Court, so that again coming back to my original contention, any legislation that will be passed in this area will ultimately be tested. There are enough doctrinaires of a certain philosophy which I can't agree with who feel that they must go to the greatest extremes to preserve certain doctrines that they feel are basic to our Constitution, and it will be tested, no matter what any religious group wants or thinks, and you may rest assured as you pass before the moment until the Supreme Court does make a decision, every American will certainly accept our highest court. But, we must give it an opportunity to make this decision. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Carey, I might call attention to this, and perhaps-well, I do know that Rabbi Sherer recalls it, because he testified here in support of the bill. We tried to resolve this problem last year with what I thought was a workable solution when we amended the National Defense Education Act to make funds available to private schools, church-related, if they be, on a long-term, low-interest-rate loan basis for the construction of buildings for nonreligious subjects, and to assist the schools in their nonreligious activities, and this committee reported that bill out by, I think, an overwhelming majority. It might even have been unanimous. I am not too sure. But it was a big vote, and the effort was bogged down in the Rules Committee last year, and it never got to the floor for a vote, and it is entirely possible that perhaps we might be able to find some assistance in that area. Mr. CAREY. Well, if my colleague will yield, since you mentioned me in several asides during the colloquy. First with regard to what the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada may or may not specify, that is not our problem. The point is that what they have done is working, as the Rabbi testified, in a similar system. Even in those countries where you have a church-state relationship, where you have an official church, and I would point out the experience in Holland, point out the experience in Great Britain, where even though you have a state church, provision has been made for support of independent schools of different religious beliefs, and you are correct, utterly correct, when you specify that we are the only nation in the world that has this problem at the moment that has not met it. But, I would suggest to you that the other nation in the world which like ourselves makes no provision-the only other great nation or powerful nation, rather, as I don't like to use the word "great," the only other powerful nation in the world-which has not made some provision for the children of independent schools is Soviet Russia. And, that, I think, should be a distinction that would guide us in our work. Now, let me point out to you again, as I have been saying in these hearings constantly, there is not one word in our Constitution about schools or about education in the Constitution and in talking about this problem, what we are really discussing is the impact of the first amendment, and I think it is important to recognize in any discussion of this kind that the first amendment is a freedom amendment, and directly involves the freedom of conscience of the parent in choosing a school. And, if we are going to bring this question in on interpretative- Mr. CAREY. Interpretative discussions of the Constitution, we should recognize that the first amendment, as it was comprehended by our Founding Fathers, could not have meant to put our children in what the Rabbi has called a monolithic straitjacket, because the only schools that they knew at that time were religiously oriented schools, and they certainly did not intend to arrange for the dissolution of that kind of a system of education. And, that is what the Rabbi has told us is the possible eventuality and the probable eventuality of leaving these private schools out of our thinking in writing a bill. Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman is absolutely correct. No. 1, nobody has seriously suggested that we do away with the church-related schools. No. 2, the gentleman is correct that certainly under the first amendment, a parent has a right to send his children to schools of his choice, and the mere fact that these schools are accredited in every State of the Union indicates how thoroughly this document is being respected throughout the country. But, the question involved here is whether or not the whole Nation, funds coming from a common treasury, should be spent or contributed to the support and maintenance of schools that teach a particular religion. I mean this is really the fundamental question. This is the one that the Congress is going to have to attach, and I say that what we ought to do is go ahead and put into this bill a provision to give these schools that type of assistance that we are providing for public schools, put it in the bill, and if somebody wants to challenge it and get a Supreme Court decision on the button on this case, holding that this sort of public expenditure of Federal funds is unconstitutional, we will then in future sessions of Congress proceed to see what other methods are available to help the private schools in this country, if there are such methods. Mr. CAREY. Well, I hope my colleague will join with me in writing a truly constitutional bill to accomplish this purpose, and if I may suggest to him that the way to do that is to give the individual, as we have in many other forms of educational assistance which have passed the Congress to date. Mr. PUCINSKI. Except, Mr. Carey, the only problem there is that you would then be helping school districts in this country that really don't need any assistance, at the same time that you would be denying a greater share of money to those school districts in the country that desperately need help if we are going to have a Nation that can meet the challenge of this century. Mr. CAREY. Well, I think we are imaginative enough to find the areas of need in the public system, and we should therefore be imaginative enough to find the areas of need in other systems, and that they can best be found by letting the parent give the money to the school. The school will meet the need. We don't want to be legislating here today to cover all the needs that we may not know about, within the public and within the private school areas. Mr. TAFT. Mr. Chairman, if I might just venture a comment. Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes, Mr. Taft, I was wondering if you did not want to comment on this. Mr. TAFT. I have enjoyed listening to this discussion of these issues, which are certainly vital ones that we ought to be considering. I think perhaps the depth and the differences of philosophy which seem to be involved make another very good reason why the omnibus approach certainly ought to be reexamined. Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, if you recall, Mr. Taft, oddly enough, some of the people who have testified before this committee in the strongest language for aid to church-related schools, were of the opinion that this bill should not be considered as an omnibus bill. That doesn't necessarily mean that we fully agree with that, but Rabbi, one final question: Mr. Taft certainly has recognized the depth of the complexity of this whole problem; Mr. Carey has certainly brought up some excellent constitutional points, and other points and this is a problem that we have been trying to wrestle with for many, many years in this country. Do you think that it would be possible to appoint in this country a Congress to invite, or this committee, for instance, to invite a committee of eminent religious leaders and constitutional leaders, and see whether or not, within this committee, they couldn't reach some agreement and make some recommendations as to how this whole problem might be resolved? Rabbi SHERER. I don't know whether the idea of inviting a group of religious leaders, as such, is very advisable, because of the connotations it may give to the American public about the issues at hand. I feel that perhaps since this issue has been debated at such great length for so many years that it would be more advisable if the Members of Congress themselves, and the men of this committee, were to get together once and for all and work out a bill which a good portion of, you think, is constitutional, a bill along the lines of Congressman Carey's bill. I feel that the gentlemen of the committee themselves are equally capable, because all the religious leaders could tell us is the need. The need is apparent; the need is very obvious. As far as legislation, I don't believe that the religious leaders can add anything to your knowledge of legislation. All that we can come to you with is to tell you of the appalling need, describe the inequity, describe the injustice, describe the dangers. Therefore, I feel that we wouldn't accomplish very much by calling together religious leaders. What we need is a meeting of minds of you honorable gentlemen on this committee to get together, stop this debate, and once and for all get out a workable solution. Mr. CAREY. Will the chairman yield? I would suggest there is one method that you can adopt that can help us, and that is if you will commonly pray that the wisdom of treating this involved question involved in title IV in a separate bill will present itself to the committee, and that your prayers might be answered, and that we would see the wisdom of that approach. Rabbi SHERER. Thank you. Mr. PUCINSKI. Very good. Rabbi Sherer, we are very grateful to you for taking the time, and we want to apologize for keeping you so late. The committee will stand adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. the following day, Thursday, February 21, 1963.) NATIONAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Cannon Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Daniels, Hawkins, Sickles, Gibbons, Gill, Brown, Frelinghuysen, Quie, Bruce, Bell, and Taft. Also present: Dr. Deborah P. Wolfe, education chief, and William O'Hara, counsel, Special Subcommittee on Education. Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. We have today testimony dealing with the section of the bill which I have always considered very important, and I have always felt that the Congress should take some action to stimulate interest at the local level. Our first witness this morning is Dr. Fred Harrington, president of the University of Wisconsin, and, as I understand, Mr. Ed Keller is going to appear with him. And, following those witnesses, we will hear from the American Library Association. I notice their representatives have been here and very attentive all through these hearings, and we certainly want to get to their testimony. Do you have a prepared statement, Dr. Harrington? TESTIMONY OF DR. FRED H. HARRINGTON, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, ACCOMPANIED BY RUSSELL THACKREY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES Dr. HARRINGTON. Yes, Mr. Perkins. I am Fred Harrington, the president of the University of Wisconsin, and I have a prepared statement which has been submitted and which you have before you. I am going to testify both for myself and Mr. Keller, of Pennsylvania, and I would like Dr. Russell Thackrey to join me. Mr. PERKINS. Bring him right around. Dr. HARRINGTON. Russell Thackrey is executive secretary of the Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Mr. PERKINS. I notice we have a Kentuckian here this morning who is interested in the land-grant college section. Dr. Johnson, I believe. Dr. HARRINGTON. Yes, Mr. Perkins, we have a Kentuckian. In fact, we have here with us today a number of people from our various States who are particularly interested in this extension question. We have Mr. Johnson from Kentucky, and Mr. Robinson from Illinois, and Mr. White from Oklahoma, Mr. Milner from North Carolina, Mr. Keller from Pennsylvania, Mr. Adolfson from Wisconsin, Mr. Masters from Georgia, and Mr. Drazek from Maryland, Mr. Holzinger from Ohio. All of these people are back in the audience, and all of them are able to answer questions on this extension bill if I am unable to field them. Mr. PERKINS. We are delighted to have all of these educators here to accompany you today on this important piece of legislation, and I am hopeful that we will be able to enact the proposal that you are interested in, along with these other proposals in this package. I feel that we have got to attack the whole problem, and the kind of legislation is long overdue from the Federal level. For brevity purposes, do you wish to insert your statement in the record this morning? Dr. HARRINGTON. Yes; I would like to have my statement inserted in the record, and I would like to make a few comments rather than to read. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, so ordered. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-Grant Colleges aND THE STATE UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION, BY FRED H. HARRINGTON, PRESIDENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Fred H. Harrington and I am president of the University of Wisconsin. I am testifying today on behalf of the Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the State Universities Association. These two associations have a combined membership of 97 major universities and colleges, with two exceptions publicly controlled, located in all the States and Puerto Rico. My specific interest to day is in title VI, part A of H.R. 3000, since this portion of the bill directly affects the institutions which I represent, who have long supported legislation along the lines of this title and part. However, these two associations are deeply interested in the legislation as a whole, and in several titles which have a major effect on the future of the institutions in these two associations. Since this seems to be the only op portunity which will be afforded for us to present our views I would like to comment briefly on various titles of the bill, though reserving chief emphasis on title VI, part A. First, we commend the comprehensive nature of the President's recommendations for strengthening education at all levels, both as represented in H.R. 3000 and in other measures, both legislative and through the appropriations channel, which we consider integral parts of the program. We do not feel qualified to speak directly on the measures for strengthening elementary and secondary education, but we recognize that the whole fabric of education is closely related and that it all needs strengthening. TITLE I In general our associations favor the recommendations contained in title I. We believe there is urgent need for the kind of action requested in part A, with particular emphasis on expanding the appropriation authority for the student loan program and removing entirely the ceiling on allocations of loan fund capital, now set at $250,000 for one institution. Under the administrative procedures used this limitation serves no useful purpose whatever, but does in fact penalize students for attending an institution which has a substantial enrollment. Regardless of the size of the institution, every penny of the Federal loan fund allocation must be justified in terms of student needs. There is no reason to deny hundreds of qualified and needy students at one institution a loan opportunity because it happens to be large, or have an unusual number of students from low-income families. No institution can get more than its justified |