will not increase available space. At the war's end obsolete temporaries were not a problem. There was a slack in 1945. Even the college communities were able to help considerably by providing offcampus housing and feeding facilities.

Faculty salaries are a pressing problem now, where after World War II salary rates were rather constant. After World War II, private institutions accepted the returning veteran at about the same ratio. as did the public institutions. This time the private institutions for financial reasons may be facing a much more serious problem involving their ratio of increase.

Please permit me briefly to use my own institution, the University of Florida, to highlight some of the things which have been happening to higher education generally and as to what may be expected in the future.

We are a land-grant institution. Before the war, our peak enrollment was 3,000 students. We housed these students in 5 dormitories, 2 of which are over 50 years old. We housed 32.4 percent of our student body. After the war, our enrollment jumped to 8,300, and shortly thereafter to 10,000, or 300 percent higher than our prewar figure-all of this in a small college town, smaller than the university. Added to the problem was the fact that there was no longer just single male students but in 1947 the institution was made coeducational. No women's housing was available, and many of our buildings do not even possess a lady's restroom. Nor was the problem limited to single students, but they were coming with their families, several of them with children, as many as five. Finally, the number of dependents on campus became as large as the number of students who were enrolled in the institution before the war.

What was done to meet this unprecedented growth? Were it not for the prompt joint effort of many, it would not have been possible. The United States Government made available to us a wartime airport 10 miles away from the campus. By use of an extensive bus system we housed 1,000 students at this tar-paper airport. The State and the United States Government combined to provide funds and materials to move 17 one-story barracks to our campus-barracks which had been originally built for a 4-year life and were already 5 to 6 years old when they were demounted, moved several hundreds of miles, remounted and made available. These so-called temporaries are now in their 15th year of age. Four men were assigned to each 10 by 14 room. The university tried to meet the housing demand for additional space by overcrowding 1,538 men into residence halls designed to accommodate only 1,120. The overcrowding and the creation of these educational slums are acceptable as a temporary measure and were tolerated by students and university administrators in the belief that the postwar bulge would run its course and conditions would then return to normal.

It is common knowledge that enrollments did not drop back to prewar levels and in many cases the high postwar enrollments have held, and it is from this high level the institutions are now having to face this new flood of students.

By 1950, 4 years after the arrival of the bulge, students could no longer tolerate the living conditions, and we have since constructed additional dormitories through the help of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. But even with this added increase, we are today

having to overcrowd our housing and are still only able to house 50 percent of our student body and yet use all of this student margin of facilities.

It is considered significant in this connection that the students assigned to the inadequate and submarginal temporary buildings on our campus have consistently had lower composite academic averages at the end of each semester than the students living in permanent facilities.

Gentlemen, this is important. This is why we are in business.

According to the registrar's office, for the first semester of 1954–55, the all student body average was 2.17. The university's grading system is to consider 4 points an A, 3 points a B, and so forth. The average for all in its student housing, including the temporary dormitories, was 2.05.

The depressive fact is that the average in our temporary dormitories was only 1.7, or nearly a half a point below the all student average.

By 1951, the university had continued to build additional facilities and had continued to maintain housing for approximately 40 percent of our student bodies, still overcrowding and still utilizing their temporary facilities.

Conservative estimates indicate that the university enrollment will be more than 20,000 by 1965. Assuming no reduction in the overcrowded conditions in the permanent halls but recognizing the inevitable that the temporary facilities will deteriorate beyond use within the next 2 years, it would then be necessary to add 5,180 student spaces just to maintain the present percent housed at the same level as it is at present. At the average cost of $3,000 to $3,300 per student per dormitory construction, this means the University of Florida alone will need an additional $7 million to house our increase of students and still not increase our percentage of university-house students or relieve our overoccupancy. This figure would not make any provision for desperately needed married student housing.

A new unit must be ready for occupancy by September 1957 to house better than 600 students now in the temporary buildings which will not be habitable by that date. This is replacement need only. To meet the demands of rising enrollment and to do no more than maintain the status quo, it would be necessary to have a new building to house more than 500 students ready for occupancy each September from 1956 to 1965 or 1970.

In conclusion, America's national interest is dependent upon the ability of our institutions of higher learning to produce a quality product for our country's future scientists, doctors, engineers, statesmen, and other leaders in every field of scholarship endeavors.

We have an insurmountable task. S. 1744 will help us solve this part of the problem.

Thank you for the opportunity of presenting these matters for your consideration.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Does the Senator from Indiana

Senator CAPEHART. No questions at all. It is very clear to me. Senator FULBRIGHT. Would you agree, Mr. Baughman, that the 314 percent factor or interest rate is a limiting factor in this application?

Mr. BAUGHMAN. It is a very material factor; yes, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. So you believe that if the interest rate is reduced to 2.75 that the whole $500 million would be used?

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Without a doubt, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, thank you very much. Your whole statement will be put in the record.

Thank you very much.

(Mr. Baughman's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF GEORGE F. BAUGHMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER

EDUCATION

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am George F. Baughman, vice president for Business Affairs, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. I have just returned from a 6-month educational survey trip sponsored by the Carnegie Corp. which covered 25,000 miles and which took me to 60 outstanding institutions in 42 States. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in favor of S. 1744 on behalf of the Association for Higher Education, a department of the National Education Association of the United States. The Association for Higher Education is an association of individuals engaged fulltime in college and university work. It has approximately 17,000 members in over 1,500 colleges and universities. Its membership is composed of administrative officers-presidents, deans, business managers, registrars—and of faculty members from every academic and professional field.

The 10th Annual National Conference on Higher Education, sponsored by the Association for Higher Education, meeting in Chicago, in March of this year, passed resolutions calling upon the Congress to enact legislation similar to that embodied in S. 1744. Senator Fulbright inserted in the Congressional Record a copy of the conference resolutions, as subsequently approved by the executive committee of the association, at the time of his introduction of S. 1744 on April 20.

The Ninth Annual National Conference on Higher Education, 1954, had also passed resolutions urging the expansion of the college housing-loan program. In fact, the association has been actively interested in this program from its inception.

Recognizing that we are approaching a national emergency in higher education, its financial aspects are those causing one of the greatest concerns. Many financial problems face us. Overcrowded and harassed by budget troubles as we are, we must now find funds to build new facilities and hire more teachers, when funds and teachers are both in short supply. President John A. Perkins of the University of Delaware has stated "It has been estimated that in the next 15 years as much floorspace will have to be provided for higher education as was built in the 300 previous years of collegiate history." In the face of keen competition for the dollars of the taxpayer and the philanthropist, higher education will be hard pressed to obtain the support necessary for continued high quality educational opportunities. Unfortunately, this unprecedented need for facilities comes at a period of hard times for many of our institutions. Endowment income has not kept pace with educational costs (the United States Office of Education reports that from the year 1920 to 1950 the percentage of educational activities financed from endowment income dropped from 17.2 to 5.3 percent.)

The purchasing power of the dollar has decreased, and student fees have not been increased proportionately. I was told by business officers of many schools that tuition fees next year will be from 8 to 35 percent higher. The partial disappearance of large personal fortunes, the need for increasing faculty salaries in order to compete for capable professional personnel, keen competition for the taxpayers' dollar between public institutions and expanded State requirements— all contribute to the financial difficulties of higher education at the present time. In 1954, the economic report of the President estimated that college construction is already $6 billion behind. The economic report of the President goes on to estimate that an average of about $14 billion a year will be required for 10 years to work off the college construction backlog and to provide the additional facilities required for the current growth in enrollment. Many institutions, both public and private, did little building during the thirties and early forties because of the depression and World War II. With the coming of peace after World War II, institutions of higher learning in this country could not ac

commodate physically an enrollment 75 percent greater than the prewar high. Many makeshift facilities were provided at that time with emergency funds and with Government aid. Millions of square feet of barracks, quonset huts, and other structures were converted into educational buildings, laboratories, dormitories, and apartments for married students. Since those years of crisis, most schools have been trying desperately to replace the temporaries, meet coexisting obsolescence of prewar structures and provide additional facilities for which there is imperative need if present enrollments are to be served adequately. The college enrollment for this academic year is estimated by the United States Office of Education to be 2,750,000, the all-time high, surpassing even that of the crest of the GI bulge. And the students now in college were born at a time when the birth rate was at an all-time low. Obviously a greater percentage of our youth are attending college than ever before. In 1900 less than 4 percent of youth of college age (18 through 21) attended college; at present about 30 percent are in attendance.

The number of births in the United States in 1954 was almost exactly double the number 21 years earlier. The number of births over deaths last year resulted in a net population increase of more than 21⁄2 million. The death rate is now at its all-time low and the birth rate is at or near its all-time peak.

The children are already born. We can plan now specifically for the added numbers who will come, stating the year they will arrive. On the most conservative estimate, assuming that there will be no further increase in the percentage of college-age youth attending, we may look forward to more than 4 million by 1970. If the trend continues at the rate of approximately 1 percent a year until 1962, following the pattern established over the past 20 years, we shall have enrolled in our colleges and universities by 1970 approximately 51⁄2 million students, twice the number ever enrolled at one time.

Dependence upon financial sources, methods, and procedures of past years are inadequate. Fortunately, I found our institutions, our governing boards, and our Government, with typical American free enterprise and initiative, developing completely new sources of financial support and applying totally new concepts of financing to long-term capital-outlay projects which will make it possible to meet the national emergency.

It is of utmost importance that the limited capital improvements resources available to our institutions of higher learning be channeled and used primarily for essential expansion of educational and general facilities and relieving the need of expanded auxiliary service, particularly residences and feeding facilities by means of substantial self-liquidation of bonded indebtedness.

The financing of dormitories and residence halls has been revolutionized and expanded since the war. Partly responsible for this revolution has been the college housing loan program. Most colleges and universities faced a serious campus-housing problem following the termination of hostilities. A boom in enrollment followed a wartime halt in construction; material shortages, and increased building costs combined to create the problem. Congress responded to the urgent request of the educators and their associations by passing what is known as title IV of the Housing Act of 1950. This program offers long-term, low-interest loans. Terms range up to 40 years with interest rates, presently 3.25 percent, ranging from 2.75 to 3.50 percent. Such loans at the lower interest rate make it possible for an educational institution to build substantially selfliquidating housing and still maintain reasonable rental charges.

The Housing and Home Finance Agency in answer to a recent request from the Association for Higher Education replied that the total amount of the $200 million released by the Bureau of the Budget for this program would all be obligated within the next 2 months. That statement is as follows:

"As of April 30, 1955, the Housing and Home Finance Agency has received 424 applications totaling $287 million. One hundred ninety-one of these applications have been approved totaling $153 million. Twenty of those approved amounting to $20 million have been rescinded when private investors bid in the bonds. This leaves 171 current approved loans amounting to $132.6 million. of the same date HHFA had given preliminary approval and reservation of funds to 58 applications totaling $32 million. Thus, including both approved applications and reservations of funds, HHFA's total commitments are $165 million out of the $200 million released by the Bureau of the Budget to date.

As

"Including applications for which reservations of funds have been made, a total of 93 applications for $50 million are under active review."

HHFA advises that it expects the unobligated $34 million to be committed by June 30 of this year, pointing out that $23 million in applications are in 62736-55-20

preparation by the State colleges of California alone. Based on requests for applications received by its regional offices, it expects that about 150 applications will be filed during the next fiscal year.

Even with the 40-year maximum amortization and the current 3.25 percent interest rate provided under the college housing loan program, it is almost impossible to work out projects which are substantially self-liquidating from the moderate rentals which are economically feasible for college students today. Nearly every college housing loan requires additional revenues and/or sponsor's contributions from other debt-free buildings, student fees, endowments, or other sources. With this proposed revision substantial self-liquidation becomes a probability.

I should like to emphasize one of the most important aspects of the college housing loan program; namely, the acceptance of a reasonable ratio of project income to total operating cost including debt service and reserves. Extended amortization period up to 50 years and established interest rates of approximately 2.75 percent are essential, but these enabling benefits can be defeated if the lending agency is not reasonable regarding the ratio of coverage it may require. A ratio of income to costs including debt service and reserves should not be required to exceed a range of 1.1 to 1.4 times, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. In my humble judgment and experience, a ratio of approximately 1.2 is realistic and sound from all points of view.

Another development for financing housing facilities should be mentioned. As if increased numbers did not cause sufficient problems, we must face the difficulties caused by the fact that many students now are married, and come to college complete with wives and children. Housing for married students and for young faculty members are now accepted and essential campus developments in most sections of the country.

There are other observations of interest relative to the serious institutional housing problem. With increased enrollments, many institutions find that they must house a larger percentage of the student body, for off-campus housing in college communities has reached the saturation point.

To conclude some of my general remarks I should like to point to one additional fact and its importance to our need for assistance.

There is general failure on the part of governing boards, administration, faculty, staff, the public, and our own Government to realize that the anticipated flood of new students bears little resemblance to the GI bulge which followed World War II. Fundamental and important differences must be recognized:

1. First, the increase following World War II was a bulge. The impact was immediate. Today, we may expect an ever-increasing trend upward from a relative high plateau. To think in terms of temporary expedients is dangerous. This is not an "all at once" need but requires additional expansion each year, as demands will increase continually.

2. Following World War II, many a State had a surplus in its treasury. During the war, while tax income continued to flow into the treasuries, opportunities for expenditure, particularly for capital improvements, were limited. Many institutions were in excellent shape financially--endowment income accrued while operations were at a decreased level. Expenditures for salaries were sharply curtailed, for many members of the faculties were serving in the Armed Forces, in industry, or in sponsored research. Now, colleges and universities are aware that they will encounter difficulties as they attempt to put the house in order. Already overcrowded and harassed by budget troubles, they must find the funds, build new facilities, and hire teachers—and all are in short supply.

With increasing competition for the tax dollar, the outlook is not encouraging. Large surpluses are not available, as they were in 1945 and 1946, to finance construction, equipment purchases, and salaries for an enlarged faculty.

3. Following the war, the United States Government helped materially by making available surplus buildings of every type, and financing outright or on a contributing basis their removal, reerection, and conversion for housing, feeding, education, or research, whichever a college required. In many instances, nearby airfields or other military installations were turned over intact to requesting educational institutions. Surplus property valued in the millions was made available to furnish and equip the facilities, at little or no cost to the institutions. This time, no comparable program is available.

4. Through Public Laws 16 and 346, the Government helped veterans to attend schools of their choice. The returning veteran was willing to undergo hardships to begin or continue his college education. He was willing to live, eat, and study under almost any conditions.