Senator YARBOROUGH. Is that the difference in the social sciences and the natural sciences, Dr. Silber?

Dr. SILBER. No; it is not always. In this particular case, the one best supported is zoology, and the one least supported is American civilization, but one can find sharp variations even within the sciences.

In one division of the sciences, support is as low as $850, so that there are just striking variations. They may depend upon anything from provisions of Federal law to the energy and management of the chairman of the departments. It is a very complex situation, and I am not at all sure that there is any simple solution to this problem. I raise it simply to call the Congress' attention to the fact that students are very often encouraged to go into one field rather than another, not on the basis of aptitude or ability or on the basis of their interest in the field, but merely on the basis of the availability of financial support, and any provision to equalize financial support across fields might encourage students to make their career decisions on the basis of issues of more central importance than where the financial support was coming from.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, all of the statements you have will be printed in the record with great interest, because in my 10 years on this subcommittee, I don't believe we have ever had from any university before such a comprehensive report of how these loans operate, and on the hearings we have had to date this year, we have had Members of the Senate on the subcommittee bring up this question you have raised about how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars go begging, that there are funds all over the country and students won't use them--the student loan funds-that you don't need this National Defense Education Act loan fund. You have heard those objections, too, that there is plenty of money for students if they just look for it; that there is no need for anyone to fail to get an education. These are the clichés we hear in Congress.

These bills are not easily passed. Some people seem to think that all you have to do is drop a bill in the Congress on spending money, and it passes automatically. We have a very hard time to get these bills through, and after we get them passed, then we have more difficulty fighting getting money appropriated to implement them, so this detailed survey that you are giving us is going to be of great value to the committee.

As you know, all of these reports are printed, all of this hearing is printed, and the reports are distributed to the people interested in education over the country. Yours will be received by many people interested in the field of education, doubtless. Will you proceed, please? Dr. SILBER. That is it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You have finished.

The next witness is Mr. Lloyd Doggett, president of the University of Texas Student Body, Austin, Tex.

Now, we are going to have an opportunity to hear one of the students who are the recipients of the orders and regulations that are granted. Mr. Doggett, will you proceed? The full text of your prepared statement will be printed in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Doggett follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LLOYD DOGGETT, PRESIDENT, STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN, TEX.

This opportunity to evidence student concern for federal financial assistance to students beyond the secondary level is indeed an honor. In the Employment Act of 1946 Congress indicated that maximum employment of human resources was a national goal and a federal responsibility. It is only fitting that in the Educational Opportunity Act of 1968 the Congress should determine that maximum development of these resources is also in the national interest. At present, the State of Texas and the nation as a whole are being denied valuable resources because large segments of the citizenry have not received all the education which they desire and need. In Texas this is particularly true, though not limited, to the Mexican American population. Only a small percentage of this important minority group will ever receive any type of post-secondary education. Similarly at the University of Texas at Austin, the major institution of higher learning in the State, we find less than 1% of the student population is Negro.

The reasons why many members of these minority groups are not receiving the post-secondary education which they should have are, as the Committee is aware, diverse. But one of the more important is the lack of financial assistance to economically disadvantaged groups. Inadequacies in the State approach are evidenced by both the heralded Connally-Carillo Act and the Texas Opportunity Plan loan. The former exempts from payment of tuition and laboratory fees those Texas citizens who graduated in the upper quarter of their high school class and whose family income was under $4800. The latter provides loans with interest at 6% per annum for students who can show financial need. In both cases the prerequisites for assistance eliminate the needy or moderately needy student of average, but not superior abilities. In both cases, the assistance is extremely limited. The Connally-Carillo Act leaves untouched the costly barrier of living expenses, books and other class supplies. The Opportunity Plan loan provides an opportunity primarily to saddle the disadvantaged student with a long term high interest debt. In short, the State of Texas along with other states has not seen fit to develop fully its human resources through the provision of adequate financial assistance to students.

One proposal to meet this problem posed by some Texas national representatives seems popular but not propitious. Use of income tax deductions as a form of financial assistance to families with college students will offer a minimal incentive to low income-high need groups, while at the same time denying the Federal Government important tax revenue. Such a proposal suggests graduated assistancegraduated in the wrong direction.

Much more desirable would be an expanded program of scholarships and low interest loans to complement the limited efforts of the State of Texas. Where the loan approach is utilized, repayment of the loans should be cancelled concurrently with the work of previously assisted graduates in a wide range of public service. Such cancellable loans would be similar to provisions in the National Defense Education Act. Through such provisions the Federal Government can provide a secondary benefit of channeling resources to needed areas such as the State's lagging mental institutions, institutions of higher learning, rural elementary and secondary education, and other efforts to eradicate both rural and urban poverty.

Examining the need to provide adequate financial assistance to students, we, of course, encounter the budgetary stringencies imposed by the War. If it is necessary to continue the imposition of such burdens on American education and the American economy, at least let us have a small ration of butter to accompany the guns. So long as we deny students education because of their limited finances we deny the individual a more fulfilling life and the nation valuable human resources. In this regard, Senator, I would offer especially strong endorsement of your Amendment No. 310 to finance studies of alternative plans for providing universal educational opportunity at the post-secondary level.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD DOGGETT, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS STUDENT BODY, AUSTIN, TEX.

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, sir. The opportunity to express student concern for the work of the committee in general, and particularly on

financial loans, is certainly an honor, and it is a special honor because you are one of the few leaders in the State of Texas who have not only sought-not only listened to students, but have actually gone out and sought their opinions on a wide range of subjects.

In the employment act of 1946 the Congress indicated that maximum employment of human resources was a national goal. It is only fiitting that in the educational opportunity act with your amendment, that the Congress should determine that maximum development of these resources is also in the national interest. At present the State of Texas and the Nation as a whole are being denied valuable resources because large segments of the citizenry have not received all the education which they desire and need. Some of the States you have noted make this particularly obvious. It is particularly true, although not limited to the Mexican-American population in the State of Texas. Only a small percentage of this important minority group will ever receive any type of post-secondary education. Similarly at the University of Texas at Austin, the major institution of higher learning in the state, we find less than 1 percent of the student population is Negro.

The reasons why many members of these minority groups are not receiving the post-secondary education which they should have are, as the committee is aware, diverse. One of the most important is the lack of financial assistance to economically disadvantaged groups. Inadequacies in the State approach, already noted by Doctor Silber, are evidenced by both the heralded Conally-Carrillo Act and the Texas opportunity plan loan. A lot has been said about these two provisions so far as State's assistance, and as you know, many times these loans go lacking. Actually, I think the provisions-some of them I have noted. in the statement to the committee are very much lacking. The Texas opportunity plan loan has an interest rate of six percent per annum for students who show financial need, and to me, this seems extremely high.

In both cases the prerequisites for assistance eliminate the needy or moderately needy student of average, but not superior abilities. Apparently, if it comes to needy students, we feel that they must be superior in ability, rather than a person who has moderate income and who may have moderate abilities. In both cases, the assistance is extremely limited.

The Connally-Carrillo Act leaves untouched the costly barrier of living expenses, books, and other class supplies. The opportunity plan loan which helps some students, seems to me, provides an opportunity primarily to saddle the disadvantaged student.

It seems to me that the State of Texas will increase its industrial basis only when it realizes that it must allocate more resources to the human area in the development of human resources. One proposal that some of your colleagues have made so far as solvency of these problems seems popular, but not altogether propitious. This is the use of income tax deductions as a form of financial assistance to families with college students to offer a minimal incentive to low incomehigh need groups, while at the same time denying the Federal Government important tax revenue. Such a proposal suggests graduated assistance graduated in the wrong direction.

Much more desirable would be expanded programs of scholarships

and low interest loans to complement the limited efforts of the State of Texas.

I think Dr. Silber made the point that it would be particularly advantageous to have this in the form of grants, but I think, from a practical standpoint, while we would like to see more grants, we realize that there are certain budgetary strings on the national level, and that there is a need to reach a great many students, so if we have to use loans, at least let these be extremely low interest loans, and I would disagree with Dr. Adams on a point he raised a while ago.

I think when the loan approach is used that we should permit cancellation with the work of previously assisted graduates in a wide range of public service, and if anything, that we should broaden the areas of public service when the National Defense Education Act provides cancellation for teaching.

It would seem particularly in the State of Texas, that we should broaden this and have the secondary benefit of the Federal Government encouraging the channeling of the resources to the needed areas in the State, such as our lagging mental institutions, institutions of higher learning, rural elementary and secondary education, and other efforts to eradicate both rural and urban poverty.

Examining the need to provide adequate financial assistance to students we, of course, encounter the budgetary stringencies imposed by the war. If it is necessary to continue the imposition of such burdens on American education and the American economy, at least let us have a small ration of butter to accompany the guns.

So long as we deny students education because of their limited. finances, we deny the individual a more fulfilling life and the nation valuable human resources.

In this regard, Senator, I would offer especially strong endorsement of your amendment number 310 to finance studies of alternative plans for providing universal educational opportunity at the postsecondary level.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That was an excellent statement, Mr. Doggett. Thank you. Dr. Silber, it is certainly inspiring to see the dean of the college of arts and sciences from a great university like this, concerned with the children in poorer families, the Headstart program, children in families who normally, certainly 20 or 30 years ago, couldn't have gotten into the university like this from their families, alone.

I want to express my appreciation to you, and my congratulations to the university that would promote you, as it recently has, to the deanship, when you are working so hard in concerns over such a wide area of our society to improve our entire society, and it is a pleasure to hear from you, and I think I might-one sentence might summarize what has been demonstrated, and that was this statement by Sir Arthur Hugh Clough, over the last century, noted English scholar, and he said "grace is given of God, but knowledge is bought in the marketplace," and what we are finding out here, Texas is particularly in short supply of that knowledge bought in the market because we have three and a half million people in the poverty bracket, where the entire family earns less than $3,000 a year. No other State in the Union has that many people in the poverty bracket. We have that many people in the poverty bracket, with 10,700,000 population.

Neither California nor New York have that many in the poverty bracket, and their population is crowding 20 million for each State, and I think if there is anything that demonstrates need for an educational thrust in Texas, it is this, and I want to continue now that you have each finished your primary statement, I think we can come back to some of the basic needs in Texas.

I don't think I will go into details of this legislation, but go more to the philosophy of this that Dr. Silber and Mr. Doggett have raised with their discussion of the complications of loans, grants, tax credits, and so on.

If you will pardon the personal reference, I am author of the cold war GI bill which I first introduced in 1958. It took 8 long, difficult years to get it passed. I worked more on that than any other piece of legislation in my life, and finally, in 1966 it was enacted. It took 8 years because the Department of Defense, with its vast influence in America, put its shoulder to the wheel against it. The Veterans' Administration is supposed to look out for veterans under direction from the White House, and the Bureau of the Budget fought the bill for 8 long years. We had opposition. We had to fight the Defense Department, the Government administration, and the Bureau of Budget, to pass this GI bill. It is a legislative achievement.

Had this mistaken belief been abroad in the land that the executive sends up a measure, the Congress passes it; is a rather rubberstamp situation-had we been a rubberstamp Congress all that time, we would have never had a GI bill, and frankly, we had some altruistic Senators who said, "We believe in the universality of all people. This is discriminatory in its reference to veterans." I said, "I agree with you, I want universal higher education, free so far as tuition is concerned, to all students." Now we know from the experience of World War II, it is feasible to get this help for veterans.

I have personally talked to people who have graduated from colleges under one of the GI bills from World War II or the Korean conflict who told me they were the first person in all of their history of their family-rural, farming families in America-to go to college. Under the influence of their college education, their nieces, nephews, and relatives are knocking at the doors of college now. I am not talking about just the Negroes. I mean whites. I know of people holding high positions in Washington that told me they were the first member-they were from families that didn't see any necessity for college education-they were the first member of their family who ever went to college, and they went under those GI bills. Knowing the benefits there, I have authored two GI bills not to exclude the nonservicemen, but to have a wedge, hoping that this amendment that I have introduced, in the not too distant future, will be written into law, so it directed study by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to report back what systems should be used."

We know the feasibility: as long as we are spending some $30 million a year more in Southeast Asia, it is going to be impossible to get it; so I have asked for a study, hopefully that this waste can soon stop and that we can start spending this money to build this society in America that Thomas Jefferson envisioned and that your work has contributed so much to, Dr. Silber. I would like now to open this panel to a discussion.