no one has urged that title X be carried out expeditiously and that the 1202 commissions be established promptly as a step in that direction.

Yesterday the Association of State Colleges and Universities and the Land-Grant organization testifying together in the person of Darrell Holmes urged that the Congress refrain for the time being from funding title X.

So, our hearings have demonstrated a healthy and understandable divergence among education groups as to what should be in the 1202 guidelines and regulations and what the Congress should do about other parts of the act.

I did not notice any "confusion" on their part but I did notice differences of opinion. But on one point-and I call this to the attention of our distinguished witnesses today-there was no difference of opinion. Witnesses speaking for most of the higher education community spoke with one voice.

They urged, they pleaded for, they demanded that the issues paper which has been kept under wraps by the Office of Education should be relased so that further public discussion could ensue.

I am therefore delighted to say that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has provided me as chairman of this subcommittee with a copy of the issues paper without condition, although he makes a very strong recommendation against its publication at this time on the ground that it would cause "confusion."

Having weighed the issues very carefully, I believe the paper should be printed as a part of this record with the clear and unmistakeable warning that it is only a draft, that it does not represent the thinking of the Office of Education and that no one should look upon it as a basis for compliance with section 1202 and that it may or may not represent the regulations that will eventually be issued with respect to 1202 commissions.

I am directing the staff to see to it that in printing these hearings some such caveat be printed on each such page of the issue paper so that no confusion shall arise.

I feel very strongly that on an issue as important as the creation of 1202 commissions that having the issues paper available to the educational community, to the legislatures who deal with higher education laws and to others involved and interested in higher education, is useful, not harmful and that giving them an opportunity to see the

issues delineated and to discuss those issues will be an advantage when the time has come to issue the regulations. In short, I believe we are less endangered by error than by ignorance.

Let me say that I appreciate the willingness of the Secretary to permit this paper to be discussed. There was one other aspect of the testimony we have taken thus far on which there is unanimity.

All witnesses praised the Department for its policy of providing for the widest possible distribution of the first draft and for its willingness to discuss ideas from the community and to alter its own views where those other suggestions were deemed to have merit.

Secretary Weinberger and I will probably differ on many items in the future but in his decision to provide this second draft to the subcommittee he is following the path marked out by his predecessor with regard to the first draft.

It is a good road and I hope we can all stay on it.

Mr. Ottina, we would be very pleased to hear your statement. I am sure that Mr. Dellenback and Mr. Huber and I are going to be anxious to discuss the problem with you and Mr. Phillips and Mr. Muirhead. Please give us your thoughts on this subject.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. OTTINA, COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE, UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY PETER P. MUIRHEAD, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, AND JOHN D. PHILLIPS, CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON STATE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSIONS

Mr. OTTINA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

Before I begin with my prepared testimony, let me add publicly my thanks to John Phillips and the task force as well.

We think they have done a splendid job and I would only add a parenthetical note to your statement about the publishing of the second draft issue paper in the record which I am sure, Mr. O'Hara, you are very much aware of, and that is before any regulation itself became effective it would be required to be published in the Federal Register and be open for public comment for 30 days.

Mr. O'HARA. I think that ought to be made clear. The staff is directed to make that clear with respect to the publication of the issues paper.

As you know, there is already wide discussion of the issues involved and to have this additional material, I think, will help refine and direct the discussion. That is my view. I know there are other views. Mr. OTTINA. We, too, found the wide discussion very comfortable. As I am sure you are aware the diversions of opinion was to start with even wider perhaps than you have heard recently and the wide discussion that was held which lasted 4 months has helped not only crystalize some of the conditions but helped converge workable solutions to all points of view.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share our thinking on the State postsecondary education commissions authorized by section 1202 of the Higher Education Act of 1965,

as amended by the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-318. Provision for these new postsecondary education commissions was included in the legislation signed by the President last June.

Upon enactment, the Office of Education established a number of task forces to plan for the implementation of each of the new and amended programs included in the law.

The task forces, composed of staff from the Office of Education and other appropriate offices within the Department, were charged with the responsibility of preparing issue papers, reports, and program regulations necessary to put the Office in a position to administer any program for which funding might be requested. This procedure is typical of the approach used by the Office to implement any new program. However, because of the broad scope of the amendments which related to postsecondary education, we attempted to broaden our base of participation in the policy development process by involving, at an early stage in the development of our plans, persons in the postsecondary education community who would be affected by the programs.

In the case of the State postsecondary education commissions, the task force remained an internal working group. However, it chose to seek the involvement of interested persons by distributing a series of working papers to institutions, students, State governing bodies, and associations potentially affected by the section 1202 State commissions, to seek their input in the preparation of a final report and rules and regulations for the program.

A preliminary report of the task force was distributed on December 4, 1972. The Office received almost 500 substantive responses commenting on various provisions of the report. These comments were analyzed by the task force during the period of December 18-January 20. A revised report, based on the comments of the field, including preliminary draft regulations, was transmitted from the task force to me on February 1, 1973.

It is that report that you referred to earlier, Mr. Chairman.

The Education Amendments of 1972 had envisioned major functions and responsibilities for the State postsecondary education commissions in connection with the new authorizations for comprehensive statewide planning, community college education, occupational education, and improvement of postsecondary education. In addition, the law atuhorized the section 1202 State commissions to serve as State administrative/planning commissions for existing programs in community services and continuing education-title I-equipment for undergraduate instruction-title VI-and grants for construction of undergraduate academic facilities-title VII, transferred from the Higher Education Facilities Act by Public Law 92-318.

However, by the time the task force completed its work, the President's budget for fiscal year 1974 had been submitted to the Congress. The budget recommends that the community service, instructional equipment, and academic facilities grant programs be terminated, in accordance with our general shift away from narrow categorical programs. In addition, no funding is requested to implement any of the community college or occupational education authorities.

Furthermore, while the President's budget does request $15 million to support projects and programs for improvement of postsecondary