used to promote any particular philosophy, over which the public has no control,. and rightfully should have no control. The association regrets that the insistence of those who were determined to establish a precedent of direct grants of tax funds for general educational purposes for educational institutions not subject to public control brought about the defeat of badly needed Federal aid to higher education, including publicly controlled community colleges. The association will continue to urge Federal grants to publicly controlled institutions, Federal loans to other institutions, and a program of student loans and scholarships for deserving youth to attend the college of their choice. The great majority of delegates to the annual rep-resentative assembly has clearly mandated the officers and staff of the NEA to pursue such a course. With equal clarity, however, they have directed their spokesmen to oppose Federal control of education and to support grants-in-aid for publicly controlled education only. Mr. QUIE. You do not repudiate your position of last fall. I imag-. ine I cannot ask you the question about the January bill, because you are not familiar with it. Let's take the position on this bill. You are familiar with this bill and support it. Suppose we change this bill one way, to provide loans and grants for the construction of academic facilities for all institutions and leave the bill the same, otherwise. Would you support that? Mr. WYATT. It is our opinion that the grants are not preferable as far as we are concerned, but if they are made that they should betotally unrelated to sectarian education. I believe there are precedents, perhaps, in the NEA for things of that sort. Mr. QUIE. The proposal last fall did this as well. Mr. WYATT. Yes; and with the objective that they be not used in any sense for sectarian education. We are not attempting to promulgate or oppose any sect or any religion. But we do not believe it is in the best interests of education for public moneys to be used for that purpose. Mr. QUIE. If you accept this proposal in the present bill as it is laid out now, providing direct grants to private institutions for technical education, for all of their science education facilities, for their libraries, and this is all that was in the bill last fall, and you would also support now general grants for all academic facilities as long as they were not used for sectarian purposes, why did you oppose the bill last fall which, as has been stated here, denied this legislation from being enacted into law, would have enabled us to get at the business. of constructing classrooms in our colleges and universities? Mr. WYATT. It is our opinion that this bill has better protections in it. Mr. QUIE. What are they? Mr. WYATT. In the terminology of the bill. It is our opinion that. this bill has Mr. QUIE. Would you lay out in detail the terminology and how there is better protection? Mr. WYATT. I shall be glad to ask our staff to present you with that statement. Mr. QUIE. You also stated that the National Defense Education Act does not provide direct grants of tax money to private or churchrelated institutions. You said that in the telegram. I might remind you that under the fellowship program there are direct grants to the institutions that go along with the fellowships. 94173-63-- --16 If you want to talk about another program, the National Science Foundation has a program of institutional grants to private institutions; 56 percent of the money goes to private institutions for any use they want to upgrade their educational program. Mr. BRADEMAS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. QUIE. I will yield. Mr. BRADEMAS. It is my own impression, looking at page 3 of Mr. Wyatt's testimony, in which he says that the NEA will approach this legislation with the most positive attitude and interpret the association's policies with the widest degree of latitude, that there is a somewhat more understanding point of view on the part of the NEA this year. I am frank to say I cannot understand the consistency of the NEA's attitude on that college-aid bill last year either. They at first supported the bill with grants and loans for a broader category of academic facilities and then turned around and opposed the same kind of bill which was more narrowly restricted. But rather than sit here and abuse Mr. Wyatt for the sins of his organization, I only want to say that I am delighted that they have learned, whether he makes public repentence for them or not, and I hope they support the bill this year. Mr. PERKINS. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown. Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy, but I will be glad to waive my time. Mr. PERKINS. Is Mr. Taft present? He is not. I will recognize Mr. Finley. I will now recognize Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. I will yield to Mr. Quie. Mr. QUIE. We separate title II of this bill, pass it out of this committee and it comes to the floor of the House with only one change, that the loan provision be changed to a loans and grants provision similar to last year. Do you support or oppose that measure on the floor of the House? This comes separately, by itself. Mr. WYATT. That would be a policy decision of the NEA and I am one member of the executive board. Mr. QUIE. Would you put into the record, when you submit this other information, how you reached that policy decision last September 20? Mr. WYATT. I have stated several times that there are many compensations in this proposed legislation, that it attempts to solveMr. QUIE. Will you tell us how you reached your decision on sending out that telegram? Mr. WYATT. I shall be happy to ask our executive officer and staff to make that statement to you. Mr. BELL. I will yield to Mr. Goodell. Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Wyatt, may I first say it wasn't a statement made abusing a witness-Mr. Brademas-and I want to make it clear that our rather intense questioning of you is not intended at all to be abusive of you. In some respects it might be abuse of some of the previous policies of your organization. Mr. BRADEMAS. If the gentleman will yield, I will accept that amendment. Mr. GOODELL. I might also say that perhaps inviting the heavens to open upon me, that I think the power of the NEA has been grossly exaggerated here today. Perhaps Mr. Ayres and Mr. Landrum are living examples of the exaggeration of the power of the NEA politically. Mr. AYRES. If the gentleman will yield-don't encourage them. Mr. GOODELL. I don't think you speak for 817,000 teachers. I know a great many teachers who are members of the NEA who disagree very vehemently with the position that has been taken by the NEA on some of these items in the past. Mrs. GREEN. I would like to join the remarks of Mr. Ayres and Mr. Landrum. Mr. GOODELL. I am not so sure that we can't all of us qualify in one respect or another. Let me say, Mr. Wyatt, that I am encouraged by your testimony in one respect. Mr. Quie listed in H.R. 3000 the number of provisions that are giving aid to private schools. You have come here and said you favor H.R. 3000, representing NEA. You favor this aid to the private schools, and these grants. You have said further that you favor it if it is broken into its separate parts. So you will favor this aid to private schools in its separate parts. I think this, in effect, is a repudiation of the position taken by NEA last year in its telegrams and in its policy pronouncements to the Congress. I think it is a happy repudiation, because I think there is no reason for the position you have taken. In effect, you have taken today a position favoring unqualified aid to private schools that doesn't even have the protections in it that we put very meticulously into our legislation last year, to see that it was not used in any sense for a sectarian purpose. I hope that you will go back and continue this policy with your own organization because it is very encouraging to many of us who want constructive aid, both to public and private, where they serve the public well. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell's time has expired, but if you wish to respond to that question, you may. Mr. WYATT. I would like to respond to that by saying that I think the question was asked me as to what NEA would do if the bill were broken into numerous parts. I said that would have to be a policy decision, a group decision, as all of our decisions are. I dislike saying anything, however, that would in any sense diminish the support of friends of this legislation, such as you have indicated, if I may be presumptuous, that you are. Mr. GOODELL. Not the omnibus bill. I wouldn't want you to misunderstand in that respect. Mr. WYATT. Well, we have to understand each other. Mr. GOODELL. There are aspects of that which I do. Thank you. Mr. WYATT. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Gill. Mr. GILL. Mr. Wyatt, I don't mean to go back into any of this problem of prior positions or repudiation, because I have no firsthand knowledge of it. But I would like to explore your present position for a minute. You seem to favor the omnibus approach because, as I gather from what you say here, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Can you very briefly state as to how the omnibus approach improves the total package over what it might be in fragments? Mr. WYATT. I think we would not deny that it is our belief that a severe and critical need is in the elementary and secondary field. It is extremely critical and it is needed. As long as compromise proposals which seem to have been the product of widespread thinking and discussion do not do violence to the policies of the NEA, we would not embrace them and say this is what we choose first. But we believe this bill approaches it from the standpoint of crisis in certain areas. It does not approach it from the standpoint of a broad, permanent underpinning of American education. It approaches it from the standpoint of a number of critical areas and crises that face education and need to be solved and strengthened. Mr. GILL. It is your statement, then, that the present bill, H.R. 3000,. which is before us, is a series of reactions to crises and is not a comprehensive approach? I thought you stated it was a comprehensive approach in your state ment. Mr. WYATT. Well, it is comprehensive in that the crises, themselves, are comprehensive, I suppose. Mr. GILL. Do you think there should be a more complete approach taken, more complete than the bill, H.R. 3000? Mr. WYATT. I have stated that there are other approaches that perhaps a little more accurately coincide with NEA policy. Mr. GILL. But you do prefer the comprehensive approach over the piecemeal approach? Mr. WYATT. We do not feel that we should oppose. We do not feel strongly enough about the matter to oppose it. Mr. GILL. I yield the balance of my time. Mrs. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. PUCINSKI. I don't share the enthusiasm of my colleague from New York about the change in position of NEA because we have had no assurance here that what the witness is telling us today, on February 6, is not going to develop into another torpedo somewhere along the way. They came before this committee last year and testified in support of the bill. Then, at the last minute, on September 19, they sent out a telegram which torpedoed the bill. Mr. Witness, I wonder if I can ask you something. I am willing to sit here and listen to your testimony, which I think has been very helpful, but what assurance do we have that what you are telling us today is not going to be completely undone by your executive secretary at some later date, at a crucial moment when the bill is about to be passed? Mr. WYATT. I believe I should say to you that there were objections voiced to the House version last year at the time it was before the House. Now you ask me for what assurance. I give you the assurance that I do not believe that will take place. Mr. PUCINSKI. Will you be good enough to tell me, then, when did the representative assembly of the NEA meet last year, 1962? Mr. WYATT. In July. Mr. PUCINSKI. And this telegram was sent out on September 19, by your executive secretary, Mr. Carr. You say in your statement today: The policies of the association are determined by the delegates to the annual representative assembly. Did the representative assembly in July 1962 take a position that there was some constitutional conflict in giving Federal grants to church-related universities or institutions of higher learning? Was that position taken by your general assembly in July 1962? Mr. PERKINS. The gentleman will respond to the question. The time of the gentleman has already expired. Mr. WYATT. I was going to read the statement, if it is agreeable. Mr. PERKINS. Proceed. Mr. WYATT. The position as stated in the resolution is as follows: The association reaffirms its longstanding policy that the Congress should give priority to the appropriating of substantial Federal funds to be used by the States only for the support of tax-supported public elementary and secondary schools. The association believes that the American tradition of separation of church and state should be consistently and forthrightly safeguarded. The application of this principle to education at all levels in keeping with the letter and spirit of National and State constitutions is sound public policy. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, may I proceed for 1 minute? Mr. PERKINS. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman. from Illinois? Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I feel quite badly that I perhaps took too much time yesterday and kept these freshmen from asking questions. I would hope that the gentleman, if he gets the unanimous consent Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman was kind enough to yield to me. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will not object. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Witness, are you reading a statement of policy adopted by the NEA in July 1962 ? Mr. WYATT. Yes, sir. Mr. PUCINSKI. Is it your judgment that that statement of policy prevails today? Mr. WYATT. Yes, sir. Obviously any policy must be interpreted by its executive board, its executive officials. Mr. PUCINSKI. And this statement that you read, did it refer to higher education or is it secondary and elementary? Mr. WYATT. The question at issue seems to me to be the interpretation of what aid to sectarian education is. Mr. PUCINSKI. If I understood what you read correctly regarding the position of the NEA in July 1962, adopted by the representative assembly, if I understood correctly, and I would be happy to have you read it back if you wish, I don't see how you can come here today and say that you support this bill. Isn't your statement to this committee today somewhat in conflict. with your position in 1962 ? Mr. WYATT. We believe that the overall impact of this bill is desirable. I have stated that we do not favor as a first choice or priority |