and in my estimation this is the number one priority for our country. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Kugler, I couldn't agree with you more. I expressed myself in some detail earlier this morning, when we had the panel of law professors and deans before us. I agreed with their proposals for substantive legislation. I told them that they weren't going to get the funds because of the great crisis that faces this country and because of the failure of this administration to carry out its responsibilities to the American people, in regard to the domestic

programs.

UNDERFUNDING OF DOMESTIC PROGRESS

You will remember I pointed out that the Congress already authorized for 1968 in round numbers $6.5 billion, which is far too little, but this administration proposes only $3.5 billion for 1969.

Then I suppose it is going to wonder why young people take to the streets, while at the same time it proposes a $79 billion defense budget for fiscal 1969, $26 billion of it Vietnam connected. This constitutes a defense budget of more than $25 billion higher than in the history of the Republic, more than $25 billion higher than at the height of World War II. Then we want to know why we are being isolated around the world, why we have become the most feared nation in the world.

The world has a right to fear us, because we seek militarily to dominate the world and the world knows this. The American people just don't know it yet. When they find out about it we will get some change in political offices in this country that are long overdue, may I say.

You have to put your finger on the real problem that confronts this committee, and I shall go ahead and do everything I can, and I am sure the committee will also, to recommend a sound, substantive bill. You are not going to get the money for it, however, Congress is going to support this administration's budget.

As I said earlier, and I repeat, for every dollar this administration thinks that it is saving in this domestic budget, the American taxpayer is going to lose a minimum of $6 in the immediate future, because you are going to find the disadvantaged going to the streets. I am for law enforcement; however, law enforcement doesn't remove the cause of dissension, and therefore the issue before this Congress, as far as the senior Senator from Oregon is concerned, is what you are going to do about your domestic budget?

You can take the cuts out of that $79 billion defense budget and never miss it, but you can't take the cut of $7.5 billion out of a $20 billion domestic budget, and not create great trouble in the Republic. That is why you have heard me say before, and I shall keep right on saying it, and I hope we can do something before it is too late, your country is headed toward the greatest domestic crisis in its history, if we follow the course of action that is proposed to be followed militarily, and seek to cut the heart out of the domestic budget.

I am so glad that you put into the record your protest, for that is what it amounts to, your protest as to what this administration proposes to do in denying the educational needs to the young of this country to which they are entitled as a matter of right. If you don't fulfill that right, then you are going to have serious trouble.

You cannot create a lost generation as far as meeting the educational needs of this country, and that is what we are doing at the present time. That is why the great danger is that a year from now you are going to have 50,000 to 100,000 young men in prison. They do not intend to support the kind of policy that is being proposed. That is why I think we don't have too long in order to change the whole course of action of this Republic, if we are going to have any domestic tranquility within our borders. I want to thank you very much for your contribution.

Mr. MEGEL. Thank you.

Dr. KUGLER. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Kugler follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ISRAEL KUGLER, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FEDERATION OF COLLEGE TEACHERS, AFL-CIO; AND NEW YORK STATE AFT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY COUNCIL

Senator Morse and Members of the Senate Education Committee:

I come to you this morning as the representative of college faculty members in public and private colleges and universities. We are entirely in accord with the many worthwhile objectives in S. 3098. The basic problem lies in the fact that this bill does not constitute meaningful planning in terms of adequate resources, facilities and staff to meet the burgeoning enrollment implicit in the new ideal of universal higher education.

We need a reordering of priorities in order to implement the worthwhile objectives. I know what happens when you jam thousands of students into inadequate facilities. At the City University of New York, it was called "Operation Shoehorn." It means that today we have "briefcase professors" without desks or offices. We have professors without secretaries or telephones.

To emphasize enrollment opportunities and to neglect the human and material resources to ensure quality education is to compound the current culture lag of societal dislocation in higher education.

We are extremely pleased to support the various sections and titles of the bill which provide for experimental or pilot projects in the fields of community service or continuing education; improvement of library services; strengthening graduate programs; expanding guidance, counselling and testing; knowledge networks; public service grants; and student assistance so that "no student of ability will be denied an opportunity to develop his talents because of financial inability to meet basic higher education costs."

I would specifically recommend for your attention the following:

1. An appropriation of federal funds to all public colleges and universities to ensure a tuition-free status. This would be supplementary to currently available funds from state and municipal, and county funds. This is a necessary extension of universal free education.

2. An appropriation of federal funds to enable all high school graduates from poverty areas to receive stipends equal to the federal minimum wage.

This would encourage high school graduates to continue education and avoid being thrown on the job market as unskilled or semi-skilled workers.

It provides motivation for parents and youth. It develops a new "culture hero" for the ghetto poor as against the rootlessness that encourages anti-social behavior. It is an alternative to the costs of welfare rolls, prisons, and rehabilitation costs.

3. Extension and expansion of existing higher education appropriations not only for physical sciences, but also for biological sciences, arts and humanities, and social sciences.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. Harry G. Green, president of the Phillips Business College, Lynchburg, Va. He will be accompanied by Richard A. Fulton, executive director and general counsel of the United Business School Association. Gentlemen, I am glad to have you with us. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HARRY G. GREEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, LYNCHBURG, VA.; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD A. FULTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOL ASSOCIATION; AND L. CLAY SPENCER, PRESIDENT-ELECT, UBSA, NEW ORLEANS, LA. Mr. GREEN. Senator Morse, I have added to my group today, in addition to Mr. Fulton, Mr. L. Clay Spencer, who is from New Orleans, and who is the president-elect of United Business School Association. My name is Harry G. Green, I am president of Phillips Business College, Lynchburg, Va., and presently serving as president of the United Business School Association. I am just going to highlight a few of the points in our prepared statement, if that is agreeable to you, sir.

Senator MORSE. You may handle it either way you wish. If you want to insert it in the record, President Green

Mr. GREEN. That will be fine.

Senator MORSE. I will order it inserted in the record at this point, and you gentlemen may summarize it in your own way.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, with the attachments thereto, if that is acceptable.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRY G. GREEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION, LYNCHBURG, VA.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO S. 3098, HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS

OF 1968

To permit needy students in accredited business schools to have, in addition to the work-study program, access to educational opportunity grants and NDEA student loans.

"At page 46, line 11, strike 'work-study' and insert after the word 'programs' and before the comma, ‘authorized by this part'."

1

2

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

46
"DEFINITIONS

"SEO. 410. As used in this part the term

"(1) 'academic year' means an academic year or its equivalent as defined in regulations of the Commissioner;

"(2) 'institution of higher education' means such institution as defined in section 801 (a) (but situated in a State as defined by clause (3) of this section) except that, (A) for purposes of application to the Commissioner and eligibility for an allotment to be allocated exclusively for work-study programs, such definition shall include any school which provides not less than a oneyear program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and which meets the provisions of classes (1), (2), and (5) of such section and (B) if the Commissioner determines that schools of a particular category fail to meet the requirements of clause (5) of section 801 (a) because there is no nationally recognized accrediting agency or association qualified to accredit schools in such category, but that such schools otherwise meet the definition of 'institution of higher education' contained in section 801(a) (as extended by clause (A) of this paragraph), he shall, pending the establishment of such an accrediting agency or association, appoint an advisory committee, composed of persons specially qualified to evaluate

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Education, my name is Harry G. Green. I am President of Phillips Business College of Lynchburg, Virginia. For more than 30 years, I have been associated with business education in independent schools, but my interest has not been limited solely to private or independent education. I served for more than ten years on the Lynchburg School Board and for seven years as its Chairman. Currently, I am serving on the Lynchburg Interracial Commission and the Lynchburg Urban Development Committee.

Presently, I am serving as President of the United Business Schools Association which is the one association of educational institutions in which some 500 of the quality business schools and colleges of this nation hold membership. The roots of UBSA go back more than half a century to 1912. However, many member institutions have been serving students for well over a hundred years.

UBSA itself is an affiliate of the American Council on Education. Administrators and teachers in our schools hold membership in a variety of professional organizations such as the National Business Education Association, the American Personnel and Guidance Association, and the American Vocational Association.

Also, by way of background, the Accrediting Commission for Business Schools; a professionally independent body, was founded in 1953 by UBSA. It was designated in 1956 as a "nationally recognized accrediting agency" by the U.S. Office of Education. In that capacity, it has accredited more than 325 independent educational institutions after careful review and inspection.

It is on behalf of the students enrolled in these accredited schools that we appear today.

We are here to talk about a very large and important problem which continues to confront a relatively small number of students. They are the approximately 15,000 to 20,000 needy students in this country who, for a variety of reasons, choose to select independent proprietary institutions of education rather than public or non-profit institutions.

Accredited proprietary business schools are responsible members of the edu cation and training community. These schools are actively solicited by government, business and industry to supply graduates and to carry out a host of training and education programs under contract. Some examples are: 1. MDTA

(a) According to the HEW 1967 Report to Congress: "In all, 140 manpower training projects in 28 states involved private schools in one or more of these ways during the year. The cost was about $6.8 million, and 7,858 trainees were enrolled. (page 27)

(b) UBSA itself has contracted with HEW to carry out a second, a follow on, program for the training of some 600 enrollees in 10 states for institutional costs of about $471,000. We are just finishing our first program for 550 trainees.

2. Because of the specific vocational motivation of students in business schools our files amply reflect solicitation of our graduates by industry, many Federal agencies and the U.S. Civil Service Commission itself. The new Junior Federal Assistant position is but one example. We would be glad to supply copies.

3. The Pennsylvania state scholarship program provides ample precedent for inclusion of business school students in the Opportunity Grants Program. Attached as Exhibits 4A and 4B are a description of the Pennsylvania scholarship program and a copy of an actual grant to a student.

4. It is aid to the student only which governs all of these programs involving accredited proprietary schools. We are not asking for aid to institutions. That is a distinct and separate type of program. Unfortunately the failure to distinguish between aid to students and aid to institutions has resulted in discrimination against some needy students in accredited proprietary schools. Attached as Exhibits 5A and 5B are copies of a 1960 exchange of correspondence with the U.S. Office of Education in which this distinction is acknowledged and commended. Today, there are a variety of specialized Federal programs designed to aid students and in all of which the principle of eligibility to attend accredited proprietary schools is long established. Attached as Exhibit No. 1 is a list of these twenty programs providing financial benefits for students in specialized categories such as War Orphans or Social Security Dependents. However, needy students in accredited proprietary schools are discriminated against because they

are currently ineligible to participate in the three major programs designed for needy students, namely, National Defense Student Loans, Educational Opportunity Grants, and Work-Study Programs.

The only broad-based across-the-board program for which they are eligible today is the Guaranteed Loan Program. It should be noted, however, that WorkStudy and Guaranteed Loans, as Commissioner Howe pointed out to this Subcommittee in these current hearings, are "complementary programs" which: "... may be used to round out the support needed by a low-income student or to supplement the oft burdensome financing of a student from a middle-income family." (testimony p. 16)

Most students enrolled in accredited proprietary business, trade and technical schools "come from families of a lower-income socioeconomic background." 1 The fact remains that lower income students are routinely denied guaranteed loans by banks because of lack of credit. At the same time they continue to be excluded from the very programs, such as NDEA student loans which are designed to help students in need. (Howe testimony p. 3). They only have access to the Guaranteed Loan Program which is admittedly designed to help middle class students.2

Our statement today is narrow in scope because of the limitations of time and our desire to spotlight the present exclusionary language of the Educational Opportunity Grants. National Defense Student Loans and Work-Study Programs. We endorse and support S. 3098 but would prefer to deal solely with the present denial of aid to needy students in accredited proprietary schools.

We recognize the difficulty in trying to describe the merit of the programs offered in independent accredited proprietary schools and the special needs which they meet without appearing to challenge the predominant and overriding role of the public vocational institutions. But some students do choose these independent schools for a variety of good reasons and with satisfactory results. Historically these schools have been a small but important complement and supplement to the mainstream of educational effort. We think they will continue to make this contribution in such a role.

A small percentage of the total student population feel they are better served by getting an education in their community at an accredited proprietary school. Attached as Exhibit No. 2 is a reprint from the April, 1967, issue of the U.S.O.E. publication American Education that discusses why some students choose proprietary schools and quotes some student answers. The article also refers to a report of research financed by the Office of Education with the Stanford Research Institute which discusses proprietary school operations. An excerpt from that SRI report is attached as Exhibit No. 3.

In 1964 this Committee took an important first step. The NDEA student loan program was made available for the first time to students in a limited number of non-profit business schools accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Business Schools. In your Report No. 1275 of July 31, 1964, this Committee said:

"Accredited business schools generally fulfill the major requirements of collegiate education by offering a post-high-school program for high school graduates under quality standards of education. They provide terminal courses of study which produce qualified personnel available to industry and society. Approximately 20 percent of the students in accredited business schools have enrolled after having one or more semesters of study in 4-year colleges or universities. This amendment will make it possible for such students to continue their educational program in a terminal course at an accredited business college or technical institution. The potential skills and abilities of young people will be conserved rather than lost by means of this amendment."

We feel the trust reposed by this Committee in business school accrediting procedures was well founded and has been honored. We now ask the Committee to take the remaining logical step and make this same program available to needy students in accredited proprietary schools.

1 Hort. Kenneth B., Hearings on Higher Education Act of 1965. Subcommittee on Eduation of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate (89th Cong., 1st Sess.) page 1083. Notes and Working Papers on Student Financial Assistance prepared for the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate (90th Cong., 2nd Sess.) pp. 74, 89, 94.