STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS Mr. FLOOD. A number of individuals and organizations asked to be permitted to testify on certain programs for which appropriations may possibly be included in the supplemental appropriation bill. Time did not permit us to take oral testimony on these subjects, but we have received quite a few written statements, and those will be inserted in the record at this point. (The statements follow:) OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JORGE CÓRDOVA, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER Hon. DANIEL J. FLOOD, FROM PUERTO RICO CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 21, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is my statement on the OEO appropriations for 1973, which I shall appreciate your inserting in the record at an appropriate place. With best wishes, JORGE L. CÓRDOVA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I appreciate the privilege of presenting this statement for your consideration as you prepare to act on the fiscal year 1973 appropriations for the Office of Economic Opportunity. Heretofore, some of the most important, and most necessary, OEO programs were applicable to Puerto Rico in a fashion arbitrarily limited, regardless of need, to an amount which, when added to the amounts allotted to Guam, the Virgin Islands, Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific, did not exceed 2 percent of the sums appropriated or allocated for community action programs or special program projects. This 2 percent ceiling was eliminated in the Economic Opportunity Amendments Act of 1972, which the President signed yesterday effective with fiscal year 1973. The full participation of Puerto Rico's poor in OEO programs, significantly including full participation by Puerto Rico's poor children in the Headstart program, is estimated by OEO to require $28 million in additional funding for Puerto Rico. Unless the OEO appropriations for 1973 is increased by this amount, OEO would be required to cut $28 million from the sums now allocated to the several States on a discretionary basis, over and above statutory allocations. This would mean a cutback on ongoing programs in those States. Attached is a list of the States now receiving these discretionary funds, among which any cutback would have to be absorbed. I have fought for the equal treatment of our Puerto Rican poor which the 1972 amendments provide. But I would not want to achieve this result at the expense of the poor on the mainland. I therefore urge this committee to add $28 million to the OEO appropriation. The following States have received the most discretionary funding for community action and special program projects above their statutory levels: STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN DORN OF SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. Chairman, it is a distinct privilege and a pleasure to submit to your great committee my views on the funding of higher education programs for fiscal year 1973. Education must have top priority in the seventies. Many of our Nation's most serious ills, such as crime, drug abuse, divisiveness, can be dealt with most effectively through education. I cannot concur with some of the recommendations made recently with respect to cutting back the funding for some of our most vital higher education programs. It is highly regrettable that the administration has failed to submit to your committee its revised budget requests for many of the higher education programs, but I do not believe the Congress should or can wait. We are all acutely aware of the serious financial plight of many of our finest institutions of higher learning. It is simply impossible for them to generate the revenues necessary to finance greatly needed new facilities and equipment purchases or to hire qualified instructors. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect and admiration for our educators, who work at the grade school, high school, and college levels. These fine men and women have devoted their lives to helping educate others, but they cannot do the job without adequate resources. I have talked personally with education officials all over my own State of South Carolina and in other parts of the country, and they have expressed to me their concern for the same basic programs. These dedicated people are the ones who utilize the funds we provide, and they know best what programs meet their needs most effectively. I respectfully urge that your great committee give special consideration to providing funding to the fully authorized levels for the following programs: 1. Construction grants for higher education facilities. 2. Direct loans for construction of academic facilities. 3. Direct assistance for undergraduate instructional equipment. 4. Comprehensive State planning assistance. 5. Community service and continuing education assistance. 7. Basic grant assistance under title X of the new education amendments. Mr. Chairman, education is the best investment this Government can make; it is insurance for the future. As vice chairman of our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am constantly reminded of the splendid success of the GI bill. The GI Education bill has provided education for 10 million American men and women, at a cost of $19 billion. Some said it would lead to Federal control of education or that it would "break the bank." Already these 10 million men and women have paid into the Treasury over $100 billion more than they would have had they not been educated. Even greater than this fantastic financial dividend is the social and technological dividend to the American people. Through such education assistance we helped educate countless doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and so many others. The list, Mr. Chairman, is endless, and it demonstrates the sound value of investing generously in the education of our citizens. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your outstanding committee for this opportunity to present my statement to you. EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972 LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE RICHARD B. OGILVIE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Springfield, Ill. September 26, 1972. Hon. DANIEL FLOOD, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Health Education Welfare, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FLOOD: I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my interest in the Education Amendments of 19972 and my concern that appropriations be provided for some of the programs contained therein. As chairman of the Special Committee on Higher Education for the National Governor's Conference, I have watched the development of this legislation with particular interest. Several times over the past year I joined with other Governors in stressing the importance of the Education Amendments of 1972 for all the States. We told your colleagues that substantive legislation this year was paramount. Today I am saying that funding for these programs is just as critical. After more than a year of congressional debate the need remains, and that need is immediate. I am concerned that in this busy legislative year Congress may conclude that in approving substantive legislation its job is finished. That concern is grounded in the recent experience of Federal support to higher education. In spite of the national benefits which result from a skilled and educated citizenry, State government presently shoulders many times the burden assumed by the Federal Government in the support of higher education. In 1971 Federal assistance to all Illinois institutions of higher education was only a fraction of that provided by the State of Illinois. In the area of undergraduate student aid, the contrast between State and Federal effort is even more pronounced. Last year, Illinois provided over $63 million in undergraduate student aid; in the same year roughly $8 million came to Illinois undergraduates through the educational opportunity grant program. I emphasize the relative funding levels of Federal and State support for student aid because of the traditional roles that the two levels have assumed. The partnership envisioned by the framers of the previous Federal programs, was this: Leave it to the States to help students with instructional costs-either by keeping tuition low in the public sector (which we have done in Illinois), or by providing grants to assist with tuition charges (which we have also done in Illinois). The Federal aid program would concentrate on giving additional assistance to the very needy-those who need help with books, room and board, travel, and the other costs which accompany college attendance. That was the contract and the record shows we in Illinois did our part. But the Federal responsibility has never been met. College financial aid officers tell me that they have money for fewer Federal grants for freshmen this year than last. And they could only help a fraction of those who qualified last year. As a State official I recognize the fiscal constraints which you face. I sympathize with your efforts to balance Federal spending with revenues. It is the difficult task of government at all levels. But I firmly believe that breaking down the barriers which prevent many of our citizens from developing their full potential must be high on our priority list for allocating the resources which are available. Put simply, it is an investment that we cannot afford not to make. Because of my commitment to extending access to postsecondary education to all those who would gain from it, I view several provisions of the Education Amendments of 1972 to be particularly worthy of your support in the appropriations process. Part A. subpart 3, of the amendments to title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 would match increases in our State scholarship commission pro gram. In Illinois, the Federal share alone would generate' support for at least 3,500 more students; combined with increased State commitment, access could be extended to 7,000 more young people in Illinois. If the $50 million authorized for this program were appropriated, Statesponsored student aid totaling $324 million in all States could be increased by nearly one-third. More than 206,000 additional students could be assisted. As impressive as these figures are, they reflect no more than the tip of an iceberg of unmet need. In Illinois we know that more than 60,000 students have financial needs which go unmet even after heavily subsidized tuition, student assistance, and reasonable parental support, part-time work and borrowing. These students are working and borrowing beyond what is expected by nationally accepted need analysis standards in order to remain in school. Many more are not so fortunate. We estimate that 40% of all Illinois families could not meet the college costs of their children even if all institutional charges were met by financial aid. Our student assistance program, like those in most States, is geared to meeting institutional costs. But there is more to be done: living costs present a serious financial problem for many potential students. We will continue to carry our part of the burden and to expand our efforts. At the same time, the Federal Government must become a more productive partner by increasing its efforts to assist students. The obvious gulf between the goal and the reality of equal access to postsecondary education leads me to commend another feature of the amendments of 1972 for funding. Subpart 1, part A of the amendments to title III authorizes a new program of basic educational opportunity grants to students at institutions of higher education. As you probably know this program envisions a national minimum level of support for college students. It would be effective in meeting the students' needs for living costs which I have just described. I recognize that we cannot expect full funding of the basic educational opportunity grant program in the first year, but failure to fund it at all would be irresponsible. The choice before you is not between all and nothing at all. Any significant amount would enable us to begin bridging the opportunity gap. The share of the BEOG funds coming to Illinois would allow us to better meet the needs of those students now enrolled in college. Combined with state programs, it would begin the enormous task of assisting those able students who are completely denied college opportunity. I strongly recommend that the State Student Incentive Grant program be fully funded and that the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program be funded to the maximum extent possible in the first year. Two other provisions of the Education Amendments of 1972 are of high priority. Part B of the amendments to title X of the Higher Education Act of 1965 authorizes grants for planning and initiating programs in the field of occupational education. I cannot overstate the importance of this provision for Illinois postsecondary education. The occupational education provisions would direct resources to the real training needs of our citizens-young and old alike. For too long, training in educational programs has led to dead-end jobs or phantom careers. The occupational education programs would create a necessary link between the hard realities of the world of work and students who seek gainful employment. They will make complete the range of opportunities available to all students. Many of you are aware that recent reports of manpower trends point to the increased demand for skilled workers. State educational systems are attempting to adapt to these demands. In most cases, the costs of expanding into the area of occupational education are great and the experience in doing so is brief. In Illinois we have seen that, on the average, occupational instruction costs one-third more than traditional baccalaureate programs in our junior colleges. In one area of pressing need-the health occupations-producing 1 credit hour of instruction consumes twice the resources required to produce an undergraduate credit hour in our public universities. Facilities and equipment are costly and qualified instructors are in short supply. Confronted with such costs, many institutions are reluctant to undertake vocational programs. The amendments of 1972 would assist States in two important ways. First, it would assist us in bringing together all agencies and parties concerned with the provision of occupational education. This would allow us in Illinois to avoid the duplication and scattering of resources now apparent in vocational education be cause of scattershot Federal programs. Second, it would allow educational institutions around the Nation to undertake high-quality occupational education programs. The experience gained in designing and conducting such programs would benefit every institution in every State in meeting the growing need for subprofessional workers in the most efficient and effective manner. Funds authorized for this program total $100 million for the fiscal year ending June 1973 and $250 million for the fiscal year ending June 1974. I recommend that you make every effort to fully fund the occupational education programs. Part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended to provide for a Veterans' Cost-of-Instruction grant program to institutions of higher education. I regard this program as critical to the task of returning veterans to the mainstream of American life. We, in Illinois, have made a concentrated effort to assist veterans who seek to improve their work skills and educational attainment. For several years we have offered complete waiver of instructional costs to veterans who enroll in public institutions. In the academic year just past, more than 10,000 veterans were enrolled at public universities and 30,000 were enrolled at public junior colleges under this program. However, experience has shown us that student assistance to veterans is not enough. We have been constrained in our effort by the difficult tasks of reaching veterans and informing them of the programs which are available. And we have only begun the difficult job of assisting veterans who return to college after several years outside of the educational process. The Veterans' Cost-of-Instruction grants would assist us in exactly those areas. They would allow Illinois institutions-both public and private-to establish and conduct veterans' affairs offices to bring more veterans into the educational process and assist them once there. As a State government, we stand ready to assist institutions in expanding the enrollment of veterans and in designing effective programs; we need the support of the Federal Government to assist us in this mission. I urge you to provide full funding for Veterans' Cost-of-Instruction payments to institutions of higher education. I hope you find these comments to be of assistance to you in your funding deliberations. I believe that Federal support for these programs is urgently needed, and I hope you will consider many of the other features of the Education Amendments of 1972 which I did not touch upon. I am confident that the intent of Congress was that the Federal Government do more in higher education, and that the states be encouraged to do more. I know that I speak for every person concerned for the future of Illinois higher education in saying that I stand ready to assist you in any possible way to make the educational goals of 1972 the reality of the years ahead. Sincerely, RICHARD B. OGILVIE, Governor. EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972 STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, Hon. DANIEL J. FLOOD, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been asked to transmit, on behalf of many higher education associations, the attached statement and table. They represent our best judgment on the sums needed if congressional intent, as expressed in the Higher Education Amendments of 1972, is to be fulfilled. We have found it difficult to submit our proposals without any knowledge of what the President's proposals for funding these programs or his sense of priorities are likely to be. We would be grateful, therefore, if the committee could afford us an opportunity to revise our proposals and offer comment after the President's figures are known. While our principal responsibility is higher education, we assure you of our |