the tenets of his church and that sort of thing, whatever his church might be.

I don't believe that the people who enacted that ordinance had in mind promoting a specific religion. That is my view of it.

Mr. CAREY. But they were interested in promoting all religions?
Mr. WYATT. Yes. I think that is obvious in our entire history.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Carey, may I yield for a question to one of the other gentlemen?

Mr. CAREY. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Hawkins, do you have a question?

Mr. HAWKINS. No.

Mr. Chairman, may I have inserted into the record at this point a news item from the Los Angeles Times indicating that summer classes are being discontinued, and that the evening and adult classes are being curtailed because of insufficiency in the amount of funds?

I am not implying that we are fiddling, but I am certainly indicating that Rome is burning.

Mr. PERKINS. Where is that, in the elementary, secondary, or the higher level?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, it is. And they indicate that Los Angeles is at its maximum tax rate.

Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The news item referred to follows:)

[Article in the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 1, 1963]

NO SUMMER CLASSES FOR 50,000 HERE

Summer-session classes for 50,000 Los Angeles elementary and junior high school students were canceled by unanimous action of the Board of Education Thursday.

The action followed quashing of an attempt to salvage part of the program through a "transfer" of $800,000 planned for interior classroom painting.

The board, faced with limited funds because the unified school district is at its legal maximum tax ceiling of $2.65, also voted to curtail adult and junior college classes. The total savings will be $1.6 million.

Mr. PERKINS. After we hear Mr. Quie, the Chair will reverse the order of hearing witnesses and the next witness I will call on will be Mr. Bell of California.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I will not object, but I think you might have unanimous consent. I object to the precedent of the Chair making such a ruling. If you wish to ask unanimous consent, I will not object to it. I don't believe anybody will. But I don't believe that power resides in the Chair.

Mr. PERKINS. I agree with you.

I ask unanimous consent that after we hear Mr. Quie, the Chair be permitted to recognize the junior members of this committee before we recognize any senior members. Is there objection?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, one further clarifying question. Does this unanimous consent request affect today's testimony only?

Mr. PERKINS. I would think so. But I feel we should give the junior members a chance to interrogate the witness today, if possible. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I share that concern with you. I am not going to object, but I wish that the Chair hereafter would make

those ground rules at the beginning of the session instead of mid-way through.

Mr. PERKINS. I agree with you.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Wyatt, you didn't finish answering my question.

I would like to place into the record now a telegram which you people sent out last fall, in which you opposed the higher education bill, H.R. 8900, on the ground that this would be a program that would provide grants for the construction of permament buildings for private institutions from public tax funds and you opposed it on this ground.

I ask unanimous consent that this be placed into the record at this time.

Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:)

[Telegram]

Hon. EDITH GREEN,
Washington, D.C.:

SEPTEMBER 19, 1962.

Title I of the Senate and House conference report on the higher education bill, adopted by the conferees September 17, would authorize the appropriation of public funds for outright grants to private and church-related schools. This would not be a temporary program for specific research projects essential to the public interest in a national emergency, but would be a new peacetime program for construction of permanent buildings for private institutions with public tax funds.

This provision imperils America's traditional concept of separation of church and state. It is a dangerous dilution of the original higher education program which the President recommended to the 87th Congress and which the NEA has vigorously supported.

No State legislature has ever appropriated public funds directly to churchrelated private colleges or universities for any purpose. The National Defense Education Act does not provide direct grants of tax money to private or churchrelated institutions. This would be the first time that Congress has entered this controversial field on a broad basis.

The NEA strongly urges you to vote to send the H.R. 8900 conference report back to conference with instructions that the conferees change title I from direct grants to all colleges and universities to grants for public institutions and loans to private institutions.

WILLIAM G. CARR,
Executive Secretary,

National Education Association, Washington, D.C.

Mr. QUIE. You say you supported a program that went through the House in January of last year which would have provided permanent public tax funds for the construction of permanent buildings at private institutions. How do you resolve this inconsistency on your part?

Mr. WYATT. The provision of the House bill-first, I would like to say this, in preface, that I should like to present to the committee, Mr. Chairman, a detailed history of the NEA's position during 1962 on these matters. I would like to have our staff do that.

Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, it may be presented and it will be inserted into the record at this point.

Mr. WYATT. I was not as active at that time as I am now.

Mr. QUIE. When can you have this ready?

Mr. WYATT. I think we can have it ready in a day or so.

Mr. QUIE. How long is the "so"? I am always suspicious of the "so."

Mr. WYATT. One day.

(The document referred to follows:)

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D.C. February 20, 1963.

Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL,

Chairman, House Committe on Education and Labor,
Old House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN POWELL. During my appearance before the House Education and Labor Committee hearings on February 6, 1963, certain members requested additional information which I am herewith submitting.

I stated in response to questions by Mr. Quie that I would submit a detailed account of NEA's action on the conference report on H.R. 8900 for inclusion in the record. (See attachment I.) Mr. Quie later asked for information on how the decision was reached to send a telegram to Members of Congress. This is answered by attachment II.

Mr. Pucinski, in his colloquy, stated that "NEA came before this committee last year and testified in support of the bill (presumably H.R. 8900). Then at the last minute, on September 19, they sent out this telegram which torpedoed the bill." I believe a review of attachment I will indicate that at no time did NEA testify in favor of the House version of H.R. 8900. Actually, the NEA sup ported H.R. 5266 as originally introduced; that is, loans for construction and scholarships for students. NEA did not support H.R. 7215, which was tabled by the Rules Committee on July 16, 1961, and no hearings were held on H.R. 8900. NEA supported S. 1241 and kept its membership informed that this Senate version did not conflict with long-established NEA policy. I point out these facts so that there can be no misunderstanding of NEA's position in the 87th Congress. However, I do not believe that discussion of action on a limited higher education proposal in the 87th Congress will contribute very much to a discussion of the comprehensive approach to the problems of American education as proposed in H.R. 3000 presently before your committee.

Congressman Gibbons requested a detailed account by State and district of classroom shortages. I advised him of a survey I had made of Indiana, but which was conducted with the assurance that the information would not be made public. I have checked and find that such data is not available from NEA Research for the other 49 States.

I will be glad to have Congressman Gibbons or any other member of the committee examine the Indiana report on a confidential basis. I am sure that your committee will respect my commitment to the persons who participated in the survey.

Finally, in reference to questions raised by Mr. Ayres, there are 963 employees of the National Education Association as of February 1, 1963. Of this total, there are four who are registered lobbyists, because they devote part of their time to legislative contacts. In 1962, for the four quarters reported under the Lobbying Act, NEA spent $41,599 in total in lobbying activities. This is 0.05 percent of the NEA's total annual income certainly in keeping with the "insubstantial amount" as stated in the law. The statement by one member of the committee that NEA "spent $8 million contacting Members for Federal aid" is, of course, grossly in error.

Mr. Ayres makes the statement that five past presidents of NEA signed a political ad, presumably opposing him in the November election. I have checked carefully and find no evidence that any past president of NEA has ever signed a political ad in opposition to Mr. Ayres. However, it is my opinion that, as individuals, past presidents of any organization have the same rights as other citizens to support or oppose any candidate for any public office as they see fit. I am confident that the members of your committee will agree with that statement. If Mr. Ayres has a copy of such an ad, he may wish to submit it for inclusion in the record.

I deeply appreciate the serious attention the members of the committee are giving to the needs of Aemrican education and on behalf of the members of the teaching profession, express our sincere gratitude.

Sincerely,

ROBERT H. WYATT,
Vice President.

NEA AND HIGHER EDUCATION

For over 100 years the National Education Association has had a strong interest not only in elementary and secondary, but higher education. Indeed, the charter granted to the association by Congress in 1907 lists higher education as one of its constituent elements.

The NEA's interest in higher education legislation was effective in the enactment of the GI bills after World War II and the Korean conflict. The NEA has consistently supported the college housing features of the national housing acts. More recently, NEA supported the National Defense Education Act with particular emphasis on student aids and graduate fellowships. The NEA has a record of long, vigorous, and consistent interest in higher education legislation. Following President Kennedy's education message to the 87th Congress in February 1961, the NEA, in a widely quoted press release, supported the President's proposals "without 'ifs,' 'ands,' or 'buts.'" These proposals included provisions for State-administered scholarships for students, loans to institutions of higher education for academic construction (not limited to public institutions), and extension of the existing college housing loan legislation. This program did

not conflict with any of the association's longstanding policies. If adopted in the form the President proposed, the program would avoid any opportunity for Federal control of education.

On March 7, 1961, S. 1241 was introduced by Senator Wayne Morse and other Senators, containing provisions in accord with the President's proposal. At the same time, H.R. 5266, by Representative Green of Oregon, was introduced in the House providing loans for academic construction and scholarships for college students. Subsequently, on May 26, 1961, a new bill, H.R. 7215, was approved by a majority of the House Education and Labor Committee, providing for grants as well as loans for academic construction and scholarships for college students.

On July 16, 1961, the House Rules Committee tabled the elementary and secondary aid to education and the higher education bill, along with a bill to extend and expand the National Defense Education Act. In August, Secretary Ribicoff proposed a compromise package bill which the Senate leaders rejected and the House defeated on a Calendar Wednesday procedure. The NEA Legislative Commission had informed the Secretary that NEA policy would require it to oppose the compromise bill for several reasons-one of which was the inclusion of grants of public funds for educational purposes to nonpublic higher education institutions.

On January 30, 1962, in the opening days of the Second Session of the 87th Congress, H.R. 8900, by Representative Green, passed the House by a vote of 319 to 79. There were no hearings on this bill. It provided a 5-year program with annual appropriations of $300 million in grants and loans for academic construction in all types of institutions of higher education. It also provided for unusual power for the U.S. Commissioner of Education to select the institutions and programs to be aided without consultation with any State agency. NEA representatives immediately conferred with leading members of the House committee who would be conferees, urged acceptance of S. 1241, the President's higher education bill, and indicated the conflict of H.R. 8900 with basic NEA policy against Federal control of education and against direct grants to nonpublicly-controlled institutions.

On February 6, 1962, the Senate passed S. 1241 by a vote of 68 to 17. This bill received NEA's full support. It provided $300 million for loans for academic construction, $50 million for construction for 2-year public community colleges, and 212,000 college scholarships. On a parliamentary maneuver, the House Rules Committee again gained custody of the bills.

Early in May, after the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee pledged to the House Rules Committee chairman that the House conferees "under no circumstances" would accept scholarships as proposed by the Senate, the conference committee was authorized and began a series of meetings.

The National Education Association staff on May 11, and again on May 21, notified its leaders of the differences between the House and Senate bills and urged them to contact Senators and Congressmen stating NEA's position. On June 27, the executive secretary of the legislative commission, in accordance with the commission's wishes, sent to every Congressman and Senator a letter detailing NEA's support for the Senate version of the higher education bill.

At the annual representative assembly in Denver on July 6, 1962, a revised resolution on higher education was proposed from the floor of the convention. As passed, this resolution states clearly and specifically that the association believes that the Federal Government, along with State and local governments, must support expansion and adjustments in publicly controlled and tax-supported institutions of higher education, that the NEA urges the long-range, low-interest loans of the college housing program be continued, but that any grants-in-aid be limited to publicly controlled and tax-supported institutions of higher education. On July 27, NEA leaders were again urged to support the Senate version of the higher education bill.

Early in September, the House-Senate conferees received a proposal from Representative Green that construction grants in the higher education bill be limited to the specific categories of science, engineering, and library buildings. NEA representatives personally notified leading conferees that NEA would have to oppose such a "compromise" in light of the July 6 action of the representative assembly. NEA sent a letter to all members of the conference committee urging action providing for grants to public and loans to nonpublic institutions as a reasonable solution to the situation, with the suggestion that the question of scholarships could be postponed and that "before yet another school year begins, you would prepare the way for consideration of the responsibility of the Federal Government to strengthen public education at other levels."

Although thus fully informed as to the position of the National Education Association on the matter of grants to nonpublicly controlled institutions, the conferees proceeded to approve categorical grants for academic construction for all types of institutions, public and otherwise. Accordingly, all NEA leaders were notified of the conference committee action and were urged to communicate immediately with Members of Congress pointing out NEA's opposition to grants of tax money for educational purposes to institutions not under public control. By telephone conference, the NEA legislative commission voted unanimously to seek recommittal of the conference report so that the grant provision could be deleted. Six of the nine members of the commission flew to Washington for an emergency conference. This meeting was also attended by seven other NEA members with special legislative skill. Requests for telegrams and phone calls to Members of Congress were sent to NEA leaders in all States. Telegrams were sent to all Members of Congress urging recommittal of the conference report. For some weeks, organizations in no way affiliated with NEA were also petitioning Congress not to provide grants to nonpublic institutions. Notable among these were:

National Congress of Parents and Teachers.

The National School Boards Association.
The Council of Chief State School Officers.
The Southern Baptist Conference.

When the House convened on September 20, the conference report was recommitted by a vote of 214 to 186. Technically, the motion to recommit instructed the conferees to delete the student loan and "nonreimbursable loans" provision of the report. Except for the remarks of one Member of the House, who singled out the NEA for attack, the debate on the conference report was almost exclusively devoted to the question of inclusion of student aids--and a motion to recommit for the purpose of deleting such aids was the motion which prevailed. The National Education Association has subsequently been the target of many whose disappointment over the fate of higher eduction legislation is understandably keen. The NEA has been accused of "killing" the bill because of fear that it would jeopardize general Federal aid to education. The record outlined above clearly shows that the NEA has consistently supported-and will continue to support-Federal aid to higher education that is not in conflict with the association's long-standing policies.

The NEA has for many years had a policy which states:

The National Education Association respects and upholds the rights of groups, including religious denominations, to maintain and finance their own schools so long as such schools meet the educational, health, and safety standards defined by the States in which they are located, and so long as the American tradition of separation of church and state is vigorously and zealously safeguarded. The NEA is composed of citizens of all faiths, and is neither alined with, nor opposed to, any specific faith. The issue of Federal aid to education is not a religious issue. It is an issue of public policy. The question at issue is whether or not tax funds from any level-local, State or National-should be