NATIONAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 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, Roosevelt, Thompson, Holland, Pucinski, Daniels, Brademas, O'Hara, Carey, Hawkins, Sickles, Gibbons, Gill, Brown, Frelinghuysen, Ayres, Bell, Griffin, and Taft.

Staff present: Dr. Deborah P. Wolfe, education chief; Richard Burress, minority clerk.

Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, could I make an inquiry about how many constitutes a quorum, how many members are present, and whether we are meeting as a committee or as one or more subcommittees ?

Mr. PERKINS. Yesterday, soon after we convened, the Chair announced at that time after a vote was taken to conduct these hearings this week and next week, by the full committee, that in the event that any further discussion took place concerning a quorum, that he was serving notice at that time that the two joint subcommittees would conduct the hearings, pursuant to the authority of the chairman, making the assignment to the two subcommittees which Mrs. Green read into the record yesterday.

Now I also invited the full membership of the full committee to attend, and I am hopeful that we will have good attendance from the majority side of the committee and from the minority side.

A quorum is now present, with two members from each subcommittee on the Democratic side constituting a quorum.

Now on Mrs. Green's subcommittee, Mrs. Green is here, and Mr. Gibbons from Florida, and Mr. Brademas, and Mr. Gill are here on the subcommittee that I chair myself.

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would raise the question, even when it is a joint subcommittee, it still is one committee; it would seem to me that two members are sufficient.

Mr. PERKINS. It would seem so to me, too.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the Chair's ruling correctly, you are now meeting as a joint committee of the two education subcommittees, and while you have invited all of the members of

the committee to participate in these hearings, it is not mandatory for the members of the main committee who are not members of either one of the two subcommittees to be at these hearings. Is that correct? Mr. PERKINS. That is correct.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much.

Mr. PERKINS. But we feel that it is very beneficial for all the members of the full committee to be present, regardless of whether they are members of the particular subcommittee involved or not.

The CHAIR recognizes Mr. Thompson.

Mr. HOLLAND. I call for the regular order.

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that one thing should be disposed of. I know it is a matter of interpretation of the rules, but the rules of the full committee state that, for the purpose of taking testimony, two members is a quorum, a sufficient number, and I think notwithstanding that there are two subcommittees sitting on this, that that rule would mean that only two members have to be here. Now I raise the question not on today, because there are more than that here now, but we might run into some difficulty on another day.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, might I be permitted to make an observation?

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that my continued discussions of procedure rest on my concern that this committee give a bill that will envisage a cost expenditure of about $6 billion the attention it deserves. It is in no sense an attempt to be dilatory. It is in no sense an attempt to prevent adequate consideration of the various provisions of the bill.

Involved in my concern is the practical fact that the chairman, before he left, set up a schedule which was not discussed fully in committee and which is of real inconvenience to a substantial number of the committee.

I refer particularly, obviously, to the Republicans.

Now I regret very much that one of the members of this committee on television last night said that the Republicans on the committee must choose whether they want to talk to their Republican friends on Lincoln's Birthday or attend to the needs of education. That is not the case. That is not the question.

The question is whether we are going to have more than two or three or a handful of members to discuss a bill which involves $6 billion during the next week.

We made our commitments honestly with the knowledge that the House would not have any business next week, and with absolutely no knowledge from the chairman of the committee or anybody else that anything of substance was being planned this week, let alone next week. I see no excuse for precipitate action. If we could postpone for 1 week the witnesses scheduled for next week, this committee would make a far better reputation for having considered what the witnesses have to tell us than if we have nobody here except perhaps one or two members.

If the chairman insists on considering these discussions to be held by one or more subcommittees of the full committee, I call attention to the fact that the chairman has not yet appointed any Republicans

to any subcommittee, and I would be obliged to assume that not only could we not participate, but we could not be counted for a quorum, we could not question the witnesses, and in no way could we possibly bring any

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the gentleman yield? I yielded to the gentleman, but now this is sheer sophistry. The fact is, with respect to next week, I do think that an accommodation should be made, certainly, because your commitments were made a long time ago, but with respect to the other issues which you have raised, No. 1, on yesterday, and on today, there has been ample opportunity for the members of your side to be on. The fact is also that if there has not been an official assignment by the chairman of your members to the subcommittee, you as the ranking member certainly have a right to assign them and to ask them to sit.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. You have not recommended them yet.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield? I am delighted that at least I have got one convert from the other side suggesting that an accommodation needs to be made. That is my basic argument; but the Chair is apparently committed to another course of action, and he is apparently unwilling to consider the possibilities, even to let us go into executive session to see whether we might suspend hearings next week.

Mr. PERKINS. Let me make this observation. If the ranking minority member is ready to make his assignments, we will immediately, as the committee-I do not have the authority myself, but I assume some member on the Democratic side will make a motion to go into executive session in order that you may suggest the members on the minority side for the various subcommittees, and we will do that right now. I will entertain a motion to that effect.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation again? All we do is to flout the rules of the committee, in my view. The rules of the committee spell out in no uncertain terms that the chairman appoints members on both the majority and the minority, and I would assume the acting chairman, no matter what any part of the team would like to do, has no such authority. Again, it is not that I want to precipitate a problem. If only we had not brought up this sophistry that we are meeting as two subcommittees to avoid a decent number of the committee members attending a full committee hearing, we would not be in the predicament we are. I would assume that there is nobody but the chairman who could appoint minority members whether we all agreed on who should be the minority members or not.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Thompson has the floor.

Mrs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield.

Mrs. GREEN. Has the ranking minority member recommended to the chairman in writing the assignments to the subcommittees on his side?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. He has not. We did not get the two last members authorized until today, so there is not any possibility of doing such a thing.

Mr. HOLLAND. Will you yield, Mrs. Green?

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Thompson has the floor, if he would yield for one other comment.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield.

Mrs. GREEN. I cannot believe that all 12 Republicans have made. commitments for each one of the 5 days next week. I cannot believe that a representation from that side could not be present at hearings. My own personal desire would be to follow the chairman's request that we go on and continue the hearings of the full committee, and then proceed into the subcommittees, but I would also ask, Mr. Chairman, that we move as fast as we can in the hearings this morning, and quit this argument that has plagued the committee all week.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Roosevelt.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I have no comment, except I would like to hear the witnesses called for today.

Mr. PERKINS. A quorum is present. We will proceed.

Come forward, Dr. Fuller, and why don't we have Mr. Sanders come forward with you?

Dr. Fuller, identify yourself for the record, and proceed in any way that you prefer.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. WILLIAM SANDERS, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF CONNECTICUT

Dr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Edgar Fuller. I am executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The council's membership is composed of the State commissioners and State superintendents from the 50 States and the chief school officers of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Canal Zone, and the Virgin Islands.

The privilege of appearing in these hearings of your committee, Mr. Chairman, is greatly appreciated. The council will always cooperate with your committee and its subcommittees to the fullest extent on behalf of improved education. Formal education is the full-time interest of about one-fourth of our population, and it is an inescapable lifelong process for almost everyone. Individually, as States, and as a nation our future depends greatly upon what we do in education. We desire to work with all who seek to advance it.

There is a necessary limitation in the scope of testimony, however, that can be offered here today on behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

We have been requested by the chairman to testify on title IV, which contains four of the major parts of the bill. We will confine our remarks to that. Our evaluation of parts A, B, C, and D of title IV of the bill will be confined to relating the adopted policies of the council to these proposals. The policies involved and the council's position usually will be clear without further explanation, upon reading of these policy statements that are included here.

Concerning further interpretations of the council's position, I believe these should be postponed until after two developments during

this month. The first is to provide an opportunity for all chief State school officers and their staffs to evaluate title IV in terms of the policies of their respective States, and to convey their conclusions to the council's office.

The second is to confer with the council's board of directors, along with all other chief State school officers who accept the invitations they have received to meet with the board in Atlantic City on February 18, 1963.

A copy of the bill and other extensive materials explaining the administration's interpretation of the bill are necessary for the evaluations that the chief State school officers and their staffs will desire to make of the administration's proposals. Considerable time will be required for this analysis in terms of the probable effects on each State. Although we have made exceptional efforts to hasten this process, we were unable to complete mailing of copies of the bill and the several other documents to the States until last Friday because the materials were not available. No significant number of returns will be possible until later this month.

From written evaluations by the State officers, meetings of the directors and members, and personal conversations with individuals, I expect to be able by the end of February to provide more detailed information about how the State officials regard the specific proposals of parts A, B, C, and D of title IV.

In addition, I hope many of them will be given an opportunity to testify personally on behalf of their respective States, in the manner that the distinguished commissioner of education of Connecticut, Dr. William J. Sanders, is appearing here today.

I am glad that Dr. Sanders is here at the moment.

Mr. PERKINS. Now, in the event you do not come back before the committee, if there is no objection from any member of the committee, when you get this data compiled by way of supplemental statement and statistics, I would personally request that that be inserted in the record, and if there is no objection from any member of the committee, I would so order it be done at this time.

Dr. FULLER. We would be glad to do that. (The material referred to follows:)

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS ON THE POSITION OF THE CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS ON TITLE IV AND CERTAIN CLOSELY RELATED ISSUES IN H.R. 3000

The council's witness on February 7, 1963, promised that "from written evaluations by the State officers, meetings of the directors and members, and personal conversations with individuals, I expect to be able by the end of February to provide more detailed information about how the State officials regard the specific proposals of parts A, B, C, and D of title IV." Chairman Perkins authorized a supplemental statement for the record, and it is presented herewith.

The council's policies as presented for the record on February 7 have been constantly reaffirmed and provide general approval of Federal financial assistance for public elementary and secondary schools. Part A of title IV is acceptable under these policies, although the council may prefer some slight changes and reserves the privilege of suggesting such changes after a definite title IV has been approved, presumably with amendments, by the committee.

Part B of title IV proposes extension and slight amendment of title III of the National Defense Education Act. It would be favored for extention in its present form with these amendments by a margin of approximately 3 to 1 of the chief State school officers. A specific inquiry to the chief school officers of 50 States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands, after detailed discussion in Atlantic