I am pleased that the Issue Paper strictly construes section 1202 in requiring adequate representation of all elements of postsecondary education. I also endorse the section of the Issue Paper which states that interim recognition, for purposes of section 1202, will not be extended to State agencies which do not meet the requirements of the section.

I might note one possible problem in State implementation of this section. Many State legislatures will have adjourned before Federal regulations could be placed before them for action. Next year is the "off" year for most States with biennial legislative sessions. In States where legislative authorization is required, this fact could result in delay in implementing the section. I know of a couple of Midwestern States at this point where the legislatures are indeed very angry because of the delay which is occurring to this point. Our experience with the Facilities Act, however, demonstrated that most States were able to take interim action pending their legislative sessions.

Although this is not an appropriation committee, I would express the hope that the state postsecondary education commissions can be funded at a meaningful level. Last year a committee of the State higher education executive officers, working with staff of the education commission of the States, estimated the amount needed for basic research and planning activities at $15 million. I would agree that this request is realistic.

CONCLUSION

We endorse the concept of state postsecondary education commissions. The experience of the facilities commissions has demonstrated the effectiveness of this type of vehicle in bringing together the various elements of the higher education community. We would urge that the revised section 1202 "Issue Paper" be submitted for immediate field review. We would hope that this program can be supported at an adequate appropriation level.

I think also that, regardless of administrative structure, the college construction and instructional equipment programs merit continuing support by the Congress. I also believe that the comprehensive facilities planning program is of sufficient benefit to all concerned with higher education planning that special provision should be made for its continuation.

Thank you.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Wheeler.

Your observations with respect to the experience of the facilities commission have been very interesting and instructive.

Mr. Dellenback, do you have any questions you would like to direct to Mr. Wheeler?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have a few.

We appreciate your being here, and I agree with the expression of the Chairman, this is the kind of testimony which has been very helpful. You refer to the 1972-73 facility inventory. Do you have any idea of the cost of that for 1973? There has been an indication they do not intend to go forward with it?

Mr. WHEELER. I would say approximately, Congressman Dellenback, $100,000 to the field, that is, States where there are activities in

this regard, and I would say substantially less than this at the National Center for Educational Statistics level; so $150,000 or $200,000, at the moment.

Mr. DELLENBACK. In total?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Is the change that takes place from year to year about commensurate in size to that which you brought forth in testimony? You said between 1970 and 1971 additions to the inventory were about 60 million assignable square feet and 20 million square feet were removed. Is that about what takes place? Have you done this enough to come to the conclusion that it is?

Mr. WHEELER. Actually, we have had data for only two such comparisons. The time series is only 3 years long at this point, and we will soon have the fourth.

Mr. DELLENBACK. You will have the 1972-73 figure?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So what you have is 2 full years, 1970-71, and 1971-72?

Mr. WHEELER. We have three now, and the fourth will soon be added.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Is that about the pattern?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. We think it is about the pattern.

Mr. DELLENBACK. On page 7 of your testimony you refer to the eligible applications for college construction grants total more than $270 million in Federal funds, and at the most there will be $43 million available. Is that process a complex one? Is it a careful one? Does almost every application get processed and get to this stage? Mr. WHEELER. Almost every application gets processed unless there is something ineligible about the institution, or the application in terms of the law.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So the $270 million figure is not very much of a net figure? It is sort of a gross figure?

Mr. WHEELER. And within that amount the projects are aligned in terms of priorities of need, going back to my initial comments about the criteria growing out of the legislation itself and those added by the States.

Mr. DELLENBACK. What would be in the highest priority of need out of the $270 million? Do you have any idea?

Mr. WHEELER. The institutions that are extremely crowded at this point under the Federal guidelines, and again I think they carry out well the intent of the Congress at the time the act was passed in 1963, giving heavy weight to overcrowding as a result of enrollment growth. So the overcrowded institution still tends to come in first. We are getting emphasis now on renovation projects.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you have any idea about how many dollars worth of projects would be in the highest priority? If I interpret your testimony correctly, you are saying that the $270 million in college construction grant applications processed is really an asking figure, that almost any request by any institution is lumped into that? There has been very little of the elimination which has taken place except what you just now alluded to, and apparently it is broken down in categories?

Mr. WHEELER. Not actually categories, but an actual continuum. Projects are rated under, for example, in our State we have 13 priority criteria. An institution gets a number of points under each. These are then totaled. The project amassing the greatest number of points has the first claim on the Federal funds, and so on down the scale.

Mr. DELLENBACK. You don't put them within groupings then, class I groupings, or class II, or class III, or class (A), or class (C), or something along that line?

Mr. WHEELER. No, sir, it is a continuum. I might say on that point, however, that in the application process we do not receive an application until the institution has completed the academic program and preliminary drawings for the facility, so this means that the institution has enough felt need for the facility that they have already made a substantial investment in planning for it.

Mr. DELLENBACK. As far as the 1202 commissions are concerned, Mr. Wheeler, do I interpret your remark on page 9 of your testimony that you are pleased the issue paper strictly construes section 1202 in requiring adequate representation of all elements in postsecondary education in opposition to Mr. McGuinness' expressed view that it ought to be in the first-line input, or at least there are certain dangers to having narrow segmented groups represented rather than the general public?

Mr. WHEELER. I think. Congressman Dellenback, there is a basic philosophical disagreement perhaps in the higher education community that Mr. McGuinness alluded to on this point. I view the section 1202 commission as purely a planning vehicle. My own concept of the intent of the Congress here was to bring all segments of higher education together, or postsecondary education together around the table and, therefore, I do not think we get into issues of coordination and issues of governance with respect to the 1202 commission, and I believe, when Mr. McGuinness expressed those concerns, that he was bringing those factors into the conversation.

Mr. DELLENBACK. You approve of the idea of the 1202 commission having direct first-line representation from each of the component elements?

Mr. WHEELER. I do; yes sir.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Discussed in our legislation?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Then one last question. Without 1202 being implemented, is any change in law necessary for a commission like yours to continue as you see it? Can you continue under the present law? Is it obviated by the language of 1202?

Mr. WHEELER. There is the ambiguity in the authorizing language, which Mr. McGuinness referred to, and I argue that 1202 and 1203 can be broadly construed to cover authorization of administrative funding for State facilities commissions. I understand that both the House and Senate committee staffs are essentially in agreement with this contention. However, there is an ambiguity and the type of technical amendment that Mr. McGuinness referred to might be desirable.

Mr. DELLENBACK. If either in the 1973 or 1974 budget there weren't any funds that were made available for construction, would your commission wither on the vine, if they were not made available?

Mr. WHEELER. I think there will certainly be a tendency in this direction, a tendency, and I mentioned already there is a trend toward the integration of the facilities commissions with the general State higher education agencies, and I basically don't object to this. I think it ought to be a State decision.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. O'HARA, Mr. Huber.

Mr. HUBER. I was interested in the testimony on page 6, the national facilities inventory is over 1.2 billion assignable square feet with a cost of over $69 billion. What all is included in that inventory? How deep does it go?

Mr. WHEELER. It is literally all academic space down to the last bit, and it does include the college housing, auxiliary enterprises, everything that goes to make up the college plant.

Mr. HUBER. How many institutions do you think would be in that? Do you have any idea?

Mr. WHEELER. This is the traditional National Center for Higher Education Statistics universe, which runs, as I recall, about 2850 institutions.

Mr. HUBER. Twenty-eight hundred and fifty, that is public, private, the whole gamut?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes.

Mr. HUBER. You mentioned something about 1.2 billion assignable square feet.

Mr. WHEELER. This is a net figure of actual usable space that does not include corridors, janitors closets, mechanical space, and the like. Mr. HUBER. So there is another 0.6 billion of extra space?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes; about the ratio of two-thirds usable space.

Mr. HUBER. You made one other comment I was interested in. You talked about educational facilities where the priority system was based upon overcrowding. How prevalent do you find it to be, the overcrowding in facility?

Mr. WHEELER. It. of course, is admittedly less prevalent now than it was in 1963 when the act was passed. In the highly urbanized States we still find some crowded institutions and the same is true in some areas of the Southeast where the college-going rate has tended to lag behind some of the rest of the country and institutions are catching up, so to speak.

Mr. HUBER. Is there a trend that has been plotted to show at what point that line will cross the point of noncrowding? Is there anything like that? Would you forecast, if the present situation continues, at what time you think we will have eliminated completely the crowding and we will then be going into a negative sort of position where we may have an excess of facilities? Is there any kind of timetable on that?

Mr. WHEELER. There, of course, are many projections at the present time that indicate, or which indicate that enrollments will be stabilized or dropped slightly around 1979 or 1980. However, we do, according to the most commonly used and acceptable space standards, at this point have a deficit of space at the present time, and speaking strictly now of academic space and not all of the space at institutions,

that is leaving out residential, auxiliary and so on, and we have, as I recall, some 66 million square feet of space coming off of the inventory every year, by reason of obsolescence, even if you assume a useful lifetime for a building of some 60 years.

Mr. HUBER. Why did you say only 20 million were removed from the inventory in 1970-71 if it were 60? That is on page 6.

Mr. WHEELER. The 20 million was an actual figure for that year, and I think-or my assumption of 60 years probably means that we are using academic buildings longer than 60 years, and then of course we do have in the inventory a great, a relatively large amount of space that has been constructed in the last 20 years, so what I am using here is a long-term averaging figure.

Mr. HUBER. You just touched on the problem of the living accommodations. Is it true that many of the institutions are finding surplus because of the lack of students or willingness to live on campus?

Mr. WHEELER. This is a problem at this point. We are receiving substantial numbers of projects now where the institutions are proposing to convert residential space to academic use because they need it worse for faculty office space and the like. One of our institutions at North Carolina has recently closed two dormitories.

This tends to be a problem in the large public institutions predominantly, according to national surveys.

Mr. HUBER. A growing problem?

Mr. WHEELER. It has been, for a number of years, a serious problem. I would hesitate to say that it is a growing problem, because I think we can see some trends in the other direction now. It is a mixture, I think, frankly, at this point.

Mr. HUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Quie.

Mr. QUIE. I have just one question. That is, since we passed the higher education amendment last year, I noticed that some States had started out with their coordinating commissions, their councils, as being professionals from the various higher educational institutions and subsequently changed to be practically entirely lay boards. What have you done in your analyzing of the various States in regards to the lay people on it. compared to the professionals from institutions of higher education?

Mr. WHEELER. You are speaking now of facilities commissions? Mr. QUIE. Facilities commissions, right.

Mr. WHEELER. The facilities commissions are almost invariably lay people. They are a representation-taking my own commission, for example-they are a representation of private institutions which comes from trustees and individuals at this level closely associated with private higher education.

Mr. QUIE. Do you think there will be a tendency to go away from that move relative to commissions and set up the way it appears to be moving with the guidelines coming out?

Mr. WHEELER. It is difficult to say on that, Congressman Quie, because, as I read the guidelines, either type of individual will qualify; that is, a president could represent private higher education or public community colleges, a trustee certainly could, and so on. I would suspect in that regard we will continue to have a mixed pattern.