Page images
PDF
EPUB

the idea of neighborhood meetings which are patterned somewhat after our policy sessions for civic leaders.

We will experiment with two neighborhood programs, and if they are successful, then we intend to apply for regular funding as a reg ular project, but we felt that research and experimental approach was needed before we could apply under the terms of the present act. Much better experimental job could have been done if that provision had existed at the present time.

Senator YARBOROUGH. In other words, you think you could do things that you are not now doing.

Mr. PALMER. You bet.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Under the law, and that you need those. What do you other gentlemen on the panel think? Do you think that is a desirable

Dr. ROGERS. Well, indicated as one possibility, the University Council has sought funds unsuccessfully to develop a metropolitan data bank as a basis for further urban systems and projects. I think this particular section of the act would be an ideal way in which this may be undertaken.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you, after having heard the papers of each of the others, do you gentlemen on this panel have any other suggestions that you desire to offer about this? Any observations?

Doctor Radke, is there any other transportation institute in this part of the country, aside from that at Texas A. & M. University? Dr. RADKE. No, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. There are not many in the Nation, are there? Dr. RADKE. No, sir; there is not. Certain institutions in research are doing this, but not on as broad a basis as we are.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I had not heard of any other in the Nation. I just wondered if there was one.

Dr. RADKE. No, there is-oh, I think part transportation at Yale University, maybe a little bit, but not in the sense we are doing it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I think that is tremendously important, when we read that 20 cents out of every dollar spent in America is for transportation in our economy. I think that the studies you make there I am surprised that you are the only place, that A. & M. University is the only place doing it, but in my 7 years on the Commerce Committee, I never heard of any comparable work, and we worked directly on that committee with this problem of commerce and transportation.

Mr. PALMER. May I suggest that these experimental and pilot programs would be particularly important where you would have a cluster of institutions such as in the north Texas area, where you have to work out new ways of working together. Anything that is to be done with a multiplicity of institutions on a cooperative basis is expensive and time-consuming, and yet, it is necessary to serve an area like that, and to make the best use of the resources available. Senator YARBOROUGH. You wouldn't be referring to any rivalry between Fort Worth and Dallas, would you, Dean Palmer, such as over airports in the past, or something like that?

Mr. PALMER. Well, no. Learning how to work together sometimes is painful, but it is also educational and worthwhile.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It can apply to cities, as well as individuals, I assume from what you inferred, without spelling out specific matters. Dr. Muirhead, you have been here and have listened patiently, and you gave your life's work to this. I would like for you to come up, please, to the table there, if you will. We want to hear from you.

You have got the primary responsibility in the executive field for this legislation and recommending it to the Congress, and defending it there and advising us when we have questions raised about it, or suggestions made about it. I would like to ask you what you think of the suggestion that has been made.

First, I will ask about Dean Palmer's suggestion on page 7. This is always a rather touchy question of Congress holding up money, not spending it, but holding it over for some time, not letting it revert back.

What do you think of his recommendation concerning flexibility? I won't limit that to the point 4 which deals specifically with this holding the money over. He recommends that a designated State agency be allowed to receive the total funds, for them to receive it and hold back one-third for as much as 2 years, without allocating to any specific project. What, from the standpoint of the Federal agency that allocates the funds, what would your problems be there?

Dr. MUIRHEAD, Well, Senator Yarborough, I do appreciate this opportunity to respond to the comments and suggestions, and very good recommendations of the panel.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Let me say we will not limit that to that one point. We are asking your response to all of these panelists.

Dr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, sir. I would like to respond to the panel's developments, and critique, if you will, of title I of the Higher Education Act. I find myself in substantial agreement with what the panel has suggested should be the objectives of title I of the Higher Education

Act.

I am not sure that that agreement goes with the same thumb to the detail of their recommendations, but I think there is little question that we must encourage the development of a continuing education. program with the most realistic involvement at the university with the problems of urban development. Also, Dean Palmer's excellent suggestion, that the objectives of title I will only be met if there is a total university commitment to carry them out, is just first rate.

I can't help but remark, as I am sure almost anyone else would remark sitting in this chair, that the problems of the cities are immense, that they are going to be high on the agenda of this Nation for the next decade, and that insofar as we can encourage, assist, and perhaps induce the university to turn its talents to help resolve them, then, it is a good thing to do.

You have suggested, Dean Palmer, in some of your recommendations here, that the State commission be given a little more elbow room in carrying out objectives of this type. I think that is a good Suggestion. I think any suggestion that will encourage experimentation and innovation is, on the whole, a good thing to do.

Now, I am not sure, however, that I could go along with you to the extent of permitting the State commission to have enough flexibility so that they could hold on to one-third of the funds for a number of

years. I think if we had generous funds in support of higher education, that there may very well be a good deal of merit in that suggestion. But with a funding level of $10 million for a job that certainly demands a much larger commitment than that, I question whether or not we could, in good conscience, put aside what you suggestedperhaps as much as one-third of those funds-until something viable and particularly worthwhile in that State comes along.

I would just feel, Dean Palmer, that $10 million that is available in this program should be committed to the purposes of that program

now.

You have suggested, I think with a great deal of validity, that if there is embedded in the law, as has been suggested by the administration, a percentage withholding to encourage experimentation, innovation, and interstate projects, then the State commission should be involved in the carrying out of those projects. At least it should be involved in coordinating so that we don't have an overlap. I think that makes sense. I think the advantages of having one set-aside for experimental purposes are self-evident on their face.

There are proposals that probably should be supported under this program that are interstate in nature, and that do involve more than one State agency. Probably this set-aside would be the only way to do that, but I would second your suggestion that the State commissions certainly should be the coordinating agency, or at least be involved somehow in carrying the projects out.

You make a plea, Dean Palmer, that the administrative detail for the program should be lessened, and I say bless your heart. It should be. I do want to call your attention, however, that in the kind of world that we live in, there is a need to know what Federal funds are used for. That need extends to many nooks and crannies in the Federal bureaucracy, but I call respectfully to your attention, and to the attention of the good senator, that a very important reason for that information is so that we can report back to the Congress on how effectively the program that they have enacted is being carried out.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Doctor Muirhead, may I interrupt you here? As you gentlemen know, we have a dual system in the Congress different from most legislative bodies. Instead of the enacting legislature carrying the appropriation, we have the requirement of two different

laws.

The

First, we pass the authorizing legislation, and then, the Federal agency charged with administering the law must go before the Appropriations Committee, a different committee, to get the money. Appropriations Committee of Congress generally is very much tighter with money than the committees which sponsor this authorizing legislation, and they demand, as Doctor Muirhead has indicated-he is probably a little too polite to tell just how rough it is in that Appropriations Committee. I know, because I am on the Appropriations Committee, but I am the 26th man out of 26, and they ask for an accounting with such detail that you would think that they were CPA's, or special agents. We must give an account down to the smallest amounts, and whether it was spent that year. If it wasn't spent that year, the Appropriations Committee is apt to say, "They don't need it; let's cut off a third, if it wasn't spent that year; look here, they want to hold it for 2 years."

I see the validity of your need, how you could use it more economically that way, Dean Palmer, but the Appropriations Committee, knowing how they operate, well, they will say if it takes them 2 years to figure out how to use it, or a way to use it, we are giving them too much money, we are just throwing the money away, and there is a great danger the appropriations would be sliced off a third.

I think that is what Doctor Muirhead wanted to get over, but probably didn't want to say it about our Congress committees, and sometimes by representation of the House of Representatives, committees are very much tougher on the agencies than we are in the Senate.

At least, we know there is need for latitude with this money. It takes time to evaluate programs, new projects, new hopes, new ideals, and new plans that people have, that we have got to have in an expanding economy, the explosion of knowledge that we have in America

now.

I think, Doctor Muirhead, in fairness to you, I ought to tell them that we have called you here as a consultant here today on everything, but the responsibilities under this title I of the Higher Education Act amendments in the administration are vested with your colleague, Assistant Commissioner Van, and you may want to convey to him our invitation if he desires to supplement this with any comments on these papers after we receive them. We welcome that, too. We appreciate your coming in alone, commenting on all of the different sections of the program brought up here.

Doctor MUIRHEAD. Thank you, and I do appreciate the generosity in explaining this schizophrenic life that bureaucrats have to lead as we appear before your committee. Many times, the administration is accused of being shortsighted, and penurious, and as we appear before the Appropriations Committee, we are accused of being very irresponsible spendthrifts.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is a very accurate summary of what happens to the Office of Education. We have Senators on our committee who will say, "Well, this is just a mere pittance of what you need. Why don't you ask for the money you need"? But as Doctor Muirhead states, when he goes over to the Appropriations Committee, he is treated like a wild spendthrift, in the amount of money that you gentlemen, as educators, would consider too small for the projects you need for this great Nation.

Doctor Muirhead, we are coming to the close of today's hearings, and I would like to ask if you have any response to any of the points raised all day long in all of it, rather than limit you to this particular panel on one segment of this which deals only in the closing panel with community service and continuing education?

We are coming to the close of the hearings. We could like to have your comments if you care to make any comments on the day's hearings, or any portion of the day's hearings.

Dr. MUIRHEAD. Well, I thank you Senator Yarborough. The overriding comment that I would like to make is that this is a perfectly marvelous thing to do, and I would hope that we would do it more often. As I reported in my testimony this morning, too often as we appear before your committee, we are within the parochial limitations of the Washington bureaucracy, and it is good to get out here in

the rarefied atmosphere of Austin and to deal with you and the colleges and universities that you represent, and to deal with them in the flesh.

We learn from them firsthand what their problems are, so I can't help but have a very warm feeling about the whole experience today. I am returning to Washington with a number of very fine ideas on how we might better improve the administration of our programs. I am also returning to Washington with some very promising ideas as to how the present legislation that is now before you might be interpreted in different ways.

I would also, of course, be derelict in my responsibilities to you, Senator, if I did not comment specifically upon some of the recommendations that were made to you today, and in some instances, perhaps offer a rebuttal.

The broad recommendations that we heard on the student aid programs constituted an almost unqualified endorsement. There were some specific recommendations, however, with regards to the guaranteed loan program. One recommendation was that the guaranteed loan program should be in effect be administered through the colleges: that is, that the student financial aid officer should review the applications of candidates for guaranteed loan programs, determine the amount that they should get, or determine whether or not they should get a loan at all. I find myself not in agreement with that, because I think the job of the college is to teach, and the job of the college is to use its resources and to help young people get a higher education that otherwise couldn't get it.

It we now place upon the back of the colleges the job of trying to assess whether or not all students coming from families earning $15,000 or less should or should not get loans. I am just afraid that the colleges will be overwhelmed with a responsibility that is not properly theirs.

Colleges are not bankers, and they are not very good at it. They are good at teaching, and they are good at assessing whether or not their resources can attract young people to get a higher education.

I just make a plea, Senator, that in our enthusiasm for moving ahead on these student aid programs, that the colleges don't bite off more than they can chew by seeking to administer, in effect, the guaranteed loan program. This is a program that is not primarily directed at needy students. This is a program directed at students from middle income families, and they might better be handled through the banks, in my judgment.

I thought the recommendations concerning developing institutions program were just splendid. I was pleased, Senator, to learn that there was a consensus among your witnesses concerning your special program for encouraging retired professors to teach at developing institutions. As I reported to you in Washington, we think that is a splendid idea, and we want to do what we can to support it.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the recommendations on the graduate fellowship program this morning from Professor Arrowsmith, and a very decisive, far-reaching analysis of the program he did provide. He suggested that perhaps one change that could lead to an improvement in this program would be to permit the graduate

« PreviousContinue »