The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, Mr. Secretary, I think you have been very candid in your answers on this very difficult question of church-state relationships in the Constitution, and I wonder if you would care, at this time, so that there is no misunderstanding, to explain the position? It is my understanding that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has long maintained that there are ways and avenues of helping private schools other than across-the-board direct type of assistance, in general revenues, and your long brief last year, prepared by a legal staff, cited the decisions as to how far the Federal Government can go without any direct across-the-board assistance to private schools. I also understand the Department has long held and represented the great contribution that private schools are making. Now the question is do you think that perhaps before these hearings are concluded we might get a broader statement from your Department as to how far we can go to help the private schools without infringing upon what you feel is and perhaps properly so a constitutional question? The Supreme Court has not ruled on it, but the decisions have upheld, for instance, the National Defense Education Act program of loans for nonreligious subjects. Is there an area here we could make these loans a little easier for these private schools? Could we broaden, for instance, the very limited restriction on construction where now the bill provides that construction must be minor and incidental? If it is for nonreligious purposes, science, math, languages and what-have-you, could this language be broadened and the term of the loan made longer? In other words, are there areas where we can help private schools without infringing upon the Constitution, which I don't think any Member of Congress wants to do? Would you care to comment on that, sir? Mr. CELEBREZZE. Well, in regard to the lengthening of the loans, you asked me that before, Congressman, and I said I would like to study that phase of it. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Secretary, we are going to have to press you to speak up a little more loudly. Mr. CELEBREZZE. The question which you directed to me earlier was on the question of extending the loan features for a number of years, from 10 to 40 or whatever, and I said I would have to study that. But I think the position of the administration and the position of the Department has been very well clarified in the legal memorandum by the general counsel of the Department, and those are the procedures that I am following. Mr. BRADEMAS. If I may, I had proposed to the gentleman from New Jersey that he could have a question, and we are already over our deadline. I am sure that you will be able to ask Commissioner Keppel some questions tomorrow. The gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Secretary has been a good sport to testify for as long as he has. I wanted to ask one question about what we might do in the field of student assistance. I was somewhat disappointed at the lack of enthusiasm you showed toward a tax credit approach, and one statement you made in your formal presentation puzzles me. You say on page 8: Many students come from families whose incomes are such that they are unable to obtain loans under the present national defense student loan program. Then you criticize the proposal for a tax credit because it would perhaps benefit the middle-income or the upper-income families. The lower ones were the ones that you seemed concerned about. Well, as Mr. Ayres pointed out, the lower ones would certainly be benefited by an income tax break. Also what do you mean that the present loan program is not available or they are unavailable to obtain loans? There is no restriction in the law. Mr. CELEBREZZE. There aren't needs for taxes. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I don't recognize any. As one of the sponsors of the original act, I don't know what that means. Mr. CELEBREZZE. Under the present student loan programs there must be the financial need for the student because of the inability of his parents to earn a sufficient income, at which time we will give him a Federal loan, if the student applies. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Secretary, I hate to make this plea again Mr. CELEBREZZE. The question was "What is the difference between the student loan programs"? Under the existing student loan program there has to be some sort of need for the student; either he does not have the financial ability, his parents do not have the financial ability, and, therefore, we loan them money on the Federal level at a smaller rate of interest. There is an area in which it is a handicap, where the parents have one or two or, as most of us have, where two of our children enter college at the same time or a year or two apart, where there is a tremendous burden. Yet our overall financial means is sufficient for us to pay for their education. They could not qualify. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As a practical matter, do you think that reference to need in the law means families that should be getting Federal aid are not getting it? As a practical matter, does this provide any kind of embarrassment? Does this impose an obligation on the Federal bureaucrat, or the college official that is directing Federal funds, not to give it? Mr. CELEBREZZE. Yes, wherever you set a ceiling on any expenditures you must apply some test to stay within that ceiling. Now if you want to lift the ceiling Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are suggesting lifting the ceiling? Mr. CELEBREZZE. Yes. We have a limitation as to the amount of dollars that we can loan. It is $90 million. We are recommending $135 million. So long as you have a ceiling, there you have to, because your applicants are much greater than the dollars available. Now if you want to go all the way, let's take the ceiling off. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It almost sounds as if you are saying we ought to make Federal aid available to those who do not need it. That strikes me as a very offensive thing, as I read the statement. Mr. QUIE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Is it safe to say that the most needy are receiving the loans now? Mr. CELEBREZZE. Yes; but we do have, under the existing conditions, parents who are in an income group in which they are having difficulty in sending their children to college, because they don't have the collective financial resources. We are opening up this new avenue for them to go to a bank, the Government will guarantee the bank the payments to make it easier for them to borrow the money. That is the second phase of this program. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Secretary, and Messrs. Cohen and Keppel. We appreciate very much your coming. The meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.) NATIONAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9:55 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Cannon Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Landrum, Green, Holland, Pucinski, Brademas, Carey, Sickles, Gibbons, Brown, Frelinghuysen, Ayres, Quie, Goodell, Bell. Also present: Congressman Harding, Dr. Deborah P. Wolfe, education chief; Richard Burress, minority clerk. Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. Before we get started Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present and that we cannot come to order until a quorum is present. Mr. PERKINS. I regret that that the gentleman from New Jersey has seen fit to make a point of order that no quorum is present. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will be glad to examine the reasons for your regret, Mr. Chairman, but I think the rules of the committee are in front of us, and we have no choice but to get a quorum before we start business. Mr. PERKINS. I am not charging that the purpose of the motion is to delay the hearings. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I didn't say you were, Mr. Chairman. The rules of the committee shall be the rules of subcommittees. And now going over to page 3 of the rules, paragraph 23 of rule XI, the House of Representatives: The rules of the House are the rules of its committees, so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day is a motion of high privilege. But, on page 4: Each committee may fix the number of its members to constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence, which shall be not less than two. Now, under that rule H, with rule 9 on page 2 where it says The rules of the committee shall be the rules of the subcommittees the Chair overrules the point of order of the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well now, Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the points that the Chair has raised? 94173-63- -9 Mr. PERKINS. Yes. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Point H on page 4, to which the Chair refers, says that a committee-that is a full standing committee of the House may fix the number of its members to constitute a quorum, which shall not be less than two. Well, so what? I might say to that, Mr. Chairman, this committee has never, to my knowledge, fixed a number less than a majority to constitute a quorum. So that is surely irrelevant to the point that I am raising, that we do not have a quorum present, and that is the reason for my point of order. The other point, I might say is rule 9—and I would be glad to read it to refresh the chairman's memory or the other members' memories. Subcommittee rules. The rules of the committee shall be the rules of its subcommittees. Well, surely the Chair is not arguing that a rule with respect to the subcommittee means that a provision in rule 12 that two members of a subcommittee shall constitute a quorum should be considered a rule that applies to the full committee. The rules does not say that the rules of the subcommittee shall be the rules of the full committee. Mr. PERKINS. The gentleman yesterday raised the point of order Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I raised no point of order yesterday, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. Well, you stated the point of order yesterday when the chairman of the full committee was present. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I respectfully decline. I made no point of order. I expressed a formal regret. I was not here in time to make the point of order. I expressed regret at the unseemly haste with which we are conducting hearings on a $6 billion bill. As ranking member of the committee, I did not know until Saturday morning that we were meeting Monday morning. I think it is outrageous that we should be compelled to meet for 5 days both this week and next. And, if it is appropriate at a time when we have a quorum, I will certainly offer a motion that we decide not to meet after Friday of this week, and resume our consideration after the Washington's Birthday holiday. Mr. GIBBONS. Lincoln's Birthday? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No. Washington's Birthday. I think we should have no hearings of any kind on Lincoln's Birthday, and my motion would be to that end. But we certainly have no rules here which say that anything less than, a majority of the members of the committee constitute a quorum. Mr. PERKINS. The gentleman, at about 10 minutes of 10 yesterday, raised the point when the chairman of the full committee was present but he did not pursue his point. The chairman just simply made an announcement at that time that two members of the committee were sufficient to conduct hearings. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have the transcript of the testimony here. Mr. PERKINS. Let me finish. |